"Over the past twelve months the Housing group rose 4.7%. The main contributors to the annual rise were Electricity (+23.6%) and Rents (+3.8%). "
ABS Inflation report Sept '25.

Remember when?....
"At the 2022 election, Labor promised to cut power bills for households by $275 a year by 2025 compared to before the election. " ABC

Footnote: The ABC aren't doing the Promise Tracker any more. I wonder why?

mhaze says:
"The main contributors to the annual rise were Electricity (+23.6%)." and "Labor promised to cut power bills for households by $275 a year."

I can see you are starting to get it but you need to make a few more connections for your understanding.

The whole point is there is a disconnect between the wholesale price (falling due to renewables ) and the retail price.

This is as a result of the business models of energy suppliers not political party policy.

It was announced today that there is so much electricity being produced by renewables that some Australians will be offered 3 hours of free electricity per day.

mhaze,

Yes, and if you dig into the ABS report, you'll find most of that spike is due to the expiry of temporary government rebates, especially in NSW and WA.

//"Electricity (+23.6%)" ABS Sept 2025 CPI//

In fact, the ABS explicitly notes that without the end of those rebates, electricity prices would have fallen in some areas, thanks to declining wholesale prices and new subsidies kicking in post-September.

//Labor promised to cut power bills by $275 by 2025…//

That promise was based on modelling from RepuTex in 2021, projecting reduced wholesale costs as renewables came online. And guess what? Wholesale prices have fallen - 27% year-on-year, according to AEMO’s latest report.

Retail prices haven’t dropped yet because of:

- Legacy contracts signed when prices were sky-high,
- Network and environmental costs still embedded in bills,
- And, as you helpfully pointed out, timed rebates phasing in and out.

So, while the retail relief has been delayed, the core mechanism behind the $275 promise - cheaper generation from renewables - is unfolding as expected. The delay lies in market lag and implementation, not deception.

//ABC isn’t doing the Promise Tracker anymore. I wonder why?//

They actually explained why.

It wasn’t due to some political conspiracy, they cited resourcing and methodology challenges. Let's not confuse discontinued public-service projects with media bias.

To summarise: quoting a CPI stat without its context, and ignoring structural shifts in the energy market, doesn’t disprove the energy transition - it just proves how easily complex topics can be reduced to gotchas.

Fester,

Your mention of “laughing stock” fits in with a piece I read this morning about Melburnians now laughing at their ridiculous government's machete bins and immediate bail for machete wielders and its overall ‘great success’ with law and order problems.

Net Zero, climate change that cannot be stopped, transition to wind and sun, are all the biggest jokes yet. The non-Liberal opposition members in Parliament should be laughing their heads off every time that circus clown Bowen gets to his feet, gesticulating and pulling faces. It’s pretty hard to keep bullsh.tting when you are laughed at. Bowen is a wonderful subject for online ridicule as well.

Fester,

Qantas flyers also get the joke about Net Zero, the "climate emergency”, and all the Bowen BS. Only 10% of them tick the box to pay a bit more to make their trip ‘carbon’ free when they book.

New analysis of the cost of the federal government’s latest New Zero Plan released today by the IPA has established that:

"Under the Treasury’s modelled Marginal Abatement Incentives (MAIs), a $290 billion tax burden would be required over a decade to meet a 65 per cent reduction in emissions from 2005 levels.
The annual tax haul, reaching a maximum of $29.7 billion in 2029, would be around five times greater than the largest annual amount collected under the Gillard government’s carbon tax introduced in 2012.
International literature suggests it’s unlikely governments can achieve their emission reductions targets without a carbon price significantly greater than the Treasury’s estimated marginal abatement incentives".