Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1413144153

Message started by imcrookonit on Oct 13th, 2014 at 6:02am

Title: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by imcrookonit on Oct 13th, 2014 at 6:02am
Pain of high energy bills shows in Ernst and Young report

Date
    October 12, 2014


One in three Australian households have missed an electricity bill payment in the past year and one in 10 have skipped three or more, largely because they could not afford to pay, new research shows.      :(

As soaring energy prices squeeze family budgets, consultancy firm Ernst and Young found among those who missed a bill, 60 per cent could not afford to pay, 32 per cent had forgotten to pay, and 7 per cent had disputed it.

However, the alarming figures released on Monday are part of a report pitched at energy retailers seeking to expand their customer base and boost on-time payments, as families increasingly struggle with higher bills.


It said customers were more likely to pay on time if they were offered discounts, text reminders, the ability to select billing dates, and mobile phone apps.

But Oliver Derum, senior policy officer of energy and water at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said energy retailers should first focus on rebuilding customer trust by pricing their services fairly and correctly.

"Very worrying numbers of people are making terrible sacrifices to pay their bills," Mr Derum said.      :(

"They buy food that's not healthy, they have two meals a day, they retreat into social isolation and don't invite people over because they can't afford to heat the living room," he said.

For an essential service, "customer relations was severely deteriorating", he said. "People feel like they don't have a choice about consuming electricity and yet they're buying it from these companies who don't understand the situation that they're in."

Complaints against providers to the NSW Energy and Water Ombudsman hit a record high in the past financial year, in line with a series of big price hikes related to overspending on poles and wires in the past half decade.   :(      

Customer service-related complaints surged 21 per cent on the previous year, with the bulk relating to poor treatment and a company's failure to respond.

Mr Derum also said customers were frustrated that retailers could raise prices during contracts at will. Last month, the Australian Energy Market Commission rejected a proposal to stop retailers from varying prices during contracts.

The Ernst and Young report also found 55 per cent of customers had switched energy providers or considered it in the past year. Among those who considered changing, a quarter was prompted by bill shock.

But 20 per cent of potential switchers decided to stick with their provider because the process of finding another was too daunting, up from 15 per cent last year.

NSW Energy and Water Ombudsman Clare Petre said, while the deregulation of energy pricing in July meant customers could start saving hundreds of dollars a year, the market was "too confusing and intimidating" for most to participate in.

"That's a real issue. The regulators and the government need to address that," she said.

The Ernst and Young report also found 90 per cent of Australians have, or would consider, including solar in their home energy mix. Among those using solar, 70 per cent said they added it to save money.

"Energy affordability is a big issue for many people so they are looking at alternatives including more self-sufficiency," Ernst and Young managing partner Stuart Hartley said.

"Given the advances being made in solar and battery technology, uptake could increase further, impacting demand and adding to the pressure on traditional retailers".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/pain-of-high-energy-bills-shows-in-ernst-and-young-report-20141012-1142j6.html#ixzz3FxjCsJFn

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Armchair_Politician on Oct 13th, 2014 at 6:04am
They're talking about the past year, NOT since the carbon tax was abolished.

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by buzzanddidj on Oct 13th, 2014 at 8:23am
Tony Abbott was maliciously misquoted by the socialist Murdoch Press on the savings to come with the carbon permits abolition

What he REALLY said was "my neighbours around my home of 32 Lady Davidson Circuit, Forestville, NSW. who were  doing the heavy lifting for the leaners on Gillard's carbon tax - who saw their electricity bills for heated swimming pools, air-con - and central heating soar to over $6000.00 a year"

"With Gillard's carbon tax gone - my average neighbours will be $550.00 a year better off"

"It's been a struggle for me and ALL my neighbours"















Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Greens_Win on Oct 13th, 2014 at 8:44am

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 13th, 2014 at 6:04am:
They're talking about the past year, NOT since the carbon tax was abolished.


Are you saying household power bill totals will be less than now, or more.

The experts are saying more.


Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by buzzanddidj on Oct 13th, 2014 at 10:15am

____ wrote on Oct 13th, 2014 at 8:44am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 13th, 2014 at 6:04am:
They're talking about the past year, NOT since the carbon tax was abolished.


Are you saying household power bill totals will be less than now, or more.

The experts are saying more.




If Abbott had used a bit more honesty and a lot less election spin he would have rightly claimed that electricity prices would fall by around $150 per annum* on the annual average of $1500 bills

Not $550*



http://talkingelectricity.com.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Topic-1_Bill-Breakdown.pdf


Then, again, what does Tony Abbott know of "honesty" ?




Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Team Knight Errant Grappler on Oct 13th, 2014 at 11:10am
$18 on the last bill which runs around $450 a bill at the farm... that comes to $72 a year if you're lucky.

The never-ending rises in costs of electricity will always eat up any single cent you get back on it...so, as I said, all that Hydra-headed structure of fat 'ceo's and 'board members will always have their hands out for revenue  out of your pocket.

It is way past time - as I told Mr Baird in response to his 'survey', for the whole 'privatisation' rort - which is just another AWH but legimitised by the government, to cease and the utilities to be returned to single ownership.

Mr Baird - this nonsense of 'private industry can do it more efficiently' started with a predecessor of yours, your party - and it was daylight robbery of the people of NSW to fill his pockets with a nice little earner that just happened to come his way from sell-off of an already owned public utility when he was Premier.

Corruption at the highest level.

Call it what you want, Sir - it is robbery, and I challenge you to have the balls to stop it and reverse it NOW, and take back the profits from that failed venture.

Are you with us - or against us, Mr Baird?

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Bam on Oct 13th, 2014 at 4:13pm
Privatised companies do NOT do it more efficiently. That's just a myth. If there's any efficiency, it's pocketed by the unelected companies to give to their shareholders, not given back to the customers in bill reductions.

Privatisation for profit is a crock.

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Team Froggie on Oct 13th, 2014 at 6:54pm
Haven't seen my cheque yet, Mr Abbott......

>:(

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Team Froggie on Oct 13th, 2014 at 6:57pm

Bam wrote on Oct 13th, 2014 at 4:13pm:
Privatised companies do NOT do it more efficiently. That's just a myth. If there's any efficiency, it's pocketed by the unelected companies to give to their shareholders, not given back to the customers in bill reductions.

Privatisation for profit is a crock.


Privatisation, is a crock!!!

;)

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Team Knight Errant Grappler on Oct 13th, 2014 at 10:57pm

Lobo wrote on Oct 13th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

Bam wrote on Oct 13th, 2014 at 4:13pm:
Privatised companies do NOT do it more efficiently. That's just a myth. If there's any efficiency, it's pocketed by the unelected companies to give to their shareholders, not given back to the customers in bill reductions.

Privatisation for profit is a crock.


Privatisation, is a crock!!!

;)



Indeed, and only the people who gain from it are saying it isn't....long overdue for the scrapheap of political history.

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Bam on Oct 13th, 2014 at 11:21pm

Lobo wrote on Oct 13th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

Bam wrote on Oct 13th, 2014 at 4:13pm:
Privatised companies do NOT do it more efficiently. That's just a myth. If there's any efficiency, it's pocketed by the unelected companies to give to their shareholders, not given back to the customers in bill reductions.

Privatisation for profit is a crock.


Privatisation, is a crock!!!

;)

Fair enough.

I have said earlier that there's nothing inherently wrong with not-for-profit privatisation, where the asset is privatised but the owners are not allowed to make a profit. Not likely to happen though...

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Oct 13th, 2014 at 11:51pm
Privatised companies running at no profit are about as useful as the proverbial chocolate teapot.

The point of privatisation is that they gain investment from the markets and from investors, subject to them running the business efficiently and turning a profit.

Privatised companies are so much better run than nationalised ones because of the need to keep a control on costs.
They need to be efficient, they need to be streamlined, they need a rationalised headcount structure and they need tyo eradicate waste.

Nationalized ones do little of this. Its not their money they are playing with - there is to some extent a bottomless pit of funding from the public sector and they end up with too many people, poor processes and a poor mindset not driven by the bottom line and looking after company dollars.

I'm spending this afternoon actually working in a tiny office space just off the M40, because there is an OpEx freeze in place, we need to keep costs down and there is no justification for a lavish hotel room to work etc.
That mindset is prevalent in the private industry, it is not in the public sector.

They would spend money, charge it back and not care less for the bigger picture.

My lecturer once said "And after all that, if you still can't get a job you can work in the public sector because they'll take anyone"

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Stratos on Oct 13th, 2014 at 11:55pm
Give us some good examples of Australian privatisation following that pattern Andrei

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Team Knight Errant Grappler on Oct 13th, 2014 at 11:57pm
"The point of privatisation is that they gain investment from the markets and from investors, subject to them running the business efficiently and turning a profit."

That's the whole - if their idea of 'efficiency' is higher costs to the end user - as the 'global economy' which also adds lower wages and standards of living to the mix - then - as clearly stated - those who benefit from privatisation are the only ones who support the idea.

In this case it is ONLY the companies themselves and a few governments who see a pot of gold in selling off the farm - nobody else.

The rest have woken to the reality by now, which is that privatisation is another word for choking the goose that lays the golden egg with over supply of costly clerks n jerks and 'ceos' and such.

When a single event of privatisation shows me efficiency in lower costs - I'm ready to listen.  Now let me hear from you how higher costs means efficiency in a service industry  (LMAO)....

So Show Me!!

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Oct 14th, 2014 at 12:05am
British Airways is a classic case of a company that benefited from moving from the public to the private sector.

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Oct 14th, 2014 at 12:06am
Much as I would like to debate this subject all afternoon, I am afraid I have a 2015 Plan to try and refine (with your friggen country causing me the most headaches right now...)

I'll park this discussion for another day.

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Team Knight Errant Grappler on Oct 14th, 2014 at 4:56am
Did-ums?

As usual - not one shred of proof to offer, and the usualwhining about Australia, just a few of the same old worn-out phrases reciting someone's myth that it works best when your self-confessed offshore rip-off company with all the rorts makes more money for less work and spends an inordinate amount on flunkeys to guide it through its rip-offs, and that somehow is more efficient.

Efficient to who?  YOU? 

If it's so hard, perhaps you could recommend that your organisation leave our shores and never return.  I can assure you it will only get harder in coming years.

I await your return with something more than rhetoric - and until then let me add this unsubstantiated comment:-

Like certain other ideologies,  the day of the fantasy that 'privatisation is more efficient' is well and truly gone.  Get used to it.

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Team Knight Errant Grappler on Oct 14th, 2014 at 5:08am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 12:05am:
British Airways is a classic case of a company that benefited from moving from the public to the private sector.



Seriously?  Like QANTAS, huh?

Let's try Australia, Andrei, unless it gives you too much of a headache.  I believe that for some time to come our best interests are served in looking after ourselves first.

Indeed - it is that desperate in reality.  I

http://www.bbc.com/news/10135112

Turned around 180 deg in four years, huh?  **waits for Andrei von Munchausen to fall into the trap......**

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Stratos on Oct 14th, 2014 at 7:52am

Stratos wrote on Oct 13th, 2014 at 11:55pm:
Give us some good examples of Australian privatisation following that pattern Andrei


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 12:05am:
British Airways is a classic case of a company that benefited from moving from the public to the private sector.


Swing and a miss.

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by John Smith on Oct 14th, 2014 at 8:04am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 14th, 2014 at 12:06am:
Much as I would like to debate this subject all afternoon, I am afraid I have a 2015 Plan to try and refine (with your friggen country causing me the most headaches right now...)

I'll park this discussion for another day.


'Your' country? I thought you were an Aussie  :D :D

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Team Knight Errant Grappler on Oct 14th, 2014 at 9:05am
I have raised the BA annual report 2013.. some interesting points emerge..............

Ah fought them wiv dual cit'znship wuz jest ez goo' a Aussie as 'ey wuz a Pom er a Gyppo... jush goes ta show, eh, Guv?  They's Aussies when vey can rip us orf, but' it's on'y schkin deep!

"your friggin country"....

Lessee now - without this friggin country Fracking Artists International would go friggin broke.... love it or leave it....

Investment created FOR Australia - Sweet Fanny Adams - since it is all off-shored back to Fracking's HQ....

Joe Blorgs the retired miner from Devon invests his $500,000 nest egg in FAI......(LMAO - Joe from Devon would never see that much in his life, especially after Thatcher got finished with him and offered him unemployment while calling him a slacker)..... they return him a princely 5% annually.... wow - that's good at the moment, eh?

Joe cops $25,00 a year pre-tax from his investment.

Meanwhile, FAI pays its (LMAO) 'ceo' and 'board members' fifty times that...... and pays flunkeys paid to sort out the best rip-off path for dealing with  countries invested in ten times that....

Who's the fool here?

Investment my arse - about all Australia gets from being fracked over is royalties to States with as much idea of fiscal management as the Federal government has..... NIL!

Shareholders?  Just useful dollars to spend on excessive salaries and perks for some.  Same old...

http://gofossilfree.org/7-reasons-to-sell-coal-oil-and-gas-stocks/

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Bam on Oct 14th, 2014 at 10:02am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 13th, 2014 at 11:51pm:
Privatised companies running at no profit are about as useful as the proverbial chocolate teapot.

Depends on what is privatised. A company like Commonwealth Bank or retail Telstra running at a profit is fine. Privatised infrastructure constructed under the PPP model isn't. A strong case can be made for not-for-profit infrastructure like a toll road, making money for the sole purpose of paying off the debt, then when the debt is paid out the company transfers assets to the government. Anything after that is just pure greed.


Quote:
The point of privatisation is that they gain investment from the markets and from investors, subject to them running the business efficiently and turning a profit.

Privatised companies are so much better run than nationalised ones because of the need to keep a control on costs.

They need to be efficient, they need to be streamlined, they need a rationalised headcount structure and they need tyo eradicate waste.

Not always true. If the privatised company has some form of monopoly, they have no strong downward pressure on costs so they can just hike their prices. If it's a monopoly cash cow, like a toll road to an airport with a contractually guaranteed prohibition on the construction of competing infrastructure for 30 years, there is not any pressure to keep costs down at all. Citylink in Melbourne is an example of this - $20 billion in revenue over 30 years for $3 billion in outlay. This sort of greed is obscene.

Title: Re: Electricity - Are They Better Off $550 A Year
Post by Team Knight Errant Grappler on Oct 14th, 2014 at 10:09am
I will also add this - on the subject of 'nationalised' organisations 'not spending their money'....

Neither the hell do privatised companies - they use investors like Joe Blorgs above, and reap a nice little earner for using Joe's money and giving him back enough to keep him happy.

NO company 'spends its own money' - they spend investor's money - little care taken and no real responsibility.  If the company goes bust the ceo and his mate walks with a mint, they've already had their mint anyway, and the investors lose out.

The whole deal is just another giant rip-off to fund the bosses and their mates in handsome style regardless of outcomes.

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.