What are you willing to pay (or not pay) for our services?

Forum is closed.

Customers like you are using our bill simulator to tell us what services you think we should keep, reduce or improve and how much you want to pay for them. 

As of 5 June, the bill simulator results show:

  • Thirty per cent of people would pay an extra $2.50 or more to assist us in achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2025 or sooner, rather than the current 2030 target.
  • A third of customers are prepared to pay $6 or more for technology to alert them about water leaks or unusually high water use and provide access to real time water use information.
  • One in five people would pay an extra $2 or more to increase community education on water efficiency. 

What do you think? Use our bill simulator to have your say on what you'll pay at sew.budgetsimulator.com and leave your comments below.

This forum has closed & submission are disabled.

Tell your friends!

Get the link to this page to IM,
Skype or post it

7 months ago

The amounts stated, are they per invoice? I am a water recycler freak, however I would pay a small amount to alert me of water leaks.

7 months ago

I would pay extra dollar a month to be alerted of unusual extra usage of water that can be an indication of a leak.
I would also evaluate SOuth Water management performance on the efficiency of the service delivery which is reflected in the price. I want to see a 10 year plan for decreasing the costs.

7 months ago

7 months ago

On the whole, Australia is a very arid continent. However, we pay amongst the lowest $/L, and have perverse cost structures where discounts are given for using large amounts of water. The problem is bigger than South-East Water, but change has to start somewhere! Splitting the "service" from the "usage" costs is nice in theory, but has a demotivating effect when consumers can only affect a small component of their bill.
So, my suggestions:
Price should be increased fivefold; abolish bulk discounts; charge one usage fee and no service charge.

7 months ago

Pricing systems should not penalise eco-friendly co-housing.
We have 8 people in our household, and are consistently under target for water usage per person, and yet we are charged 3rd tier pricing. This is unethical and unfair.

7 months ago

I am willing to pay extra for new initiatives for environmental sustenance. Also happy to contribute to educational initiatives towards water conservation.

7 months ago

I'm not interested in paying any extra!!!
My water usage is always between $30 to $40 however I always pay over $20-0 on my bill for services added that are ridiculously over priced!
I am also told that if I install a water tank (that I have to pay for in full) it will help save water and reduce my bill!!! why should I do that when I know I don't use that much water!!!

7 months ago

I am a great supporter of the user pays principle.
Why should I be paying for parks and gardens that I never use at 68 years young?
I am happy to pay more for research and development of environments and better use of recycled water.

7 months ago

Yes, I would. But... not just to replace the paper bill, only for technology that adds to water saving. Too often companies say the technology is for the customer benefit but it is only for their own profit.

7 months ago

So what you are really saying is that so far 70% at least are saying they will NOT pay more?
Where is the information on how many results actually showed they wanted a decrease in costs or did NOT want these programs?
Failing to provide this information distorts the truth of your survey.
Try going without a few unnecessary overpaid upper management salaries and there is no need to increase any costs.
Higher charges are just price gouging and nowhere is there any guarantee that increased charges would actually be spent on any of these programs.
The public purse is drying up with no wages gr...

See where everyone is commenting from

Back To Top