• In 30 days

[QLD] Queensland Households Will Get $1,000 off Their Electricity Bills in 2024–25 @ Queensland Cost of Living Rebate

3361
[QLD] Queensland Households Will Get $1,000 off Their Electricity Bills in 2024–25 @ Queensland Cost of Living Rebate
Go to Deal
Poor Ass on 02/05/2024 - 14:41 qld.gov.au (2203 clicks)
Last edited 02/05/2024 - 14:58 by 1 other user

Queensland households will get $1,000 off their electricity bills in 2024–25.

$1,000 will be automatically credited to eligible residential customer bills from 1 July 2024—there is no need to apply. Exact timing will depend on individual billing cycles.

To be eligible, residential customers must have an electricity account with their electricity retailer or embedded network provider on 1 July 2024 and be separately metered and charged for their own electricity consumption.

Look for the ‘Queensland Government Cost of Living Rebate’ on your bill.

Electrical & Electronics Electricity Rebate

Related Stores

Queensland Government
Queensland Government

Comments

      • CountZero on 07/05/2024 - 20:56

        The was a referendum to abolish the Upper House (the Legislative Council) that failed on 5 May 1917 (179,105 to 116,196). The Labor Government on their own recommendation appointed 13 Labor Members to the Legislative Council in 1918 and an additional 3 in 1919. In 1920, the Government under Premier Ted Theodore asked the Governor of the day, Sir Hamilton Goold-Adams to appoint additional members to the Legislative Council.

        The Governor declined to do so but retired in 1920 and on the appointment of the new Governor appointed 14 new members to the Legislative Council, all of them members of the Labor Party.

        • Tuba on 08/05/2024 - 02:28
          -1

          So, a clear demonstration of what was wrong with it in the first place… that then ended it? Or are you trying to convince me the upper house was never conservative at all… by highlighting its demise?

  • 2stroksmokr on 02/05/2024 - 14:49
    +4

    About time not means tested!

    • INFIDEL on 02/05/2024 - 14:57
      -2

      $1000 isn't means tested!

      • maxwellian on 02/05/2024 - 15:41
        +5

        That's what @2stroksmokr said?

    • AustriaBargain on 02/05/2024 - 16:23
      -1

      Well $1,000 means a lot more to the poor than the rich, so it is in a sense a bit regressive.

      • rob3 on 02/05/2024 - 21:21
        +5

        I care about $1000…..regardless of how much im making…its the ozb way :)

  • priceOfire on 02/05/2024 - 14:49
    +1

    SA is always indifferent

    • boomramada on 02/05/2024 - 15:08
      +2

      SA use that money on better use, ie building new hospitals. This isnt a deal, you just get your own money in different ways.

    • Koalabeer on 02/05/2024 - 16:26

      My 1/4 bill was $175 not fussed lol .. and I don’t live frugally

  • doobey1231 on 02/05/2024 - 14:51
    +16

    Keep your $1000 but only if you promise to spend it on fixing the root problem, rather than a bandaid fix like this.

    • Lesco Brandon on 02/05/2024 - 15:37
      +9

      You have too much faith in politicians

      • doobey1231 on 03/05/2024 - 08:29
        +2

        I want to have faith in the system we chose to run this country, its not like we have much else..

    • jaimex2 on 02/05/2024 - 16:46
      +7

      They can't do anything about it. We have a national grid, cashbacking it like this is pretty clever.

      Next option is disconnecting Queensland from the national grid, I dont think they can do that.

      • doobey1231 on 03/05/2024 - 08:31
        +1

        I don't think there is an impenetrable wall between our government systems, they worked together through covid..

  • R4 on 02/05/2024 - 14:52

    When it comes to taxpayers money, anything can be justified if the government wants it to be.

    • CrawlB4uBall on 02/05/2024 - 15:08
      +10

      As QLD electricity generation is mostly government owned, this is effectively $1000 worth of retail electricity given away at cost.

      • R4 on 02/05/2024 - 15:34

        Cool. If Queensland's government has money to burn, they should either be reducing taxes or reducing state debt - not this.

        It's not their money anyway.

        • sistermay on 02/05/2024 - 21:37
          +2

          Since when did our qld governent respect it is taxpayers' money they are wasting ? Only last week Steven Miles just chartered two private jets to simultaneously travel to the same destination - Townsville at $6000 ! It certainly can help some struggling families with their rent or petrol instead of making his ego feels great !!!

          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13342349/steven-mil…

        • ThithLord on 03/05/2024 - 09:18
          -2

          You are not the brightest tax-payer funded bulb, are you

          • R4 on 03/05/2024 - 09:59
            -2

            @ThithLord: Seriously? I don't know you from a bar of soap and your first reply is this?

            Pr1ck.

            • ThithLord on 03/05/2024 - 10:19

              @R4: Use the context of your comment I replied to, rainman. You have ZERO idea how the rebate works or how the QLD Government is able to apply them.

              Say good-bye to energy rebates once the LNP are in, lmao. You think your bill is gonna go down if the LNP get in?

              Having checked your profile, I see you're in Perth. Holy crap, you don't even have skin in the game - how pathetic.

              • R4 on 03/05/2024 - 10:28

                @ThithLord: Your post came up as a reply to my comment under my notifications - that's what I responded to Turbo.

                Tax and debt are universal to all governments - so my comment is valid. Pathetic that you can't see that.

                • ThithLord on 03/05/2024 - 10:29

                  @R4: You're on ozbargain for clown supplies.

                  • R4 on 03/05/2024 - 10:32

                    @ThithLord: Then I'm talking to the right person

                    • ThithLord on 03/05/2024 - 10:38

                      @R4: I got it all, for punters like yourself. Not quite the burn, m8

                      • R4 on 03/05/2024 - 10:46

                        @ThithLord: Yep, you're the complete package - I'm getting the impression that you know your product. A clown at the top of the clown gig.

                        Respect.

  • Flying Ace on 02/05/2024 - 14:52
    +32

    And it's coming out of coal royalties, as it should. Good decision.

    • INFIDEL on 02/05/2024 - 14:58
      +11

      Which of course the coal miners are politically campaigning against.

      • richadam on 02/05/2024 - 15:03
        +23

        Man I hate that propaganda add on TV from the coal mining group.

        • jaimex2 on 02/05/2024 - 16:48
          +4

          Good! I haven't met anyone who's fallen for it.

        • Sanitygone on 02/05/2024 - 21:30
          +4

          Noooo but you don't understand! It'll hurt Queensland's nest egg! Will somebody please think about the poor multi billion dollar profit earning multinationals? They'll definitely leave if we raise coal royalties! They definitely have somewhere else to go!

      • ghoulie1 on 02/05/2024 - 15:35
        +19

        How dare the state government give me $1000 back on my power bills?! I want that money to go to overseas coal companies instead!

        • INFIDEL on 02/05/2024 - 15:41
          +3

          I think overseas coal companies will accept your $1k donation😉
          Will help fund their expensive political advertising campaign against the Govt.

          • cashews on 02/05/2024 - 17:28
            +2

            @INFIDEL: I'd love to know how much the current coal advertising campaign cost. TV/radio advertising, billboards on the highways, must be up in the millions easily.

    • INFIDEL on 02/05/2024 - 15:03
      +17

      Well Melbourne, Queenslanders own most electricity production in Qld (Qld didn't sell out).

      There has been a dividend paid out as a reduction in electricity bills for so many years! Just larger now.

      Why weren't you complaining about the effect on inflation years ago if your claim is true??

      This is a quarterly payment to the electricity bill. Reducing electricity costs out over the year.

    • richadam on 02/05/2024 - 15:04
      +10

      Spoken like someone who doesn't know what they are actually talking about…

        • richadam on 02/05/2024 - 15:13
          +15

          This isn't a handout. It comes directly from the QLD government charging the coal and gas companies on the resources they make. It's a way for QLDs to actually benefit from the companies using their resources.

            • Tuba on 02/05/2024 - 17:43
              +3

              @PainToad: So is your wage… its extra money,
              Qld taxpayers benefiting from Qld resources like any investor does… your argument suggests the need for government to cut your wage… or add a tax to it… and prevent share price increases or dividend dispersal. You know, revenue from investment.

              • PainToad on 02/05/2024 - 18:39
                +1

                @Tuba:

                So is your wage… its extra money,

                your argument suggests the need for government to cut your wage

                The RBA is trying to slow wage growth.

              • tomfool on 02/05/2024 - 19:40
                +1

                @Tuba: I'm not gonna knock back the $1k, but the point being made is this is effectivly cash in hand as you have extra cash in your pocket due to it it will have add to inflationary pressure. A better use would be to invest in infrastructure that paid back productivity dividends to QLD like improvments in transport, or investing in green energy or some sort of job creation venture.

                • Tuba on 03/05/2024 - 00:17

                  @tomfool: Whats the rate of inflation…

                  Qld electricity prices have risen according to the ABC, 38% in the past year. Thats not inflation.

          • CheapBrah on 04/05/2024 - 14:37

            @richadam: By spending it they are increasing inflation, they should be paying down the state debt with it if they want to reduce inflation and really provide "cost of living relief"

        • killingtime on 02/05/2024 - 15:19
          +12

          It's not a handout. It's a lowering of price of electricity, as a credit. It's deflationary because it's price reduction. They reduced the price of electricity (as a 1 off).
          Am an actual economist lol

          • PainToad on 02/05/2024 - 15:20
            -8

            @killingtime:

            It's deflationary because it's price reduction. They reduced the price of electricity (as a 1 off).

            And people go buy a new TV with the money saved (adding to inflation) and keeps someone employed at JBs, keeping employment numbers high and extending the high interest rates.

            I’m not saying I want higher unemployment. But that’s what the RBA wants. I just wish the Government(s) and RBA could actually start working coherently together.

            • killingtime on 02/05/2024 - 15:30
              +6

              @PainToad: Inflation = rising prices. Deflation = decreasing prices. They are lowering the price of electricity = deflationary. I don't see how anything else is relevant? All those other points are well and good but have nothing to do with lowering the price of electricity, which is what this is.

              • BatmanAU on 02/05/2024 - 15:36
                -2

                @killingtime: I agree with PainToad, extra money in peoples pockets gets spent out there. I know that with $1000 on my bills would allow me say an extra $1000 on Netflix, coffee, Cinema, eating out, which we need to stop doing to send us into a recession.

                https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/a…

                • richadam on 02/05/2024 - 15:50
                  +2

                  @BatmanAU: Probably just will go towards this year's rental increases…

                  • PainToad on 02/05/2024 - 15:53
                    +1

                    @richadam:

                    Probably just will go towards this year's rental increases…

                    What about the older generation of empty nesters who have paid off house(s) and use little energy? Their “rebates” are going straight towards discretionary spending, driving up inflation.

                  • shutuptakemymoney101 on 02/05/2024 - 19:04

                    @richadam: The government has thought of that as well, adding extra holding expenses to Landlords so they sell their rental properties and lower the rental pool.

                    The bright side being of all of this that when you can't find a rental property and you're free-camping in a tent you won't have to worry about rental increases anymore.

                    • PainToad on 02/05/2024 - 20:25

                      @shutuptakemymoney101:

                      Landlords so they sell their rental properties and lower the rental pool.

                      I am so sick of this argument by landlords.

                      Less rent stock means there’s higher owner occupancy. Higher occupancy means less rental demand. Less rental demand means lower rental prices.

                      There is zero negative to forcing/encouraging slumlords to sell their investment properties except to the landlords.

                      • shutuptakemymoney101 on 03/05/2024 - 06:41

                        @PainToad: Lower rent stock = higher owner occupancy, I'm equally sick of this argument.

                        For various reasons not everyone wants to own and people who are renting now because they can't afford to buy a place of their own won't be given a magic wand to wave over their financial situation.

                        If the government isn't building social housing (how's their track record so far?) someone has to provide it. Putting more restrictions and financial burden on Landlords will only encourage them to sell or move to something they do have more control over like airbnb.

                        So to stay on topic that $1000 in question is nothing but a band aid solution used to garner votes in the upcoming election.

                        • PainToad on 03/05/2024 - 08:03

                          @shutuptakemymoney101:

                          they can't afford to buy a place of their own won't be given a magic wand to wave over their financial situation.

                          Investors being forced to sell their properties will help. 1) It will increase the amount of properties being listed, increasing supply of houses available to those looking for owner occupied. 2) Less investors will be in the market, less competition ie less demand. Driving down prices.

                          Putting more restrictions and financial burden on Landlords will only encourage them to sell

                          Good.

                          or move to something they do have more control over like airbnb.

                          Simple solution. Increase taxes on profits from short term accommodation.

                          For various reasons not everyone wants to own

                          I’ll say it again since you clearly don’t (want to?) understand. These people wouldn’t be any worse off. There will be less rentals available yes, but there will be equally less people wanting rentals because there will be more owner occupied. Houses aren’t going to sit empty.

                          The only people who suffer is the property investors and I couldn’t care less.

                          So to stay on topic that $1000 in question is nothing but a band aid solution used to garner votes in the upcoming election.

                          This I completely agree with.

                          • shutuptakemymoney101 on 03/05/2024 - 13:24

                            @PainToad: Great more houses on the market for cashed up interstate/overseas buyers - those who cannot afford to buy their own still can't but still need somewhere to live - congratulations though because your idea has just reduced the rental pool.

                            This really isn't rocket science to understand so I'm guessing this issue effects you personally as a renter and your arguments are based on emotions.

                            Then perhaps maybe you do know something that I haven't considered?

                            How does someone currently renting with limited income and no savings buy a house for themselves regardless of the price?

                            • PainToad on 03/05/2024 - 13:39

                              @shutuptakemymoney101:

                              Great more houses on the market for cashed up interstate/overseas buyers

                              Also more houses for people who can afford a house but can’t find one because 1) there’s so few houses being listed 2) loosing out slightly to investors.

                              those who cannot afford to buy their own still can't but still need somewhere to live

                              And? There will always be people who can't afford a house.

                              but still need somewhere to live - congratulations though because your idea has just reduced the rental pool.

                              I’ll say it for a third time. It doesn’t matter that the rental pool is smaller because there would be less people requiring a rental because more people would be an owner occupier.

                              How does someone currently renting with limited income and no savings buy a house for themselves regardless of the price?

                              They don’t. The issue is the market is so cooked now because of high immigration and so many property investors hoarding multiple investments that even those on good incomes can no longer get into the market.

                              Look if you’re a property investor, just own the fact you are 1) doing it for the profits, not to provide some great service to the community. 2) you are taking up stock that would otherwise have an owner occupier family living in. 3) probably making the area your investment properties are in look shit because you’re too cheap to maintain the property properly like an ow er occupier would.

                              Just stop trying to carrying on like you’re a hero saving them poor renters.

                              • shutuptakemymoney101 on 03/05/2024 - 13:52

                                @PainToad: Never said I was providing rental properties for altruistic reasons but if the government isn't building social housing those who cannot afford to purchase need people like me.

                                You seem very unconcerned that under your ill-thought-out ideas those with limited income are left to hold gladiatorial games with each other in order to secure a dwindled supply of rental properties.

                                Housing really is a complicated issue so don't think you have all the answers because clearly you haven't.

                                Have a good day Sir/Madam, I think I hear your Landlord knocking on the door;-)😆

                • eccles30 on 02/05/2024 - 17:20

                  @BatmanAU: Consumer spending is exactly how to stop an economy going into recession..

                  • BatmanAU on 02/05/2024 - 17:34
                    +2

                    @eccles30: We are heading for a recession, no ifs or butts, but as the article I posted refers to either a short one, or a long and painful one.

                    There is only so much money this useless Government can bring in through immigration to try keep the country afloat, but where do you house them and what do you do when this then encroaches unemployment rates, sending them higher?

                • killingtime on 02/05/2024 - 17:39
                  +1

                  @BatmanAU: Some will be spent, some will be saved. Even if 100% was spent though, it would just eat up this credit, so it's not inflationary, but just cancels this out. Given not everyone will spend 100% of this credit (some people will save some), it will be deflationary

                  • BatmanAU on 02/05/2024 - 18:20

                    @killingtime: Let’s wait and see. Obviously the banks know what’s happening as I have noticed a tonne of credit card deals over the past few days and when the banks are offering deals, usually financial pain is not far off.

              • PainToad on 02/05/2024 - 15:42

                @killingtime:

                I don't see how anything else is relevant?

                Because the economy is complex and all connected 🤦‍♂️ Everything has a flow on effect.

              • tomfool on 02/05/2024 - 19:43

                @killingtime: Are you an ecomomist for the QLD gov?

                This is not a reduciton in price its a rebate only available to households, I dont see anywhere that it is listed as a per unit reduction in the price of power, no business will benifit from it hence business costs remain the same.

        • eccles30 on 02/05/2024 - 17:18
          +2

          This is possible because the QLD government taxes the coal industry effectively now. (at least, more effectively than any other state)

          https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/coal-tax-hi…

          • tomfool on 02/05/2024 - 19:46
            +1

            @eccles30: Agree and they should be taxed more, its ludicrous how little miners are charged in royalties on resources, particularly oil and gas in AU. 

    • montorola on 02/05/2024 - 15:50
      -1

      Stay in Hellbourne with your crappy weather!

  • Willy Beamish on 02/05/2024 - 14:53
    +1

    How nice of them to give hard working tax payers some of their money back while doing nothing about the actual problem of (profanity) electricity prices.

    • nugstar on 02/05/2024 - 15:48
      +6

      "The $1000 Cost of Living Rebate for 2024–25 is thanks mainly to Queensland’s shareholding stake in the state’s energy assets."

      I mean…. it's directly linked to electricity prices in QLD though, just a bit roundabout.

      • ajole on 03/05/2024 - 06:41
        -1

        I love this argument from the government - “It’s not a handout RBA, we promise! It’s a dividend for the public!” Such. A. Joke.

        • Sanitygone on 03/05/2024 - 20:43

          i also hate having an extra $1000 in my pocket

  • CascadeHush on 02/05/2024 - 14:54
    +11

    Deregulate the Electricity Grid, they said. Privatise energy generation and distribution they said. Things will magically get cheaper and better for everybody.

    Rampant inflation, monetary mismanagement, absurd amounts of money sacrificed on the altar of ESG. The next generation saddled with a debt they will never be able to repay whilst population numbers plummet.

    But here, have this bread to go with your circuses as your entire civilization collapses.

    • Nuggets on 02/05/2024 - 15:10
      +20

      Queensland owns the vast majority of the generation in the state and all of the transmission. But go on.

      • beach bum on 02/05/2024 - 15:38
        +1

        What I think he meant to say was that when they proposed deregulation of the energy market , to make it more efficient by creating a wholesale and retail market , that by the power of capitalism and drivel down economics that somehow it would magically be better for all and not just a way for politicians and their campaign contributors to get very very very very rich .

        • 1st-Amendment on 02/05/2024 - 16:54

          that by the power of capitalism and drivel down economics that somehow it would magically be better for all

          The only magic here is that you think that the energy industry in Australia is a free market.

          just a way for politicians and their campaign contributors to get very very very very rich .

          Most energy companies are publicly listed. If you think it's easy money what is stopping you from investing and sharing the spoils?

          • Tuba on 02/05/2024 - 17:22

            @1st-Amendment: The easy money is the system was built … with taxpayer money… and purchased as bargains. You couldnt buy Coca Cola for the same ratio of price to profit, as the states assets are sold off… and unlike say Coke, theres no substitution so not only is it a monopoly or duopoly etc that you buy… but every one is a customer. It has value ratio far in excess of what a private market would expect.

            Ive lived under both, gas was state owned in Vic. My entire childhood my working class parents could afford to leave the heater on 24/7 and keep the house nice and warm… even toasty if you liked. Its a lot less affordable now. Well its banned in new housing now I heard but thats another issue.

            You dont sell the few assets that make money… unless you plan to cut the liabilities like health, schools, roads, things that just cost money. Yes yes, asset sales were injections of cash… sure… by that logic a CEO of any company can liquidate all the assets, including factories, and reap the profits, this year… we aint making anything anymore but that last year was probably a better year than any previous year for revenue just the same. Increased revenue… Bonus time.

            • 1st-Amendment on 03/05/2024 - 09:00

              @Tuba: Nothing you said answered my question. If this is easy money why don't you simply buy shares in the companies getting these bargains and profit?

              • Tuba on 03/05/2024 - 12:55

                @1st-Amendment: Yes it did.. I already own it. Taxpayer. You want me to buy my shares twice? What youre suggesting is closer to me buying back my own car from a thief. Or, just paying perpetrators of ransomware.

                Like its perfectly acceptable.

                • 1st-Amendment on 03/05/2024 - 14:55

                  @Tuba:

                  You want me to buy my shares twice?

                  If it is profitable to sell and buy back at a profit as you suggested then yes. Do you not like profits?

                  What youre suggesting is closer to me buying back my own car from a thief.

                  The only thief in the story is the government which takes money from you without your permission. Then when it gives you back a little bit of your own money, you prostrate yourself in front of them thanking them profusely for being so generous. Truly remarkable logic…

                  • Tuba on 04/05/2024 - 00:31

                    @1st-Amendment: You dont read too well. Name does not check out.

                    • 1st-Amendment on 04/05/2024 - 11:09

                      @Tuba:

                      You dont read too well.

                      Didn't answer the question… it's clear who is struggling here…

                      • Tuba on 04/05/2024 - 12:27

                        @1st-Amendment: LOL, you didnt understand the answer.

                        • 1st-Amendment on 04/05/2024 - 12:35

                          @Tuba:

                          you didnt understand the answer.

                          "You dont read too well" is not an answer. But the lame attempt at deflection is quite obvious…

                          • Tuba on 04/05/2024 - 12:36

                            @1st-Amendment: LOL… you havent understood an answer from a bit before that. Youre trying to control the narrative.

                            • 1st-Amendment on 04/05/2024 - 12:38

                              @Tuba:

                              Youre trying to control the narrative.

                              You're the one avoiding the discussing with lame deflection.

                              'Is not' is how 5 year olds argue. Try to do better than that…

                              • Tuba on 04/05/2024 - 12:40

                                @1st-Amendment: Try rereading and see where you went wrong… im not arguing your snippet control attempts.

                                • 1st-Amendment on 04/05/2024 - 12:47

                                  @Tuba:

                                  Try rereading and see where you went wrong…

                                  'Is not'…

                                • 1st-Amendment on 04/05/2024 - 15:21

                                  @Tuba:

                                  Try rereading and see where you went wrong

                                  I did, and I can't see it. So either it's you or me. And since you are the one continually deflecting from the discussion the only conclusion I can draw is that it's you.

                                  im not arguing your snippet control attempts.

                                  You are free to present any counterargument you wish. Being afraid of your own quotes is an interesting take. I've never come across that angle before. 'yOu'Re UsInG mY oWn WoRdS aGaInSt Me!!!'

                                  • Tuba on 05/05/2024 - 23:52

                                    @1st-Amendment: Counter? No, heres what you cant seem to find

                                    "a CEO of any company can liquidate all the assets, including factories, and reap the profits, this year… we aint making anything anymore but that last year was probably a better year than any previous year for revenue just the same."

                                    It was in the 1st post. Cherry picking is where you went wrong.

                                    • 1st-Amendment on 06/05/2024 - 09:01
                                      -1

                                      @Tuba:

                                      Cherry picking is where you went wrong.

                                      You just cherry picked your own post. Do you see the irony of this comment?

                                      Let's put this into context: "BY THAT LOGIC a CEO of any company can…"

                                      So what you were doing here is speculating on some imaginary scenario that never happened. This is not sound logic, hence why it was ignored.

                                      Now, if you actually had half a clue what you were talking about, a CEO can't just 'liquidate all the assets" without board and shareholder approval. In the case of public assets this is parliament and voters.
                                      So rather than come up with imaginary scenarios why not try some real ones and see how your wacky logic stands up to it?

                                        • 1st-Amendment on 06/05/2024 - 15:33
                                          -1

                                          @Tuba:

                                          Your family must be miserable… good luck.

                                          When you run out of logical arguments revert to Ad Hominem instead. So smart…

                                          No one said a CEO can liquidate…

                                          "a CEO of any company can liquidate all the assets"

                                          Are you autistic?

                                          Yes, that's how I can easily recognise it in others. Have you been tested lately?

          • ajole on 03/05/2024 - 06:44

            @1st-Amendment: Publicly listed companies and 10+ year long term capital investment strategy (like infrastructure build) do not mix.

            • 1st-Amendment on 03/05/2024 - 08:58

              @ajole:

              Publicly listed companies and 10+ year long term capital investment strategy (like infrastructure build) do not mix.

              Have you heard of BHP?

              • ajole on 03/05/2024 - 12:33

                @1st-Amendment: Very few BHP capital projects have 10+ year horizons

                • 1st-Amendment on 03/05/2024 - 14:56

                  @ajole:

                  Very few BHP capital projects have 10+ year horizons

                  Cool. So you accept that they have some, and we know BHP is hugely profitable, so which part about that 'does not mix'?

    • FuRyZ on 02/05/2024 - 15:25
      +9

      QLD's electricity infrastructure is majority government owned, not privatised. Powerlink is the government company which manages the distribution network. Ergon and Energex are both government owned as well.

      Its the retail market that sits above the wholesale market that was deregulated to sell electricity direct to consumers. They operate under the NECF or National Energy Customer Framework, all states except for Victoria operate under the NECF. There is a valid argument that these retailers shouldn't exist and the QLD government should just sell direct to customers.

      The discount the QLD government is providing is from the dividends that the government owned companies made selling electricity. So the government is directly passing on the profits it made, to make electricity cheaper for QLDers. Sounds like a win to me, thank god we didn't privatise our infrastructure.

      • ajole on 03/05/2024 - 06:56

        Funding it from the dividends of Qld’s electricity GOCs does not make the payment somehow immune to causing inflation. It does not make it “deflationary”. Government funding is fungible. Like it always has been with previous dividends it’s received from these (and all other) assets.

        Also by making it uniformly applicable to all residents - regardless of duration of residency, economic need, electricity consumption - REALLY makes it a handout and a real risk of increasing discretionary spend capacity of the whole state, which is inflationary.

        People on this thread who are claiming to be professionals/experts who can’t see this very simple fact need to seriously question whether or not they can separate their political/self interest/logic brains.

        • ThithLord on 03/05/2024 - 09:27

          lol your desperation and grasping at straws is quite funny.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join