In the general pandemonium surrounding the unveiling of the carbon tax package last week, it was easy to overlook the dodgy little purchase incentive that came as part of the bundle.  Shrink-wrapped to the side of the carbon tax box was something called the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC).

Behind the feel good name, this new bureaucracy is little more than a $10 billion, off-the-books venture capital fund, underwritten by the taxpayers and created for the sole purpose of providing generous loans and guarantees to highly speculative startups in the renewable energy sector. 

This shonky “Gillard Bank” will involve an unelected board, chosen by Julia Gillard and Bob Brown, picking winners with minimal public scrutiny, no apparent requirement for cost benefit analyses and no apparent tender processes with objective criteria to ensure value for money. In all probability the CEFC will direct funds to projects that conventional financiers wouldn’t touch because they would be deemed too risky. While the actual policy documents are silent on where the $10 billion will come from, Government sources have suggested the money will come from the issue of billions of dollars in government bonds.

If nothing else, this newfound fondness for the finance game goes to the heart of a long-running hypocrisy. During the Global Financial Crisis, Labor Members and Greens Senators were lining up to take pot shots at “greedy” corporate types from abroad who had grown fat off the back of dodgy loans to high risk customers.

Fast forward two years and suddenly the same people are perfectly happy to throw huge sums of money at the kind of companies most conventional financiers wouldn’t even let through the door. In this brave new watermelon world it appears that it’s perfectly OK to make highly speculative investments with other people’s money as long as the companies you’re investing in are part of an industry that is deemed to be “good.”

And then there’s the duplicity.  As the carbon sell got underway last week, Treasurer Wayne Swan told the ABC’s Madonna King that the carbon tax would not impact the Government’s ability to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13. What he forgot to mention is that the only reason that’s possible is because the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is funded “off-budget”.

Basically that means the Government can spend the money without having to account for it in the federal budget. It comes on top of another $18.2 billion of “off-budget” money they’ve already ploughed into the NBN. Without this neat accounting trick, Labor’s claims of future surpluses would be blown to smithereens.

The ability to hide almost $30 billion of spending “off-budget” is based on the highly dubious proposition that these projects will generate a commercial return to taxpayers. This in turn relies on the frankly heroic assumption that this Government is better at recognising value for money than the free market. Keep in mind we’re talking about people who saw good value in buying digital set top boxes at three times their market price and who couldn’t even give away roof insulation without making a multi billion dollar mess of it.

Based on the Government’s track record, it’s only a matter of time before this latest piece of economic absurdity explodes in a shower of rorting, blowouts, waste and cronyism.

Even if the Corporation does end up being funded by government securities, in practice it will make next to no difference.  The Government still has to pay the annual dividend, and at some point, the face value of the bond. It’s anyone’s guess as to where that money will come from if the entity the securities are bankrolling isn’t turning a profit or, more likely, has collapsed altogether. As such, it’s wildly optimistic to think taxpayers aren’t going to be left severely exposed.

But despite the obvious flaws in its design, and the abysmal policy implementation credentials of its creators, perhaps the most bizarre thing about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is that it is completely and utterly redundant. The Renewable Energy Venture Capital Fund and the Emerging Renewables program both do almost exactly the same thing the CEFC is supposed to do.

The difference with those programs is that there is no pretence that there will be a return to taxpayers and therefore the operating costs are accounted for in the budget. Of course, those two projects have operating budgets significantly more modest than that of their off-the-books sibling.  Regardless, when we already have two overlapping programs devoted to subsidising the renewable energy sector, it takes a naïve observer to believe that this one won’t be used as a slush fund for the Greens’ pet projects, as opposed to those that achieve value for money outcomes for taxpayers.

Speaking of which, it will be fascinating to see if any of the renewable energy firms starring in those taxpayer funded ads currently saturating prime-time are on the receiving end of any CEFC largesse.
Either way, even if the Corporation does try to direct funds to the most viable companies, the fact remains that at this point in time picking winners in the renewable energy sector is a mug’s game. The industry is simply too volatile for investors to have any sort of certainty. 

The Prime Minister herself admitted as much while launching the Emerging Renewables project last year. At the time Ms Gillard said there was a “high level of risk attached to future revenue streams which may be delayed for many years into the future.” Does that sound like an industry you’d like to invest borrowed money in? 

Unfortunately, unless Ms Gillard issues herself with one of her proposed licences to punt, there doesn’t appear to be much chance to stop her throwing our money at roughies. Personally I’d feel safer putting my hard earned on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation being another Labor fiasco.

Most commented

30 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      06:15am | 21/07/11

      Scott’s only miffed because he had his money in Greek bonds…....

    • No 1 Rosie says:

      10:21am | 21/07/11

      Yes Scott I would be miffed as well.

      I have just realized that factual topics discrediting this Gillard Labor Minority Govt is not of great interest to the public. I think it is because the vast majority have made up their minds they don’t like, respect and trust Gillard and just want the bad Govt she leads out.

      At the moment you have 10 comments, 1making a joke about it, the other 9 is with you but out of that 9 is a duplicate of 1 posting.

      Scott, I think you are not going to get too much interest because those supporting this Govt will not want to debate the obvious.

      Please keep the good work as the quicker we have Elections the better.

    • Steve says:

      12:52pm | 21/07/11

      No 1 Rosie. I believe the lack of comments about this issue reflect the lack of understanding about Government accounting terminology such as “off budget”

      There is also lack of understanding between repaying debt (created from the accumulation of budget deficits) and “returning the budget to surplus” By that i mean there is a large percentage of the population who believe that “returning the budget to surplus” is the same as repaying all their debt.

      It is frustrating that the coalition assume that the population has an understanding of these terms. They need to dumb down their language so that the majority of the population can understand it.

      If there is lack of interest it is born from lack of understanding.

    • Dee says:

      01:14pm | 21/07/11

      No 1 Rosie. Do you trust politicians?

    • Dee says:

      01:14pm | 21/07/11

      No 1 Rosie. Do you trust politicians?

    • Greg Wotson says:

      01:19pm | 21/07/11

      Seriously what is it with coalition MPs on here? Has someone cut their postal allowance for newsletters.
      Intersting Scott chosee W.D.W.G.D.A.S. as a Jimmy Buffett clip - by the look of Scott he is more familiar with CHESSEBURGER IN PARADISE.

    • Steve says:

      03:21pm | 21/07/11

      Greg Wotson. A member of the opposition publically applies some scrutiny to the Government’s economic dealings and you focus on his weight.

      It doesn’t matter which side of politics you follow, this type of scrutiny is exactly what an opposition is supposed to do. You have made a hurtful comment to someone doing their job well.

    • Gary Cox says:

      06:42am | 21/07/11

      Oh jeez how dodgy is that? That’s the first I’ve heard about it but my initial reaction is; does this government really have no concept of the value of other people’s (the taxpayer) money?

    • Super D says:

      07:49am | 21/07/11

      It’s the same trick they’ve pulled with the NBN.  The treatment of the nations finances by this government is a an unreported scandal.

    • Cate P says:

      07:57am | 21/07/11

      Answers:
      1: very. 
      2:  no.

    • Peter#1 says:

      06:47am | 21/07/11

      Don’t complain, Scott. It’s only $30 billion
      They have to keep their Greens masters and Union mates happy in order to retain government.
      After all, it’s not their money to lose, it’s taxpayer’s money and if it fails they’ll just impose another tax to recoup the money.

    • Brian Taylor says:

      07:39am | 21/07/11

      what’s going to happen when that 10billion is wasted?
      Nothing….
      just like the money wasted in the pink batts mess, the BER mess and all the other mess’s.
      you’d better believe that the Brown Bank of tassie will make that money disappear quick smart.
      Buying Bob Brown off hasn’t come cheaply has it Julia.
      you and him are both snakes of the lowest form.

    • Brian Taylor says:

      07:39am | 21/07/11

      what’s going to happen when that 10billion is wasted?
      Nothing….
      just like the money wasted in the pink batts mess, the BER mess and all the other mess’s.
      you’d better believe that the Brown Bank of tassie will make that money disappear quick smart.
      Buying Bob Brown off hasn’t come cheaply has it Julia.
      you and him are both snakes of the lowest form.

    • I Wideopen says:

      08:58am | 21/07/11

      another price of Brown the green’s cheshire cat. (Soon all we will see is his gloaing smile).
      First a badly thought out tax which has to be mostly given back to people at the beginning to sucker them in; next a fund quietly off-budgeted & then same sex marriage is creeping in to the mix.
      Not against it, simply do not understand how it will help green the world.
      This particular off-budget effort requires a real citizens revolt. Probably be Bill Shorten’s play thing - he’s getting shorter odds on being the PM/leader

    • Anna C says:

      09:37am | 21/07/11

      What an absolute rort. The Greens must be deliriously happy as now they have a nice trough of money to hand out to their environmentalist mates under the pretence of funding renewable energy projects. This must be why you can’t wipe the smile of Christine Milne’s face lately. She looks delusional and in need of a straight jacket.

      Labor is a bloody disgrace for letting this happen. Taxpayers money should not be used in this manner. What an absolute joke this government is.

    • gnome says:

      09:48am | 21/07/11

      Don’t worry, it won’t last past the next election, and even green spenders can’t gear up fast enough to get their hooks into $10,000,000,000 (yes it is a big number)  before then. 

      Equally dodgy is the unaccounted for $4 billion which the government also has to find before it can declare a balanced budget.  I am giving good odds to anyone willing to bet that the measures to manage this will be touted as consequences of a “carbon” tax.

    • I Wideopen says:

      12:19pm | 21/07/11

      yes, that’s it. they will appropriate it in before having to pay it out.
      like everything people do when they want to hide stuff.
      Same with this tax on miners - only picked up to hide the hoe from their unbelievable over spending on keeping us out of the GFC. Ironically, China actually did that for us and now we are all suffering from $900 loss hangover and a stuffed business confidence.
      Brown certainly did get his pound of flesh.  Unfortunately no Portia around to stop him getting the blood too.
      And boy he is spilling that.
      BEst renewable use for the Brown fund is Tasmania - Dam the Franklin. very clamate friendly

    • TimB says:

      10:25am | 21/07/11

      I’d like to know how *anything* can be “off-budget”

      The money has to come from somewhere. Do we just have an unexplained hole sitting in “general expenses” or something?

    • jf says:

      11:31am | 21/07/11

      It would be accounted for as a capital item not an expense item I’d imagine. Con artistry of the highest order.

    • Steve says:

      02:25pm | 21/07/11

      TimB. Try thinking of it in terms of a company. Every year they record a profit or loss. In Government budget terms they record a surplus or deficit.

      If a company buys an asset it is not an expense so the purchase of the asset does not directly influece the profit and loss. Of course the asset has to be paid for and this might have been done by raising a loan. (future interest payments on the loan will be recorded as an expense and affect the profit and loss.)

      In the same way the NBN is being accounted for as an income producing assett and is off budget. Yes money has to be borrowed for it which is why the treasurer recently lifted our nation’s borrowing limit to $200 billion ($150 billion of Swann’s first 5 deficits plus an extra $50 billion for NBN in rough terms)

      The case for the NBN being “off budget” is stronger than the case for the CEFC. The monies that are to be sunk into CEFC would have to be included in the budget if it was say a research subsidy or an increase in the budget of CSIRO to do more clean energy research.

      because they have deemed the monies in CEFC to be an income generating investment they have also called it an off budget item.

      In the real world a company would have no barrier to have it classified legally as an expense the motivation being it would reduce profit and hence reduce income tax.

      The Govt is going out of their way to have it treated as an investment to keep it out of the budget to avoid having to record yet another deficit

      Of course if it was put in the budget Mr Swann would not be able to show a surplus in 2013.

      The overall debt position of Australia will be about $200 billion in 2013 however we get there with a $2 billion dollar budget surplus and a $10 billion dollar loan rather than a $8 billion dollar deficit. The former is far more likely to con the population that Mr Swann is our economic hero. Hence the scrutiny of this by the writer of the article.

    • rink says:

      11:07am | 21/07/11

      Congratulations Scott on reducing what is probably the only worth while policy to come from the carbon tax, to a hollow rant about watermelons and corruption that can be fed to the rabid dogs that inhabit this blog, so that you can be smug in feeling that you have been unique in your attck on the carbon tax.

      While the argument of duplicative association between the CEFC and the Renewable Energy Venture Capital Fund and the Emerging Renewables program is valid your arguments that these programs should be market based, and are a waste of tax payers money is directly counted that they are high risk venture, which similar to the NBN no market would be willing to commit to without incentive.

      Your article stinks of anti-science and political rhetoric. Once again congratulations on dragging this debate back down into the sewers.
      Oh and for the mindless drones, I do not support the carbon tax or support Labor/Greens .

    • PJ says:

      11:16am | 21/07/11

      Bullshit you don’t the carbon tax or support Labor/Greens!

    • Anubis says:

      11:18am | 21/07/11

      @ rink - the article raises some quite valid questions in relation to accountabilty, which this Government is not very good at. The only winners from this $10 billion dollar slush fund will be snake oil salesmen like Tim Flannery. I would be willing to wager that his “hot rocks holes” in SA will be one of the first beneficiaries from this fund. After all he has only tipped $90, 000, 000 down these holes to date. Achieved nothing as he had to shut down because the rains that were never going to return, did, and flooded those of his holes that hadn’t actually collapsed of their own volition.

    • rink says:

      12:06pm | 21/07/11

      Government waste and accountability are a problem for the current government, and does not implicit trust for any new policies among the tax paying public.
      Im all for cutting spending, but energy is a big part of the future of mankind, and an upgrade from high pollutant fossil fuels is long over due even if we are making a good buck from it.
      Articles like this are only counter productive.

      @PJ: Buzz Buzz?

    • I Wideopen says:

      12:25pm | 21/07/11

      is rink short for red ink?
      best renewable policy - dam the franklin. It is in Tasmania and would give lots of jobs.
      Christine could sell her flowers & veggies to the asylum seekers we would use to build the dams, the camp is alread set up in Hobart.
      somehow i can type this , perhaps a non-brain auto reflex

    • Steve says:

      01:19pm | 21/07/11

      Rink. I think you have missed the main point of the article. It is really abouit the accounting for the $10 billion. If the monies were deemed to be a subsidy to companies to develop new technology etc then it would be in the budget. This would mean that the much vaunted surplus of $2 billion in 2012/2013 would be gone. That is the last year prior to the next election. Labor would rather go to the next election with 5 deficits and one surplus than 6 deficits.

      This type of scrutiny is the best contribution an opposition can make. I could even congratulate you on reducing the most worthwhile contribution of the debate to a hollow rant.

    • rink says:

      04:28pm | 21/07/11

      While I agree that such scrutiny of budgetary ‘tricks’ is an essential action of any opposition, it is as redundant as writing an article about Labor’s other policy failures and abusing Peter Garrett then conferring that all future policies will fail.

      A low tactic of appealing to hysteria with a few basic truths seem to have made its home here, especially when bloggers start calling LNP media releases ‘the most worthwhile contribution of the debate.’


      They would have a leg to stand on if the opposition could even cost their on Direct action policy which is so poor it makes a new tax look good.

      At the next election my vote is going to the inanimate carbon rod, it is by far the best alternative form of government.

    • Steve says:

      05:12pm | 21/07/11

      Rink. well at least you concede that opposition scrutiny of government expenditure and investment is necessary.

      The history of state and Federal governments involvements in failed private enterprises is dismal in this country. I for one would support close scrutiny of all such proposals.

      Don’t pick on the nice Mr Garrett. Don’t keep talking about ALP policy failures. Ok but keeping the pressure on the Government is actually the best way to make sure the relevant minister keeps pressure on his/her department to ensure policy is well implemented. I am sorry but once again that is a job that is expected of the opposition.

    • stevem says:

      01:46pm | 21/07/11

      This “off book” accounting has been my bugbear with the NBN. It is a wonderful thing and I’ll enjoy my 100Mbps. I can’t help wondering, however, if this network has such a wonderful IRR then why didn’t somebody else make the investment?

      The government claims to have run the numbers but refuses to release them claiming, yet again, that they are “commercial in confidence”. They dismiss any concerns with the happy phrase “trust us, the numbers are great”. Forgive me, but I don’t trust them.

    • Jean says:

      02:32pm | 21/07/11

      It’s looking like the last NSW election- the option is either to return a government that is completely undeserving of being in office, or to replace them with an opposition that is completely undeserving of gaining office.
      Why not just toss a coin instead of having an election- same result, a government of incompetent crackpots of almost indistinguishable political hue, but at least we’d save the cost of an election- and that money could be put into ... oh, i don’t know ...experimental green energy projects?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter