Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 5:50:34 to 5:58:18
Debate over the budget expenditure and design changes of the Cheaper Home Batteries program, focusing on household take-up and impacts on electricity bills.
Topics: Energy storage, Government spending, Energy prices
Speakers: Hon Sarah Henderson, Hon Tim Ayres, Paul Johnson, Varun Ghosh, Unknown Speaker, Speaker 21
>> just I think that what we're missing is by jurisdiction. Is that what you were
>> and also the the reason that each project was withdrawn on a project by project basis please? >> Thank you. I >> I do want to just quickly go to the cheaper batteries program uh because I just want to clarify it was confirmed this morning that between 1 July 2025 and 27th September 2026 4.63 63 billion was expended on the cheaper home batteries program. uh I'm wondering given there was a a budgeted amount in the 2526 budget, uh could you please just take me through what was budgeted and what was actually expended in the financial year 2526?
So in the financial year 2526 uh $3.95 billion was expended
>> Was that in the Was that the budgeted amount or was that the actual
>> that was the expended amount?
>> 3.95. How does that compare with what was budgeted?
>> The budgeted amount was 3.4 billion.
>> 34 billion. So that's a half a billion dollar blowout just in that financial year alone. Do you know the reason for that?
>> That was the original project settings which ran through to the 1st of May was the reason for that.
>> What do you mean the original project
and um participants uh tended to choose to purchase larger
>> prior to the one of May 2026 design change. Are you a do you have the figure Mr. Johnson as to how much was expended
on the program? No, not not into intri
>> because when I have a look at the budget and the forwards, so around half of the $ 8.5 billion has been expended already. What is going to change? And I know Senator Smith was drilling into this prior, but I it's unclear as to how you are going how the department and the minister is going to reign in this program to meet the Ford estimates projections which are dramatically below what's been spent to date.
So the the rate of expenditure has fallen and um as I said the the one May changes on average reduced um subsidy rates by about 50%. And uh there are now six monthly step downs in the level of the discount um going forward. So that is uh going to lead to a reduction in expenditures.
>> Do you have any modeling to support that? Because when I look at what's forecast in the budget so if I look at the forward estimates so the act so you've got 2526 3.4 billion we know now that it was 3.9 billion in actual expenditure 2627 it's 1.46 2728 1.2 2 28291.1 and then 293096 million. I mean these are dramatic changes in the program. What modeling do you have to support that the changes in design will allow you to achieve what's been projected in the Ford estimates?
>> Um modeling was undertaken at the time that the government uh re adjusted the program last year.
>> Sorry Mr. Johnson, say that again. So
modeling was undertaken at uh this time last year to support those changes that were put into place and the government has undertaken to continue to monitor the take up of the program.
>> And do you um do you have a copy of the modeling with you?
>> No, I don't.
>> If I could have that on notice, please does the modeling that was completed show that these budget estimates in the forwards are accurate?
Well, it was the modeling that put underpinned the estimates.
>> So my question though is does the modeling show that you will a you'll be able to achieve what's in the Ford estimates which as I say is a dramatic change from 3.9 billion expended in the last financial year down to 1.2 billion in 2728 1.1 billion in 2829.
Well, well, I think what it means is that two million Australians are now going to get access to a home battery. >> Minister, if I could just ask Mr. Johnson could just be committed to answer the question. >> I'm I'm entitled to jump in. Um, two two million Australians will get access to a home battery. >> Uh, that means they will have lower electricity bills and it will be good for the electricity network. It is very a very popular scheme.
economic incompetence in terms of how this project has been managed.
>> This is
>> it was initially 2.3 billion blown out
to 8.5 billion. >> Lower electricity
>> spending money like drunken sailors minister.
>> Well, well lower electricity bills for Uh lower costs for Australians. Gas fire generation during the evening peak averaged 1,385 megawws down 50% year on year. That means lower bills for Australians, lower house, lower wholesale electricity costs. Batteries supplied more electricity than gas during the evening peak all the way through a whole uh and thousands of Australians, 2 million ultimately um I mean the seat of Hume, Mr. Taylor's seat is the sixth biggest take up. These are these are not Australians in the inner cities who are who are picking this up largely. This is >> electricity suburbs are going through the roof outburse households 2 million households >> their their costs are much lower and they're contributing to uh lower wholesale costs for the whole system. Now, if you think that's bad economic management, that explains a lot of things. >> I think it is. I think it explains that explains a lot of things. I think it is appalling economic roaring success program
2.3 billion could blow out to 8.5 billion. So poorly designed. It is gross mismanagement by you and your
>> It is a roaring success. Uh it is working for ordinary households. >> Mainstream Australia is one of the reasons that Australians are losing faith in your businesses. So 6,890 it shows households in the seat of Hume. >> Chris Bowen should not focus on let's just focus on outer suburban regional Australia.
>> If we'll just come to order for one moment please
bit of time on that. Sorry, Minister.
Minister,
>> really out of order.
>> Senators, >> senators, we have now come to the end of that block. I will
>> Mr. Johnson, if you could just be allowed to answer the question.
>> I will come back. You asked me to be strict on this. So, I will come back.
>> It's very rude of the minister to not even allow officials to answer
>> Let's look, we will keep we will keep coming back and forth. Senator Hodgins, may you have the call?