❓ Opposition questions the Premier on gas price increases, Verve's profits, and the cancellation of the solar feed-in tariff. The Premier defends the decisions, citing the Economic Regulation Authority's recommendations and the cost of the solar scheme.
AnsweredQoN 418Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
GOVERNMENT UTILITIES CHARGES
Over the winter recess, the Premier decided to slug families an extra 10 per cent a year on their gas bills. We saw Verve make a $239.8 million profit in the first three quarters of the year and the Premier broke an election promise and cancelled the solar feed-in tariff scheme. (1) Why were these decisions made after the budget and then implemented with such haste? (2) How does the Premier justify his plan to collect $2.7 million a day in tax and dividend payments net, over and above any subsidy he might pay from his electricity and water utilities, while WA families continue to hurt? Mr W.J. Johnston : Good question. An opposition member: Hear, hear! Mr C.J. BARNETT
Over the winter recess, the Premier decided to slug families an extra 10 per cent a year on their gas bills. We saw Verve make a $239.8 million profit in the first three quarters of the year and the Premier broke an election promise and cancelled the solar feed-in tariff scheme. (1) Why were these decisions made after the budget and then implemented with such haste? (2) How does the Premier justify his plan to collect $2.7 million a day in tax and dividend payments net, over and above any subsidy he might pay from his electricity and water utilities, while WA families continue to hurt? Mr W.J. Johnston : Good question. An opposition member: Hear, hear! Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
It is a good question because it reminds me of the source of the problem. I am looking right at him. Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
(1) Why were these decisions made after the budget and then implemented with such haste? (2) How does the Premier justify his plan to collect $2.7 million a day in tax and dividend payments net, over and above any subsidy he might pay from his electricity and water utilities, while WA families continue to hurt? Mr W.J. Johnston : Good question. An opposition member: Hear, hear! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question because it reminds me of the source of the problem. I am looking right at him. Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
(2) How does the Premier justify his plan to collect $2.7 million a day in tax and dividend payments net, over and above any subsidy he might pay from his electricity and water utilities, while WA families continue to hurt? Mr W.J. Johnston : Good question. An opposition member: Hear, hear! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question because it reminds me of the source of the problem. I am looking right at him. Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr W.J. Johnston : Good question. An opposition member: Hear, hear! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question because it reminds me of the source of the problem. I am looking right at him. Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
An opposition member: Hear, hear! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question because it reminds me of the source of the problem. I am looking right at him. Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question because it reminds me of the source of the problem. I am looking right at him. Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
It is a good question because it reminds me of the source of the problem. I am looking right at him. Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
(1) Why were these decisions made after the budget and then implemented with such haste? (2) How does the Premier justify his plan to collect $2.7 million a day in tax and dividend payments net, over and above any subsidy he might pay from his electricity and water utilities, while WA families continue to hurt? Mr W.J. Johnston : Good question. An opposition member: Hear, hear! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question because it reminds me of the source of the problem. I am looking right at him. Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
(2) How does the Premier justify his plan to collect $2.7 million a day in tax and dividend payments net, over and above any subsidy he might pay from his electricity and water utilities, while WA families continue to hurt? Mr W.J. Johnston : Good question. An opposition member: Hear, hear! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question because it reminds me of the source of the problem. I am looking right at him. Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr W.J. Johnston : Good question. An opposition member: Hear, hear! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question because it reminds me of the source of the problem. I am looking right at him. Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
An opposition member: Hear, hear! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question because it reminds me of the source of the problem. I am looking right at him. Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: It is a good question because it reminds me of the source of the problem. I am looking right at him. Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
It is a good question because it reminds me of the source of the problem. I am looking right at him. Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr E.S. Ripper : You’ve had three years to make changes, and energy experts will agree with me. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am happy to answer the question, but has the Leader of the Opposition finished his question? I will sit down while he finishes it. Has he finished it? Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr E.S. Ripper : You’re a bit precious today. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; I am not. It was a very long question. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Come on, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought members opposite were going to come back with a new sense of cohesion, preparation and work, but I can see no sign of it. Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr E.S. Ripper : We thought you would come back and answer questions. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Well, I am trying to. There are three parts to the question — Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr E.S. Ripper : Two parts. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I thought there were three parts; first, the assertion that Verve had made a profit. Yes; after Verve had its losses subsidised by the state government, it could show an accounting profit. But did it actually make money? No, it did not; it made a substantial overall loss and recorded an accounting profit only after, I think, some $300 million of government subsidies were paid into it. That is not a profitable entity in the common use of the term “profit”. Yes, there is a 10 per cent increase in gas prices. The Economic Regulation Authority had recommended increases close to 30 per cent. The ERA is a body that I think does good work, but a body the Leader of the Opposition established. What would have been his approach; would he have said, “Well, that’s independent; let the public have a 30 per cent increase”? This government said no. We intervened and rejected the advice of the independent regulator because a 30 per cent increase was simply far too high. We took the decision of a 10 per cent increase. It could have been 30 per cent; the regulator said that it should have been 30 per cent. That issue is not resolved. The previous government’s independent regulator came back with a 30 — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr E.S. Ripper : Your privatised entity! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The privatised entity does not set the tariff; the regulator does and he came back with 30 per cent. We said no and we set it at 10 per cent. Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Yes, we have suspended the feed-in tariff and we were forced to do so simply because the response from the public in buying photovoltaics had been overwhelming and a scheme that was initially, in its original incarnation, expected to cost revenue about $13.5 million was very quickly running into tens and tens of millions of dollars in excess of that. We have suspended the scheme and we will carefully re-examine it because — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : “Ah” they say—has the opposition ever thought through the equity of this issue? An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
An opposition member: Yes. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Have you? I wonder whether the opposition has. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question concerning the impact of energy costs on the public and, yes, members of the community — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I am struggling to speak today. I am very keen to make a long speech, but I am not getting much opportunity. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are many people in our community who are struggling to meet their various costs of living including energy costs. Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr E.S. Ripper : After your decisions! Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : People are struggling; that is why we have increased the hardship utility grant scheme and so on. However, where is the equity in having people pay higher prices for electricity to try to bring them closer to, I guess, the production and distribution costs of energy while at the same time provide very large taxpayer subsidies to people who are in a position to make a $10 000 capital investment in their property? I do not see the equity in that. I do not see the equity in people on low incomes struggling to pay high energy costs when people on high incomes receive substantial taxpayer subsidies to install photovoltaic systems. I think the point of the feed-in tariff is this: that the scheme has certainly boosted public awareness and public take-up of home-based photovoltaic systems. That is a good thing and in that sense the scheme has been successful. There continues to be a feed-in tariff of around 7c, not far different from the cost of baseload generation, I might add. This government will re-examine — Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. Tallentire : Where’s the equity in that? The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
The SPEAKER : Member for Gosnells! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The previous government promised it and never did it—remember that? The previous government promised and promised and promised and never did it! It never ever did it! We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
We have suspended the scheme and “suspension” means what it says; we have suspended it, we will re-examine it and it may came back in a new form, because the way the scheme was going—because of the high, excessive and extraordinary rate of public uptake—it was simply costing far more than could be defended. These are issues that this government deals with and we do deal with them. We continue to deal with the absolute mess in energy that the Labor government left. It was an absolute mess; an absolute disgrace in energy! Therefore, I would have thought that the opposition would come in today and say, “Well, good on you for not following the recommendation of a 30 per cent increase in the gas price; good on you for holding it down to 10 per cent.”
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.