Privatisation of electricity in Vic.

[ivorya]

They sell these public assets for the quick term gain of money but in the end it's going to cost the public more money in the future.
Lets face it though, the pollies are happy to sell everything off to private companies as these companies are 'Probably' in most super portfolio's, thus increasing everyone's wealth.
It's just a shame that, in the end, your basically paying yourself.... in a round about way.

Another interesting piece of info.
We as aussies seem to be following the US in everything without actually looking at what problems this has caused. They, Local councils, govenments, sold off all their public assets years ago as they believe that they are in power to goven, that's it.( sounds like big Tone and Hockey)
Anyway, now during a trip to Hawaii last year, talking to a couple of US citzens, they inform me that a large % of these Cities/towns/govenments are now broke and are trying to access money to buy these utilities back.
Short Term Gain for Long Term Pain.....hmm

[sharky1]

Yes I have looked into the fractional banking system before , it is truly amazing how poepltvarecso busy fruit to earn the next dollar, to try and keep up , rather than worjir out where and how the system works against them/ us .

[ILLaViTaR]

lol you guys do understand this is how John Howard made this country "rich".

Funny though how cashing in those national assets for the plastic actually means no more local profit/employment is being generated anymore meaning logically the country is actually poorer/unhappy as a result. But the surplus/bankroll keeps the country rich for the short term and makes the current office look good. They're smart, they know that by the time it inevitably catches up to them enough time will have passed they will be out of office using the negativity to their advantage against the then current office to win then election.

[69XWGT]

This should be a warning to all Queenslanders to what this ratbag government want to do

[cheap]

Originally Posted by 69XWGT

This should be a warning to all Queenslanders to what this ratbag government want to do

So if selling assets is bad. Then how should they repaid the massive debt?

No doubt taxing everyone in Queensland even more would be good with you?

Or how about raising royalties to +50% , that will work a treat?

Or how about making even more public servants redundant?

Sadly there isn't many options available?

Oh and remind me again how Queensland got into this financial mess?

[karj]

Originally Posted by cheap

So if selling assets is bad. Then how should they repaid the massive debt?

No doubt taxing everyone in Queensland even more would be good with you?

Or how about raising royalties to +50% , that will work a treat?

Or how about making even more public servants redundant?

Sadly there isn't many options available?

Oh and remind me again how Queensland got into this financial mess?

What is it with you and blaming everything on Labor?

Governments across Australia have had to deal with significant falls in revenue and a slowdown of economic growth since the GFC. With Queensland, add in a couple of rather nasty natural disasters and a drought and it's pretty obvious why they are in the financial crapper.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by karj

What is it with you and blaming everything on Labor?

Governments across Australia have had to deal with significant falls in revenue and a slowdown of economic growth since the GFC. With Queensland, add in a couple of rather nasty natural disasters and a drought and it's pretty obvious why they are in the financial crapper.

Significant falls in revenue?

Queensland Treasury figures http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/previous-budgets

2001 Revenue $18.18 billion
2002 Revenue $19.237 billion
2003 Revenue $20.181 billion
2004 Revenue $21.4 billion
2005 Revenue $24 billion
2006 Revenue $26.604 billion
2007 Revenue $29.070 billion
2008 Revenue $32.551 billion
2009 Revenue $36,582 billion
2010 Revenue $37,192 billion
2011 Revenue $40,606 billion
2012 Revenue $43,007 billion
2013 Revenue $46,507 billion

Perhaps you meant The Commonwealth Government, as there is a misconception of a fall in revenue to the Fed's, there hasn't been.

As for the drought, you are partially correct, the drought has had an adverse effect but perhaps not in the way you meant. To drought proof SEQ, the government built the Tugun desalination plant, how much did this cost and how many litres of water were produced. And then there is the Traveston dam folly, how much did that cost?

Yep we are in the crapper but it isn't because of falling revenues, that would leave one other possibility - the governments are spending more than they're receiving.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by cheap

Significant falls in revenue?

Queensland Treasury figures http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/previous-budgets

2001 Revenue $18.18 billion
2002 Revenue $19.237 billion
2003 Revenue $20.181 billion
2004 Revenue $21.4 billion
2005 Revenue $24 billion
2006 Revenue $26.604 billion
2007 Revenue $29.070 billion
2008 Revenue $32.551 billion
2009 Revenue $36,582 billion
2010 Revenue $37,192 billion
2011 Revenue $40,606 billion
2012 Revenue $43,007 billion
2013 Revenue $46,507 billion

Perhaps you meant The Commonwealth Government, as there is a misconception of a fall in revenue to the Fed's, there hasn't been.

As for the drought, you are partially correct, the drought has had an adverse effect but perhaps not in the way you meant. To drought proof SEQ, the government built the Tugun desalination plant, how much did this cost and how many litres of water were produced. And then there is the Traveston dam folly, how much did that cost?

Yep we are in the crapper but it isn't because of falling revenues, that would leave one other possibility - the governments are spending more than they're receiving.

that sort of money wont buy many lollies.

besides real money come from federal GST returns that have been dwindling for every state.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by cheap

Significant falls in revenue?

Queensland Treasury figures http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/previous-budgets

2001 Revenue $18.18 billion
2002 Revenue $19.237 billion
2003 Revenue $20.181 billion
2004 Revenue $21.4 billion
2005 Revenue $24 billion
2006 Revenue $26.604 billion
2007 Revenue $29.070 billion
2008 Revenue $32.551 billion
2009 Revenue $36,582 billion
2010 Revenue $37,192 billion
2011 Revenue $40,606 billion
2012 Revenue $43,007 billion
2013 Revenue $46,507 billion

Perhaps you meant The Commonwealth Government, as there is a misconception of a fall in revenue to the Fed's, there hasn't been.

As for the drought, you are partially correct, the drought has had an adverse effect but perhaps not in the way you meant. To drought proof SEQ, the government built the Tugun desalination plant, how much did this cost and how many litres of water were produced. And then there is the Traveston dam folly, how much did that cost?

Yep we are in the crapper but it isn't because of falling revenues, that would leave one other possibility - the governments are spending more than they're receiving.

Why have you posted misinformation ?

2008-2009 onwards revenue did not rise by over a million percent as you suggest

[69XWGT]

Originally Posted by cheap

Significant falls in revenue?

Queensland Treasury figures http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/previous-budgets

2001 Revenue $18.18 billion
2002 Revenue $19.237 billion
2003 Revenue $20.181 billion
2004 Revenue $21.4 billion
2005 Revenue $24 billion
2006 Revenue $26.604 billion
2007 Revenue $29.070 billion
2008 Revenue $32.551 billion
2009 Revenue $36,582 billion
2010 Revenue $37,192 billion
2011 Revenue $40,606 billion
2012 Revenue $43,007 billion
2013 Revenue $46,507 billion

Perhaps you meant The Commonwealth Government, as there is a misconception of a fall in revenue to the Fed's, there hasn't been.

As for the drought, you are partially correct, the drought has had an adverse effect but perhaps not in the way you meant. To drought proof SEQ, the government built the Tugun desalination plant, how much did this cost and how many litres of water were produced. And then there is the Traveston dam folly, how much did that cost?

Yep we are in the crapper but it isn't because of falling revenues, that would leave one other possibility - the governments are spending more than they're receiving.

I'm surprised you can get any figures from the QLD treasury seeing that Newman has threatened anybody that releases any information on the states finances will be sacked.
You're also believing the not so independent Costello report that has been shot to pieces by smarter people then the ones sitting behind their keyboards.

Selling of assets only benefit rich people.
It's just stupid ideology that should have been thrown out years ago.

Tell me one thing. How many people win the game of monopoly with no assets??
That's right no one because they don't have a revenue base and selling assets only makes that situation worse

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by cheap

So if selling assets is bad. Then how should they repaid the massive debt?

No doubt taxing everyone in Queensland even more would be good with you?

Or how about raising royalties to +50% , that will work a treat?

Or how about making even more public servants redundant?

Sadly there isn't many options available?

Oh and remind me again how Queensland got into this financial mess?

Any other way besides selling off assets, it should be done only as a last resort but instead it's done by one party above all others at the countrys expense to merely generate a false surplus to deceive the public into votes for said party.

[69XWGT]

Originally Posted by cheap

So if selling assets is bad. Then how should they repaid the massive debt?

No doubt taxing everyone in Queensland even more would be good with you?

Or how about raising royalties to +50% , that will work a treat?

Or how about making even more public servants redundant?

Sadly there isn't many options available?

Oh and remind me again how Queensland got into this financial mess?

We could always use the Tim Nichols and Newmans approach by sacking thousands cutting some very worthwhile programs and creating a 5 billion dollar revenue black hole

[cheap]

Originally Posted by 69XWGT

We could always use the Tim Nichols and Newmans approach by sacking thousands cutting some very worthwhile programs and creating a 5 billion dollar revenue black hole

From my perspective state services are working no worse than before all those people being let go.

[ebxr8240]

Sold other things off so revenue doesn't come back to Queensland ?

[xtremerus]

Wow.
7.30 in the morning, and come up with that, Illavitar.
Hate to hear you on a bad morning.

[BHDOGS]

Here we go i did some googling for everybody i found these points interesting especially the first one.


Key points: The renewable energy target

The Howard government introduced the RET in 2001 to encourage growth in renewable energy.
The Renewable Energy Target aims for 20 per cent of power to be drawn from renewables - like wind and solar - by 2020.
The cost of investment in renewable energy is much higher than investment in traditional energy sources like coal and gas.
It is estimated that the cost of the RET to consumers makes up between 1 and 5 per cent of power bills.
The RET can lower wholesale electricity prices, because creating renewable energy once the infrastructure is in place is relatively cheap.
That benefit does not necessarily extend to the consumer.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Here we go i did some googling for everybody i found these points interesting especially the first one.


Key points: The renewable energy target

The Howard government introduced the RET in 2001 to encourage growth in renewable energy. Yes - but at 5%
The Renewable Energy Target aims for 20 per cent of power to be drawn from renewables - like wind and solar - by 2020. The 5% became 20% because of the ALP/Green alliance
The cost of investment in renewable energy is much higher than investment in traditional energy sources like coal and gas. Yes Yes Yes
It is estimated that the cost of the RET to consumers makes up between 1 and 5 per cent of power bills. No
The RET can lower wholesale electricity prices, because creating renewable energy once the infrastructure is in place is relatively cheap. Not Likely, pigs will fly sooner
That benefit does not necessarily extend to the consumer. Yes

Yes and no - see above

In Queensland our electricity bills contain an estimate of what the RET/CO2 tax have added. In our case it is in the order of 20%.

"What future for RET?" the link is below

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...EknQo57EnjmQ4g

Back to the OP, can someone answer if people with home roof top solar panels adding electricity back into the grid, would they be considered as "private" producers of electricity?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

In Queensland our...

Ah ha!

JP

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Ah ha!

JP

How do the people from your area, have viability of the cost impost that RET/CO2 has bought to them?

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

How do the people from your area, have viability of the cost impost that RET/CO2 has bought to them?

Sorry fella, dont understand your question completely but will take a stab in the dark!

as you know i'm a cafe latte sipping urban progressive socialist hippie architect scum. I live in Central Adelaide with a growing number of like minded people. I think we just re-elected a liberal rep in our recent elections, so perhaps the city dweller is not just like me? I voted green! which says something about the following.
Nobody I know struggles with the cost implication of a government policy which aims to reduce our use of electricity and or subsidise our movement to renewables in the form of solar, which 30% of our states power comes from. Though before we put solar on we used $138 of electricity in the quarter, 2 person home with all the mod cons, we even have an electric fridge. Now I export 3 times as much power as we use after our modest solar installation.
Now I believe there are people who have significantly higher electricity bills. Any social policy that makes power cost to the consumer match the real cost to the environment is OK with me. What it may do is force people to use less of it which in turn reduces their emissions which in turn slows down the pumping of CO2 into our atmosphere which in turn increases my fellow citizens viability on this planet.
As you know I believe in man impacted climate change, that our additional CO2 emissions have tipped the balance. Reducing this is amongst the many other benefits I believe a RET have socially, environmentally and even economically.
To date there has been an $8 Billion investment in solar by mums and dads in over 1 million homes in Australia employing 14-18000 people as an industry.
SA has one of the highest uptakes of solar due to a government with foresight, as mentioned 30% of our power comes from solar, the dumping of the RET which may have a 6% 'impost' on power prices will effectively shut a large and growing industry, will affect the millions of already financially committed to or with solar and an ever growing employment base.
As with other tech power generators and transmission companies we all subsidise their operations, which is no different to everyone subsidising solar, healthcare, police or government.

I ask in return, how can your fellow citizens not support the RET+ and their own viability on this planet!

JP

[zilo]

Originally Posted by cheap

"What future for RET?" the link is below

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CCo QFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Facci.asn.au%2Fgetattachm ent%2F0ef05e2b-1d64-42e0-82cf-f411c074c18c%2FWhat-Future-for-the-RET-.aspx&ei=djwkU7CuL8-2lQXKrIHADw&usg=AFQjCNHhW4g5i1W-_M-UXeuiabxvsT2Bkg&
sig2=G9EdnMPHEknQo57EnjmQ4g

?

So...you present a link from Burchell Wilson?
　

An employee of a coal fuelled power station owned by a Singapore govt based multinational who is intent on dismantling anything related to mitigation of carbon in the atmosphere ?

Just fallen off my chair with laughter.

[290v]

And the South Australians don't forget to thank John Olson for privatizing our electricity, water, Highways department & Lotteries commission
(State Liberals party)

[BHDOGS]

its probably prudent to also point out the electricity retailers themselves are hoarding the lowering of wholesale prices by not passing on the lower rates to customers. This is something the government could assist in but wont.

[xtremerus]

30% of SA power is not from solar.

I think you are confusing that with the 28% of the homes that have solar. Not the same thing.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

30% of SA power is not from solar.

I think you are confusing that with the 28% of the homes that have solar. Not the same thing.

You are right I was completely wrong.
30 percent or thereabouts comes from renewable, the other facts stand.

JP

[xtremerus]

The only people I give credit too, that have gone solar, are the ones that installed stand-alone systems that don't rely on the grid, at all. They DO pay for the full cost on a userpay
system.

[Syndrome]

Originally Posted by EF_6

Just found this 20 minute clip of what really happened to Vic's power grid and why we are getting charged so much for power.......The Chinese own it all now and the profits are huge but the maintenance is pathetic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za03H7Ig7i8

Public infrastructure should remain in public hands!

[xtremerus]

In NSW the bill says The federal carbon tax and green energy schemes add about $332 to a typical 6.5 MWh household bill.

[ebxr8240]

If you used batteries at night ? Just enough for lights fridge / freezer and TV. Your not paying the premium price ..large enough solar system ..prices to install has dropped.. Way off the subject of privatisation !!

[ebxr8240]

My old bus converted motorhome has 700 watt solar and 4 /6v batteries.. They use up very little space..If they where to be fitted at home ?? Could easy be fitted under hot water system or outside in vented cover.. New storage / deep cycle batteries are very efficient..
The fridge and freezer are 12v compressor. Lights are LEDS and the TV is 12v .. Water is LPG.. It has 3600 watt Onan generator which is only used if we cook with electric frying pan or microwave..
Elect suppliers don't like you using batteries as back up..
Because you can go off grid and they DON'T get cheap solar !!
Its not a level playing field ..