In seeking to prosecute its backflip on net zero and opening yet another chapter in the endless climate wars, the Nationals leader, David Littleproud, and other prominent conservatives have claimed Labor’s emissions reduction plans would cost Australians up to $9tn.
But the group who many quote for that figure, a network of climate academics called Net Zero Australia (NZA), say critics are “misrepresenting” their findings. They say the $9tn price tag is for a different figure, and isn’t the cost to be borne by Australians.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
Nonetheless, Littleproud and others like Pauline Hanson continue quoting the figure. The Nationals leader claimed in a Daily Telegraph article on Tuesday the transition “will cost every Australian $250,000”.
Asked why the Nationals still quote the figure, despite claims of “misrepresenting” the data, a party spokesperson replied: “Net Zero Australia has not disputed the $9tn figure. This is the whole-of-economy cost and ultimately Australians will pay the price.”
This is the anatomy of a disputed number.
202319 April
NZA, a partnership between academics at the universities of Melbourne and Queensland and Princeton University in the US, releases a project report saying that to achieve net zero, Australia would need to “attract and invest $7-9tn of capital to 2060 from international and domestic sources”.
The agency would later claim in November 2025 this was the figure from which the “the misrepresented costs” cited by net zero critics likely originated.
The academics found the additional cost of building an energy system to reach net zero emissions by 2050 would actually be about $300bn.
4 May
In a presentation launching the report, NZA director Prof Michael Brear points to the $7 to $9tn figure and states it “is not a direct indicator of our energy bills”.
He concedes it is “an immense sum” but stresses “most of this money should come from our international customers via export contracts”.
“Australians should not be paying for all of this. Indeed, maybe this is an immense opportunity for others to invest in our nation.”
9 July
Nationals MP and net zero critic Barnaby Joyce cites the figure in an interview with Channel Seven’s Sunrise, claiming “the alternative, and this [is] from Net Zero Australia, is $7 to $9tn by 2050” – which he calls “the alternative cost of renewables.”
Joyce cites the same claim on Sunrise again in September 2023.
20248 June
Littleproud makes his first public mention of the number, alleging on Sky News that Australians would get a “bill” for that amount.
A few days later, in a press conference in the Illawarra, Littleproud claims net zero would have “a $7tn to $9tn cost to the Australian taxpayer”.
202526 August
Andrew Hastie, then-shadow home affairs minister, cites the figure in an ABC interview after expressing his desire to dump net zero.
“That’s from an independent report done by the University of Melbourne, Queensland and Princeton – the Net Zero Australia report. I know you guys like to fact check. Check it out, the cost is huge,” he said.
17 October
Conservative campaign group Advance, which had lobbied Coalition MPs to dump net zero, tells supporters in an email that Labor’s net zero policy would “cost taxpayers $9tn”.
27 October
Nationals senator and net zero critic Matt Canavan cites a NZA report from July 2023. That report states “we are predicted to commit up to $9tn on the transition in the next 37 years”, alongside a graph depicting “cumulative capital”.
The report goes on to say “most of those funds will come from business, and some from households. Exports will be paid for mostly by overseas customers”.
“Governments will need to make a large, minority contribution to domestic transition costs – to make decarbonisation commercially viable for investors and affordable for consumers.”
November
Littleproud and other colleagues cite the $9tn claim numerous times as the Nationals and Liberals explain and defend their decision to drop a net zero target. Littleproud repeats the claim in statements and media appearances on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 November.
In a written press release on 2 November, confirming the Nationals’ backflip, Littleproud claims a net zero transition would cost “$250,000 per Australian”.
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price tells supporters in an email on 7 November: “Reaching net zero could cost a staggering $7 to $9tn dollars by 2060 – as estimated by independent experts.” Kevin Hogan also cites the figure in a Sky News interview.
5 November
As the Nationals’ campaign weaponising the figure reaches a peak, NZA releases a statement warning “different individuals and groups have been misrepresenting key cost estimates” from their report.
They say the $9tn figure refers to the cumulative capital investment needed to transform the energy sector, but that “the large majority of this capital investment should be underwritten by overseas customers and not by Australians” – and that “these projections are not indicative of ‘the cost of Australia reaching net zero emissions’”.
The statement does not deter Coalition members citing the figure: Littleproud, Hogan, Canavan and Price continue repeating the $9tn figure in the days after NZA’s clarification.
6 November
Energy minister Chris Bowen cites NZA’s clarification in parliament, claiming: “The party of Menzies has become the party of Sky News frenzies.”
7 November
On Guardian Australia’s podcast, Bowen accuses Littleproud of a “dishonest, fraudulent statement”, claiming the Nationals leader “just shrugged his shoulders” at the NZA clarification.
Advance emails supporters again on 7 November, citing a Institute of Public Affairs report estimating a $7 to $9tn figure.
That IPA report also cites NZA’s original figures.
11 November
Littleproud claims Labor plans “to spend $9tn on its net zero plan, putting Medicare and the NDIS at risk”, a claim he repeats several times in subsequent days.
18 November
Littleproud authors an op-ed in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, with a sub-heading stating “Labor’s $9tn net zero plan will cost every Australian $250,000.”
Hanson, who has railed against net zero and criticised the Coalition policy for not going far enough, claims on Radio National that net zero “is gonna cost us $8tn”.
Asked by host Sally Sara about NZA’s claim that figure had been misrepresented, Hanson replies: “I put it in my own press releases and I’ve not been pulled up about this at all. I don’t have the organisation at hand.”
Sara recites NZA’s clarifying statement, to which Hanson responds: “I totally disagree with you”.
Asked about their continued use of the $9tn figure, Nationals sources stand by their position. One source claimed the number could even be higher since the initial 2023 NZA report, claiming increased transmission costs and stalled efforts toward green hydrogen could see a wider price blowout.
19 November
Liberal leader Sussan Ley declined to repeat the $9tn figure when asked on Radio National. Asked what she thought the cost of achieving net zero would be, she replied: “the cost of net zero is for Labor to answer, not for us”.
Asked specifically if she thought the $9tn figure was accurate, Ley wouldn’t endorse it, responding: “I just know that the cost is blowing out under Labor… have you asked the PM what the cost is?”