Add Category
In short:
A number of key stakeholders have raised questions about how the Future Made in Australia scheme will be managed.
It comes amid a growing row over how the scheme can best balance support for workers and how to protect taxpayer funds.
What's next?
The framework that underpins the scheme is currently being scrutinised by parliament.
One of Australia's largest direct foreign investors is pressing the Albanese government to expand the use of gas in its $22.7 billion net zero industry plan, amid a growing row over how the scheme should balance support for workers and protect taxpayer funds.
Concern about the federal government's cornerstone "Future Made in Australia" bill, which is being scrutinised by parliament, comes less than a week after the independent Productivity Commission warned of the need to subject industrial policy to strict cost-benefit analysis.
A raft of submissions to parliament reveals a range of questions across community, green and business groups about how the scheme should operate.
According to the Australian Industry Group, proposed laws that would require businesses to meet a set of "community benefit principles" before winning Commonwealth industry support may end up being counterproductive.
Definitions of what that support should be are "vague and difficult to interpret", said industry group chief executive Innes Willox, who also questioned whether the scheme would be rolled out fast enough to compete with rival policies in the US, Europe and Asia.
Community benefit principles "may reduce policy certainty and increase investment risk," Mr Willox said.
"This runs counter to the objective of increasing investment in targeted sectors".
A centre-left think tank chaired by a former advisor to Paul Keating has also weighed in, warning that proposed Treasury rules aimed at putting strict guardrails around the use of public funds for Future Made in Australia investments should be expanded to other industry policy schemes.
'National Interest Framework'
Unveiled in the May budget as a centrepiece of the government's economic re-election pitch, Future Made in Australia aims to unlock private sector investment in everything from critical minerals to renewable hydrogen, green metals and aviation fuels made from low-carbon sources.
But the Centre for Policy Development, a progressive advocacy group chaired by former Keating advisor and 1990s Washington ambassador Don Russell, argues the government should broaden use of Treasury guidelines for industry investments.
The first-of-their-kind Treasury rules are laid out in the government's legislation under a newly created "National Interest Framework".
Treasury, which will administer the framework, says it "will be used to impose rigour on government's decision-making on significant public investments, particularly those used to incentivise private investment at scale".
A series of factors that Treasury would need to consider when approving cabinet spending decisions include whether Australia has a "lasting competitiveness" in the sector: whether the industry in question helps secure the 2050 net zero target, and whether it builds economic resilience and security.
The inclusion of the framework has been welcomed by Rod Sims, the former competition regulator and a prominent advocate of Australia as a green energy superpower, who earlier this year questioned the government's support for battery making.
Dr Sims said the National Interest Framework was about "putting a lot of discipline around the Future Made in Australia policy so it doesn't go off the rails".
Dr Sims said he was not concerned that the National Interest Framework was not being applied to other government investments, such as direct investments in artificial intelligence.
"I don't mind that. Governments have always put money into things they wanted to do, on both sides of the political divide."
According to the Centre for Policy Development, the government's legislation "does not require all relevant government programs or industry support to be guided by the National Interest Framework".
Andrew Hudson, chief executive of the centre, said the rationale for this choice was not clear.
"Overall, we're extremely supportive of this vision for the future made in Australia," he told ABC News. "We do think those new industries like green hydrogen and alumina are key areas for investment."
"Australia has a strategic comparative advantage in those areas. We've got abundant renewable energy.
"But some of the other industries, like solar panel manufacturing, do require more care … they should only really be invested in as necessary to navigate global supply chain constraints."
"There shouldn't be a carve-out to the community benefit principles. It's not clear to us why those principles wouldn't apply to the Clean Energy Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency."
The Clean Energy Council urged the government to change the legislation's emphasis on the need for "well-paid" jobs under the Future Made in Australia scheme, to "fairly paid".
"'Well-paid' is inherently ambiguous," the council said, and "should not be the basis for deciding whether a project or industry is eligible to receive Future Made in Australia support".
Gas giant
The largest Japanese direct investor in Australia, global energy producer INPEX, said the government needed to ensure "a steady and stable supply of natural gas both domestically and for LNG exports to the Indo-Pacific region" to achieve its "lofty ambitions" on made in Australia.
Responsible for about 10 per cent of Japan's gas imports, INPEX owns the $60 billion Ichthys project in Darwin.
INPEX said the Future Made in Australia bill should include supporting so-called "blue hydrogen", which is made using gas.
"This would result in more hydrogen production, and greater emissions reduction, for the same level of government."
Chevron Australia said in its submission that it "was encouraged" by Energy Minister Chris Bowen's comments this month about the "vital role" gas would play in Australia's energy system.
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis said the legislation should ban projects that increase national emissions, including those that use carbon capture and storage.
The Grattan Institute said the government's bill was not up to the task of spurring industry and government investment "while avoiding valid concerns about valid industry policy".
Without properly defining the "National Interest Framework," the government is "at risk of falling into three classic industry policy traps: overreaching for competitive advantage, picking losers, and short-term policy thinking".
"The Bill needs to be more explicit about how the National Interest Framework will inform and guide future policy and funding decisions so these traps can be avoided," said Grattan experts Tony Wood and Alison Reeve.
The Business Council of Australia urged the government to give the Productivity Commission, rather than Treasury, responsibility for determining which sectors of the economy should get public support.
In its submission, the council also cautioned against setting government procurement rules that require union approval, saying that could create a “honey pot” for the “potential incentive for side deals to secure these union agreements to gain access to contracts/benefits.”