The evidence shows the situation is more nuanced.
**The Star of the South Project Timeline:**
Australia's first offshore wind farm project, Star of the South, was proposed off Gippsland, Victoria.
The project specifications are largely accurate: at 2.2 GW capacity, it would supply up to 20% of Victoria's electricity needs and power approximately 1.2 million homes [1][2].
The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) claimed the project would create up to 12,000 manufacturing and construction jobs [3].
**The Approval Delay:**
Energy Minister Angus Taylor approved an exploration license for the project in March 2019 [4].
Historical reports indicate the project was "put on hold" awaiting the minister's approval [5].
* * * * 承認 nounShounin 遅延 nounChien : : * * * *
The delay between initial proposal and exploration license approval represented a period where the project could not proceed to the next phase of development.
**Key Timeline:**
- **2017**: Project initially commissioned by Copenhagen Offshore Partners (COP)
- **2019 (March)**: Coalition government approved exploration license under Angus Taylor [4]
- **2020 (May 11)**: Victorian Minister for Planning required preparation of Environment Effects Statement (EES) [6]
- **2021 (August)**: Victorian government approved scoping requirements [6]
- **2022 (December)**: Australian Government awarded Major Project Status [6]
**The "Blocked Construction" Characterization:**
The claim's language about "blocked the construction...for years" is misleading.
Between exploration license approval (March 2019) and Major Project Status (December 2022), three years of environmental assessment and studies were required—which is standard for major infrastructure projects [6].
While the MUA's factual claims about project specifications (12,000 jobs, 20% of Victoria's electricity) appear to be accurately sourced from project documentation, the framing emphasizes benefits and delays without acknowledging the regulatory development phase that was occurring.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor offshore wind policy Australia 2007-2013"
**Findings:**
During Labor's 2007-2013 period, offshore wind was not pursued as a policy priority.
* * * *
Labor's renewable energy focus was on (1) the Renewable Energy Target (RET), which primarily incentivized onshore wind and solar [8], and (2) the Carbon Price Mechanism (2012-2014).
The Coalition government, despite later criticisms about delays, was actually the first to develop the necessary regulatory structures (Marine Orders framework) to enable offshore wind exploration and development.
**Comparative Context:**
Neither major party had pursued offshore wind during Labor's time in office (2007-2013).
The Coalition was the first government to establish the regulatory framework enabling Australian offshore wind projects, though the approval process for specific projects (like Star of the South) involved delays that could reasonably be attributed to the novelty of the regulatory domain and required environmental assessments.
**Criticisms of Coalition Delays:**
The claim has some factual basis: the exploration license approval did take time, and in early 2019 the project was described as being "on hold" pending ministerial approval [5].
The Maritime Union of Australia specifically urged Energy Minister Angus Taylor to "proceed with exploration license" in February 2019, suggesting there was advocacy pressure for faster approval [9].
From a renewable energy advocacy perspective, these delays did slow the development of Australia's first offshore wind project and delayed the potential employment and emissions reduction benefits by 1-2 years.
**Coalition Government Justifications and Context:**
1. **Regulatory Framework Development**: The Coalition had to create the legal framework for offshore wind from scratch.
This required developing Marine Orders, environmental assessment protocols, and Commonwealth-state coordination mechanisms [7].
2. **Due Diligence on Novel Technology**: Offshore wind was new to Australia.
Thorough environmental and feasibility assessments were needed before approving exploration in Commonwealth waters, particularly given Australian marine conservation concerns.
3. **Broader Energy Policy**: The Coalition's overall energy policy prioritized energy security and reliability.
Offshore wind, while supported in principle by Taylor's approval, was one of multiple energy sources being considered [10].
4. **Political Economy**: The Coalition's energy minister may have been cautious about pushing a large new renewable energy project that could face resistance within Coalition ranks, given the party's mixed stance on climate policy during this period.
**Balanced Assessment:**
While the claim correctly identifies that the Coalition delayed approval of the exploration license (from project proposal in ~2017 to approval in March 2019), the characterization of "blocked construction for years" overstates the impact.
The Coalition can reasonably be criticized for the time taken to approve the exploration license, but it should be credited for developing the regulatory framework that made offshore wind development possible in the first place.
The Coalition did delay approval of the exploration license for Australia's first offshore wind farm project (Star of the South), and this delay did slow development.
Construction wasn't blocked; rather, the project proceeded through normal environmental assessment timelines (2020-2022) before reaching Major Project Status [6].
The delay in exploration license approval (approximately 1-2 years) is legitimate to criticize, but calling this "blocking construction for years" mischaracterizes both the duration and the nature of the delay.
The Coalition did delay approval of the exploration license for Australia's first offshore wind farm project (Star of the South), and this delay did slow development.
Construction wasn't blocked; rather, the project proceeded through normal environmental assessment timelines (2020-2022) before reaching Major Project Status [6].
The delay in exploration license approval (approximately 1-2 years) is legitimate to criticize, but calling this "blocking construction for years" mischaracterizes both the duration and the nature of the delay.