There's still more explaining for the government to do, but the Future Made in Australia plan is a clear point of difference

The storm of outrage over a $300 power bill rebate going to all households clearly left the Treasurer somewhat bemused during yesterday's post-budget media rounds.

"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.

But when Peter Dutton joined the criticism, suggesting the rebate should only go to "those in need", it was too much for Jim Chalmers.

"Spare us the faux class warfare," he said, reminding parliament that "those opposite wanted to call an election because we wanted to give Gina Rinehart a $4,500 tax cut instead of a $9,000 tax cut".

It was a fair cop and while Dutton was happy to join the pile-on, he won't actually oppose the rebate.

Indeed, the opposition leader immediately backed the billions of dollars in energy bill relief, increased Commonwealth Rent Assistance, and freeze on the price of medicines. He didn't blink.

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.

The opposition does not want another drawn-out fight over helping struggling households.

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.

The real debate is coming

The real post-budget debate will likely shift to the government's "Future Made in Australia" plan. This is where Dutton has chosen to fight. This will now become an election contest.

The budget allocates $15 billion over 10 years in tax breaks and subsidies for critical minerals processing and "green" hydrogen production. It's possibly one of the biggest government support packages for the mining industry ever and part of an ambitious plan to reshape the economy to take advantage of the net-zero transition.

The opposition leader, however, is not a fan of this vision or these tax breaks. His concern? Billionaires might be involved.

The plan will involve "splashing billions of dollars for billionaires" Dutton said in one interview. "Billions and billions for billionaires," he said in another.

That's right. The Coalition — which in government was committed to a $2 billion critical minerals facility and a $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart program — is now worried about who's on the share register of these private companies. Some turn out to be billionaires! Who knew!

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.

Few are likely to think Gina Rinehart or Andrew Forrest deserve any taxpayer help, but this is about encouraging them to invest in fledgling clean-tech industries here rather than overseas. It won't be the first time these billionaires have been targeted with investment incentives.

Labor, meanwhile, is rubbing its hands together at the prospect of an election fight with the Coalition over creating future industries, jobs, and investment in parts of the country worried about manufacturing disappearing.

Most of the critical minerals and hydrogen projects being talked about are in Western Australia and Queensland — the two resource states, chock-full of marginal seats where Labor needs to focus its campaigning.

Economists are sceptical

There are, of course, more valid concerns being expressed by economists about the government's Future Made in Australia, beyond whether a billionaire happens to be involved in a project.

Those concerns include the need for independent oversight, clear rules for how decisions are made, and exit ramps to avoid subsidising failing projects.

Alongside this week's budget, Treasury issued a "supporting paper" to address at least some of these concerns and explain more of the government's thinking.

The paper, however, makes clear that Treasury is enthusiastic about taxpayers backing some industries more than others.

It gives the biggest tick to green hydrogen production, suggesting there's a "strong case" to foster this industry in Australia. Next comes green metal production (which would rely on hydrogen), with Treasury suggesting Australia has "significant potential" here.

Critical minerals processing "may" require public support, according to Treasury, while manufacturing solar panels and batteries in Australia appears to be the least popular idea.

Treasury points out that the US, Europe, Canada, France, and India are all investing heavily to create more diversity in these industries, which China currently dominates. As long as Australia has strong trade relationships with these countries, we should still be able to buy plenty of cheap solar panels to meet our needs.

It certainly doesn't suggest there's a "strong case" to subsidise solar panel or battery making here, despite the Treasurer already allocating $1.5 billion to help kickstart local manufacturing.

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.

Labor's chosen critical minerals, hydrogen, and green tech. It has a "vision" of a new-look economy and some detail on the table.

The Coalition is going nuclear and is yet to explain how its plans will work. Presumably billionaires won't be involved.

David Speers is National Political Lead and host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.