This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/coalition-clean-energy-finance-corporation
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| There's nothing illegal about stopping the 'green bank' waste | |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| Any suggestion that the federal Coalition is somehow urging the $10bn Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to act in an illegal manner is simply without foundation. The charge was levelled in a recent piece in Guardian Australia by Lenore Taylor, and it is a line that is being pushed by the Gillard government. | Any suggestion that the federal Coalition is somehow urging the $10bn Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to act in an illegal manner is simply without foundation. The charge was levelled in a recent piece in Guardian Australia by Lenore Taylor, and it is a line that is being pushed by the Gillard government. |
| The CEFC was established by the government to provide favourable access to finance for clean energy projects which cannot secure required funding through conventional means. The Coalition has been vehemently opposed to these activities, and we have made it clear that should we get the privilege of government on September 14, we will abolish the CEFC – which is to be funded by the government with yet more borrowed money. | The CEFC was established by the government to provide favourable access to finance for clean energy projects which cannot secure required funding through conventional means. The Coalition has been vehemently opposed to these activities, and we have made it clear that should we get the privilege of government on September 14, we will abolish the CEFC – which is to be funded by the government with yet more borrowed money. |
| Yes, it is true that we have urged the CEFC to desist from entering into contracts and meting out loans this side of the election, which is now less than 100 days away. But far from asking the corporation to act unlawfully, we have simply put forward a most logical proposition given the distinct lack of bi-partisanship for a very misguided policy. | Yes, it is true that we have urged the CEFC to desist from entering into contracts and meting out loans this side of the election, which is now less than 100 days away. But far from asking the corporation to act unlawfully, we have simply put forward a most logical proposition given the distinct lack of bi-partisanship for a very misguided policy. |
| It must be remembered that like the carbon tax, the Gillard government has no electoral mandate for the CEFC, which was established to provide favourable access to finance for risky clean energy projects that cannot secure necessary funding though conventional means. This in itself has the alarm bells ringing. | It must be remembered that like the carbon tax, the Gillard government has no electoral mandate for the CEFC, which was established to provide favourable access to finance for risky clean energy projects that cannot secure necessary funding though conventional means. This in itself has the alarm bells ringing. |
| Under the CEFC’s enabling legislation, the government is to make available funds of $2bn from 1 July to support the corporation’s activities. But there is nothing in the legislation or in the corporation’s investment mandate that compels the corporation to start inking contracts and issuing loans before the commencement of the official election caretaker period on 12 August. | Under the CEFC’s enabling legislation, the government is to make available funds of $2bn from 1 July to support the corporation’s activities. But there is nothing in the legislation or in the corporation’s investment mandate that compels the corporation to start inking contracts and issuing loans before the commencement of the official election caretaker period on 12 August. |
| If there was such legislative compulsion, this would mean that the CEFC would have to shovel money out the door regardless of the viability of projects put forward for financing. Not even this government could be so reckless and irresponsible. | If there was such legislative compulsion, this would mean that the CEFC would have to shovel money out the door regardless of the viability of projects put forward for financing. Not even this government could be so reckless and irresponsible. |
| So while there is no valid reason why the CEFC has to begin risking taxpayers’ money before the election, there does seem to be an indecent haste to do so. The corporation’s CEO Oliver Yates has revealed plans to write up to $800 million in loans to support clean energy proposals before the election with “active discussions” around projects involving $2bn. The nature of these projects and their proponents are not yet publicly known. | So while there is no valid reason why the CEFC has to begin risking taxpayers’ money before the election, there does seem to be an indecent haste to do so. The corporation’s CEO Oliver Yates has revealed plans to write up to $800 million in loans to support clean energy proposals before the election with “active discussions” around projects involving $2bn. The nature of these projects and their proponents are not yet publicly known. |
| Although the CEFC, which oddly describes itself as an “unregulated financial institution”, is underplaying their significance, its investment mandate clearly provides for both concessional loans and guarantees, which of course bring even higher levels of risk. | Although the CEFC, which oddly describes itself as an “unregulated financial institution”, is underplaying their significance, its investment mandate clearly provides for both concessional loans and guarantees, which of course bring even higher levels of risk. |
| And while the government is keeping borrowing for the CEFC off budget (on the dubious basis it is for “commercial investments”), it was revealed during Senate Estimates last week that all this means is that “there is a prospect of recovery of investment”. Even the benchmark return the CEFC is to adopt is the equivalent of an average of the five year government bond rate, which has a yield today of just 2.8%. By comparison you can achieve more than 4.5% on a five year bank term deposit with no risk whatsoever. | And while the government is keeping borrowing for the CEFC off budget (on the dubious basis it is for “commercial investments”), it was revealed during Senate Estimates last week that all this means is that “there is a prospect of recovery of investment”. Even the benchmark return the CEFC is to adopt is the equivalent of an average of the five year government bond rate, which has a yield today of just 2.8%. By comparison you can achieve more than 4.5% on a five year bank term deposit with no risk whatsoever. |
| The CEFC has nobly assured the Coalition that the government has never suggested an investment approach, timetable or destination of funds, there is no doubt both Labor and the Greens, who named the CEFC as their price for supporting the carbon tax, would love to have significant announcements to claim this side of polling day. | The CEFC has nobly assured the Coalition that the government has never suggested an investment approach, timetable or destination of funds, there is no doubt both Labor and the Greens, who named the CEFC as their price for supporting the carbon tax, would love to have significant announcements to claim this side of polling day. |
| Fundamentally, it is important to note that our disagreement is with the government, not the CEFC. The Coalition is typically not in the business of dishonouring contracts, but in regard to the CEFC, we reserve our right to review any agreements reached and to do whatever is responsible in stopping taxpayers’ money from being unnecessarily risked and wasted. | Fundamentally, it is important to note that our disagreement is with the government, not the CEFC. The Coalition is typically not in the business of dishonouring contracts, but in regard to the CEFC, we reserve our right to review any agreements reached and to do whatever is responsible in stopping taxpayers’ money from being unnecessarily risked and wasted. |