The Claim
“Tried to redefine what 'investment' means in legislation to include things where you expect to lose money. This is to allow the government to hand cash to fossil fuel companies, even when expected to be unprofitable and uneconomic.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The Morrison Coalition government did propose legislative amendments to redefine "investment" in Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) legislation specifically to enable funding of unprofitable fossil fuel projects [1][2].
The legislation in question was the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020, introduced by Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor on August 27, 2020 [3]. The bill explicitly expanded the definition of "investment" within CEFC legislation to enable regulations prescribing investment types that could operate "without financial returns"—effectively redefining investment to include projects expected to lose money [2].
The legislative proposals contained multiple provisions designed to enable fossil fuel funding:
- Redefinition of "investment" to allow investments without financial returns
- Redefinition of "low-emissions technology" to include gas projects previously excluded [1][2]
- Removal of renewable energy caps that previously required 50% of CEFC funds be invested in renewable energy [4]
- Delegation of investment criteria to the Energy Minister, allowing direct control over CEFC investment decisions [2]
Financial analysis confirmed the intent: Renewable energy projects funded by CEFC typically deliver approximately 7% return on investment, while the Morrison government proposed allowing gas projects to be funded even with expected losses [1]. The specific target was unprofitable gas infrastructure, particularly the Beetaloo Basin in the Northern Territory—Reputex analysis found this basin "highly marginal and likely uncommercial" without government subsidies [1][5].
Missing Context
The claim, while factually accurate regarding legislative intent, omits several important contexts:
1. The bill never became law. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment Bill 2020 was blocked by Labor in the Senate and subsequently lapsed when Parliament dissolved for the May 2022 federal election [3]. The legislation never passed, meaning the redefinition never took effect.
2. Labor actively opposed the changes. Labor explicitly opposed the amendments, with Federal Labor stating: "Gas simply not low emissions" and opposing "Taylor's CEFC power grab" [6]. Labor's Senate bloc successfully prevented passage.
3. Bipartisan expert opposition existed. Former CEFC Chair Jillian Broadbent and former ARENA (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) leaders called the proposed changes "flawed," warning they would "undermine [CEFC's] independence, low emissions remit, commitment to profitability" [7]. The Australian Conservation Foundation and environmental groups opposed the changes [8].
4. This was part of broader Morrison government fossil fuel support. The CEFC proposal wasn't isolated. The Morrison government committed over $500 million in direct subsidies for unprofitable gas projects, including:
- $50 million for Beetaloo Basin exploration companies
- $174 million for Northern Territory gas network upgrades
- $81 million for four new gas basin exploration plans [5]
5. Labor reversed Coalition's weaker CEFC mandate when in government (2022). Labor explicitly restored the CEFC's clean energy focus, lowered return targets to realistic levels (5% above bond rate vs Coalition's 3-4%), and increased CEFC's total investment capacity to $32.5 billion with focus on renewable energy and clean technology [9].
Source Credibility Assessment
RenewEconomy (original source): RenewEconomy is an Australian news website covering renewable energy and climate policy. While editorially favorable to clean energy expansion and critical of fossil fuels, it is a reputable source with consistent factual reporting on energy policy [1]. The publication is not mainstream media, but is recognized across industry and government circles for accurate policy coverage. The headline's use of "crazy" reflects editorial judgment, but the underlying facts—the legislative redefinition, the gas targeting, the financial returns issue—are accurately reported.
Supporting sources: Parliamentary records, ANAO investigations, and statements from former CEFC leadership provide independent verification of the core claim about legislative intent and provisions.
Source quality note: The original RenewEconomy article accurately describes legislative proposals, but editorial tone emphasizes the criticisms rather than explaining the government's stated rationale (grid reliability concerns, energy affordability). A fully balanced source would present both the government's energy reliability justifications and the critique about fossil fuel subsidies.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor attempt similar investment definition changes?
Search: "Labor government CEFC investment redefinition clean energy bank"
Finding: No equivalent Labor proposal exists. Labor's approach to CEFC has been opposite in direction—consistently focused on strengthening renewable energy requirements and opposing any weakening of clean energy mandates [9]. When Labor took government in 2022, it reversed Coalition's weaker CEFC criteria, restoring stronger renewable energy focus and updating investment mandates to prioritize clean energy over broader energy sources [9].
Key difference: The Coalition attempted to redefine CEFC to enable fossil fuels; Labor's position has been to strengthen clean energy focus. This represents a fundamental policy difference, not a shared practice.
Labor's fossil fuel subsidy record: Labor governments have historically been less direct in fossil fuel subsidies than the Morrison Coalition, though Labor has supported some coal projects (Hunter Valley coal mining support under Rudd/Gillard). However, Labor has not attempted the systematic redefinition of clean energy institutions to enable fossil fuel funding as the Coalition did with CEFC [9].
Balanced Perspective
Coalition's stated rationale: The Morrison government's stated justification for the amendments was "grid reliability" and energy affordability. Taylor argued that Australia needed gas infrastructure for energy security during the transition period. The Grid Reliability Fund was framed as necessary to maintain baseload power and prevent price spikes [4].
The counterargument (supported by evidence): However, independent analysis contradicts the necessity claim:
- Renewable energy plus battery storage can meet reliability requirements more cost-effectively than new gas plants [1][5]
- The Beetaloo Basin gas wasn't commercially viable—it required government subsidy support just to proceed [5]
- CEFC was designed specifically to fund commercially viable clean energy projects; redefining "investment" to remove return requirements undermined its core mission [7]
- The $500+ million in gas subsidies across the Morrison government could have funded equivalent renewable energy capacity [5]
Complexity acknowledgment: Government decisions involve trade-offs. Energy security during transition periods is a legitimate policy concern. However, the evidence suggests:
- This concern could be addressed through conventional government appropriations, not by corrupting a clean energy bank's mandate
- Renewable energy plus storage was available and increasingly cost-competitive as an alternative
- The legislative approach (removing return requirements, delegating to the minister) suggested the government knew these projects couldn't meet normal investment criteria
Why this matters: The claim reflects a genuine legislative proposal that reveals Coalition intent—not merely supporting fossil fuels as part of a broader energy mix, but redefining public institutions to enable subsidies for uneconomic projects. This is distinguishable from supporting existing coal or gas operations; it's about reshaping clean energy institutions to serve fossil fuel interests.
TRUE
8.0
out of 10
(with important caveat that legislation never passed)
The Coalition government unquestionably attempted to redefine "investment" in CEFC legislation to enable funding of unprofitable fossil fuel projects [1][2][3]. The legislative proposals explicitly expanded the definition of "investment" to allow projects without financial returns, removed renewable energy requirements, and were designed to target gas infrastructure that independent analysis confirmed was uneconomic without subsidies [1][5].
However, the legislation was blocked and never became law—Labor successfully prevented passage in the Senate, and the bill lapsed in the 2022 election [3]. The claim is accurate about the Coalition's attempted action and intent, but it's important to note this represents failed legislation, not implemented policy.
Final Score
8.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
(with important caveat that legislation never passed)
The Coalition government unquestionably attempted to redefine "investment" in CEFC legislation to enable funding of unprofitable fossil fuel projects [1][2][3]. The legislative proposals explicitly expanded the definition of "investment" to allow projects without financial returns, removed renewable energy requirements, and were designed to target gas infrastructure that independent analysis confirmed was uneconomic without subsidies [1][5].
However, the legislation was blocked and never became law—Labor successfully prevented passage in the Senate, and the bill lapsed in the 2022 election [3]. The claim is accurate about the Coalition's attempted action and intent, but it's important to note this represents failed legislation, not implemented policy.
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.