This was posted 8 years 8 months 25 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

NSW Family Energy Rebate 2015/2016 up to $275

1220
NSW Family Energy Rebate 2015/2016 up to $275
Go to Deal
dealmaker on 28/03/2016 - 08:29 resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au (4629 clicks)
Last edited 28/03/2016 - 08:56 by 1 other user

I learnt about this rebate for the first time on ozb here and decided to post this 15/16 rebate now.

In contrast, this rebate doesnt appear to only be targeting the low income people, instead it is more generic, see criteria below.

To be eligible for the NSW Family Energy Rebate, you must:
- be a resident of New South Wales; and
- be an account holder of an electricity retailer, or a long term resident of an on-supplied residential community, or a resident of an on-supplied retirement village, or a resident of an on-supplied strata scheme; and whose name appears on the electricity account for supply to her or his principal place of residence; and
- have been assessed by the Federal Department of Human Services (DHS) as being eligible for the Family Tax Benefit (FTB) A or B during the previous financial year, and have received a payment of FTB in respect of that eligibility.

All the various rebate levels are covered on the web page. It seems you dont have to do much other than fill a form direct link to form here and 'they' will know how much rebate you are eligible for.

Hopefully this is useful to someone, some extra money to spend on all those ozb deals.

Home & Garden

Related Stores

NSW Government
NSW Government

closed Comments

    • StewBalls on 28/03/2016 - 09:10
      +2

      Somebody please neg this joker for me…

    • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2016 - 09:12
      +14

      well actually electricity ratesa are significantly artificially inflated, especially in NSW where the coal mines in the hunter valley are next to the power stations.

      I'm guessing the rebates are signifcantly less then the royalties the NSW Govt receive on the coal dug up.

      As for the planet, maybe cheap electricity prioces will bring forward the mass use of electric cars, which means less use of oil, which leads to less money for the middle east, which leads to less money for buying weapons, which leads to less western interest/interference in the region, which leads to less exported radicalism looking for revenge, which leads to a safer planet! Mike Beard the next Nobel Peace Prize winner!

      Or they could just use the subsidy to expand the expansion of solar power. Or better still mandate solar panels for electricity & water & double glazing (& rebates for triple glazing) for new dwellings.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2016 - 11:55

          No coal isn't subsidised.coal isn't sold at the cost + medium margin, it's sold locally at the price they can sell it for international.

          I was an early adopter or things like PCs Internet. If wasn't for early adopters then things would never become mainstream. Cheaper things become the more people use them. Flying is the classic example. Electric cars will follow suit. When they become cheaper to own more people will buy them.

          As for solar, I watch TV at night, I turn my lights on at night, I turn my heating on at night. Solar is pretty bloody pointless when the sun sfops shining on my panels at about 4pm.

        • RubenM on 28/03/2016 - 14:10
          -4

          @supabrudda: Miners not paying excise tax for example is a subsidy. Why should they be exempt when other businesses have to pay it?

        • MATTDAMON on 28/03/2016 - 14:17
          -1

          @spludgey:

          Any non road going vehicle is exempt from the fuel excise, this includes agriculture, industrial and the transport industry (though they get it back in the form of a rebate)

          They also consume signifcant amounts of diesel because of onsite gensets in the pit etc as its uneconomical and dangerous to have mains power in operational areas (CHPP are usually on mains though)

        • heal on 28/03/2016 - 18:33
          -1

          @spludgey:
          Is that you Electricity Bill SHorten?

        • twocsies on 28/03/2016 - 22:51
          +1

          @supabrudda: Coal companies are the beneficiaries of subsidies. They receive grants, loans, and tax deductions. In fact, Australia gives the industry the highest subsidies of the G20 in the form of direct spending or tax breaks.

          http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/coal-oil-and-gas-compa…

    • alz on 28/03/2016 - 10:33

      Chill the (profanity) out bro

    • ChatCPT on 28/03/2016 - 15:10
      +3

      spludgey - record negs!

      • RubenM on 29/03/2016 - 13:42

        Haters gonna hate!

    • Diji1 on 28/03/2016 - 16:21
      +1

      God I hate hippies.

  • WaywardOne on 28/03/2016 - 08:49

    Awesome stuff. This is even more generous than Victoria's $171.60 Electricity rebate for pensioners
    http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/for-individuals/financial-support/…

  • shiningstars on 28/03/2016 - 08:56

    I applied for this a couple of years ago but have not bothered since. I found the amount of paper work wasnt worth the $35 i ended up getting back. From memory, the amount i already receive in concessional discounts was subtracted from the $275 leaving $35. Is this still the case? Surely there is a better way of administrating a family energy rebate, maybe a direct FTB A payment.

    • WaywardOne on 28/03/2016 - 08:58

      There is an online form now

    • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2016 - 09:01
      +5

      how else are you going to keep all those public servants from staring out the window in the morning?

    • dealmaker on 28/03/2016 - 09:08
      +3

      "The Family Energy Rebate provides eligible households a credit on an energy bill of $150, or $15 if the household also qualifies for the Low Income Household Rebate."
      So seems you get $150 at least if you are not also taking the Low Income Household Rebate. Last time I did it, it was the same online form and the money showed up, no hassles.

  • Bargainz on 28/03/2016 - 09:24
    +28

    More pandering to "families", typical government discrimination. Those that have children chose to do so and should not be financially compensated in any way for it.

      • Bargainz on 28/03/2016 - 09:29
        +16

        Meh don't like the truth and cant counter it so "neg him" (to silence him) is the only option. Any wonder society is a mess.

        • db1709 on 28/03/2016 - 14:49
          -4

          No no no, don't you get it?

          Once you have kids, you have an out clause for everything in life, you're more important than others, and your precious little Johnny can do no wrong!

        • StewBalls on 29/03/2016 - 20:08
          -1

          Nah, I simply ran out of negs on some other dunce…

          Worth noting however, most of the people in this tax group are likely supporting your extravagant Gen-Y, parents-home dwelling, single student lifestyle, pissing your disposable income away on the latest phones & gadgets so you can't save a house deposit & just keep bitching about getting into the housing market…so yeah they need a few breaks.

          FWIW, I'm not entitled to this, we collectively earn too much, but I know a lot of hardworking folks struggling that can benefit.

      • Bargainz on 28/03/2016 - 09:30
        +12

        Load of rubbish, people have been having children LONG BEFORE GOVERNMENT "REBATES" OR ELECTRICITY FOR THAT MATTER! Typical.

        • tryagain on 28/03/2016 - 10:35

          Yes and community's have been helping out those that do for just as long too, this is just a form of that.

      • stellaaddicted on 28/03/2016 - 09:54
        +7

        You need to show savings to buy a house, prove that you have a job to apply for a credit card but no need to prove a thing when wanting to have a child. How is it possible? BTW, why do you think that some countries are so poor… Any guess?

        • Bargainz on 28/03/2016 - 09:56
          -1

          It warms my heart to see that there are a few others that exercise rational thought these days.

        • tryagain on 28/03/2016 - 10:08
          +3

          because they don't have anything of value to sell to the rest of the world and weren't lucky enough like us to be able sell their "dirt" to others? If you are suggesting there is evidence proving family size as the causation of a country's prosperity I'd like to see it.

        • field1985 on 28/03/2016 - 11:13
          -1

          @tryagain:

          There is plenty of evidence that prosperity reduces family size.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2016 - 11:14
          +2

          No need to guess, Malaria is the reason the poorest countries are so poor, not children.
          Basic article here, plenty more in depth reading if you look. http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/malaria_worldwide/impact.html

        • tryagain on 28/03/2016 - 11:51

          @fieldo85:

          There is plenty of evidence(youtu.be) that prosperity reduces family size.

          Cool stats presentation but doesn't in any way show a family size being a cause of a country's poverty or prosperity like I mentioned.

      • Smigit on 28/03/2016 - 10:13
        +5

        If anything the world has an issue with over population…not with people failing to have children.

        • peterpeterpumpkin on 28/03/2016 - 12:53

          There's no winning really. People in developed countries look forward to retirement and don't want to take care of their incontinent, dementia-ridden parents (necessary when childlessness becomes vogue and there's no carers to import). But these same people can't be convinced to reduce resource consumption, collectively abandon the acquisition of assets or reassess careers made redundant my technology for the sake of resource conservation and efficiency.

    • WaywardOne on 28/03/2016 - 09:39
      +12

      I like to think of it this way:
      Children are good for the economy. They grow up and pay tax.
      The subsidy parents receive for having children is a tiny fraction of the benefit they provide to this country (on average)

      • stellaaddicted on 28/03/2016 - 09:41

        only true when their children don't feel like abusing the system as well and continuing the cycle that never ends in Oz.

      • Bargainz on 28/03/2016 - 09:48

        That is using emotion and supposition to obfuscate the real issue and that is the discrimination inherent in this "policy". Not all children grow up and pay tax and the subsidy could be offset BY THE PERSON RECEIVING THE SUBSIDY BY NOT BUYING A FEW "Cheap" MEMORY CARDS OR RAM STICKS ETC It is not up to the tax payer to subsidise someones life choices.

        The policies are typical "Working Families (Rudd Era)" pandering for votes. If there is an inherent problem with energy prices etc then it should be dealt with at the cause not with some taxpayer slush fund. A prime example of this was the "First Home Buyer" scheme, instead of addressing the cause of ridiculously high prices, "lets just hand out taxpayer money" which further inflated the problem.

        Meanwhile our hospitals are in a mess and our transport system is starting to resemble parts of the third world.

        • Nousernamehere on 28/03/2016 - 13:25

          The FHB grant was introduced in 2000 by the Howard government. It is now funded and administered by the states themselves.

          The pandering for votes has always been around, but definitely came into its own during the Howard years, so no, they're not 'Rudd Era' policies. They sure continued along the way tha Howard was going, which wasn't a smart thing to do either. But good luck any one taking any of the middle class welfare away from people, they want it, but expect other people to pay for it.

    • quarrymaster on 28/03/2016 - 09:47
      +1

      Children are OzBargain's future.

    • tryagain on 28/03/2016 - 09:59
      +1

      More pandering to "families", typical government discrimination. Those that have children chose to do so and should not be financially compensated in any way for it.

      Also known as Democracy, here is a song just for you

    • BartholemewH on 28/03/2016 - 11:30

      I now have a son, but still agree with this.

    • engineeringprof on 28/03/2016 - 12:24

      Reasonable perspective. At the same time, we do need more children to shoulder the cost of an ageing population, so it's not that bad to encourage it

    • Tsort on 28/03/2016 - 13:52
      +2

      I understand children nowadays will be taxpayers in the future, but I can't see why the others have to be punished for not having children. I bet this will get negged too.

      What I want to see is better way to allocate the benefits. Families of good income should get less benefit or even none, regardless of how many kids they choose to have. Families of lower income should get more, again regardless of how many kids they choose to have. Children in disadvantaged areas should get more targeted and cashless support.

      Property of urban area families should be considered in the amount of benefit they got. I've read a lot of those so called "struggling" families with parents on six-digit salaries who chose to be struggling by taking a huge mortgage on an inner city area. They whine about not being able to afford this and that despite receiving benefits.

    • bob19 on 28/03/2016 - 14:39
      +1

      If you are a family with no children and you are working, clearly your living expenses would be significantly lower compared to the family with children. In addition, you would use less electricity and gas.
      It is obvious that in this case families with children more likely need a little bit of extra help than the families without children.
      And we are talking about a very small amount of money that won't make huge difference but will just help families with children.

      Your statement "Those that have children chose to do so and should not be financially compensated in any way for it." is ridiculous. Obviously, those who chose to have children did so not to gain any financial benefits. But they need more help or assistance than you do.
      Or do you just want to punish parents as well as children who may not have enough money for electricity or food or clothes?

      Did you ever think that you were a child? I guess, not only your parents but you yourself would've been very happy to get extra $100 to help you to manage your expenses.
      But you are not a child anymore and you have chosen to not have children. May be because it is very expensive to raise children…?

      And you know what - you wouldn't be here and wouldn't be posting your comments here if your parents thought the same way as you do.

    • Vieira4 on 28/03/2016 - 18:06
      +2

      I have children and have never asked for or received a cent from government.

      • danyool on 29/03/2016 - 13:38

        never asked for or received a cent from government

        Do you mean directly or indirectly?

    • SteatoLegato on 28/03/2016 - 19:32
      +1

      because this rebate is given to those also eligible for Family tax benefit A or B it targets poorer families. I think its reasonable to suggest that giving poorer families a discount on electricity is overall a good thing. there will be some that would spend that on cask wine but hopefully those are a minority (unless NT)

  • arkanis50 on 28/03/2016 - 09:28
    +23

    Where's the 'Single White Guy Struggling to Survive Tax Benefit'?

    • SpeedRunnerLink on 28/03/2016 - 09:31
      +5

      I think they should merge this category with the I should move back home with my parents benefit.

    • mousie on 28/03/2016 - 10:18
      +4

      Go to Tregear or Macquarie fields. Buy a pack of horizons and wood stocks and push a shopping trolley around. Preferably you own an unregistered car that you can lean on and put southern cross stickers on.

      Mating call is 'Straya C* nt'. Thank me in 9 months when you have 5 kids to 3 seperate teenage unemployed mum's.

      • tryagain on 28/03/2016 - 10:42

        Stereotyping much?

        • mousie on 28/03/2016 - 11:34
          +1

          Just offering a solution

        • redcreek200 on 28/03/2016 - 11:41
          +2

          lol. Support an intolerance rant, then cry at "stereotyping".

        • tryagain on 28/03/2016 - 11:56

          @redcreek200: by support I assume you mean a +, but what comment are you referring too?

        • tryagain on 28/03/2016 - 12:28

          @mousie: in that context you get a +

    • SteatoLegato on 28/03/2016 - 19:37

      Hahaha how about a discount on beer smokes and hookers for you?
      single guys that aren't making more money than what they can spend are an absolute and ultimate waste to the society, along with those disabled due to being obese and not doing anything about it

      • mousie on 28/03/2016 - 21:02
        +1

        Single guys use more energy as they have longer showers to shake things off.

  • Ravensbane on 28/03/2016 - 10:16
    +1

    Thanks for that. Let's see if we get anything back.

  • Hoju on 28/03/2016 - 10:18
    +4

    Thanks for the reminder. I think I first found out about the rebate on ozbargain and posted the gas one you linked to. Just another example of ozbargain saving us far more than pennies, good on you for giving back.

    For what it's worth there must be some simple economics behind supporting families. God knows we put money back into the economy all over the place through our kids, supporting employment of others in child care, schools, ikea (😭)…. Although I guess everyone does in their own way.

    • airzone on 28/03/2016 - 10:37
      +1

      Just don't forget to attach your ikea stuff to the wall..

      • Hoju on 28/03/2016 - 10:44

        :)))

    • engineeringprof on 28/03/2016 - 12:34

      In addition to the immediate economic benefits you've described, by having kids you are creating individuals who will (hopefully) pay an entire lifetime of tax.

      Although not much tax is really paid these days, unless you end up rolling big:
      "3.6 million households that are net beneficiaries of the tax system out of 8.8 million"
      http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-50-of-all-income-tax…

  • Phreaker on 28/03/2016 - 10:32

    Is there any similar rebates in Qld?
    I can't seem to find any

    • Pizdets on 28/03/2016 - 11:49

      Had a look around and doesn't look like it :( only for seniors and pensioners.

  • Saiya on 28/03/2016 - 10:40
    +1

    Good find but blatant discrimination against single people. :P

    • syba on 28/03/2016 - 10:54

      Single people are entitled to get this also. On the proviso they have kids and meet the criteria.

      • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2016 - 11:57

        Yeah maybe rent some of those refugee kids from Nauru, it'll be good for them & it'll be good fkr your hip pocket!

        • frinik on 28/03/2016 - 12:23
          +3

          as long as they dont eat more than your rebate..it'll be a good return on investment :D

        • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2016 - 13:38
          +1

          @frinik: true, but you should get all the federal govt rebates for childcare (isn't your home now a child care centre?) Family tax benefit A&B (sure your single but they don't need to know that).

          Then of course you can get them to place solar panels under the street lights to get even more from your panels.

  • dealmaker on 28/03/2016 - 12:50

    Folks, all this ranting against free money? :)
    Just enjoy it !!!

    • Tsort on 28/03/2016 - 13:56
      +2

      What to enjoy when it is basically childless taxpayers giving money to taxpayers with children?

      In terms of "bargain", this is a good post living up to the spirit of Ozbargain. Keep posting.

      Just having a bit of beef with the general way childless taxpayers are milked in Australia.

  • VBO on 28/03/2016 - 14:02
    1. Have been assessed by the Federal Department of Human Services (DHS) as being eligible for the Family Tax Benefit (FTB) A or B at any time during the 2014-2015 financial year, and, have received a payment of FTB in respect of that eligibility.
  • MATTDAMON on 28/03/2016 - 14:10
    -1

    Oh look something else for the entitled generation that cant keep their legs shut to get for free from the government.

  • KOBH on 28/03/2016 - 15:27

    Anyone able to claim a full $275 rebate without CRN?

  • robb6014 on 28/03/2016 - 18:54
    +1

    This is why the treasury is broke

  • melfes on 30/03/2016 - 00:40
    -1

    have been assessed by the Federal Department of Human Services (DHS) as being eligible for the Family Tax Benefit (FTB) A or B during the previous financial year, and have received a payment of FTB in respect of that eligibility.

    anyone any idea re how to do this? Thanks

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join