Perhaps you should stick to your chosen friends on FB. That way you don't have to see how the better half live

Pretty much. I reckon you and I have seen more changes of Oz Gov than nearly anyone on this site. Oz elections are more akin to X Factor voting than any meaningful policy considerations, on both sides.

Yes absolutely, more than I can remember Not as entertaining as the X Factor and I hate the X Factor lol

We got solar roof panels when the govt. subsidy was first brought out, a few years ago. With the rebate, we paid something like $3,000 for the system and it has already paid for itself. Our last electricity bill was around $170, but with the feed-in tariff rebate and payment for the amount of electricity we fed back into the grid, the bill was revised to a $17 credit.

I do agree with some of what you say about rebates/subsidies, Zulu, despite them helping Scouse and I out a lot at the present time. The people who need the lower electricity bills the most are the people who can't find the thousands of dollars to install the systems.

That's the financial side, there's a different argument for subsidies in relation to the environment.

I would have liked to have seen the solar panels installed as standard on all public (social) housing and would have happily foregone our rebate to see that. I know that not all will agree and that's fine too.

So if solar can be made cheap enough, which its on the way to being, then future generations can install solar with their own money and not only save but potentially make money in the process. Rather than subsidising here, the government should be investing in tech to make this all happen sooner, which they said is part of their environmental plan.

I lived in Oz when Bob Hawke was elected. That was x factor at its best.

They're all X Factor, Lab/Lib. Every election I've ever seen in Oz is just a 'let's have a change for change's sake' kind of deal.

There are sensible things that could have been done, like outlawing penalty tariffs for those that put up solar panels, and paying the full value of the electricity generated (not the silly feed in tariff rates).

The actual cost of the panels and inverter are low - but the electricity companies and the government heap extra costs on top to attempt to make it uneconomic. For all they claim to be green, the actual policies are stacked against growth in solar. Hell, make all new builds HAVE to include 5kW of solar panels, and all rentals HAVE to include 5kW of panels to claim negative gearing would be a sensible policies to speed uptake.

If someone comes up with a good storage technology though, the electricity companies will be toast as people disconnect. It's already a situation where the electricity companies are on borrowed time.

That's right - time is the factor here. People often think about what we had then or have now, but forget about the future, which is why I'm a huge advocate of investing in technology, whether its for the environment, jobs, etc. There's no point flogging dead horses like electricity companies, car manufactures, etc. Subsidies for things are just putting off the inevitable. If it needs a subsidy let it die - like the ABC. I'd be more than happy to pay a TV license if the ABC produced quality shows. Pay for what you get. The only subsidy I believe we should be investing in is universities and of course the subsidies we have to support like the aged.. Universities are Australia's future. If you don't invest in brain then you might as well keep flogging that dead horse car industry. Invest in the local talent, fleece the foreign talent if they want to be part of the local talent or take their learned talent back offshore.

Which is great, and I agree, except you then say

Which goes against your previous statement. For solar, say, you need to get things up to the stage where you have economies of scale - as well as regulating to make sure its not killed by the electricity big boys.

That means you need some kind of investment to get to that stage - which if you are a right winger you then label as 'subsidy' and attempt to kill. Rather you need to get rid of subsidies for the big boys (eg scrapping the mining tax).

And the problem with TV is NOT the ABC and its funding mechanism - its that loon politicians who don't like getting called to account on the 7:30 programme then attempt to kill it, and those pointed questions.

And, of course, that 7, 9, 10 & Foxtel are horribly bad and are the real root of the rot. Deal with THEM first - require a substantial increase in quality, or remove access to the airwaves.

Australia would be measurably worse off without the ABC and SBS - but you could close 7 tomorrow and things would actually be better.

Whilst I agree that education and R&D helps an economy, its not the only area we should be investing in.

For instance, supporting new SMEs, and helping them to export would be a massively sensible action for any government. And they don't, they ignore them or actively make things worse.

Actually this is one area where I think we should be reducing the subsidies !

With the demographic timebomb the current situation is not really sustainable and needs to change - but politicians are unwilling to do anything, because that demographic votes...

You've got it right about the effect on poorer people - many of whom cannot afford to pay their power bills because the cost has risen so much to subsidise the people who have RTS

Solar feed-in tariffs are middle-class welfare by another name - plain and simple

Economic and environmental subsidies are the same thing - rent seeking by the companies that get them and a fiscal drag on the taxpayer and consumer

Good point on the label. Definitions between a "Subsidy" and an "Investment" need to be clearly defined.


There's no doubt the ABC and SBS have a lot to offer over and beyond the bogan stuff, but its not about the pollies getting called to account. That can happen on subsidized or non subsidized media of all forms. Its actually about the staff at the ABC and SBS being called to account for themselves.


Absolutely. But there is no point supporting an industry that can't compete. ie car manufacturing. That is bad investment.

True.

There's a difference between investment and being held over a barrel.

Gifting Ford or General Motors hundreds of millions to continue to produce so-so cars in Australia isn't a good move.

Instead saying to both of them "we have x billion here to invest in the design and manufacture of hybrid vehicles in Australia, with a backend share in any profits - now provides us with your proposals and we will decide who gets the money in competition ....

.... well that would be a different kettle of fish.

As it is, there seems to be no strategic vision in their industrial policy. They should (just a few pointers) :

• Tax heavily the export of non-value added raw materials, etc. such that there is basically no profit.
• Reduced tax on value added exports derived from those raw materials; proportionate to the value to Australia.
• Smart strategic investment in key future technologies, with golden shares that give the government control over sell offs to overseas companies, etc.
• Investment in heavily automated manufacturing - with a strategic set of capabilities maintained 'in house'.
• Control of all foreign investors, such that a minimum percentage of profit derived from Australia has to be retained IN Australia.

Panels and inverters are so cheap now I will certainly be investing next year and the feed in tariff is still pretty good. I will finance the set up myself even though their are initiatives in place to enable me to get them virtually free.

Bingo.