Liberal rebellion on solar heats up

Colin Barnett is facing a backbench revolt over the State Government's decision to halve its rooftop solar panel subsidy, with a pair of Liberal MPs accusing the Government of lacking integrity.

The growing rebellion came as a letter from Synergy sent in 2011 emerged as a key piece of evidence in any potential legal fight over the changes.

The letter - sent soon after the Government cut the tariff in a previous revision to the scheme - says that customers entitled to the 40 cent payment would get it "for the full term of your 10-year contract".

Government MPs have been flooded with complaints from irate voters about the decision to cut to the so-called solar feed-in tariff from 40 cents to 20 cents, with the issue spilling over to the Federal election campaign as a vote turn-er against Liberal candidates.

Maverick Hillarys MLA Rob Johnson threatened to cross the floor for the first time in his 20-year career to vote against the measure, while Southern River MLA Peter Abetz said the Government had acted unethically.

Mr Johnson said the Government was acting with a "lack of integrity" by reneging on a deal with 75,000 solar panel owners in a bid to save $51.2 million over the next four years.

"I think it's a legal issue, but it's also a moral issue," he said. "For the sake of just $10 million a year . . . to renege on this and basically dud so many West Australians is a disgrace."

Mr Johnson said he would tell the Liberal party room tomorrow that he could not support the Government on the issue.

"To do this to the public who have invested their hard-earned money I find intolerable," he said.

Mr Johnson said he had been inundated with emails and phone calls, including from "good Liberal members" who had threatened to resign from the party or even vote against the coalition at the September 7 Federal election.

"I can't believe Barnett and (Treasurer Troy) Buswell would be so stupid as to risk all this for the sake of $10 million a year when you see how much they have squandered in other areas," he said. "You cannot break agreements with people.

"It diminishes the integrity of the Government and I am ashamed that we have done this to people - reneging and dudding people after they have put their hard-earned savings at risk."

Mr Abetz vowed to press the Premier on the issue this week and said, regardless of the legal ramifications, the decision was unethical and unnecessary.

He argued that the State's finances were strong enough for the Government to meet its commitment.

The political rebellion comes as leading Perth lawyer John Hammond issued a warning that solar installers - many of them small, family-run businesses - could be liable in the event of lawsuits from disgruntled homeowners.

Mr Hammond said it was possible the 2011 letter from Synergy, coupled with the "ambivalent" terms and conditions of the subsidy contract, meant the Government's position might not stand up in court.

But he cautioned that beating the State would be difficult and it was more likely that solar installers could be liable.

He described the situation as a legal "dog's breakfast" and criticised the Government for creating a "political problem" affecting consumers and small businesses.

"Based on promises the State made people went out and acquired this equipment and entered into contracts," Mr Hammond said.

"So that is the basis of the problem for the State because people incurred a loss by reason of promises of a 10-year subsidy."

Ian Milne, manager of Perth-based group Avant Solar, said he and other suppliers had invariably acted in good faith and the prospect of legal action against the industry was horrifying.

"We merely informed people about what was available and helped them with the paperwork but ultimately they signed a contract with Synergy based on promises made by the Government," he said.

Sustainable Energy Association chief executive Kirsten Rose said it would be "reprehensible" if the solar industry was made to pay for the mistakes of the Government.