In July 2015, the Abbott Government issued a directive banning the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) from investing in wind power and small-scale solar projects [1].
The directive was jointly issued by Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, directing the $10 billion "green bank" to cease future investments in wind power and rooftop solar panels generating up to 100 kilowatts [2].
Prime Minister Tony Abbott publicly confirmed the ban, stating: "It is our policy to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation because we think that if the projects stack up economically, there's no reason why they can't be supported in the usual way...
**The government's stated rationale**: The directive was framed as redirecting CEFC funding toward "new and emerging technologies" rather than "established" technologies that could attract private financing.
Abbott argued: "The best thing that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation can do is invest in new and emerging technologies, the things that might not otherwise get finance" [1].
**Senate blocking context**: The government had twice attempted to abolish the CEFC entirely through legislation but was blocked by the Senate [1][4].
This was noted as a genuine trigger for a double dissolution election [2].
**Crossbench deal connection**: The directive stemmed from a deal struck with Senate crossbenchers earlier in 2015 to reduce the Renewable Energy Target [1].
Part of that agreement involved ensuring "significantly" increased uptake of large-scale solar, emerging renewable technologies, and energy efficiency.
**CEFC performance**: By 2015, the CEFC had made $900 million worth of contracted investments in its first year of operation and was returning above the government bond rate [1].
The original source is **The Guardian Australia** (environment/2015/jul/12/abbott-government-extends-ban-on-renewable-energy-to-solar-panels).
**Bias assessment**: The Guardian is generally rated as center-left with a left-leaning editorial perspective [5][6].
Ad Fontes Media places The Guardian in the "Skews Left" category with "Reliable" news quality [6].
**Factual accuracy**: The Guardian article is factually accurate regarding the directive.
The article quotes multiple stakeholders including the Prime Minister, industry representatives, and opposition figures, providing multiple perspectives.
**Framing**: The article uses emotive language including "revenge politics" (quoting industry representative John Grimes) and notes that the move "will effectively throttle the industry" [3].
The article's framing emphasizes negative impacts on the renewable energy sector.
**Overall assessment**: The source is credible for factual reporting but employs framing that emphasizes criticism of the government action.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government renewable energy policy CEFC investment comparison Australia"
Finding: The CEFC itself was **established by the Gillard Labor Government in 2012** under the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 [1][4].
* * * *
The CEFC was created as part of the Clean Energy Legislative Package alongside the carbon pricing mechanism.
This represents a fundamental difference in approach:
| Aspect | Labor (Gillard/Rudd) | Coalition (Abbott) |
|--------|---------------------|-------------------|
| CEFC Status | Created in 2012 with $10bn funding | Attempted abolition twice; banned wind/solar investment when abolition failed |
| Renewable Energy Policy | Established CEFC to finance renewables | Redirected CEFC away from wind/solar to "emerging technologies" |
| RET Position | Supported expansion | Negotiated reduction with crossbenchers |
| Carbon Pricing | Implemented carbon price | Repealed carbon pricing mechanism |
**No direct equivalent action by Labor**: Labor did not ban the CEFC from investing in specific renewable technologies; rather, they established the CEFC specifically to support renewable energy deployment including wind and solar.
**Broader context**: The Howard Government (Coalition) originally introduced the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) in 2001.
Greens Senator Scott Ludlam called it "an extremely vindictive form of industrial sabotage" [1]
**Key context**: This action was **unique to the Coalition Government** in terms of specifically restricting CEFC investment in established renewable technologies.
While both parties have adjusted renewable energy policies, the directive to exclude specific technologies from CEFC consideration was a distinctive Coalition approach during the Abbott premiership.
**Practical impact**: The ban affected approximately one-third of CEFC solar investments and all wind investments.
The directive was part of a broader pattern of the Coalition attempting to limit CEFC operations after failing to abolish the corporation legislatively.
While the government provided a rationale (focusing on "emerging technologies"), the factual assertion that they banned these specific investments is correct.
The directive was part of a broader pattern of the Coalition attempting to limit CEFC operations after failing to abolish the corporation legislatively.
While the government provided a rationale (focusing on "emerging technologies"), the factual assertion that they banned these specific investments is correct.