Australia’s One Nation party has proposed a resource policy modeled in part on Norway’s approach to oil and gas wealth, arguing that greater public participation in energy projects could deliver stronger returns for taxpayers and create a sovereign wealth fund for future generations.

The proposal has attracted attention for its ambition but also prompted questions from energy analysts about investment risks, expected timelines for returns, and its compatibility with Australia’s climate objectives.One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has pointed to Norway’s success in capturing value from its petroleum resources through close cooperation between government and industry.

Under the party’s proposal, the Australian government would be able to acquire ownership stakes in new offshore oil and gas developments through a dedicated investment vehicle.Unlike Norway’s system, however, participation would not be mandatory. Companies would retain the option of whether to accept government investment and public ownership in their projects.

Supporters argue that the approach would allow Australians to benefit more directly from the development of national resources. Critics counter that the voluntary structure could significantly limit the policy’s effectiveness.

According to David Hanson, who has advocated for a Norway-style model, the Scandinavian country’s experience demonstrates the benefits of partnership between governments and energy companies supported by strong fiscal incentives.However, the opt-in nature of One Nation’s proposal creates important differences from Norway’s framework.

Because companies would be free to decline government participation, analysts suggest that projects most likely to seek public investment could be those facing the highest levels of commercial uncertainty.Josh Runciman, lead gas analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said the proposal raises questions about whether taxpayers should be exposed to exploration and appraisal risks in an industry where governments typically do not possess the same technical expertise as private-sector operators.

The concern reflects a broader challenge in resource investment. Early-stage exploration projects carry significant uncertainty, with many failing to reach commercial production despite substantial investment.Under One Nation’s proposal, the government would reportedly act as a passive commercial partner, operating at arm’s length from day-to-day project decisions.

At the same time, Hanson has suggested that the government would have greater influence over how its share of production is used once projects begin generating oil or gas.According to the policy outline, the government’s share of production could be directed toward domestic priorities, including fertilizer manufacturing, energy generation and fuel refining.

Surplus production could then be exported, with proceeds used to reduce public debt and build sovereign wealth.The proposal is designed to increase domestic benefits from Australia’s natural resources without imposing higher taxes on energy companies. However, analysts note that this feature may also limit the scale and speed of any financial returns.

Because the plan applies only to future offshore exploration projects and relies on voluntary participation, the timeline for generating revenue is expected to be lengthy.Runciman estimates that many of the projects likely to fall under the policy remain at very early stages of development.

As a result, substantial production and associated government returns may not materialize for at least a decade.That means even if the policy were enacted in the near future, significant additional public revenue would probably not begin flowing until the late 2030s.The delayed timetable also raises questions about how quickly a sovereign wealth fund could accumulate assets sufficient to influence Australia’s long-term fiscal position.

The debate has inevitably drawn comparisons with alternative proposals that seek to increase public returns from resource extraction through taxation rather than direct ownership.One frequently cited model comes from the Superpower Institute, chaired by former competition regulator Allan Fels and supported by businessman and climate advocate Ross Garnaut.

The institute has proposed a 40% two-way cashflow tax, described as a “fair share levy,” that would apply to oil and gas projects.Under that framework, the effective marginal tax rate on oil and gas production would rise to 58%, while companies would also receive a 40% refund on losses.

Advocates argue that the structure mirrors key features of Norway’s resource taxation system by sharing both risks and rewards between government and industry.Unlike One Nation’s proposal, the tax would apply to existing projects as well as future developments.

The institute estimates that it could generate approximately A$9.5 billion annually during an initial transition period, with revenues potentially exceeding A$18 billion in 2031 before gradually declining as global demand for fossil fuels falls over time.Supporters of the levy argue that it would deliver more immediate and substantial public returns than ownership-based approaches limited to future projects.

The debate extends beyond fiscal policy into broader questions surrounding Australia’s energy future.One Nation’s proposal is part of a wider policy agenda that supports continued oil and gas exploration and opposes Australia’s existing net-zero emissions commitment.

Hanson has repeatedly called for the country’s climate targets to be abandoned.That position places the proposal at the center of an increasingly contentious national discussion about balancing energy security, economic growth and emissions reduction.Runciman said aspects of Norway’s resource taxation system have merit because they are designed to preserve investment incentives while ensuring governments receive a larger share of resource profits.

However, he questioned whether expanding support for new gas developments is politically sustainable at a time when many voters expect stronger action on climate change.The policy therefore faces two distinct tests. The first is whether voluntary public participation in future resource projects can generate meaningful financial returns for taxpayers.

The second is whether expanding support for new fossil fuel developments aligns with Australia’s evolving climate and energy priorities.

As debate continues, the proposal highlights a broader challenge confronting resource-rich economies: how to maximize public benefit from natural resources while managing financial risk and navigating the transition toward lower-emissions energy systems.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) said the artworks, valued at approximately $198,000, were retrieved in coordination with U.S. authorities and form part of broader efforts to recover assets allegedly misappropriated from 1Malaysia Development Berhad between 2009 and 2014.

The collection includes Picasso’s “L’Ecuyère et les clowns” (1961), alongside works by Joan Miró, Maurice Utrillo and Balthus. Authorities said the pieces had been held in the United States and were among artworks linked to individuals associated with the fund.
The MACC said the items are now under strict security and undergoing environmental stabilisation before authentication and valuation by Malaysia’s National Visual Arts Development Board.

The repatriation follows earlier coordination with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice, as Malaysia continues efforts to trace and recover assets across jurisdictions.
Authorities said some of the recovered works had previously been stored at major auction houses, including Christie’s and Sotheby’s, after being seized from a former lawyer linked to 1MDB.

Malaysia has sought to recover more than $4.5 billion believed to have been siphoned from the sovereign fund in a global scheme involving luxury assets ranging from real estate to artwork.

To date, about 31.2 billion ringgit ($7.90 billion) has been recovered, representing nearly 70% of identified assets, according to the MACC.

The 1MDB case, co-founded by former prime minister Najib Razak, has triggered investigations in multiple countries.

Najib was convicted and jailed in 2022 over charges linked to the scandal, which he has consistently denied.
The MACC said the recovered artworks may be publicly displayed before any decision is made on potential sale.

The breakthrough is seen as a positive sign for political cooperation in a closely divided parliament. Despite a tight post-election landscape, the government achieved consensus through extensive dialogue, reinforcing its commitment to responsible governance and collaborative policymaking.

The deal was finalized after intensive negotiations addressing concerns raised by several smaller parties. While some proposals did not make it into the final agreement, the overall outcome reflects a shared desire to move forward constructively and maintain stability at a crucial time for the Norwegian economy.

One of the key sticking points had been a proposal for Norway’s sovereign wealth fund to divest from all Israeli companies. Although the government decided not to adopt this measure, the discussions highlighted the importance of transparency and ethical considerations in national investment strategies.

Another major demand related to a full phaseout of the oil industry by 2040. Given Norway’s role as Europe’s leading gas supplier and a major global energy exporter, the government opted instead for a forward-looking approach that balances economic strength with gradual transition planning.

Prime Minister Stoere emphasized that Norway remains committed to developing its energy sector responsibly. He noted that any long-term shift must consider jobs, economic resilience and national interests, while still preparing for an evolving global energy landscape.

As part of the compromise, a new commission will be appointed to study future scenarios for the Norwegian economy as oil and gas production changes over time. This initiative will explore strategies to support innovation, sustainability and economic adaptation in a shifting global market.

The commission’s work is expected to provide valuable insights into how Norway can strengthen competitiveness, diversify key industries and support long-term prosperity. The decision reflects a positive, proactive approach to economic planning and demonstrates the government’s dedication to preparing for future challenges.

Political analysts say the agreement reinforces Norway’s ability to navigate complex coalition dynamics. While challenges are likely to arise throughout the parliamentary term, the latest deal shows that consensus is achievable even in a fragmented political environment.

The successful budget compromise ensures continuity and stability for the coming year, enabling the government to focus on economic priorities, social welfare and development goals. It also reassures citizens and investors that Norway remains committed to steady governance and strategic planning.

The outcome marks an important step forward in maintaining political cohesion and securing broad support for national policies. With the budget vote now set to proceed, Norway heads into the new fiscal year with renewed confidence and a strengthened foundation for cooperation.