The Claim
“Proposed using government funds allocated for climate change action to build a 1.2GW coal plant.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim is PARTIALLY TRUE but requires significant clarification. In April 2016, Coalition MP Ewen Jones stated on ABC's Q&A program that the government could use funds from Direct Action, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), and the Northern Australian infrastructure fund to support development of a 1.2GW coal-fired generator in north Queensland [1]. This was framed as powering the proposed Adani Carmichael coal mine.
The proposal was publicly discussed by multiple senior Coalition figures. In February 2017, Treasurer Scott Morrison stated the Government could use CEFC cash to build new coal-fired power stations, saying "It's the Clean Energy Finance Corporation — it's not the wind energy finance corporation" [2]. Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg also announced the Coalition was considering changing CEFC rules to allow coal power plant funding [3].
However, the claim overstates what actually occurred. The proposal was discussed and considered but never implemented. The CEFC Act (established under Labor in 2012) contains specific restrictions that effectively prevented this from happening. Section 65 prohibits the government from directing the CEFC to make specific investments, and the CEFC's 50% emissions threshold rules out coal plants [4]. The Coalition made multiple attempts to change these rules but failed [5].
Missing Context
The proposal never materialized. While Coalition figures publicly discussed using climate funds for coal plants, the CEFC's legislative framework prevented this from actually occurring. The $10 billion CEFC continued operating under its original mandate, and no coal plants were ever funded through it [6].
The CEFC was designed to be independent. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 (passed by the Gillard Labor government) deliberately created an independent body with investment guidelines designed to be resistant to political interference. The Act expressly prohibits investment in carbon capture and storage and nuclear technology [7].
Energy security concerns drove the proposal. The Coalition's discussion of coal funding occurred in the context of the 2016 South Australian blackout and broader concerns about grid reliability and baseload power. Energy Minister Frydenberg cited the SA blackout as a "wake-up call" and advocated for a "technology neutral" approach [2].
Economic realities prevented implementation. Analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance put the cost of new coal generation at approximately $160/MWh, compared to around $80/MWh for wind and solar. Energy experts warned new coal plants could double electricity prices rather than reduce them [2].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source, RenewEconomy, is a specialist clean energy news website founded by Giles Parkinson, a journalist with strong pro-renewable energy views. The site is generally factually accurate but has a clear editorial stance favoring renewable energy over fossil fuels [1].
RenewEconomy is not a mainstream neutral news source—it is an advocacy-oriented publication within the climate/energy sector. Its reporting on this issue was factually correct about the proposal but framed it critically. For balanced context, mainstream sources like ABC News and the Australian Financial Review also covered this story [2][3].
Michael West Media, cited in additional research, is an independent investigative journalism outlet with a focus on corporate accountability and anti-corruption. It has a reputation for rigorous fact-checking but also maintains an editorial stance critical of corporate and political entrenchment [5].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government coal power station funding Australia"
Finding: The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) took a markedly different approach to energy policy. Rather than funding coal plants, Labor established the CEFC in 2012 specifically to invest in clean energy technologies including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and low-emission technologies—explicitly excluding carbon capture and storage and nuclear power [7].
However, Labor's climate policy record was not without criticism. The Rudd government abandoned its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2009, and the Gillard government's carbon price was repealed by the Abbott government in 2014 [8]. Labor's "Power Failure" on climate policy has been extensively documented, but this centered on failed carbon pricing mechanisms rather than coal plant funding proposals [8].
No direct equivalent exists of a Labor government proposing to use climate funds for coal plants. The CEFC itself was created by Labor as a $10 billion clean energy investment vehicle, and its legislative framework—with the 50% emissions threshold and independence protections—was specifically designed to prevent the type of proposal the Coalition later discussed [4][7].
Balanced Perspective
The Coalition's consideration of using climate funds for coal plants was a genuine policy position, but it was also politically contentious and legally constrained. Multiple factors explain both the proposal and its failure to proceed:
Policy Rationale: The Turnbull/Morrison government cited energy security concerns following the 2016 South Australian blackout, Australia's Paris Agreement commitments (which allowed for "clean coal" technology), and the desire to support north Queensland economic development, particularly around the proposed Adani Carmichael mine [1][2]. The government had invested $590 million in clean-coal technology research since 2009 [2].
Legal and Practical Constraints: The CEFC Act's independent structure, the 50% emissions threshold, the prohibition on government-directed investments, and commercial realities (coal plants being economically uncompetitive with renewables) all prevented implementation [4][5][6]. The Coalition attempted to change the CEFC's mandate multiple times but was unsuccessful [5].
Comparative Context: This proposal was unique to the Coalition—no Labor government had proposed using climate funds for coal plants. Labor created the CEFC specifically for clean energy investment. However, Labor's broader climate policy record (failed carbon pricing, abandoned emissions trading schemes) shows both major parties struggled with climate policy implementation, albeit in different ways [8].
The claim implies this actually happened, which is misleading. The Coalition proposed and discussed this approach, but it never actually used climate funds to build a coal plant due to legislative barriers and economic impracticality. The CEFC continued investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and low-emission technologies throughout the Coalition's term [6].
PARTIALLY TRUE
5.0
out of 10
The claim that the Coalition "proposed using government funds allocated for climate change action to build a 1.2GW coal plant" is technically accurate regarding the proposal itself, but it omits critical context that fundamentally changes its significance. The proposal was publicly discussed by Coalition figures including Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg, and MP Ewen Jones specifically mentioned using CEFC and Direct Action funds for this purpose [1][2][3]. However, the claim fails to acknowledge that (1) this was a proposal/consideration, not an implemented policy, (2) the CEFC's legislative framework (established by Labor) prevented it from occurring, and (3) no coal plant was ever actually funded through climate funds. The framing implies this was a completed action when it was in fact a politically contentious idea that failed to materialize due to legal and economic constraints.
Final Score
5.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim that the Coalition "proposed using government funds allocated for climate change action to build a 1.2GW coal plant" is technically accurate regarding the proposal itself, but it omits critical context that fundamentally changes its significance. The proposal was publicly discussed by Coalition figures including Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg, and MP Ewen Jones specifically mentioned using CEFC and Direct Action funds for this purpose [1][2][3]. However, the claim fails to acknowledge that (1) this was a proposal/consideration, not an implemented policy, (2) the CEFC's legislative framework (established by Labor) prevented it from occurring, and (3) no coal plant was ever actually funded through climate funds. The framing implies this was a completed action when it was in fact a politically contentious idea that failed to materialize due to legal and economic constraints.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (8)
-
1
reneweconomy.com.au
Reneweconomy Com
-
2
abc.net.au
Scott Morrison says the Government could use Clean Energy Finance Corporation cash to build a new generation of coal-fired power stations, despite warnings from experts who say the technology could be twice as expensive as wind power.
Abc Net -
3
afr.com
The Turnbull government is introducing legislation to enable the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in carbon capture and storage technology.
Australian Financial Review -
4
legislation.gov.au
Federal Register of Legislation
-
5
michaelwest.com.au
Plans by Scott Morrison and Angus Taylor to deliver power plants across the nation are in disarray; the $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund has not materialised, green bank investment has shuddered to a halt and the $300 million fund at the heart of the National Hydrogen Strategy has vanished
Michael West -
6PDF
cefc investment policies 2025
Cefc Com • PDF Document -
7
finance.gov.au
Finance Gov
-
8
bridges.monash.edu
Bridges Monash
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.