The O’Farrell Government’s decision and their supporting arguments to betray subscribers to the Solar Bonus Scheme, are deplorable in just so many ways.
Deplorable in the unprecedented retrospectivity of its actions.
Deplorable in the divisiveness of presenting all subscribers as greedy exploiters, being carried by the “have-nots” in our taxpaying community.
Deplorable in its pretence of “shock/horror” about such cross-subsidy per se, when it must appreciate that measures such as taxation, income redistribution and cross-subsidies are the essence of any set of budgetary arrangements.
Deplorable in the way that the claimed need to minimise the budgetary effects of an, arguably, over-generous scheme somehow justifies the resort to ANY response, regardless of the unjust consequences for existing subscribers who had previously acted in good faith in acepting the features of the Scheme existing at the time of their contracts.
Deplorable, and insulting, in the way it presumes us to be such a gullible public as would naively buy the “pink-batt” type hysteria that has been so suddenly and so conveniently promoted as a distraction from the tidal wave of protest that Mr O’Farrell’s ill-advised decision has unleashed.
It is an intellectually dishonest, party-political tactic to argue that all Solar Scheme subscribers are nothing but greedy entrepreneurs, intent on ripping off their taxpaying peers. Perhaps there were some who had the resources and objective to install mega-systems that made them exploitive players in the energy production business. But this would surely be an atypical stereotype.
Rather, the typical Scheme subscriber would be one who has researched all available options to defray burgeoning electricity cost so as to better manage his domestic finances; who may have borrowed to install a minimal system, having determinied that the prospective rebate payments, guaranteed until 2016, would help to service such borrowing. Such people are entitled to certainty regarding their contractual arrangements.
These are the ones who are understandably feeling betrayed and devastated by this retrospective slug.
What can the Government now do, and what options are not available to it? By all means have the argument about the generosity of the Scheme as it stood. By all means reach the view, if one must, that it is vital to the Budget to curtail any further over-subscription to the Scheme. And by all means consider running a line under it and winding back its generosity prospectively, from the date of any relevant announced decision (as has already been done!)
But Mr O’Farrell must recognise that all the protocols and conventions surrounding the operation of legitimate governments in our Westminister democracies tell us that retrospective action of the kind being attempted is NOT an available option.
Actions, decisions and contracts made by a Minister of the Crown are not those of a political party, or a Government in place from time to time. They stand as actions and decisions made in the name of the State and, from the time of their making, establish certain commitments by the State. As such the enabling law can only be varied or unwound prospectively. But transactions made to date cannot be repudiated!
Individuals dealing with the State in any area of its operations, either voluntarily (eg subscribers) or involun-tarily (eg taxpayers) are at least entitled to have that degree of certainty to rely on.
Mr O’Farrell, think again!
Denis Hooper
Port Macquarie
