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.