Energy policy
David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (12:18): (991) I have a further question for the Minister for Regional Development. Minister, 10 towns will be impacted by Labor’s decision to turn off the gas – Marong, Terang, Nathalia, Lakes Entrance, Heathcote, Swan Hill, Maldon, Robinvale, Kerang and Orbost. Many pensioners in these towns across the state will be impacted by your agreement with Solstice. With LPG too expensive, many can transition to electricity only, yet you have an agreement where people who choose to transition to electricity receive a small payment and are told to go it alone by Solstice. They are senior citizens and pensioners who have worked their entire lives. They are terrified that with no spare funds there is a large gap in the transition, and they cannot afford it. What are you going to do to assist transitioning the elderly to a proper outcome that does not leave them without the resources they need?
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (12:19): We are coming at it from a similar concern, because the reason that we have supported the decision of Solstice is because it is better financially for the communities that are impacted. The customers faced a 50 per cent increase in their bills because the company could no longer affordably transport gas in trucks to the communities. This is what has happened. So rather than having a failed gas supply arrangement that would cause these households to be locked into massive bills for decades to come, we worked with the company to negotiate a better deal. What is available is cash payments for people who are affected, but there are also a range of other programs and payments that people can apply for: the solar panel rebates plus the option of an interest-free loan, rebates for heat pumps and solar hot-water systems of up to $1400, discounted reverse-cycle air conditioners and discounts on induction cooktops, fridges and freezers. There is support available for these transitions. Mr Davis, these people were sold a dud program. We are offering a much better solution, trying to fix what you created.
Members interjecting.
David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (12:21): There was so much noise that I could not hear all of the minister’s response there. But, Minister, what you have not fully answered is what you are going to do to support those pensioners. They are going to be left high and dry, so I ask you: will you revisit the support for the pensioners, for the elderly, and ensure that they have sufficient resources so that they are not left without heating and cooking and hot water?
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (12:22): Mr Davis, to continue the flawed Liberal–National policy would have done just that. The inability to afford gas because of the cost increases of it being trucked – I am sorry, it is an illogical question. Do you not think that it would have been easier for us to proceed with a flawed policy? That would have been much easier, but it would have been impactful and harmful to the community.
Members interjecting.
David Ettershank: On a point of order, President, I am really interested to hear the answer to Mr Davis’s question, and it is not possible. Could we have a bit of order?
The PRESIDENT: I listened to Mr Davis say that he could not hear the substantive answer, and then I found it really hard to hear the answer to the supplementary question, mainly because of Mr Davis. But it is not just Mr Davis; there are people from all sides of the chamber that are drowning out the minister. I would ask everyone to listen to the minister’s answer so we can all hear it.
Jaclyn SYMES: What I was explaining was that it would have been easier to continue and do nothing, but that would have been harmful to the communities impacted because their prices for gas, because of the flawed National–Liberal policy, would have been unaffordable. I have supported the decision because it is better for those communities. It is more difficult – of course it is. It is much more difficult, but it is better. It is going to be cheaper. We have got programs and support for transition. It is going to be cheaper than staying on the dud program. That is the decision that I had to weigh up.