There's still more explaining for the government to do, but the Future Made in Australia plan is a clear point of difference"Why does Gina Rinehart deserve $300?" was a popular line of questioning. The $3.5 billion "cost-of-living" measure was held up as the symbol of Labor 's reckless spending because it's not means tested. It was an understandable line of questioning, too, given the acute concerns about stoking inflation.
Last year it took weeks of dithering for the Coalition to reluctantly back the budget's cost-of-living relief. That same mistake wasn't repeated.This ensures the immediate and noisy row over the $300 bill discount won't last long. Without a political contest, the heat will go out of this argument — at least until we see the next inflation number.
Indeed, as energy minister, Angus Taylor was enthusiastic about supporting hydrogen. "Government investment is important as both a market signal and as a leader," he said. Now, in opposition, Taylor says tax credits are a "bizarre" approach.The Coalition may prefer a different way of supporting the industry, but to criticise support for hydrogen and critical minerals on the grounds that billionaires are involved sets a new standard for the opposition.
Those concerns include the need for independent oversight, clear rules for how decisions are made, and exit ramps to avoid subsidising failing projects. The government still has plenty of work to do explaining its Future Made in Australia plans to voters and sceptical economists. But it now has a clear difference to the opposition.
Future Made Manufacturing Budget Federal Budget David Speers Climate Change What Is Future Made In Australia Dutton Coalition Labor Chalmers Albanese Industry Cost Of Living Power Energy Electricity
Australia Latest News, Australia Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: FinancialReview - 🏆 2. / 90 Read more »
Source: GuardianAus - 🏆 1. / 98 Read more »
Source: FinancialReview - 🏆 2. / 90 Read more »
Source: FinancialReview - 🏆 2. / 90 Read more »
Source: brisbanetimes - 🏆 13. / 67 Read more »
Source: theage - 🏆 8. / 77 Read more »