The Opposition advised raising electricity bills when international prices rose, but the government kept bills low.
PN voices have repeatedly questioned subsidy sustainability and called for better targeting (which implies higher bills for some). A clean 'raise bills' Opposition statement is harder to pin to a specific quote — it's a rhetorical translation of the Opposition's targeting position.
PN voices have repeatedly questioned subsidy sustainability and called for better targeting (which implies higher bills for some). A clean 'raise bills' Opposition statement is harder to pin to a specific quote — it's a rhetorical translation of the Opposition's targeting position.
PN voices including the party's finance spokesperson have repeatedly questioned the fiscal sustainability of broad-based energy subsidies and at points called for better targeting — interpretable as 'higher bills for some'. The 'short lived' subsidy line has been attributed to Borg (see #M28 in this batch). But a clean, on-the-record Opposition statement saying 'raise the bills' has not been produced. Camilleri is summarising the practical implication of the Opposition's targeting stance. Mostly True — with the caveat that the Opposition's own framing is more nuanced than the rhetorical version Camilleri presents.
Did the Opposition really tell Malta to raise electricity bills
Camilleri framed the Opposition as having advised the government to raise bills when international prices rose. That requires checking against what the Opposition actually said.
What the Opposition has said
PN's economic and finance spokespeople have, throughout 2024-2026, questioned the fiscal sustainability of broad-based energy subsidies. The line that subsidies were 'short lived' has been attributed to Borg himself (see our M28 fact-check). The targeting argument — that subsidies should be focused on lower-income households — has been a recurring PN talking point and aligns with European Commission country-specific recommendations.
Better targeting in practice means some households pay more for energy, even if others continue to receive support. The rhetorical translation of 'better targeting' is 'raise bills for some'.
Where the claim gets loose
A clean, on-the-record Opposition statement using the exact words 'raise the bills' is not in the public record we could anchor. Camilleri's framing is the natural rhetorical translation of the Opposition's targeting position, but it's not a quotation.
Worth noting: the PN's own May 2026 energy plan, announced by Borg, actually pledges a 30% reduction in bills while keeping subsidies — the opposite of 'raise the bills'. The Opposition's position has evolved over the period Camilleri describes.
So is the claim accurate?
The Opposition's targeting position is real and is a kind of advice to the government — better-targeted subsidies do imply higher bills for some. 'Raise bills' is a rhetorical translation. Mostly True.
Verdict: Mostly True. Real Opposition stance, rhetorical translation.