24 March 2025

Budget to deliver more electricity bill relief for all Australians

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
85
Hon Anthony Albanese MP

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has extended Labor’s energy rebate in a pre-election budget promise. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

The Federal Government’s energy rebate will be extended until the end of this year to take another $150 off electricity bills, in a pre-budget, pre-election promise just announced.

With the Federal Budget to be delivered Tuesday evening (25 March) and an election due by 17 May, Labor has committed to give every household and about one million small businesses the extra automatic rebates applied in quarterly instalments.

This is in addition to previously announced rebates already being rolled out.

The budget will detail how the extension of energy bill rebates will cost $1.8 billion over the forward estimates.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers will outline Treasury estimates that the measure will directly reduce headline inflation by about half of a percentage point in 2025, and reduce household bills by 7.5 per cent on average nationally.

In flagging the budget initiative, Anthony Albanese said helping the family budget was the government’s number one priority.

The Prime Minister noted that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has already shown energy bill rebates being currently rolled out with the states to have directly reduced electricity prices.

He said in 2024, electricity prices fell 25.2 per cent but would have fallen just 1.6 per cent without energy rebates.

“On Tuesday night, my government will have Jim Chalmers do our fourth budget this term. Our budget is about helping family budgets,” Mr Albanese said on Sunday.

“Labor will take another $150 right off your power bills. Two payments of $75 each for every household.

“This is cost of living relief when it’s needed, right across the country.”

READ ALSO Unemployment rate steady as new analysis shows record average low

Dr Chalmers described the measure as “hip pocket help” for Australians feeling cost-of-living pressures.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s inquiry into the National Electricity Market will also be extended for 12 months.

The government says the ACCC’s enquiry is helping to ensure households and small businesses get fair deals from their energy retailers.

Energy reforms will help consumers to switch between energy plans to secure the best value for money, Mr Albanese said, and remove excessive fees and charges.

They will also ensure people get the concessions they are entitled to, potentially saving them hundreds of dollars per year.

“We are providing immediate relief on energy bills now while we continue to progress the overdue reform needed to deliver the modern, affordable and reliable energy grid Australians deserve,” Mr Albanese said.

For its part, the Opposition is waiting to see what is in the budget before detailing any further how the Coalition will provide long-term energy cost relief.

READ ALSO Labor and Coalition agree – hands off the PBS, Mr Trump!

Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor said there was “no ambiguity” that the Coalition would cut government spending.

“We’re making promises we know we can afford, but we’re going to see what is in the budget and how much headroom there is,” Mr Taylor told the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday.

With nuclear energy, government spending, cuts to the public service and migration numbers key Coalition policies heading into the election, Mr Taylor suggested specifics are still to be finalised.

He stressed, however, that public service jobs remain very much in the Coalition’s sights and could see a Peter Dutton-led government sack even more than the 36,000 employees it has already said will go.

“We don’t know how many positions Labor has put in place. We’ll find out more in the budget,” Mr Taylor said.

“The last number we had was 36,000. It’s been growing more, we know that.

“What we’ve been clear about is we want to get back to where we were when we were last in government.

“That shouldn’t be in areas of frontline services. It should be in the back office areas.”

The Prime Minister later said the comments reveal that the Opposition doesn’t understand what public servants actually do.

“The idea that there are people sitting around in Canberra doing nothing shows how out of touch Peter Dutton is,” Mr Albanese said.

Join the conversation

85
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
GrumpyGrandpa1:35 pm 25 Mar 25

How about permanently lower energy (electricity & gas), rather than a temporary rebate.

How? They’re privately owned companies. That’s capitalism?

I’ll take your $1200 and give you $150 back… now say ‘thank you Uncle Albo.’ Anyone wanna play guess what cup my latest $40b in fake promises is under?

When there is talk of charging those with rooftop solar for feeding into the grid then surely the answer is to regulate that when the power companies are being paid to receive electricity they should also be charging penuts for that electricity. 10-15c per KWh instead of the almost 47c (GST inc) that NSW residents are currently payingfor daytime electricity.

This way everyone benefits from solar energy by just switching the use of things such as washing machines, hot water systems and heaters or A/C units to daytime.

Time of use electricity plans already exist, you just need to shop around.

The retailer isn’t the one charging you to feed back into the grid. THAT is the distributor – evoenergy. Why should a retailer wear these costs? Big gentailers like Origin and Red, who are making a billion dollars in profit because they generate, they’re the ones to be going after.

Capital Retro4:28 pm 25 Mar 25

Are you channeling Chris Bowen, chewy?

CR,
In what way?

Do you think Chris Bowen provides factual information in response to comments and questions?

Politics is a cinch when you’ve got the magic pudding.

Not that I agree with govt returning surpluses if the money is spent sensibly but if your concern is deficit spending you’ll not be voting for Peter Dutton then I take it.

Dutton’s nuclear fantasy won’t happen (and he knows that) because the Energy Retailers & Generators (ie. the for profit companies who sign the cheques) have rejected it because it makes no economic for Australia. Too expensive, too slow, too many unknowns in a country with no nuclear energy industry and has a waste and public perception problem (they’re not proposing to build them in Dutton’s electorate) that they don’t want to deal with.

Dud Dutton will therefore faff about and do nothing like the Coalition did during their last 8 years in government while the remaining coal fleet continues aging and continues failing. Which of course suits Dud’s coal mining mates.

A vote for Dutton is a vote for higher energy prices and emissions.

I am unsurprised you have nothing to back that up with, meanwhile the Energy Generators & Retailers have already said. It’s not happening even if he wins.

As with everything you know zip about the energy market which does not actually run on culture wars and can therefore be ignored.

LOL
Cool rant. Nobody buys your evangelical nonsense and unhinged tantrum throwing.

A vote for Albanese and the Greens is a vote for more tent cities

@Ken as ever can’t argue a point because none of your opinions are based in evidence so you bravely resort to name calling from behind your keyboard. Pathetic really.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/feb/13/agl-half-year-results-rejects-coalitions-nuclear-option-and-doubles-down-on-big-batteries

@Futureproof….making stuff up as usual. Also can be ignored.

Your devoid of fact initial dummy spit aside, using the guardian evidence for anything is just hilarious. That place makes Jack D seem impartial. Keep up your screeching though. It conveys the correct image. 🤣

… using the guardian evidence…” I stopped reading at this point, clearly it’s an idiotic reply when the article is merely a report of what the major players in the energy market have decided which is on the public record.

I’ve come to realise you can’t argue energy and really you can’t argue any position and hold your own so name calling is a you have. Pathetic.

Gregg Heldon12:30 pm 24 Mar 25

Considering our electric went up last year, using less electric, after a $250 rebate, I hope I’m forgiven if I have a huge dose of cynicism.

So bills have gone up by $1,200 under Albo but he’s going to give us $150 relief. What a guy. Another couple of billion on the national credit card ?

Yet again Penfold, prove your not an evidence free zone? Citation is needed for your claim of $1200 increases in three years….

Geez JS9, don’t you ever do your own research ? 49% higher prices now than when Labor was elected. They really treat us like mugs don’t they.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-18/household-electricity-prices-gas-exports-nuclear-renewable-power/105060854

Why don’t you claim that electricity prices went up $12,000,000 under Albo? If you’re going to make stuff up the go the whole hog champ.

To many business Seano they did go up over $12 million. But that’s in the real world 😆

Penfold,
Great link outlining the reasons why renewables are cheaper and how Nuclear power is far more expensive and wouldn’t work in Australia.

Well done.

So where’s your made up number in there then Penfold?

Nowhere did I say prices hadn’t gone up, simply asking for credible evidence to support your claim of $1200 increases. Something you still haven’t provided, because you know as well as everyone else, its just something you pulled out of your backside.

Your posts continue to be evidence free zones.

The fact free ‘real world’ you live in.

Prove it then Penfold, we both no you won’t.

Also from the article you didn’t read and would fail to comprehend if you did:

“Even so, the cost of nuclear power is far and away the most expensive, according to global electricity cost specialist, investment bank Lazard.

… nuclear power is the most expensive at $US182 ($287) per megawatt hour.

The cheapest is onshore wind at $US50 a megawatt hour, beating solar at $US61.

Coal comes in at $US118 a megawatt hour, while gas peaking — the plants designed to cut in when power runs short — is the second-most expensive at $US169 a megawatt hour.”

lol You can’t beat the economics here with fantasy I’m afraid.

Tubbsy Ringer3:09 pm 24 Mar 25

Wait til you discover what Dutton’s nuclear plans do for the ‘national credit card’… although of course in the real world you speak of, the national budget is not in any way analogous with consumer credit. Although since we’re on the subject when did a Liberal govt last deliver a surplus eh?

LOL
Look at the “renewables” cult here, carrying on like a pack of rabid dogs.

Yes JS9, I wondered if that might be your lazy response. So despite all the evidence provided to you, the only thing you can write is “evidence free”. Very lazy commentary indeed. Are you Seano’s offsider ?

chewy, one wouldn’t expect anything less from the ABC, but that wasn’t the topic of discussion.

Once again you haven’t provided evidence Penfold, attempting to cast multiple people poking holes in your ridiculous claims is kinda weak…I note you’ve got nothing to say about the article YOU linked but apparently didn’t read highlighting how ridiculously expensive nuclear is and therefore why it won’t happen in Australia…you really need to stop commenting on energy mate, like Dutton you’re out of your depth.

“LOL
Look at the “renewables” cult here, carrying on like a pack of rabid dogs.”

Ken mate, adults are talking. If you can’t argue a point sensibly and it’s clear from your increasingly attention seeking, vacuous and nasty comments on just about everything that you can’t, then maybe log off and go for a walk and touch some grass before you blow a gasket.

LOL, Penfold discredits his own arguments then tries to backtrack.

Too funny.

Ken M – yes it’s quite a sight, nothing more to offer than “no evidence” or “you haven’t got a clue”. What’s become quite hilarious is that despite years of more renewables and higher power prices, the penny hasn’t dropped. 32 countries building nuclear power plants yet “they’re more expensive” based on dodgy political CSIRO reports. Record number of businesses shutting down or moving offshore due to energy prices – “where’s the evidence”. Canberra is such a sheltered bubble for some.

Seano, speaking of adults, any thoughts on comments like “GST should be removed from fruit and vegetables”. (there is no GST on them). And “the teals voted with Scomo often (there were no teals then). Is that the adults talking ?

LOL
Seano continuing to have an absolute meltdown, accusing others of doing what he has in that very post. This episode is hilarious.

Penfold, it’s not my fault you’re not smart enough to get jokes any more than it’s my fault that you have to resort to personal attacks when your arguments on energy get shot down because you don’t understand the energy market beyond coalition talking points.

So nothing to contribute to the discussion on energy Ken, because you can’t, sad. lol

Thanks Seano, will treat all your commentary as humour. Speaking of jokes, have you fallen for Jimmy’s one about him lowering power prices ?

Well I understand how the energy market works and that the best and quickest way to lower proper prices is to encourage investment in renewables…but then I know what I’m talking about and you clearly don’t.

Of course Seano, no doubt your energy market expertise is on par with your economic and political knowledge. You might even kid yourself that the 80% drop in renewable energy investment is the reason prices keep sky-rocketing under Labor, lol. How’s that 82% 2030 RET going ?

Gibberish.

You can read the Gencost report here:
https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25ConsultDraft_20241205.pdf

It helps to be informed before commenting.

Tubbsy Ringer1:59 pm 25 Mar 25

Many long lols at the idea that CSIRO are producing ‘dodgy’ reports about nuclear costings, but that Debtmaker Dutton’s super secret nuclear costings will be so reliable. Nuclear is by far the most expensive option for Australia. I don’t want my kids paying off Duttons Debts.

Thanks Seano, as I’ve previously pointed out you don’t need to go past page ix to see the problem. Nukes run at over 90% capacity and for over 80 years. The updated gencost report even points out their errors, perhaps you should read it

Penfold,
How’s your knowledge on capacity factors or the economic life of assets going?

No wonder you don’t like talking about details or providing evidence, every time you’ve attempted it, you’ve shot your own arguments down.

“You might even kid yourself that the 80% drop in renewable energy investment is the reason prices keep sky high”

This is too funny, I know some people describe the anti-renewable crowd as backwards or living in the past, but Penfold exemplifies it by consistently posting out of date material.

2023 was a particularly bad year for infrastructure investment pipelines which also hit the renewable energy sector, with a reduction in investment of 80% that one year.

The only problem for Penfold being that 2024 investment in renewable energy boomed, with $7.2 billion invested, the biggest year since 2018

https://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/news-resources/quarterly-investment-report-q4-2024#:~:text=Renewable%20energy%20investment%20reached%20new,along%20with%2010%2C000%20new%20jobs.

These debates are like shooting fish in a barrel but easier.

“Nukes run at over 90% capacity and for over 80 years.”…LMAO no they don’t. Absolute drivel. Fantasy level best case scenarios requiring massive on going investment, there’s no magical thinking getting around this fact:

“nuclear power is the most expensive at $US182 ($287) per megawatt hour.”

That’s not CSIRO analysis of Australia (where it’s more expensive because we’re starting from scratch), that’s what it costs in America, massively more expensive than renewables.

Meanwhile in Australia we don’t have a nuclear industry or decades of investment and experience. So even if we accepted your fantasy level best case scenario and ignore the massive ongoing investment to achieve your “80 years” fantasy (*snigger*) because you clearly think that plants designed for 30-40 years can magically just plow on for double that life cycle without massive ongoing investment (because you’re clueless) that’s not going to happen in the real world.

Dutton’s nuclear plan is a house of cards based on best case fantasy and magical thinking…Dutton’s plan literally assumes Australia will build nuclear plants faster than any country in history…it’s misdirection for the uniformed and the terminally dim.

BUT all this is moot because (and I get that facts don’t inform your opinions) the Energy Generators & Retailers have looked at Dud Dutton’s dodgy figures and rejected them…why? because successful for profit companies don’t make investments based on magical thinking and culture wars talking points.

Give it up mate, you’re embarrassingly out of your depth.

Thanks chewy – see above ! As for the Clean Energy Council, thanks for the laugh. Renewables investment in Australia is coming from a desperate Chris Bowen, meaning my taxes. If you pay tax then from yours too. Private investment is dwindling.

And here’s a tip – if your favourite renewable information sources tell you that we’re on track to achieve the 82% 2030 RET, they’re telling porkies. You sound gullible enough to believe them though. Maybe read more broadly.

Tubbsy do you ever ask yourself why nuclear is economically viable around the world yet apparently not, even though we have the raw materials and are going to be maintaining nuclear submarines as well ? There’s a bit of a logic void there.

Capital Retro4:24 pm 25 Mar 25

The rest of the world doesn’t have the CFMEU?

Ahh Seano, your comedy act is something to behold. If you repeat something enough times it must be true, right. It’s the foundation and guiding premise of the entire climate change hoax.

“The rest of the world doesn’t have the CFMEU?”

Even if I accepted this very dumb statement, definitionally Capital you’ve just admitted that Dud Dutton’s nuclear plan fantasy can’t happen here.

Lol ….not a genius.

“Tubbsy do you ever ask yourself why nuclear is economically viable around the world yet”

….because of the massively taxpayer subsidised investment decades ago….you really are clueless Penfold….unless Dutton invents a time machine nuclear is not economically viable in Australia.

PS. Here’s an example of your “economically viable” furphy in action in recent times:
“UK’s nuclear plant will cost nearly three times what was estimated”.

“Britain’s Hinkley C generator in Somerset is on track to cost about three times its original budget.

It was initially due to be operational in 2017 and to cost about $35 billion, but it is now not expected to open before 2031″
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/uk-s-nuclear-plant-will-cost-nearly-three-times-what-was-estimated-20240620-p5jna1

Thanks for playing…..*Game Over*

Penfold,
It’s factual investment information collected from industry.

If you’ve got different information, happy to see it.

Hilariously, if you weren’t showing your lack of comprehension again, its actually the exact same source where your 80% reduction figure came from.

As for investment sources, the vast majority is from private investment, so once again you are wrong.

“Nukes run at over 90% capacity and for over 80 years. The updated gencost report even points out their errors, perhaps you should read it”

Not sure what report you’re reading but the errors in your statements have been pointed out repeatedly to you and the actual Gencost report actually responds to these points showing why they are wrong.

Your ignorance is astounding.

“And here’s a tip – if your favourite renewable information sources tell you that we’re on track to achieve the 82% 2030 RET, they’re telling porkies. “

Here’s a tip, I’ve never claimed the government’s target will be met, so your strawman is as irrelevant as the rest of your evidence free comments.

Truly embarrassing for you.

So chewy you’re quoting the evidence i’ve provided and describing the post as “evidence free”. That’s quite some deduction.

I’m wondering if you and Seano sit together. Apparently it’s “game over” if some UK nuclear plant is over budget. Ever looked at Australia’s renewables rollout ? There’s dozens more nukes being developed around the world. France has some of the cheapest power in Europe with 75% nuclear. You two do provide a level of hilarity, more please. Young Labor members ?

“Ahh Seano, your comedy act is something to behold. If you repeat something enough times it must be true, right. It’s the foundation and guiding premise of the entire climate change hoax.”

You mean if I keep shooting down your meme level culture wars arguments and coalition talking points with referenced facts you’ll look comical…well yes, that’s the point.

Capital Retro7:57 pm 25 Mar 25

Is satire verboten in the Marxist doctrine you live by, Seano?

Penfold,
You haven’t provided any “evidence” for your arguments, you’ve misused source data in an attempt to create a point.

A point that is incorrect and not actually supported by that source data. Which I’ve pointed out. The irony of your own links disproving your arguments is quite amusing.

“Apparently it’s “game over” if some UK nuclear plant is over budget”

I’ve never said anything like this.

But it isn’t one plant over budget, the actual global data shows cost blow-outs are the norm for new nuclear plants.

But regardless, the Gencost data has used the cost of real builds as comparisons to what could be expected in Australia. They are direct comparisons.

“Ever looked at Australia’s renewables rollout ?

Yes, massive year on year growth in line with global trends.

There’s dozens more nukes being developed around the world.”

Ah, no there isn’t. Not remotely.

Global reliance on nuclear is only predicted to increase slightly in coming decades, even under best case nuclear forecasts. Nuclear is currently just over 9% and predicted to get to a maximum of 12% of global electricity production by 2050. Even under favourable assumptions.

Whereas renewable energy production and reliance, is going to more than double in the next 10 years, with around half of global electricity production from renewables by then.

Which isn’t actually surprising considering that in the early to mid 2000’s nuclear and renewables were similar in global production and since then nuclear has gone backwards, whereas renewables have more than doubled their global share.

I know it must be tough for you when the facts don’t align with your ideology.

Which is the obvious reason you’re so averse to reading and being presented with the actual data. The cognitive dissonance you exhibit must be painful.

Ahhh, the ALP has started its usual attempts to buy votes.

Lucky you, Australia. Albo and his sidekick aregoing to use some of your money to pay your electricity bill. How generous…

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.