❓ Opposition Leader McGowan questions Premier Barnett on electricity price rises and their impact on families facing financial hardship, referencing Salvation Army research. The Premier defends the price rises as necessary to address the previous Labor government's losses in the electricity system.
AnsweredQoN 220Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FINANCIAL HARDSHIP — SALVATION ARMY
RESEARCH
220. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier:
I refer to the Salvation Army survey into the financial
hardship faced by families as they struggle to pay household bills, statements
that more than 90 000 clients are accessing the Salvation Army in Western
Australia each year and comments by Mission Australia that people are lining up
outside its office by 7.00 am each day.
(1) Does the
Premier agree with his Minister for Energy when he said in the other place last
evening that in relation to electricity price rises, ''possibly in
retrospect we went a little fast; certainly in that second year we may have
slowed it down''?
(2) Does the
Premier agree with his energy minister's comments that, ''by the
third year it was clearly evident that the community needed a break''?
(3) If he does
agree, why, if it was clearly evident, did he continue to raise prices beyond
the consumer price index in his third budget?
RESEARCH
220. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier:
I refer to the Salvation Army survey into the financial
hardship faced by families as they struggle to pay household bills, statements
that more than 90 000 clients are accessing the Salvation Army in Western
Australia each year and comments by Mission Australia that people are lining up
outside its office by 7.00 am each day.
(1) Does the
Premier agree with his Minister for Energy when he said in the other place last
evening that in relation to electricity price rises, ''possibly in
retrospect we went a little fast; certainly in that second year we may have
slowed it down''?
(2) Does the
Premier agree with his energy minister's comments that, ''by the
third year it was clearly evident that the community needed a break''?
(3) If he does
agree, why, if it was clearly evident, did he continue to raise prices beyond
the consumer price index in his third budget?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3)
I am aware of the Salvation Army research and the reports and comments on it.
That is one reason I have never described Western Australia as being in a boom
economy, as members opposite repeatedly do and as the media do.
Mrs M.H. Roberts :
You are making people suffer.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Midland!
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
The economy is strong here in the resources industry and we have had a good
agricultural year, and, hopefully, we will have another good one, which, for
Western Australia, is incredibly important. We have had the strongest jobs
growth of any state—70 per cent of all new jobs created in Australia
have been in Western Australia. We have had the lowest employment rate. Yes,
there are cost-of-living pressures, electricity being one; private property
market rentals being another; and food prices being another. So it goes on;
there are a host of factors. Telecommunications expenses are now a major part
of household expenditure that was not there even a few years ago. All those
factors impact on household budgets. This state is better off but there are
pressures.
We are also seeing a lot of people
come across here, some recruited in, say, the mining industry; others arriving
on the chance of getting a job and many of them are not qualified to get the
job they may seek. They therefore find themselves in a very difficult personal
and financial situation. That is a reality. We have debated electricity prices
ad nauseam, so I do not want to repeat what I said. The legacy left by the
Labor government had to be addressed. There was no option but to address that.
Mr M. McGowan : Do
you agree with the energy minister?
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : There were only two choices. The electricity system,
following Labor, was running appalling losses that would total over $1 billion
over the estimates period. There were two choices: either get electricity
consumers to pay for the electricity they use or raise taxes; maybe a third
choice is simply to run up debt.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : Clearly, of those choices—there is an element of each
of them in play—the prime responsibility for paying for electricity
must lie with the consumer. What is interesting in this debate is that the
Leader of the Opposition seems to portray the sentiment that electricity prices
should forever be subsidised.
Mr
W.J. Johnston : When do you stop subsidising this; what date?
The SPEAKER : Member for
Cannington!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
am trying to get out what I think —
Mr M. McGowan : You
are not actually answering the question.
Mr A.P. O'Gorman interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I formally call you
to order for the first time today.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : I think it is proper that people who use electricity pay for
that electricity. Even following the significant price rises, electricity is
not fully paid for by consumers and the state government continues to subsidise
electricity by more than $300 million a year—a very, very substantial
amount. That is money that could be used in health, education or elsewhere.
Progressively, we would want to see that amount of subsidy lowered. There is
also a point about a price signal. If we do not charge the actual cost of
producing electricity, we are not only causing transfers between taxpayers and
electricity consumers and money that could be spent in other areas, we are not
giving the true price signal to the consumer. Does that matter? Some people
would say—I would say so at the moment—people have basically
copped about as much as they can bear, therefore, we should continue to
subsidise. But in sharp contrast—this is not a political comment; it is
an economic comment—to the carbon tax that will be coming in.
Several members interjected.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite should listen to this; they will not grasp
the point. The whole purpose —
The SPEAKER : Thank
you, members!
Mr M. McGowan : Do
you agree with your energy minister, was the question. You have not addressed
that at all.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition!
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
The whole purpose —
Mr
D.A. Templeman : Answer the question.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
am trying to; I am trying to.
Mr
D.A. Templeman : Do you agree with the minister's comment in the
other place or not?
The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you
to order for the first time and the second time today.
Mrs C.A. Martin interjected.
The SPEAKER : I do
not know whether I saw your lips move at all, member for Kimberley; I do not
know.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
As I was saying, the whole purpose of the carbon tax and what the federal
government is proposing —
Ms M.M. Quirk : Do
you agree with the minister? Answer.
The SPEAKER : If you want to ask a question, member for
Girrawheen, you know I will give you the call. At this stage I formally call
you to order for the first time today.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : The whole purpose of —
Ms
M.M. Quirk interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for
Girrawheen, I formally call you to order for the second time today.
Point of Order
Mrs
M.H. ROBERTS : The Leader of the Opposition specifically asked questions
about the comments of Hon Peter Collier and in his very lengthy reply, the
Premier has not addressed those comments at all. I suggest that he answer the
questions that were asked.
The SPEAKER : Members! I give
the opportunity to the Premier to answer that question.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : I am rapidly getting to the point of Minister Collier's
comments, but I want to make this point because it is relevant to what he said.
The whole point of the carbon tax is that consumers pay the true cost of
electricity; in fact, not only the cost of production but also the
environmental effect—in other words, the external costs. That is the
point. The policy of the federal Labor government, which I understand members
opposite all support, is that the price to consumers not only will rise but
must rise. It is their policy that the price must rise because unless the price
rises, there is no possibility of the carbon tax working. Members opposite
support a policy of higher prices to consumers.
Several members interjected.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : Higher prices is the whole intent of the carbon tax, if
members opposite do not understand that; it is deliberately about increasing
prices.
Ms
M.M. Quirk interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for
Girrawheen, I am formally calling you to order for the third time today; member
for Joondalup for the second time today. Member for Forrestfield—I
wonder if there is something happening in that part of the world over there—I
formally call you to order for the first time today.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : With respect to the comments by —
Point of Order
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Again I refer
to relevance, Mr Speaker. Since you asked the Premier to answer the question
that was asked, he has continued to talk about the carbon tax rather than say
whether he agrees with the energy minister's comments.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : With respect to the comments made by the Minister for Energy, Hon Peter Collier, I do agree. We had
a situation that we had to deal with as a government. We had two years of very
substantial increases. We are now very conscious that the deliberative measure
of the carbon tax is to raise electricity prices. That is the whole intent of
the carbon tax.
An opposition member interjected.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : That is the intent of it; it has no other purpose if it does
not raise prices. That is the whole intent of it. Given that, given the impact
of past increases in electricity prices, and given the impending impact of a
Labor carbon tax, we have taken all the measures that we can in this budget to
try to moderate any impact of the rise in the price of electricity as levied by
the state government on consumers, and the Treasurer will announce that
tomorrow and explain why.
I am aware of the Salvation Army research and the reports and comments on it.
That is one reason I have never described Western Australia as being in a boom
economy, as members opposite repeatedly do and as the media do.
Mrs M.H. Roberts :
You are making people suffer.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Midland!
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
The economy is strong here in the resources industry and we have had a good
agricultural year, and, hopefully, we will have another good one, which, for
Western Australia, is incredibly important. We have had the strongest jobs
growth of any state—70 per cent of all new jobs created in Australia
have been in Western Australia. We have had the lowest employment rate. Yes,
there are cost-of-living pressures, electricity being one; private property
market rentals being another; and food prices being another. So it goes on;
there are a host of factors. Telecommunications expenses are now a major part
of household expenditure that was not there even a few years ago. All those
factors impact on household budgets. This state is better off but there are
pressures.
We are also seeing a lot of people
come across here, some recruited in, say, the mining industry; others arriving
on the chance of getting a job and many of them are not qualified to get the
job they may seek. They therefore find themselves in a very difficult personal
and financial situation. That is a reality. We have debated electricity prices
ad nauseam, so I do not want to repeat what I said. The legacy left by the
Labor government had to be addressed. There was no option but to address that.
Mr M. McGowan : Do
you agree with the energy minister?
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : There were only two choices. The electricity system,
following Labor, was running appalling losses that would total over $1 billion
over the estimates period. There were two choices: either get electricity
consumers to pay for the electricity they use or raise taxes; maybe a third
choice is simply to run up debt.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : Clearly, of those choices—there is an element of each
of them in play—the prime responsibility for paying for electricity
must lie with the consumer. What is interesting in this debate is that the
Leader of the Opposition seems to portray the sentiment that electricity prices
should forever be subsidised.
Mr
W.J. Johnston : When do you stop subsidising this; what date?
The SPEAKER : Member for
Cannington!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
am trying to get out what I think —
Mr M. McGowan : You
are not actually answering the question.
Mr A.P. O'Gorman interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for Joondalup, I formally call you
to order for the first time today.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : I think it is proper that people who use electricity pay for
that electricity. Even following the significant price rises, electricity is
not fully paid for by consumers and the state government continues to subsidise
electricity by more than $300 million a year—a very, very substantial
amount. That is money that could be used in health, education or elsewhere.
Progressively, we would want to see that amount of subsidy lowered. There is
also a point about a price signal. If we do not charge the actual cost of
producing electricity, we are not only causing transfers between taxpayers and
electricity consumers and money that could be spent in other areas, we are not
giving the true price signal to the consumer. Does that matter? Some people
would say—I would say so at the moment—people have basically
copped about as much as they can bear, therefore, we should continue to
subsidise. But in sharp contrast—this is not a political comment; it is
an economic comment—to the carbon tax that will be coming in.
Several members interjected.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : Members opposite should listen to this; they will not grasp
the point. The whole purpose —
The SPEAKER : Thank
you, members!
Mr M. McGowan : Do
you agree with your energy minister, was the question. You have not addressed
that at all.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition!
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
The whole purpose —
Mr
D.A. Templeman : Answer the question.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
am trying to; I am trying to.
Mr
D.A. Templeman : Do you agree with the minister's comment in the
other place or not?
The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you
to order for the first time and the second time today.
Mrs C.A. Martin interjected.
The SPEAKER : I do
not know whether I saw your lips move at all, member for Kimberley; I do not
know.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
As I was saying, the whole purpose of the carbon tax and what the federal
government is proposing —
Ms M.M. Quirk : Do
you agree with the minister? Answer.
The SPEAKER : If you want to ask a question, member for
Girrawheen, you know I will give you the call. At this stage I formally call
you to order for the first time today.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : The whole purpose of —
Ms
M.M. Quirk interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for
Girrawheen, I formally call you to order for the second time today.
Point of Order
Mrs
M.H. ROBERTS : The Leader of the Opposition specifically asked questions
about the comments of Hon Peter Collier and in his very lengthy reply, the
Premier has not addressed those comments at all. I suggest that he answer the
questions that were asked.
The SPEAKER : Members! I give
the opportunity to the Premier to answer that question.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : I am rapidly getting to the point of Minister Collier's
comments, but I want to make this point because it is relevant to what he said.
The whole point of the carbon tax is that consumers pay the true cost of
electricity; in fact, not only the cost of production but also the
environmental effect—in other words, the external costs. That is the
point. The policy of the federal Labor government, which I understand members
opposite all support, is that the price to consumers not only will rise but
must rise. It is their policy that the price must rise because unless the price
rises, there is no possibility of the carbon tax working. Members opposite
support a policy of higher prices to consumers.
Several members interjected.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : Higher prices is the whole intent of the carbon tax, if
members opposite do not understand that; it is deliberately about increasing
prices.
Ms
M.M. Quirk interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for
Girrawheen, I am formally calling you to order for the third time today; member
for Joondalup for the second time today. Member for Forrestfield—I
wonder if there is something happening in that part of the world over there—I
formally call you to order for the first time today.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : With respect to the comments by —
Point of Order
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Again I refer
to relevance, Mr Speaker. Since you asked the Premier to answer the question
that was asked, he has continued to talk about the carbon tax rather than say
whether he agrees with the energy minister's comments.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : With respect to the comments made by the Minister for Energy, Hon Peter Collier, I do agree. We had
a situation that we had to deal with as a government. We had two years of very
substantial increases. We are now very conscious that the deliberative measure
of the carbon tax is to raise electricity prices. That is the whole intent of
the carbon tax.
An opposition member interjected.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : That is the intent of it; it has no other purpose if it does
not raise prices. That is the whole intent of it. Given that, given the impact
of past increases in electricity prices, and given the impending impact of a
Labor carbon tax, we have taken all the measures that we can in this budget to
try to moderate any impact of the rise in the price of electricity as levied by
the state government on consumers, and the Treasurer will announce that
tomorrow and explain why.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.