Labor’s Future Made in Australia Act will be judged on the detail

Labor’s Future Made in Australia Act will be judged on the detail

When I read Anthony Albanese’s announcement of his proposed Future Made in Australia Act it sent a shiver down my spine. As a Victorian, my mind was taken back to the 1980s and the Cain Labor government’s Victorian Future Business Development Fund. This proved to be an economic disaster and a honey pot for snake oil salesmen and deluded chancers. It cost us, among other things, our state bank. Labor in Victoria today has yet again sent the state broke and, unfortun­ately, it’s not done yet. Surely we don’t need the Prime Minister adding to our woes.

Colin Nelson, Inverloch, Vic

I look forward to seeing the details of the government’s new Future Made in Australia Act when the federal budget is released (“Future Made in Australia Act puts country in global cleantech race”, 15/4). Your writers are correct in saying we will “inevitably pivot from our historic dependence on carbon exports”.

Our exports of fossil fuels are set to decline as the global trend to clean energy takes hold. According to a 2023 report by Deloitte for National Australia Bank, Australia’s exports could fall by $270bn in the next two decades unless we change our export policies. This is not to mention the cost to our planet.

The production and use of heat-trapping pollutants need to be phased out if we are to have any chance of reversing the effects of global warming. With our abundant natural resources of critical minerals and the need to support our workforce in the energy sector to transition from fossil fuel jobs, this initiative makes a lot of sense.

Anne O’Hara, Wanniassa, ACT

It is refreshing that the Albanese government has pulled together the elements of our economic and financial future in the Future Made in Australia Act. There have never been completely free trade markets internationally, and the competitive advantage of nations to produce specific goods efficiently has often been modified by national interest. These factors include job protection and defence capability.

To these, we now add the need to protect the environment, both in Australia and, through carbon emission reductions, the whole world. Both major parties support net zero but differ on how best to do it. Few can argue with the Coalition, who at the last election promoted a solution based to a great extent on new technology, for example ultra-low-cost solar. The discussion now should be on how to co-ordinate the investments. Solar power will certainly be part of that discussion. Expensive nuclear, which will not be available until the 2030s, could be included in the mix eventually, but should not attract any part of the limited funds now.

John Hughes, Mentone, Vic

Not only does the Labor Party seem to misunderstand business and risk but it fails to consider how history proves subsidies almost always don’t work. For decades we threw good money after bad in subsidising the Australian car industry. The argument was do we want to be self-sufficient producing our own cars. This failed subsidisation and cost us tens of billions of dollars. When the subsidies stopped, the companies walked away. It sounds logical: be self-sufficient. But Labor does not understand that it is the free market that decides. Sometimes it gets it right and sometimes it gets it wrong.

This is market risk, which sits where it should: with the investor. Governments have a terrible track record in picking industries and business that should be subsidised.

Ted Thacker, City Beach, WA

A question of values

Politicians of all hues are letting religious-based institutions down badly in their inability to come up with legislation that is fair and just. As a conservative, if I applied for membership of a branch of the ALP my application would likely be knocked back. If I managed to somehow secure membership and then started to publicly criticise aspects of the ALP that are lodged in concrete, it would not be long before I was shown the door. Surely this modus operandi can be fairly and justly applied to religious institutions that want to remain true to their beliefs that are bedded in concrete.

Peter Surkitt, Sandringham, Vic

Bearing the cost

The Nationals claim they are working to ensure rural communities do not disproportionately bear the costs of decarbonisation. This sounds fine in principle, but what about the other side of the equation? Rural communities disproportionately bear the costs of global warming. Yet I see no tangible commitment on the part of the Nationals or Coalition to harness the real or potential benefits of the new technology-led transition for rural electorates. Community energy schemes are a case in point. These have been championed by independent MP for Indi Helen Haines as a way to improve local resilience, not merely export the benefits generated by energy development.

Jim Allen, Panorama, SA