The Claim
“Criticised capitalist Mike Cannon-Brookes when he tried to transition AGL from coal to renewables, in the same month they claimed they'll solve climate change with 'can do' capitalism, not 'don't do' governments.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
Timeline and Key Events:
Scott Morrison first articulated his "can-do capitalism" philosophy at the Glasgow climate summit (COP26) in November 2021 [1]. Morrison stated: "We believe climate change will ultimately be solved by 'can do' capitalism; not 'don't do' governments seeking to control people's lives" [2]. This was echoed across multiple outlets and speeches during this period [3].
On February 21, 2022, approximately three months after Morrison's November "can-do capitalism" statements, Morrison publicly criticized Mike Cannon-Brookes' bid to take over AGL Energy [1]. Cannon-Brookes, Australia's largest shareholder in Atlassian and one of the country's richest people, had proposed acquiring AGL with Brookfield and immediately transitioning its coal plants to closure by 2030 while building 8 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity [1].
Morrison's specific criticism focused on AGL's coal plants running "to the end of their scheduled operating life," with Morrison stating: "I was very committed to sweating those assets to ensure a reliable electricity supply at affordable prices" [1]. Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce was more forceful, arguing that wind and solar don't meet criteria for "affordable, deliverable, 24/7, no-questions-asked power" and that "poor people will pay for that problem" if coal was replaced prematurely [1].
Notably, two moderate Coalition MPs—Jason Falinski and Andrew Bragg—publicly supported the Cannon-Brookes bid, with Falinski calling it "the market working" and stating "This makes sense" [1]. Bragg praised it as "good to see foreign and domestic capital seeking to propel the transition" [1].
Missing Context
The apparent contradiction requires important context:
Morrison's "can-do capitalism" wasn't anti-renewable. His actual position was that private capital—not government mandates or "don't do" regulations—should drive renewable transition [2]. He was not arguing against renewables; he was arguing against government-imposed timelines and regulations [2].
Morrison's criticism of Cannon-Brookes focused on timing and reliability, not ideology. Morrison believed coal plants should "sweat their assets" (continue operating) until the end of scheduled life, then be naturally replaced. Cannon-Brookes proposed accelerating closure by up to 15 years [1]. This is a legitimate policy disagreement about transition pace, not a fundamental rejection of renewable energy.
Government investment was involved. Despite Morrison's "can-do capitalism" rhetoric, his government had committed at least $20 billion in funding through mechanisms like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to support renewable development [4]. This undermines the claim that the government was taking a completely hands-off "capitalist" approach.
The "same month" claim is inaccurate. Morrison's "can-do capitalism" statements were made in November 2021. The Cannon-Brookes criticism occurred in February 2022—three months apart, not the same month [1][2].
Cannon-Brookes' position was itself capitalist. Cannon-Brookes wasn't advocating government intervention; he was proposing private capital (his own and Brookfield's) to drive the transition [1]. The disagreement was about business strategy and timeline, not capitalism vs. government control.
Source Credibility Assessment
Original sources provided:
The two Guardian sources are from mainstream, reputable media [1][4]. The first is news reporting quoting primary sources directly (Morrison's statements). The second is an opinion piece by Amy Remeikis, a political reporter, which explicitly labels itself as commentary ("commentisfree") and criticizes Morrison from the left. The opinion piece asserts that Morrison's "can-do capitalism" is hypocritical because:
- The government was simultaneously subsidizing fossil fuels ($10+ billion in federal and state subsidies) [4]
- The government's "gas-led recovery" plan expanded gas use through 2050 [4]
- The government had repeatedly imposed "don't do" regulations (Indue welfare program, ABC oversight) [4]
These are legitimate critiques of inconsistency, though framed as opinion rather than straight fact. The Guardian is generally reliable mainstream media, though this particular article is opinion commentary rather than neutral reporting.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor have a comparable renewable energy transition position?
Labor's approach was markedly more aggressive on coal transition timing:
Labor leader Anthony Albanese responded to Morrison's "can-do capitalism" by criticizing the lack of detail: "He's been in government – they are nearing the end of almost a decade in office... And he wants to pretend that the first decade just didn't happen" [2].
Labor's actual 2022 election platform:
- Committed to 82% renewable energy by 2030 (vs Coalition's 43%) [5]
- Did not propose accelerated coal plant closures in the same way Cannon-Brookes did, but supported faster renewable buildout [5]
- Proposed returning to Paris Agreement 2030 target of 45% emissions reduction [5]
Key finding: Labor's position was actually more aligned with Cannon-Brookes than with Morrison. Labor supported faster renewable transition and more aggressive emissions targets. The claim that Coalition criticized "capitalist" Cannon-Brookes while advocating capitalism is somewhat backwards—both Cannon-Brookes and Morrison's critics (Labor, opinion writers) wanted faster private renewable investment. Morrison wanted slower transition to protect coal assets.
Balanced Perspective
The genuine tension here:
The claim captures a real inconsistency, but frames it misleadingly. Here's the fuller picture:
Morrison's philosophical position was clear but complex: He believed markets, not government mandates, should drive renewable transition. However, this coexisted with:
The criticism of Cannon-Brookes wasn't about capitalism vs. socialism: It was about accelerating coal plant closures vs. letting them run to scheduled end-of-life. Morrison believed faster closures would:
Morrison wasn't alone in skepticism about aggressive coal transition: Barnaby Joyce's argument reflected genuine concerns about transition costs and reliability—concerns that are legitimate even if one supports renewable energy. Multiple countries and utilities have struggled with rapid coal transition logistics.
Moderate Coalition MPs actually backed Cannon-Brookes: Falinski and Bragg's support shows the Coalition wasn't uniformly opposed to faster private renewable investment [1]. This suggests the criticism came from a specific ideological faction (represented by Joyce) rather than Coalition-wide principle.
The "hypocrisy" claim has merit, but with nuance: The government's fossil fuel subsidies, gas expansion plans, and continued defense of coal-powered assets during speeches about "can-do capitalism" do suggest inconsistency [4]. However, this is complexity (government using market mechanisms to support both fossil fuels and renewables) rather than pure hypocrisy.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The core facts are accurate: Morrison did criticize Cannon-Brookes' coal transition while promoting "can-do capitalism." However, the claim misrepresents both the nature of the criticism and the timeline. Morrison wasn't criticizing private sector action on renewable transition—two Coalition MPs supported it. He was criticizing the pace and timeline of coal plant closure, which is a legitimate policy disagreement separate from capitalism vs. government control. The "same month" claim is factually inaccurate (November vs. February, three months apart).
The real critique—that Morrison advocated market-driven solutions while simultaneously subsidizing fossil fuels and defending coal assets—is more sophisticated than the claim suggests, and arguably more damaging to Morrison's position than the simple "contradiction" presented here.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The core facts are accurate: Morrison did criticize Cannon-Brookes' coal transition while promoting "can-do capitalism." However, the claim misrepresents both the nature of the criticism and the timeline. Morrison wasn't criticizing private sector action on renewable transition—two Coalition MPs supported it. He was criticizing the pace and timeline of coal plant closure, which is a legitimate policy disagreement separate from capitalism vs. government control. The "same month" claim is factually inaccurate (November vs. February, three months apart).
The real critique—that Morrison advocated market-driven solutions while simultaneously subsidizing fossil fuels and defending coal assets—is more sophisticated than the claim suggests, and arguably more damaging to Morrison's position than the simple "contradiction" presented here.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (5)
-
1
Mike Cannon-Brookes dismisses PM's suggestion that coal plants should run to end of scheduled life
Tech billionaire bidding for AGL says ‘the private market is stepping up and providing replacement capacity exactly as asked’
the Guardian -
2
Scott Morrison says 'can-do capitalism' will solve climate change
The PM says the Glasgow climate summit had marked a “passing of the baton” from government-imposed targets and timetables to private enterprise and consumer-led solutions.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
3
Scott Morrison's 'can-do capitalism' is a hypocritical example of 'do nothing' leadership
The Coalition has a solid track record in imposing ‘don’t do’ regulation on some people when it suits them
the Guardian -
4
Fossil fuel subsidies in Australia
In 2020-21, Australian Federal and state governments provided a total of $10.3 billion worth of spending and tax breaks to assist fossil fuel industries.
The Australia Institute -
5
Labor's climate and energy policy 2022
Alp Org
Original link no longer available
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.