.

The Coalition’s claims about their nuclear scheme are fraudulent. This fraud is clearest in their simplest cost: their current Australian electricity cost. My central evidence is three quotes from a Coalition website.

The statistical flaws are so blatant that we urgently need:

• an inquiry into the misuse of statistics in politics, and
• some way of deterring politicians from selling schemes based on invalid statistics.

Important decisions should NOT be based on invalid arguments. 

Even a single prohibition would be a great improvement: A guideline or law inhibiting politicians who cherry-pick data to sell a major capital project.

Here are some brief conclusions about Coalition cost claims, each supported by discussion.

---

Evidence: Three Coalition Statements

These three quotes from Mr Dutton’s website are the basis for many of the following claims.

(The cost of electricity is in cents per kilowatt hour, c/kWh.)

“Ontario … households pay around about 14 c/kWh. There are parts in Australia that will be paying up to 56 c/kWh.”

(Dutton’s website interview: 19/6/2024)

“In South Australia, people are paying 56 c/kWh … We are paying the highest cost in the world.”

(Dutton’s website interview, 19/12/2024)

“As for prices, consider South Australia. It has the largest penetration of renewables of any Australian state. South Australians are paying the highest cost for electricity in the country.”

(Dutton’s Website: Talk to CEDA: 23/9/2024)

---

They cherry-picked their Australian 56 c/kWh cost.

Conclusion: The Coalition found one South Australian Time-of-Use electricity plan with a high peak-hours usage cost of 56 c/kWh and picked this as a fair estimate of Australian electricity costs. It gives them a misleadingly high cost that suits their narrative that Australian electricity is the most expensive electricity in the world caused by renewable energy.

Evidence: The Coalition quotes of 19/6/24 and 19/12/24 suggest that the electricity plan with the 56 c/kWh cost is the Energy Australia, South Australian (SA) Power Networks Zone: Solar Max Residential Time of Use Plan with:

• Usage costs
  • Peak hour: 56.98 c/kWh
  • Off-peak usage: 30.80 c/kWh
  • Shoulder hours: 18.04 c/kWh
• Supply charge: 123.86 cents/day
• Solar export rebate: 4.5 or 10 c/kWh

If a law prohibited cherry-picking, the Coalition would not have been able to use this 56 c/kWh to compare Australian costs with costs in other places.

---

Their 56 c/kWh cost gives flawed comparisons.

Conclusion: The Coalition used the peak-hours usage cost of 56 c/kWh to compare Australian electricity costs with costs in other places. This ignores the other four cost elements of the above electricity plan, e.g., the costs at non-peak times of the day. It’s a stupid way to make a comparison because it often gives flawed results. It’s useful if you want misleading comparisons.

Evidence:

Considering only the 56 c/kWh usage cost, you’d say the 56 c/kWh electricity plan is expensive. However, the plan provides some households with cheap electricity; for example, a household with a battery and a battery management system could:

• charge their battery when grid electricity was cheap,
• use the battery electricity during expensive hours,
• rarely use expensive grid electricity, and
• change to a different electricity plan if the bill gets high.

The 56 c/kWh electricity plan does not deliver the most expensive in the world. The retailer markets this electricity plan because it’s the best for some households.

---

Their logic could equally pick 8 c/kWh.

Conclusion: The Coalition picked their Australian electricity cost of 56 c/kWh from a single usage cost in a Time of Use Electricity Plan. By this strange logic, they could have picked an overnight cost of 8 c/kWh rather than 56 c/kWh. Overlooking data like this 8 c/kWh cost is an example of cherry-picking, as ignoring evidence that doesn’t suit you is like leaving a green cherry on the tree. One could argue that Australia had cheap electricity based on this 8 c/kWh, but it would be a misleading argument on its own.

Evidence:

This 8 c/kWh is the overnight cost in the AGL Victorian Residential Night Saver electricity plan offers:

• Usage costs
  • Peak hour: 25.949 c/kWh
  • Off-peak hours: midnight till 6 am: 8 c/kWh
• Supply charge: 102.883 cents/day
• Solar export rebate: 3.3 c/kWh

We could reduce the use of this deception by punishing the cherry-picking because ignoring data is part of cherry-picking.

---

They ignored a higher NSW cost: 65 c/kWh.

Conclusion: The Coalition ignored an NSW electricity plan with a 65 c/kWh peak hour cost, higher than the SA 56 c/kWh. Using the Coalition’s strange logic, this NSW cost would destroy their false narrative that SA’s high penetration of renewables caused high SA electricity costs. This, again, is cherry-picking: ignoring the NSW cost that did not suit their narrative.

Evidence:

The NSW plan the Coalition ignored is from the same retailer and has the same plan name as the Coalition’s South Australian 56 c/kWh plan. They are both “Energy Australia Residential Solar Max Time-of-use” plans. The NSW plan offers:

• Usage costs
  • Peak hour: 65.44 c/kWh
  • Shoulder hours: 34.43 c/kWh
• Supply charge: 112.09 cents/day
• Solar export rebate: 5.0 or 10 c/kWh

The Coalition incorrectly conveys that SA’s high penetration of renewables causes high SA electricity costs. They say,

“In South Australia, people are paying 56 c/kWh” (19/12/2024), and

“South Australia … has the largest penetration of renewables of any Australian state. South Australians are paying the highest cost for electricity in the country.” (23/9/2024).

They argue that renewables have caused high electricity prices and that we should avoid renewables.

Using this NSW data and the Coalition’s strange reasoning, one could argue that NSW, with its high penetration of coal generation, has the world’s highest energy costs, suggesting we should reduce coal generation.

We could reduce the use of this deception by punishing the cherry-picking because ignoring data is part of cherry-picking.

---

They misuse their own data: False generalisation.

The Coalition claims that Australians pay four times more for electricity than Ontarians. However, this comparison assumes that all Australians always pay 56 c/kWh, whereas their 56 c/kWh electricity plan only has some Australians paying this sometimes. The Coalition has taken its narrow data as applying generally; it’s a false generalisation and has led to false conclusions.

They chose this 56 c/kWh plan as data and then misrepresented their own data. It’s a clear example of deliberate manipulation and deception.

Explanation:

The Coalition compares their Australian cost of 56 c/kWh with their Ontario cost of 14 c/kWh. As 14 is exactly a quarter of 56, they assert,

“We could be like Ontario, where … they’re paying about a quarter of the price for electricity that we are here in Australia.” (24 July 2024)

However, the Coalition also said,

“There are parts in Australia that will be paying up to 56 c/kWh” (19 June 2024)

That is, some Australians pay 56 c/kWh sometimes. This is not “all Australians pay 56 c/kWh all the time”, which is their assumption when they compare their Australian cost of 56 c/kWh with their Ontario cost of 14 c/kWh. They have exaggerated the reach of their data and drawn a false conclusion.

We could reduce this deception by punishing the cherry-picking, which produced their 56 c/kWh cost.

---

Renewables increase prices: False causation.

Conclusion: The Coalition falsely claims that renewables drive up electricity prices, using the example of South Australia (SA). This is false causation. SA does have both a high penetration of renewables and high retail prices, but this does not mean that one caused the other.

Discussion:

The Coalition said,

“As for prices, consider South Australia. It has the largest penetration of renewables of any Australian state. South Australians are paying the highest cost for electricity in the country.” (Dutton’s Website: Talk to CEDA: 23/9/2024)

A 2022 South Australian Productivity Commission report found: (1) While South Australia once had some of the highest wholesale electricity prices on the East Coast grid, the expansion of wind and solar generation has resulted in the state often having some of the lowest wholesale prices. (2) Despite this shift, customers have yet to see corresponding reductions in retail prices.

(SA renewables surge bringing down energy prices, but consumers miss out: Renew Economy: 11 May 2022)

Renewable energy does not drive prices up; it drives prices down.

The Coalition has found statistics to argue that black is white based on cherry-picking: ignoring wholesale prices, focusing on retail costs, and picking their 56 c/kWh from South Australia. We could reduce the use of this form of deception by punishing the cherry-picking.

---

Renewables increase prices: No causative mechanism.

Conclusion: The Coalition must offer a causative mechanism for its claim that renewables cause high electricity prices in South Australia.

There is a mechanism for the opposite, i.e., renewables reducing electricity prices. The Gillard government introduced a cost on carbon dioxide emissions to reduce emissions. However, the Coalition then repealed this measure. Currently, a subsidy supports renewables with renewable generation earning Large Scale Renewable Generation Certificates worth about 5 c/kWh. This enables renewable generators to sell electricity at negative prices and make a profit. Renewables often compete by bidding low to sell their electricity, and the 5-minute wholesale electricity price becomes negative. This forces coal baseload generators to bid even lower to avoid the costs of shutting down and restarting. This mechanism has a considerable impact. In South Australia, negative prices occurred for 34% of the December 2023 quarter. So, renewables foster market competition and drive down wholesale electricity prices. This tends to lower retail prices.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) National Energy Market dashboard shows low SA prices. It displays each state’s real-time, 5-minute wholesale electricity prices in $/MWh. During periods of abundant renewable generation, prices drop as generators compete by bidding low to supply the market.

• (AEMO: NEM Dashboard)
• The dashboard shows prices like 44.0 $/MWh = 4.4 c/kWh
• 44.0 $/MWh = 44.0 x (100 cents) / (1,000 kWh) = 44.0 / 10 c/kWh = 4.4 c/kWh

---

They use deceptive, ambiguous language.

Conclusion: The Coalition uses carefully crafted, deceptive statements that are arguably true yet convey a misleading message.

Discussion:

“In South Australia at the moment, people are paying 56 cents a kilowatt hour … [25 words omitted here] … We [some of us] are paying the highest cost in the world [some of the time].”

(Dutton’s website interview, 19/12/2024)

The statement is arguably true because you can hear the “some” as in the above square brackets. However, it becomes fraudulent when you hear “all” – and the conveyed meaning is:

“we [all Australians] are paying the highest cost in the world [all the time]”.

This statement is like Escher’s woodcut of ducks: the viewer flips between seeing black ducks flying to the left and white ducks flying to the right.

This is knowing deception. The precise language in these ambiguous statements requires a knowing and deliberate effort to sustain the deception while remaining arguably true.

We could reduce this deception by punishing the cherry-picking which produced the 56 c/kWh cost.

---

They compared apples and oranges.

Conclusion: The Coalition claims that Australians pay four times more than Ontarians for electricity by comparing (1) an Australian peak-hours usage cost of 56 c/kWh with (2) an average Ontario usage cost of 14 c/kWh. Comparing a “peak usage cost” to an “average usage cost” is not a valid or fair comparison. For a valid comparison, you must compare like with like.

Discussion:

We could reduce the use of this form of deception by punishing the cherry-picking which produced the 56 c/kWh cost.

The Ontario 14 c/kWh seems to come from (1) averaging the off-peak, mid-peak and peak usage charges of 8.7, 12.2 and 18.2 Canadian c/kWh, (2) adding 10% to get 14.3 Australian c/kWh, and (3) rounding this to get the Coalition’s cost of 14 c/kWh. (Edis, 2024)

---

Do not compare a maximum with an average.

The Coalition’s Australian cost is nearly the maximum Australian cost. Their Ontario cost is an average cost. Here, I compare two goal-kickers to show you can get the answer you want by comparing a maximum with an average.

Footballer	Total Goals kicked	Total games played	Average goals per game	Maximum goals per game
Buddy Franklin	1066	354	3.0	13
Tom Hawkins	796	359	2.2	8

One reasonable way to decide who the better goal kicker was would be to compare their average goals per game. Franklin is the better by this metric, with an average of 3.0 goals per game compared to 2.2.

However, if you wanted Hawkins to appear superior, you could compare Franklin’s average goals per game with Hawkins’ maximum goals per game. You might present this by saying Franklin scored only three goals per game while Hawkins has scored up to 8 goals per game. You might then assert that Hawkins was 2.7 times better than Franklin, as 8 ÷ 3 = 2.7.

This is tricky because it seems you are comparing like with like, i.e., goals per game for both payers, but you are comparing a maximum with an average.

(I watched the game when Franklin kicked his 13 goals. He was magic.)

As in this football example, the Coalition said:

“Ontario … households pay around about 14 c/kWh. There are parts in Australia that will be paying up to 56 c/kWh.”

They compared an (Australian) near maximum with an (Ontario) average. Inflating the Australian cost estimate like this invalidates their conclusion that Australians pay four times as much as Ontarians.

---

They have not sourced their data.

Conclusion: The Coalition said, “In parts of Australia, they pay up to 56 c/kWh”. Nowhere have they said which electricity plan includes this 56 c/kWh cost. Disclosing data sources helps others to investigate, encourages rational debate, and likely leads to more successful investments.

Discussion:

In this statement, the Coalition does (1) not reveal the electricity plan that gives them this cost, (2) not say this 56 c/kWh is a peak-hours cost, (2) not say the cost is less in other hours, and (3) not say this applies in South Australia.

Edis (2024) searched for a plan with a 56 c/kWh cost but only found the Energy Australia 57 c/kWh plan.

---

No aspect of these statistics is valid.

Conclusion: The Coalition’s presentation of current Australian electricity costs and their cost comparisons are flawed to a remarkable extent. Not one aspect of their analysis is valid.

Examining these Coalition’s arguments is an education in constructing biased statistics and delivering false messages.

---

We cannot trust the Coalition in simple matters.

Conclusion: The Coalition has misled us on “current Australian electricity costs”. This starkly reveals that we shouldn’t trust their more complex costs: their future nuclear reactor costs.

Evidence.

The Coalition has ignored other evidence opposing their scheme. For example, they urge us to follow Ontario into nuclear power but omit to say that Ontario Hydro went broke after building Ontario’s nuclear reactors and left Ontarians to pay a debt equivalent to 70 billion current Australian dollars via a fixed “debt recovery charge” in their bills from 2002 until 2018. (Edis, 2024)

You could argue that “ignoring other evidence” on a broad scale is also cherry-picking, so deterring cherry-picking would lead to proposals based on a fuller consideration of a fuller range of evidence.

For the more complex difficulties with the nuclear scheme, see another page on this site: The Coalition’s nuclear folly.

---

Dutton’s website provides most of this evidence.

Conclusion: The central evidence of the Coalition’s deception is from transcripts of Coalition interviews on Peter Dutton’s website.

Like hoons who drop wheelies in a stolen car and proudly post this online, the Coalition has caught themselves red-handed.

---

We need an inquiry into the misuse of statistics.

Conclusion: The Coalition’s deception about current electricity prices has been so blatant that the government must inquire into the misuse of statistics by politicians in public debate – and consider ways to inhibit this.

Discussion:

The inquiry could:

• closely examine the current Coalition campaign for nuclear power and other campaigns,
• develop guidelines for using statistics and financial analysis in public policy debates, and
• suggest guidelines or laws with suitable penalties to deter politicians from selling schemes based on invalid statistics.

---

Guidelines for using statistics in public debate

Some guidelines for using statistics in public debate: These guidelines came from considering the nuclear campaign’s electricity cost claims.

1. Avoid Cherry-Picking Data: Select data that provides a comprehensive and balanced view. Do not pick statistics that only support your argument while ignoring conflicting data. (Example: The Coalition picked a 56 c/kWh Australian electricity cost, ignoring contrary figures of 8 c/kWh and 63 c/kWh.)
2. Choose Appropriate Comparison Metrics: Ensure the statistics you use for comparisons are relevant and adequate. Using a single metric and ignoring others can lead to misleading conclusions. (Example: The Coalition focused solely on peak-hour electricity usage costs, neglecting other factors such as off-peak usage costs and daily costs.)
3. Use Reliable and Reputable Sources: Rely on trusted and credible sources for your data. (Example: The Coalition’s reliance on the 56 c/kWh Australian cost led to invalid comparisons and misleading talking points.)
4. Make Apples-to-Apples Comparisons: Make comparisons between equivalent data or scenarios. Comparing unrelated figures leads to invalid conclusions. (Example: The Coalition compared an Australian peak-hour usage cost with an Ontario average usage cost, leading to an invalid comparison and misleading talking point.)
5. Correlation does not establish causation: When two variables occur together, and you argue that one variable causes the other, present a causal mechanism supported by evidence. (Example: The Coalition misleadingly conveyed that the high penetration of renewables in South Australia caused high retail electricity costs without providing any causal link explaining how this occurred.)
6. Disclose Data Sources: Clearly state the sources of your data. This transparency builds credibility and allows others to verify your information and conclusions. (Example: The Coalition did not disclose the source of their 56 c/kWh electricity cost.)

---

Inhibiting cherry-picking

I only unearthed this abuse of statistics in December 2024, so I’m still thinking about how it could be reduced. I doubt that politicians would fence themselves in with laws – like the consumer protection laws against misleading claims about a product or service. Perhaps some guidelines would help.

Important decisions should not be based on invalid arguments. 

A single guideline against politicians cherry-picking data in debates about major projects could be a big step.

In a recent 7:30 Report, the Coalition’s Mr O’Brien accused Mr Bowen of cherry-picking Hinkley Point costs, but it’s the Coalition that has used extensive cherry-picking.

For example,

“In South Australia, people are paying 56 c/kWh … We are paying the highest cost in the world.”

(Dutton’s website interview, 19/12/2024)

Without this cherry-picked 56 c/kWh, the Coalition would not have had this statistic to support their claim and would have had greater difficulty in:

• misleading Australians about “current Australian electricity costs”, and
• conducting their six-month campaign for their vastly disruptive and expensive nuclear scheme.

Outlawing of cherry-picking would move us towards evidence-based politics with more rational decision-making. It could avoid wasting billions of dollars.

Determining the truth can be contentious, but assessing whether a political campaign has deviated from statistical and financial analysis guidelines should be relatively straightforward. Politicians could still make extreme claims, but the guidelines would reduce the authority of their claims by removing the supporting statistics.

For example, the government could create a tribunal of statistical and financial analysts with the power to examine politicians’ statistics after a complaint; if the tribunal found the politician had cherry-picked data, the politician might have to retract their invalid conclusions publically.

We pay politicians to advance the nation’s interests, not to cause chaos by fabricating “alternative truths” supporting wild schemes, like the nuclear scheme. This reckless behaviour risks squandering billions of dollars and Australia’s opportunity to become a renewable energy superpower. Politicians must challenge the Coalition’s statistics and support laws against this nonsense to strengthen our democracy against alternative truths. This is a national security matter.

The Coalition has gained traction through its misleading promotion of nuclear power. Any success of these tactics would encourage other campaigns to adopt similar strategies.

Laws or guidelines that inhibited politicians from cherry-picking data in some debates, e.g., capital project debates, could establish an educative standard. It could influence other political debates and even newspaper reporting.

---

Truth in Political Advertising Laws

South Australia enacted a Truth in Political Advertising Law (TPAL) in 1985. During state election campaigns, it is an offence to advertise using inaccurate statements that are misleading to a material extent. So, there are laws limiting freedom of speech similar to what I am suggesting.

A law outlawing cherry-picking in debates about major projects would be more restrictive than TPALs, as it would always apply to politicians. It would be more focused than TPALs, as it only applies to cherry-picking data.

This is the age of misinformation. We need more protection.

(Truth in political advertising: The Australia Institute)

---

Coalition leaders should resign.

The Coalition leaders should publicly acknowledge their flawed presentation of current Australian electricity costs or resign from parliament.

Perhaps I am naïve, but this blatant deception over these relatively simple costs has shocked me. The Coalition has blown its credibility by knowingly misleading Australians and maybe even the parliament. Every member of the Liberal and National parties should feel ashamed of this dishonesty, and every Coalition supporter should feel disappointed.

If this is the accepted standard of political debate, my faith in our political system and democracy is reeling. That is why I am suggesting an investigation into how we limit this sort of deception, perhaps via legislation.

---

Falsehood should not displace rational debate.

A Golding cartoon in the Age newspaper nailed it. The cartoon got a grim smile from me because, behind the humour, there’s the frightening reality that “alternative facts” now often displace rational political debate.

---

We must hold the Coalition to account.

The Coalition repeatedly vilifies the ALP for saying electricity prices would fall by $275. The ALP prediction was wrong, but this is a minor failing compared to the Coalition’s statistics presenting current electricity costs.

We must hold the Coalition accountable for misleading Australians with invalid statistics.

Evidence:

The Colation has vilified the ALP, for example:

“[The ALP] promised a $275 cut in electricity, it’s never materialised, and Australian families are suffering today because Jim Chalmers, along with Anthony Albanese, are probably the worst duo in our country’s history since Gough Whitlam – let’s be very clear about it.

(Dutton’s website interview: 17/12/2024 )

---

Consider copying the Coalition quotes.

I am concerned that the three key quotes I use could disappear from the Coalition’s website, so please consider making a certified copy of them.

---

References

Edis, Tristan: 2024: Ontario’s huge debt: Renew Economy: 30 Oct 2024)

---

Relates pages on this site:

The Coalition’s nuclear power folly

---

Updated 17 Jan 2025