This was posted 8 years 3 months 17 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

NSW Fridge & TV Replacement Offer for Concession Card Holders

1891
NSW Fridge & TV Replacement Offer for Concession Card Holders
Go to Deal
alvian on 18/08/2016 - 20:00 environment.nsw.gov.au (12766 clicks)
Last edited 11/06/2017 - 10:27 by 1 other user

Replace your old fridges and TVs and save money on your energy bills. Apply online to receive

  • a 40 per cent discount on the cost of a fridge,
  • a 50 per cent discount on the cost of a TV, and
  • a reduced delivery fee

on a range of energy efficient fridges and TVs from the retail partner The Good Guys. Installation of the new appliance and removal of the old appliance are included in the delivery fee for households located within 50km of a Good Guys store.

Eligibility criteria:

  • Be a NSW resident;
  • Hold one of these concession cards: Pensioner Concession Card, Health Care Card, Low Income Health Care Card, or Veterans' Affairs Gold Card;
  • Replace a fridge more than six years old and/or replace a plasma or cathode ray tube (CRT) TV.

A maximum of one fridge and one TV per household.

Installation and removal cannot be guaranteed for areas more than 50km from one of The Good Guys stores. TV installation does not include channel tuning, connecting the TV to other devices or wall mounting.

The discounts are being funded by the NSW Government through the Home Energy Action Program and are subject to Government funding and the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) approval.

Announcement by the Environment Minister

7 News Sydney segment

Electrical & Electronics Refrigerator TV

Related Stores

NSW Government
NSW Government

closed Comments

  • DU99 on 18/08/2016 - 20:03
    +38

    NSW goverment must have money to burn…Gerry harvey missed out this one

    • hollykryten on 18/08/2016 - 22:52
      -1

      I don't think Gerry Harveys main demographic is low income households aka unemployed on Newstart etc. So they wouldn't have been targeting them to begin with. More like middle and upper class households.

      • railspider on 19/08/2016 - 09:58
        +11

        Who do you think Gerry Harvey's "60 months interest free" non-stop TV ads are targeted at?

        Harvey Norman was built on the backs of low income folks.

        • dingaling2 on 19/08/2016 - 10:04

          Wouldnt get approval for credit on Centrelink I wouldnt think.

        • youknow on 19/08/2016 - 10:07
          +3

          @dingaling2: Those "interest free" arrangements are counting on you not being able to afford to pay it back.

        • dingaling2 on 19/08/2016 - 13:41
          +1

          @youknow:
          True. But when I was unemployed HN who used GE for credit, wouldnt touch me. Just for a small tv! (Was over a decade ago, so maybe not as strict now

          Radio rentals on the other hand, Centrelink would make up most of the company earnings no doubt.

    • melbstheburn on 19/08/2016 - 10:59
      +1

      After they sell off all the dog racing land they will be rolling in the money

  • SBOB on 18/08/2016 - 20:03
    +31

    This seems like a very inefficient way to simply offset some of the rising electricity costs for low income earners..
    Plenty of perfectly working appliances end up getting dumped in the next council clean up and into landfill for very very little environmental benefit (slight consumer electrical consumption drop)

    • King Steuart on 18/08/2016 - 20:33
      +2

      I see you said "low income earners". I've always wondered what percentage of concession card holders are low income earners as opposed to people on the dole.

      • garyes on 18/08/2016 - 21:36
        -3

        Not all the concession card holders are real LOW income earners. Some of them just pretended to be poor to take the benefits.

        • FirstNameLastName on 14/09/2016 - 12:19

          @ mycosys.. They could make it target only pensioners/veterans if they really wanted (like my local transport/council rates are concessioned only for pensioners… not students/dole/low-income earners).

          @ garyes.. yeah I know someone with about 40million in family trust setup living in a multi-million $ property, who gets the pension. but I'm glad low-income support is there for those who really need it.

      • mycosys on 31/08/2016 - 13:08

        Did you forget the disabled and aged pensiooners who atre the main target as they dont have an y other way top get off these payments, and have to make do on this for decades unlike people on newstart.

    • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2016 - 21:08

      Yeah. But once you do it, you will never think about doing it again. It's like changing your engine in a car, you can think about it once, but doing it twice would be absolutely silly in most cases.

    • bargdebarg on 19/08/2016 - 05:58
      +8

      Lack of insulation and energy efficient heating/cooling is where the real problem is - not in their fridge or tv…

      • compound on 19/08/2016 - 08:19
        +8

        Let's face it, our government isn't exactly representing the people nor common sense.

      • Klang on 19/08/2016 - 08:22

        You mean batt insulation? Or subsidising air conditioners and make their bills even higher? What is your suggested solution?

        • bargdebarg on 19/08/2016 - 09:13
          +2

          Trump3, a split air con system or heat pump is far better on energy consumption than electric fan heaters that a lot of people have due to their cheap purchase price.

        • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 09:17
          +1

          @bargdebarg: See the issue with that is most low income earners are probably renting so installing a system of that sort isn't exactly possible

        • Russ on 20/08/2016 - 09:48
          +1

          @ozbooty:

          most low income earners are probably renting so installing a system of that sort isn't exactly possible

          I thought about that, and wondered if there could be a solution suitable for renters. There is!

          Here's a window-mount reverse-cycle air conditioner for $599, doesn't need any permanent fixings to the house:
          http://www.betta.com.au/teco-tww22hfb-air-conditioner-revers…

          And another one for $599:
          http://www.harveynorman.com.au/heating-cooling-air-treatment…

        • Rod71 on 20/08/2016 - 14:21

          @Russ: Not sure how energy efficient those are. No mention of inverters.

        • Russ on 20/08/2016 - 17:31

          @Rod71:
          For the one at HN, 0.57kW input for 1.9kW heating capacity, at least that's what it is for Brisbane. Enter your postcode and the model number here, and it will give the results for your area:
          http://www.energyrating.gov.au/calculator

          Compares quite well with a normal heater, that consumes 1.9kW for 1.9kW heating capacity.

          Also, having an inverter does not make an air con more efficient, although that may be a side-effect. It just means that the compressor is always running, at variable speed, instead of cycling on and off.

      • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 08:27
        +1

        They should have provided subsidies for pedestal fans and blankets in that case!

        • Klang on 19/08/2016 - 08:36
          +2

          Yap. Maybe ozbargainers should band together and buy all those $10 Masters and Kmart pedestal fans on sales and give to the low income families. At least we can give something back to those community.

        • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 08:54

          @trump3: I'm sure we'd be able to get a good deal. I just hope it doesn't lead to a fan shortage across the country.

        • Klang on 19/08/2016 - 09:02

          @ozbooty:

          But we still have to think of the problem of delivering the fan 100km away from metro area. It will cost more than the fans.

        • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 09:06
          +1

          @trump3: Ozbargain road trip! We drop off the fans and get rewarded with free beer.

        • mycosys on 31/08/2016 - 16:01
          -3

          I am sure that would be so much helpofor aged and disabled pensioners with temperature regulation issue. Lets have grandma freeze in the cold, unable to move from arthritis, pinned down from the weight of blankets. Lets have people with joint issues dislocating joints from he weight too.
          Let them dehydrate and get heat strokes in heat waves - not like they are any use to us, if they die it saves us money. Same for people with high temp regulation issues - they dont need to move in summer anyway.

          Does a single one of you ACA viewers have a brain? Any critical thinking ability? or are you just jealous you dont get to sit home in constant pain wishing you could achieve something meaningful, but even what you can do is too much of a hassle for society

      • Gershom on 19/08/2016 - 12:01
        +1

        You should have mentioned it to K Rudd. Oh wait……..

    • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 12:23

      Ahhhmmmm, how about someone related to an EXEC/Primary-Shareholder in the Good Guys is in bed with someone in the NSW GOVT ???
      This is just free money to the Good Guys after all.

    • mycosys on 31/08/2016 - 15:54

      what a load of BS - modern fridges are MANY times more efficient that old fridges were new (the star rating has been revised many times). It also isnt just a matter of reducing costs for them but of reduciong future need for infrastructure we would ALL pay for.

  • juzz0 on 18/08/2016 - 20:05

    What models of TV to choose from? I'm guessing 32 inch standard HD LCDs max saving around $120

    • alvian on 18/08/2016 - 20:17
      +5

      Added link to the list of available products in post. Repeated here for your convenience.

      • King Steuart on 18/08/2016 - 20:35
        +22

        Wait so they're selling 3 star fridges in this promotion? Isn't that counterproductive?

        • danyool on 18/08/2016 - 22:09
          +2

          Step up from 1 star?

        • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 07:55
          +3

          They are inverter fridges though so they waste much less electricity than old conventional ones. I have a 4 star fridge that has a smaller capacity then the ones in that list but still has a higher power consumption.

        • Hoju on 19/08/2016 - 08:01

          @ozbooty:

          Interesting thanks for the info

          Any way we can tell our current fridge energy consumption to compare? I'm assuming they program has been designed such that only non-inverter fridges will get replaced (based on when inverters became available?)

        • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 08:07
          +1

          @Hoju I don't think they will check whether they are replacing an inverter/non inverter one. They might just check the manufacturing date on the back if even that. I just compared the estimated annual KwH usage below the star rating so not sure if it's entirely accurate. If you don't have the sticker you might be able to check your model on the website: http://www.energyrating.gov.au/calculator

        • Gershom on 19/08/2016 - 14:41

          @ozbooty:

          They are inverter fridges

          What, do they heat up stuff in winter?

        • J5 on 19/08/2016 - 15:58
          +2

          the stars are basically meaningless

          the only thing to worry about is the kwh/year figure

      • PJC on 19/08/2016 - 03:39

        Thanks for the link. Is the offer restricted to that list? Those fridge prices look a lot nearer to 50% off than 40% off.

        • alvian on 19/08/2016 - 13:17
          +1

          The offer is restricted to the list, but who knows if more products will be added to the list?

        • PJC on 19/08/2016 - 18:49

          @alvian: Thank you.

  • dantione on 18/08/2016 - 20:06
    +7

    You'd think the environmental department could be, you know, investing in the environment. Renewable energy to offset the emissions, as opposed to everyone flogging off their appliances on Gumtree… With no environmental benefit…

    • madreece on 18/08/2016 - 20:40
      +3

      The environmental department wont be remembering who it was who gave you the nice shiny TV at election time.

  • dantione on 18/08/2016 - 20:07
    +7

    In other news, TV installation does include: removal of TV from box

  • avgbowlofpho on 18/08/2016 - 20:21

    Wow, the government must be rich

  • Ash-Say on 18/08/2016 - 20:24
    +3

    A lot of people could benefit from this.

  • lnq on 18/08/2016 - 20:26
    +1

    must have an old tv? to get new tv? what if you dont have any tv?

    • Gotchas on 18/08/2016 - 20:27
      +9

      Pick one up from side of road

      • lnq on 18/08/2016 - 20:27

        haha, hard to find these days

        • kima on 19/08/2016 - 01:55
          +3

          not really, you obviously don't live in an area with department of housing.

    • PinzVidz on 18/08/2016 - 21:15
      +1

      Plenty of Bauhns in the e-waste bin at your local tip.

  • Klang on 18/08/2016 - 20:30

    Good for those who stay far away from metro area. Delivery is cheaper compared than normal.

  • bargaino on 18/08/2016 - 20:31
    +5

    Your pokie revenues at work.

  • Vladdo on 18/08/2016 - 20:43
    +21

    What a colossal waste of taxpayers money, more landfill that won't go away for generations and for a very negligible reduction in power consumption.

    Big win for the retailers who will now exploit government handouts.

    Why can't the Govt invest in actually reducing the carbon footprint rather than increasing it.

    • fossilfuel on 18/08/2016 - 21:34
      -1

      The liberals are in power. What did you expect? Casino Mike and his minions have no interest in providing reasonable incentives to reduce carbon emissions. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd been bought out by corporations just to push forward this program.

      Same story goes for the federal government. Didn't our last PM blatantly dismiss climate change as a myth?

      • Cheeper on 18/08/2016 - 22:29
        -5

        How about a carbon tax… something like this…
        1. Tax the industries that produce carbon. Those industries can then increase costs or lay off workers to cover the tax.
        2. Use the income from the tax to compensate end consumers for the increases.
        ?? Whoops… that sounds all Irish, achieves nothing and makes no sense.. oh, that's right, someone did try this and it failed miserably. Oh well… :-(

        • odysseus on 19/08/2016 - 01:10
          +2

          Actually, it worked well. Emissions went down significantly, in contrast to before the ETS - and after it. Since this government came in, those gains have been reversed.

          On that basis, the current policy is the failure.

          As for the compensation, yes, compensation was given. So I'm struggling with your claims of it achieving nothing and making no sense. Actually, it delivered the opposite.

        • D3m3ntia on 19/08/2016 - 08:01

          @odysseus: except that we never had an ETS… Whoops ;)

        • odysseus on 19/08/2016 - 09:39

          @D3m3ntia:

          Eh? That's exactly what we had. It was introduced in the 2011 Clean Energy Act.

        • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 09:53
          +1

          @odysseus: It was introduced as part of the 2011 Clean Energy Act legislation but it was never brought into action. It was suppose to replace the carbon tax after around 3 years but it got repealed by the Abbott government before the transition.

        • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 10:00
          +1

          The moment someone mentions the word "Tax" everyone flips out. The ETS which was suppose to provide financial incentive to cut emissions would have remedied that problem.

        • Gershom on 19/08/2016 - 14:52
          +2

          @ozbooty: but wouldn't have the slightest effect on the climate, even admitted to by Rudd/Gillard.

        • argamond on 19/08/2016 - 16:14

          @odysseus:

          How do you explain the continued reduction in emissions now (with the ETS no longer in effect)?

        • Cheeper on 26/08/2016 - 22:53

          @odysseus:
          If you introduce a tax and the producer increases costs to cover that tax then the producer is not penalised for their carbon output. The consumer is then compensated for these increased charges.
          Now you are back where you started… a lot of money is moved and it appears like something is happening… but there is not, nothing changed, it may seem that way but in reality.. zilch!
          It was an action intended to look like an attempt was being made to reduce pollution.. nothing more. Outside of politcially manipulated statistics the reality was …nothing was achieved.

        • odysseus on 26/08/2016 - 23:01

          @argamond:

          There hasn't been a continued reduction. Emissions are again increasing.

          The carbon tax remained until 2014, and emissions fell up to that time. Surprise, surprise, emissions then rose in the subsequent year 2014/2015. Due in part to a "surge of brown coal power generation".

          http://www.smh.com.au/environment/australian-emissions-risin…

        • odysseus on 26/08/2016 - 23:05

          @xywolap:

          That's not true. In a competitive - cost-cutting economy - which is all too apparent here, businesses look to cut costs. They don't just pass increases on. This is exactly why the ETS was successful.

          Clean energy programs offered alternatives and as they offer something cheaper than a dearer priced energy supply, the business will switch to them. It won't just stick with dearer e.g. coal out of some misplaced loyalty and expect consumers to just pay more.

          Look where you are - you're on ozbargain! Looking for a cheaper alternative. And that's the same situation that occurred a few years back, with businesses switching to less emitting alternatives, and hence emissions went down.

        • Cheeper on 27/08/2016 - 12:01
          +1

          @odysseus:
          Not so. Actually the biggest spin off of this foolish policy was the further encouragement for large corporations to move their production to another country.
          What we do not need here is more obstructions for manufacturing, and that is exactly what this was, just another obstruction that achieved zero.

        • odysseus on 27/08/2016 - 18:06

          @xywolap:

          That's quite a stretch of a claim.

          Which companies moved their production to another country as a result of this?

          And as above your concluding statement is incorrect in that it achieved an improvement in emissions.

          Unfortunately what some want is a free ride, without paying the actual costs of their activity, but wanting someone else to carry the can.

      • dealman on 19/08/2016 - 08:09
        -3

        Stop this crap,,

        The most wasteful cash for clunkers remember that Gillard legacy ?

        The Wastes of the Green LOANS scheme ?

        Pink Batts ?

        Its labour labour labour

        • melbstheburn on 19/08/2016 - 10:59

          Except State NSW is a Liberal/National government……

        • Cheeper on 26/08/2016 - 22:55
          -2

          @slimdavy5:
          They are not referring to this posted offer…

      • Gershom on 19/08/2016 - 14:48
        -2

        Didn't our last PM blatantly dismiss climate change as a myth?

        Yes, just one of the many things he was right about, including scrapping the carbon tax. In 30 years from now when temperature has been declining the whole time, a lot of people will be feeling really stupid. Cue gullible greenies - get negging quick. We mustn't hear a different view, it will hurt our tiny brains.

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/winter-is…

        • Cheeper on 26/08/2016 - 22:57

          I believe he was holding back on his decision until someone could explain how the sea level increases in one area and not in another. Still nothing but silence on that one.

    • dealman on 19/08/2016 - 09:38
      -2

      What a colossal waste of taxpayers money, more landfill that won't go away for generations and for a very negligible reduction in power consumption.

      Big win for the retailers who will now exploit government handouts.

      WHy isn't this reason enough for a neg.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2016 - 20:45
    -2

    How does TV replacement save the environment? Common 21 inch CRT TVs were 50w and will get replaced with 100w plus flat panels. Standby modes would be small and similar. Makes little sense to me.

    • Russ on 18/08/2016 - 22:58
      +1

      Your figures are wonky. I have a (still working) 21 inch CRT TV, and a 40-inch LCD. The CRT says 80W on the sticker, the LCD says 65W. That's a power saving of 15W, roughly 20% saving.

      Only one of the TVs on offer is a 40-inch TV, the others are 32-inch, so the power saving will be larger.

      • dantione on 18/08/2016 - 23:37
        +1

        Sounds like the figures given would be for a plasma. The original plasmas, like the $5000-10000 ones used way more power than crt's - and I'm talking 42". Regardless, replacing either with lcd is a major improvement.

        • Russ on 19/08/2016 - 10:17

          If he was comparing to plasma, then his argument is invalid. Plasmas aren't on offer in this deal.

    • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2016 - 23:38
      -2

      A single anecdote doesn't make figures wonky. Have you checked actual CRT power draw on an ammeter?

      • Russ on 19/08/2016 - 10:12

        I did that long ago but can't remember the figures, so I just grabbed my Aldi power meter and measured them again.

        40-inch LCD TV: 39.1W when on, 0.7W in standby.
        21-inch CRT TV: 56-74W when on, 7.0W in standby.

        To measure the CRT, I had a set-top box supplying a composite video signal to the TV's "AV in" port, but I was measuring only the TV's power. The variability in operating power depended on the picture content: bright images caused higher power, dark images caused lower power.

        The LCD's measurements did not vary with picture content, as you would expect.

    • Jabba the Hutt on 19/08/2016 - 06:48
      +5

      Measured my CRTs years ago when I got a Belkin energy meter. Comparing against figures from energyrating.gov.au for the TVs in this offer:

      Panasonic 68cm CRT: 80W on, 4.8W standby
      TCL 101cm LCD: 45W on, 0.4W standby

      Panasonic 34cm CRT: 48W on, didn't measure standby
      Samsung 81cm LCD: 27W on, 0.2W standby

      For the CRTs, you need to add an STB (my Bush STB used 4.3W on, 0.6W standby).

      So there's some facts. As for whether or not this program is a good one, no comment :)

      • FirstNameLastName on 14/09/2016 - 12:34

        I have some cheap 40" HD LCD Sonic.. the picture is ok but it draws 165watts, tested.
        I can dim it to 150watts but a pensioner with mac degeneration prob can't do that.

        I'd upgrade to a more efficient model if this deal were in QLD.

        By memory, CRT's of similar size were very power hungry, and hot.
        Furthermore, ancient CRT's can lose coating on screen, making them dim (I believe).

        Size/High-Def/Brightness/Power do matter when you are poor and ancient.

        • Rod71 on 14/09/2016 - 15:04

          26 inch crt's pulled around 100w. The money you'd save by dimming your tv down to 150w from 165 is negligible. How much money did you pay for the device to test the power consumption?

        • FirstNameLastName on 14/09/2016 - 21:14

          I didn't keep it dimmed when I saw the result :)

          the test device I got years ago for under 20 bucks.. it has been a great investment.. it can work out cost-over-time. It's currently saving me $7/month just on working out which of two fridges I should keep.

  • pork chop on 18/08/2016 - 20:45

    Wish the Vic gov offers the same incentives. I m in need of a new energy efficient fridge and tv.

  • xcal on 18/08/2016 - 20:46

    do i have to throw away my old tv and fridge? can i just keep it?

    • Klang on 18/08/2016 - 20:58

      Will be taken away by Good Guy.

    • Wormetti on 18/08/2016 - 21:00

      They have to take it or at least check a box saying they collected it.

    • pw1923 on 19/08/2016 - 20:22

      You could buy a cheap old drinks fridge off gumtree or buy swap sell FB page and give them that to take away, if your old fridge is still OK.

  • wfdTamar on 18/08/2016 - 20:51
    +6

    Samsung, Hisense and TCL?! Only through The Good Guys?! What a crock.

    Why is a government program tied to one retailer? That's like being tied to Telstra to get the Pensioners subsidy for your phone. A fairer way to do it would be use any retailer then have the subsidy paid to the purchaser.

    Why only these not very reputable cheapo brands? Again, pay a subsidy to the purchaser (after purchase is contracted if required to prevent use on the things), then they have the option to upgrade, using more of their own money ,to a better appliance than this cheap rubbish.

    Why are all the fridges top mount (I know they are more efficient, but surely some people would prefer bottom mount)?

    There are other better brands which would offer better longevity. Badly designed scheme which treats those on Centrelink as second class citizens.

    • DU99 on 18/08/2016 - 20:55
      +9

      what do you want 55"tele with a french door fridge..for some people it's better what they currently have..

      • wfdTamar on 18/08/2016 - 21:00
        +4

        Not that extreme, but better quality than this. I'm in Tasmania so it's academic for me. It just seems such a counterproductive exercise to be paying for appliances that have a short life and bad reputation.

        • jackspratt on 18/08/2016 - 23:39
          +1

          Samsung TVs and fridges have a bad reputation?

          Methinks your prejudices are showing.

        • argamond on 19/08/2016 - 16:17
          +2

          Can also vouch for a TCL tv. Very high quality and fairly energy efficient. Some people just want to pay more money just for a brand though

    • IceCreamBandit on 18/08/2016 - 20:59
      +1

      Why are all the fridges top mount (I know they are more efficient, but surely some people would prefer bottom mount)?

      You just answered your own question. The point of this offer is to help people move onto more efficient appliances…it's not about preference, it's about power efficiency.

      And I've never known Samsung to be a "not very reputable cheapo brand".

      • wfdTamar on 18/08/2016 - 21:02
        +4

        You want to do some research on it then. Samsung fridges and TV's are not very good (as far as longevity goes). They are big sellers, which is not the same thing.

        The difference in efficiency between top and bottom mount fridges does not warrant making top mount the only option. Concession card holders have a right to choice too. Some may need Bottom mount for access reasons.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join