Thousands to be hit with power bill increases as EnergyAustralia, Alinta confirm price hikes
Energy prices are set to rise for thousands of Australians with two of the country's biggest providers announcing increases.
Alinta will increase costs for NSW customers by 11 per cent, and the Daily Telegraph reports EnergyAustralia will also raise NSW prices by 8.7 per cent.
The EnergyAustralia increase will see NSW households pay an average of $215 extra in annual power bills, and small businesses would pay an additional $565.
Prices will also increase for households across other major states, including an 11.6 per cent increase for the ACT, 2.1 per cent in Queensland, 2.9 per cent in South Australia, and 2.3 per cent in Victoria.
The Daily Telegraph estimates NSW small businesses with Alinta will pay at least $236 extra, depending on what area they are based in.
Alinta will also impose a 5.2 per cent increase for Queensland and 6.5 per cent for South Australia.
Shadow Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Dan Tehan said the increases come after the Labour government "promised" Australians would see cheaper energy by 2025.
"Chris Bowen has failed dismally as Australia's energy minister and he should apologise to the people of NSW for his gross incompetence," he said.
"He promised that by the end of this year power bills would go down by $275 but this confirms they will go up by $1000."
EnergyAustralia Chief customer officer Kate Gibson said customers can reach out for support.
'We encourage any customers experiencing difficulty paying their energy bills to please contact us as early as possible,' she said.
'Through our EnergyAssist program, support can cover payment plans, staying-connected guarantees, energy efficiency advice, and, for small businesses, cashflow assistance is available.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Labor's Veteran Affairs Minister Matt Keogh's 'strategically incoherent' naivety on the Middle East war is cause for concern
Neville Shute's haunting Cold War parable On the Beach imagines Australia as the final, fading refuge from a nuclear apocalypse. 'The world will go on just the same,' says naval officer Peter Holmes, 'only we shan't be in it. I dare say it will get along all right without us.' The line captures a persistent illusion in Australian foreign policy: that we can remain untouched by conflicts beyond our shores. This delusion has become dangerously entrenched, reflected most recently in the Albanese government's hesitant response to war in the Middle East. On Wednesday, Veterans Affairs Minister Matt Keogh provided the standard government response to a question on ABC Perth about potential involvement in the Middle East. "It's not our primary focus area," he replied. "We are very much focused on our region." Yet only two days earlier, a Qantas Boeing 787 from Perth to Paris was forced to turn back more than seven hours into its flight, prevented from reaching its destination by the closure of air space over the Gulf. The geographical reality for an open trading nation like ours is that Australia has had a stake in peace in the Middle East since 1869, when the opening of the Suez Canal reduced the journey to Europe by weeks. Australian troops fought and died in the Middle East in two world wars, not just out of imperial loyalty but because it was in our interests. Our trading links have diversified, and freight handling is more sophisticated. Yet, Dubai, Doha, and Abu Dhabi are the first or last ports of call for nearly 400,000 passengers a month arriving or departing from Australia. Last year, more than 100,000 tonnes of air freight came by that route. As Australians, we should understand better than most that the threat to aircraft flying 30,000 feet over a war zone is not merely theoretical. Malaysian Airlines flight MH 17 Is one of three commercial airliners confirmed to have been brought down by surface-to-air missiles. Among the 298 people who died when the plane came down over eastern Ukraine were 38 Australians. What is unfolding in the Middle East is not an isolated conflict - it is part of a broader confrontation between liberal democracies and revisionist regimes. Iran, through its proxies, joins Russia and China in challenging the rules-based order that underpins global security. Australia's security and prosperity depend on that order. We are a trading nation that relies on open sea lanes, established legal norms, and stable regions. The notion that we can "focus on our region" while ignoring wider threats is strategically incoherent. In short, trade routes, military engagements, and energy security irrevocably bind Australia to the region. Far from being a distant or irrelevant conflict zone, the Middle East is - and always has been - part of Australia's geopolitical backyard. The Middle Eastern diaspora in Australia provides a human link to countries across the region and a profound interest in maintaining their sovereignty. Add to that Australia's historic resistance to nuclear proliferation and naivety of the Albanese government's attempts to distance itself from events in the Middle East becomes screamingly clear. Australia was drawn irreversibly into the geopolitics of the Middle East and, more broadly, the global system that binds the liberal democratic world together. The idea that we can stand aside from today's conflicts - whether in Gaza, the Red Sea, or the broader confrontation between open societies and authoritarian powers - is not just naïve. It is dangerous. Yet there is more to Albanese's foreign policy error than cartographic illiteracy and topographical detachment. The insistence of the intellectual Left to view every conflict through a colonial lens has created uncertainty about which side to support. The framing of Israel as a Western colonising force is no longer a fringe position on the Left. The resale to acknowledge the Jewish people's ancient historical ties to the Middle East and brush aside the significance of international involvement in Israel's creation has become mainstream thinking in Labor. Counter-evidence is dismissed through the selective use of colonial framing. The October 7, 2023, atrocities have not tarnished Hamas' reputation as freedom fighters. Open calls for the destruction of Israel, a genocidal objective incompatible with any liberation narrative, are discounted or justified. The narrative ignores genuine colonial regimes like China in Tibet or Russia in Ukraine, where national cultures are actively suppressed. Nick Cater is a senior fellow at Menzies Research Centre and a regular contributor to Sky News Australia
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Social media ban must look to future teen trends
The federal government plans to introduce its social media ban for under-16s by December. Announced to mixed reviews last year – parent groups were ecstatic, while mental health organisations have warned about the risk of isolating vulnerable teens and tech commentators questioned the data security trade-offs – the ban would eventually require all Australians to complete an age verification process to use Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and other social media apps. The exact parameters of the ban remain to be seen, and will need to pass parliament, but last week, the Herald reported eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant had advised the government to not restrict its new rules to specific social media platforms. Inman Grant is specifically seeking to include video platform YouTube in the ban, after it previously received an exemption due to its 'significant educational purpose'. According to the eSafety Commission's research, four in 10 young teenagers have been exposed to harmful content, such as eating disorder videos, misogynistic or hateful material, or violent fight videos, while watching YouTube. As the Albanese government finalises the details of its attempt to restrict social media on a national scale, the Sun-Herald believes it is extremely prudent to not include a discrete list of platforms the rules cover. Indeed, as Emily Kowal reports in today's Sun-Herald, there are emerging forms of online engagement driven by artificial intelligence, for which regulation should also be considered. Companion chatbots such as Replika and allow users to converse, call and exchange photos and videos with an AI 'friend'. The user can style this friend as their favourite character from a movie, a celebrity, or someone they know in real life. Loading It is not hard to see why child safety experts are concerned. The eSafety Commissioner said she had received reports of children as young as 10 spending hours on chatbots, which AI researchers say learn from their user, evolving to respond in ways to keep them talking for longer. Some bots are designed to be mean, others tend towards pornographic or other forms of conversation inappropriate for children. All collect information about their user, and few have any real mechanism to validate their user's age.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Thinking of salary sacrificing? Here's why you should, or shouldn't
Recently, a reader emailed me asking if I could take the time to explain salary sacrificing and novated leasing, saying they didn't really get it, and it 'felt like a scam'. And you know what, fair enough. By and large, your pay is a pretty easy thing to grasp: you have a salary, some of it goes to superannuation, some of it goes to tax, the rest goes into your pocket. You can get a pay rise, which will increase the amount that goes into those three respective zones, and ... that's about it. But when salary sacrificing enters the picture, this whole equation gets a bit wonky. In short, salary sacrificing is where you give up some of your take-home pay in exchange for either various benefits from your employer (such as a car, phone, or laptop) or to increase the amount of money you put into super. This comes out of your pre-tax salary, and so reduces the amount of tax you have to pay. What's the problem? Unfortunately, although salary sacrificing usually means a net benefit for both the employer and employee, it's pretty unpopular − only around 10-15 per cent of working Australians opt for it. And, yes, while a small business might not offer salary sacrificing to its employees, the majority of medium-to-large businesses do. What you can do about it So if you're also of the opinion salary sacrificing sounds like a 'scam', let me try and demystify it: Why would you salary sacrifice? When used strategically, salary sacrificing can have a huge benefit for employees, not just because of the tax savings, but because it can allow you to save money over the long-term. However, Kate Leaman, finance expert and chief market analyst at AvaTrade, warns that not all salary sacrificing arrangements are made equal, so workers should think carefully about the pros and cons before signing on. 'Those that offer the most value are ones that have clear, measurable benefits both now and later,' she says. Examples of these include sacrificing take-home pay for additional superannuation payments (which Leaman labels a 'clear winner' − because super contributions are taxed at just 15 per cent, rather than at your marginal tax rate), along with novated car leases, which let you pay for a car and its running costs via your pre-tax salary. 'These arrangements allow employees to make the most of their pre-tax income, enabling them to upgrade their lifestyle and invest in their future,' Leaman says. What should you be wary of? The primary concern when it comes to salary sacrificing is the reduction of your take home pay. While you may be getting some great other benefits, all of that means squat if your pay drops to a level where you start to struggle to afford bills/groceries/rent – something that can be easy to overlook. Leaman says it's also important to remember if you reduce your take home pay through salary sacrificing, you will continue to get that lesser amount when on sick leave and holidays. Negotiations concerning salary sacrificing can be complex, so it's best to ensure you've got a clear idea of what you're agreeing to before you sign up. When does salary sacrificing not make sense? As financial advisor Cara Williams says: 'Just because something saves tax doesn't mean it's the right decision.' Many workers can get sucked into the allure of salary sacrificing to get a shiny new car or laptop, and fail to think critically about what it may mean logistically (and, admittedly, many workplaces push salary sacrificing onto employees when it may not really make sense). Williams says it's important to analyse your options methodically, especially in the case of novated leases, where a personal loan (or not getting a car at all) might suit you better. 'If the bundled costs in a novated lease exceed what you'd normally spend, you don't plan to drive much, or you don't actually need to purchase a vehicle, it may not deliver value, even if it saves some tax,' she says. 'Salary packaging can be beneficial in some situations, but it's essential to understand the full picture, including costs, obligations, and how it fits into your broader financial life.'
