Industry Research and Development (Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Development Program) Instrument 2021

The instrument centres on a small set of concepts that determine what projects can be funded and who may apply. Those concepts appear in definitions and in the operative clauses.

Program: The program is the central concept defined in s 5(1) as the Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Development Program. The instrument delegates no additional definitional precision to the term beyond the program’s purpose and scope clauses in s 5(2)-(3).

Scope of funded activity: Funding is limited to pilot projects and pre-commercialisation activities for (a) capture of carbon dioxide for subsequent use or storage, and (b) the use or storage of carbon dioxide (s 5(2)). The instrument thus excludes, on its face, activities outside pilot or pre-commercial stages, and excludes activities unrelated to capture, use or storage of carbon dioxide. The words used are categorical: “pilot projects and pre‑commercialisation activities” (s 5(2)). The instrument does not articulate what qualifies as “pilot” or “pre‑commercialisation”, nor does it set tests for technology readiness or project scale; those questions are left to implementing arrangements outside this text.

Policy purposes: The program’s purpose comprises three stated goals (s 5(3)):

• reduce emissions from specified sectors , energy generation, natural gas production and heavy industries (expressly including manufacturing, chemical production, cement production and fertiliser production) , to assist Australia meet emission reduction obligations (s 5(3)(a));
• accelerate commercialisation of capture/use/storage technologies and encourage industry investment in deploying those technologies in Australia (s 5(3)(b));
• encourage development of prospective hubs related to capture/use/storage in Australia (s 5(3)(c)).

Eligibility: The instrument limits who can apply to four classes: constitutional corporations, States (or their agencies/authorities/instrumentalities), Territories (or their agencies/authorities/instrumentalities), and authorities of the Commonwealth (s 7). The instrument does not define “constitutional corporation” within its text; it imports that concept by reference to the Act and to constitutional law. The eligibility list is exclusive in the sense that other classes (for example, unincorporated businesses, individuals or partnerships that are not constitutional corporations) are not mentioned and therefore are not explictly included.

Legislative/constitutional specification: Section 6 lists the constitutional powers the Parliament may rely on to make laws concerning the program. These include foreign/trading/financial corporations (s 6(a)), external affairs as it relates to assisting Australia meet obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC (s 6(b)(i)-(iii)), matters for which the Constitution makes provision until Parliament otherwise provides together with s 96 (s 6(c)), and Territory government under s 122 (s 6(d)). That section is framed as a specification “for the purposes of subsection 33(3) of the Act”.

Definitions of international instruments: The instrument defines Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC and includes notes referencing their presence in the Australian Treaty Series as context (s 4). Those notes are explanatory; the operative connection is the external affairs specification in s 6(b).

Authority clause: The instrument is made under s 33 of the Act (s 3), which is the enabling authority for prescription. The instrument therefore operates within the statutory scope that s 33 provides, but the instrument itself does not reproduce s 33 or elaborate on how program implementation will be carried out under the Act.

Absence of operational detail: Notably, the instrument sets the program’s high-level scope, purposes and eligible applicants, but contains no procedural, financial, or compliance mechanics (no application process, no funding quantum, no matching requirements, no reporting requirements, no IP allocation, no procurement or evaluation rules). The instrument therefore functions as a framework-level declaration; operational details will derive from the Act, subordinate instruments, program guidelines, grant agreements or ministerial directions, none of which are contained in this instrument.

These concepts determine, in practice, which projects and applicants the Commonwealth can fund under the program as prescribed, and they delimit where implementing discretion will sit because they leave operational mechanics unspecified.

Direct recipients: The instrument explicitly affects four classes of applicant who may seek program funding under s 7: constitutional corporations; States and their agencies/authorities/instrumentalities; Territories and their agencies/authorities/instrumentalities; and authorities of the Commonwealth (s 7). Those bodies are the only entities named as eligible applicants in the instrument.

Industries named in the purpose clause: The program’s stated aim is to reduce emissions from and accelerate technologies in particular sectors (s 5(3)(a)-(b)). The instrument identifies energy generation, natural gas production and “heavy industries” , with heavy industries expressly including manufacturing, chemical production, cement production and fertiliser production (s 5(3)(a)). Entities operating in those sectors are therefore within the program’s intended beneficiary universe for projects that match the program’s scope (capture, use or storage pilot/pre‑commercial activities under s 5(2)). That creates a focal beneficiary group in practice, even though the instrument does not itself bind project selection.

State and Territory agencies: Because States and Territories and their agencies are eligible applicants (s 7(b)-(c)), public authorities at sub‑national level can seek funding. This implies that projects that are coordinated or led by State agencies, or which form part of government-led hubs, fall within the instrument’s contemplated cohort.

Commonwealth authorities: The inclusion of Commonwealth authorities (s 7(d)) enables federal agencies or statutory authorities to be applicants or partners. The instrument therefore contemplates intergovernmental and public-sector-led projects as well as private-sector proposals lodged by constitutional corporations.

Excluded groups by omission: The instrument does not list individuals, unincorporated businesses, partnerships that are not constitutional corporations, or non‑constitutional entities, so they are not expressly eligible under this instrument. The absence of those categories means such actors would need to participate via an eligible applicant (for example, as subcontractors or project partners under a constitutional corporation or government agency) if they are to access program funding as envisaged by this instrument.

Foreign corporations and trading/financial corporations: Section 6(a) identifies foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations as specified legislative power bases. That is a statement about constitutional bases for creating laws to support the program; it is not an express inclusion in the eligibility list. Eligibility remains limited to “constitutional corporations” as per s 7(a). Whether a particular foreign or multinational entity qualifies will therefore depend on whether it fits the statutory meaning of “constitutional corporation,” which is not defined in this instrument.

Regional and hub developers: The program purpose explicitly includes encouraging “the development of prospective hubs related to the capture, use or storage of carbon dioxide in Australia” (s 5(3)(c)). Entities involved in developing regional or cluster infrastructure , governments, corporations or authorities that meet the eligibility test , are therefore affected by the instrument’s design and the likely policy priorities that implementing agencies will adopt.

Indirect markets and service providers: Although not named, a range of suppliers, contractors, engineering firms, technology providers, project financiers and landowners will be indirectly affected if projects proceed. The instrument’s focus on pilot and pre‑commercialisation activity implies demand for early-stage R&D, demonstration engineering, and small-scale deployment, which has implications for service supply chains even though the instrument does not spell out procurement modalities.

Who decides and who pays: The instrument was made by the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction under s 33 of the Act (s 3; instrument signed by Angus Taylor, dated 3 May 2021). The instrument prescribes a Commonwealth program that provides funding (s 5(2)). The instrument itself does not specify which Commonwealth body will administer funds or the funding source; those operational details will be determined under the Act or by subsequent instruments or program guidelines.

Practical consequence: Entities that are eligible and operate within the named sectors should expect the program to create an opportunity to obtain Commonwealth grant funding for pilot or pre‑commercial projects. Entities outside the enumerated applicant classes will need to structure participation through eligible applicants or other mechanisms.

The instrument is primarily declaratory and prescriptive about programme scope and eligible applicants; it does not create a package of rights and duties in the manner of an individual grant agreement. Nonetheless, it does create the following high‑level rights and constraints that practitioners should treat as operative starting points.

Rights created by the instrument

• Right to seek funding under a prescribed program: By prescribing the Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Development Program the instrument creates, at law, a recognised Commonwealth program for the purposes of s 33 of the Act (s 5(1)). That prescription is a necessary antecedent for establishing a program under the Act and enables eligible entities to be considered for funding provided under the Act’s mechanisms.
• Right to be an applicant if within named categories: Section 7 lists who may be applicants. If an entity is a constitutional corporation, a State or State agency, a Territory or Territory agency, or an authority of the Commonwealth, it is within the class of applicants the instrument expressly contemplates (s 7). That is a statutory eligibility right at the instrument level.

Duties and constraints implicit in the instrument

• Duty to align proposals with program scope: The programme is limited to pilot projects and pre‑commercialisation activities for capture, use or storage of carbon dioxide (s 5(2)). An applicant seeking funds under the program must have a project that falls within that scope. While the instrument does not set an administrative test of “pilot” or “pre‑commercialisation”, the text creates the substantive constraint that eligible funded activities must be within those categories.
• Duty to pursue the stated programme purposes: The instrument lists purposes (s 5(3)) that set policy priorities. While the instrument does not prescribe how those priorities will be enforced administratively, they are the declared objectives the Commonwealth intends to pursue through the programme and therefore will be material in assessment and compliance processes implemented under the Act.
• Administrative duties will be imposed elsewhere: The instrument itself does not impose reporting, monitoring or compliance duties, nor does it create conditions of grant, procurement rules, or intellectual property provisions. Those duties will arise from program guidelines, grant agreements and other instruments made under the Act or by delegations from the responsible Minister. The instrument’s silence on these matters means that rights and duties at project level will depend on future documents.

Absence of novel statutory liabilities or penalties: The instrument does not create new offences, penalties, or enforcement regimes. It does not amend the Act’s enforcement framework. Any duties, reporting obligations, sanctions or contractual liabilities for participants will therefore derive from the Act, regulations, grant agreements or other program instruments, not from this instrument itself.

Interaction with constitutional bases: Section 6 specifies the constitutional power bases for supporting the program (corporations, external affairs as to particular treaties, s 96-related provisions, Territory government power) (s 6). That does not create duties on applicants, but it frames the legal authority for the Commonwealth to make laws and provide funding. Practically, it may circumscribe legal arguments about jurisdiction or the validity of subordinate instruments implementing the program.

Who decides and the decision boundary: The instrument was made by the Minister under s 33 of the Act (s 3). The Minister’s role is endorsing the program prescription; it does not set out who will decide individual grants. Decision-making procedures, delegation, conflict-of-interest rules, and merits criteria are absent from the instrument and will be set out elsewhere.

Practical implications for applicants: An eligible applicant has a statutory footing to apply for a program whose scope and purposes are set by the instrument. However, applicants should not assume contractual rights or detailed duties beyond those broad design features; they must review the Act and program-specific instruments to understand application requirements, reporting duties, and performance or repayment obligations that will govern funded projects.

The instrument does not introduce or specify any penalties, offences, enforcement mechanisms, sanctions, or recovery powers. Its operative text prescribes the program, states its scope and purposes, specifies constitutional bases, and lists eligible applicants (ss 5-7). No clause in the instrument creates statutory offences, civil penalties, administrative sanctions, or enforcement procedures.

Legal effect: Because the instrument is made under s 33 of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 (s 3), enforcement of the program, if required, will be carried out under the Act’s existing legal and administrative framework, and under any subordinate instruments, grant agreements or contracts that implement the program. The instrument itself does not amend those enforcement mechanisms or create new ones.

Where enforcement detail will arise: Practical enforcement and penalty regimes typically appear in one or more of these places:

• the parent Act (the Industry Research and Development Act 1986), which may provide for regulatory compliance or offences in relation to grants, contracts or prescribed programs;
• regulations made under the Act;
• program guidelines published by the administering agency or Minister that outline eligibility, application, assessment, reporting, and compliance expectations; and
• the terms of grant agreements or contracts entered into with successful applicants, which commonly contain warranties, covenants, repayment clauses, termination rights, audit and inspection clauses, and breach remedies.

Because none of those mechanisms are contained in this instrument, this instrument does not itself establish recoverable obligations or criminal/civil penalties. Any failure by an applicant to comply with post‑award obligations would be actionable only under the terms of the funding agreement or under statutory provisions in the Act or relevant regulations, not under this instrument.

Implication for risk management: Applicants and counsel should therefore obtain and review the program guidelines, grant agreement templates, and the Act’s provisions. They should not rely on this instrument for enforcement or penalty detail; the instrument provides no information on compliance monitoring, audit rights, grounds for suspension or termination of funding, or repayment triggers.

Ministerial/administrative discretion: The instrument is silent on the administrative processes for awarding and enforcing grants. This silence means that administrative discretion,over selection, conditions, monitoring and remedy,will be exercised through the program’s implementing documents and processes. Those documents will determine whether financial penalties, clawbacks, or administrative sanctions apply.

Record-keeping and audit expectations: The instrument does not mandate record-keeping, audit access, or reporting. Any such duties will be imposed in the implementing instruments and agreements. Applicants should anticipate that typical Commonwealth grant programs include reporting and audit clauses, but they must confirm that by obtaining the program rules and grant documentation.

In short, this instrument creates the program and eligibility architecture but does not itself create enforceable penalties. Enforcement consequences will be located in the Act, regulations, and downstream instruments and agreements.

Primary statutory relationship: This instrument is made under s 33 of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 (s 3) and should be read as a prescription made under that Act. The instrument therefore interacts directly with the Act: it prescribes a program for the Act’s purposes (s 5(1)). The Act’s provisions governing the operation, administration, funding and legal effect of prescribed programs will govern the program’s implementation. The instrument does not reproduce those provisions; it sets scope and eligibility.

Constitutional foundations specified: Section 6 specifies the heads of Commonwealth power that Parliament may rely on for laws relevant to the program. Those are:

• corporations power , foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations formed within the Commonwealth (s 6(a));
• external affairs , in relation to the Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement and UNFCCC specifically as they relate to assisting Australia meet obligations (s 6(b)(i)-(iii));
• a catch‑all reference to matters in respect of which the Constitution makes provision until Parliament otherwise provides, together with s 96 (s 6(c));
• Territory government under s 122 (s 6(d)).

By specifying these powers, the instrument situates the program within particular constitutional authorities, which may be relevant if statutory validity or jurisdictional challenge issues arise. The instrument itself does not invoke or amend other laws, but the specified constitutional bases are pointers to the legal rationales for Commonwealth involvement.

International instruments referenced: The instrument defines the Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement and UNFCCC (s 4) and connects them to the external affairs head in s 6(b). That creates an explicit policy link between the program and Australia’s international climate commitments. The instrument does not, however, operate to incorporate treaty provisions directly into domestic law; it uses the treaties to justify the external affairs basis for Parliament’s power to make laws assisting Australia meet its obligations.

State/Territory interactions: The inclusion of States and Territories and their agencies in the eligibility list (s 7(b)-(c)) signals that the program is structured to accommodate intergovernmental participation. Section 6(c) also references “matters in respect of which this Constitution makes provision until the Parliament otherwise provides, together with section 96 of the Constitution”, signalling potential interaction with Commonwealth financial assistance mechanisms to States under s 96. The instrument does not itself operate to redistribute State regulatory responsibility or to displace State law; rather, it creates an avenue for funded collaboration between Commonwealth and State/Territory actors.

Overlap with other Commonwealth grant and procurement regimes: The instrument does not address how program grants will intersect with Commonwealth financial management laws, procurement rules, or grants administration frameworks. In practice, implementing documents and the Act will determine whether the program is subject to the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines, Commonwealth procurement rules, financial management requirements, and auditing standards. The instrument’s silence on those points means that standard federal grant and procurement laws and policies will likely apply unless the implementing instruments provide otherwise.

Environmental and planning laws: The instrument identifies that funded projects will relate to capture, use and storage of carbon dioxide and to hubs (s 5(2)-(3)). Projects involving CO2 storage and transport, geological injection, pipeline infrastructure or industrial facilities will implicate environmental, planning and safety laws at Commonwealth and State/Territory levels. This instrument does not modify those laws; applicants should assume that statutory and regulatory approvals required under other laws will still be necessary for project implementation.

Intellectual property and commercial law: The instrument makes no provision for IP ownership, exploitation rights or commercial terms. Those matters will be handled in grant agreements, contracts and the Act’s framework, and may intersect with corporations law, contract law and any specific IP statutes. The instrument does not create IP rights or override existing law.

Interaction with the Act’s procedural rules: Because the instrument is a prescription under s 33 of the Act, its practical effect depends on the Act’s procedural and administrative provisions (for example, authority to make grants, delegation, reporting and review), none of which are reproduced here. Practitioners must read the instrument alongside the Act to understand the program’s legal operation.

In summary, the instrument provides a focused prescription that interacts with constitutional authority and international commitments, while leaving operational interaction with other Commonwealth and State/Territory regulatory systems to the Act and implementing instruments.

The instrument contains an explicit commencement table and a note about amendment history, but it records no subsequent amendments within its text.

• Original commencement: The instrument contains a commencement provision that states the whole instrument commences the day after it is registered; the table identifies that date as 6 May 2021 (s 2 read with the commencement table). The instrument is dated 3 May 2021 and signed by the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction (front matter; s 2 commencement table).
• Note about the table: Section 2(2) includes an express note that the commencement table “relates only to the provisions of this instrument as originally made. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this instrument.” That is a procedural note about how the instrument’s printed commencement table should be handled in later published versions; it does not itself constitute an amendment or indicate any substantive changes to the instrument.
• No amendment clauses: The text of the instrument does not include any schedules, amendment clauses, or transitional provisions that modify prior instruments. It is a self‑contained instrument that prescribes the program and eligibility criteria in ss 5-7.
• No recorded later amendments in this text: There is no provision in the instrument that records amendments made after initial registration. The instrument’s own content therefore reflects its original form as made and registered in 2021.

Practical consequence: To determine whether the instrument has been amended after registration, a researcher must consult the legislative instrument register or official gazette where amendments to legislative instruments are recorded. The instrument itself forewarns that the commencement table will not be updated in subsequent published versions to reflect later amendments; that means printed or consolidated versions may require checking against the official instrument history to confirm whether later modifications exist. The text supplied here contains no later amendments or recorded amendment history.

Administrative practice: It is common for legislative instruments to be amended by subsequent instruments or to be repealed and replaced, but none of that is present in the supplied instrument text. For legal certainty on current effect, practitioners should verify the instrument’s status in official Commonwealth registers.

The instrument contains no reference to litigation, judicial decisions, or court challenges. It does not cite any cases, court orders or determinations. The only references are to international treaties (Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement, UNFCCC) and to constitutional provisions and the parent Act.

Consequences of silence: Because the instrument itself is limited to prescribing a program and eligibility criteria, it is unsurprising that it contains no litigation history. Legal disputes, if any, relating to the program’s operation, grant allocation, constitutional validity, or administrative decision-making would be generated by later implementing actions , for example, by the way the program is administered, by particular grant awards or refusals, or by conditions in grant agreements.

What to check externally: To discover any litigation touching the program, interested parties must check:

• court databases and registries for any proceedings that name the program, the Minister, the administering agency, or particular grant recipients;
• administrative review records, including decisions of review tribunals if applicable; and
• the consolidated and current legislative instrument register for notices of quashing or judicial review that relate to the instrument or its implementation.

Limitations on reporting: This instrument does not record any judicial interlocutory rulings, full merits decisions, or administrative law determinations. The absence of litigation history in the text therefore provides no evidence one way or the other about whether litigation has since occurred; confirmation requires external case searches.

Practical implication for practitioners: Without litigation records in the instrument, assessors should assume there is no recorded litigation in the instrument itself. For risk assessment or due diligence, undertake case law searches and inquire into any administrative decisions connected with the program’s grants and approvals.

The instrument is compact and purposive, but several practical “gotchas” arise from what it does and does not do. These are points where a practitioner or potential applicant might assume more detail than the instrument supplies, or where the instrument’s drafting could give rise to implementation risk.

1. Eligibility is limited and technical (s 7)

• The instrument lists only four categories of eligible applicants (constitutional corporations; State or State agencies; Territory or Territory agencies; authorities of the Commonwealth) (s 7). It does not include individuals, sole traders, partnerships or incorporated associations that are not constitutional corporations. Entities that do not fall squarely within those categories will need to participate via an eligible applicant, or risk being ineligible. Do not assume that a foreign multinational automatically qualifies; the instrument relies on the term “constitutional corporation” which must be confirmed against the Act and relevant legal definitions.

2. “Pilot” and “pre‑commercialisation” are not defined (s 5(2))

• The program scope is limited to “pilot projects and pre‑commercialisation activities” (s 5(2)), but the instrument does not set objective criteria for those terms. Applicants should not assume an unbounded interpretation; implementing guidelines may impose tests for technology readiness level, deployment scale, or demonstration criteria. Failure to meet administrative definitions could lead to disqualification.

3. No funding quantum, matching requirements or contract terms in the instrument

• The instrument does not specify how much funding will be available, the maximum per project, whether co‑funding or matching is required, or how grants will be disbursed. Do not assume financial terms. Those will be in program guidelines and grant agreements, which should be obtained and reviewed as a priority.

4. No procedural or governance rules in the instrument

• The instrument is silent on application processes, assessment criteria, decision-makers, conflict-of-interest rules, transparency obligations, appeal or merits-review rights, or reporting and audit expectations. Applicants should not assume ordinary grant program procedural protections exist by default; verify with the program’s implementing documents.

5. Treaty references do not create direct legal rights for applicants (s 4, s 6(b))

• The instrument cites international agreements and ties them to the external affairs power (s 4 definitions; s 6(b)(i)-(iii)). That is a constitutional rationale for Commonwealth action, not a source of enforceable entitlements for applicants. Do not rely on treaty text to infer domestic grant rights.

6. Constitutional power specification does not equal eligibility expansion (s 6(a))

• Section 6(a) refers to foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations as a legislative power base. That provision does not expand the eligibility list in s 7; entities must still satisfy the eligibility categories. A foreign corporation must be a “constitutional corporation” where relevant; do not assume all foreign entities are eligible.

7. Absence of penalties and enforcement detail is not absence of obligations

• The instrument does not set penalties, but that does not mean funded projects will be free of repayment, audit, or clawback obligations. Those will be set in grant agreements, which commonly include such provisions. Do not assume a lack of penalties from this instrument.

8. State and Territory inclusion creates potential intergovernmental complexity (s 7(b)-(c))

• The inclusion of State/Territory agencies as eligible applicants may spawn co-funded projects or projects requiring coordination of approvals across jurisdictions. Applicants should anticipate that State/Territory laws and permits will still apply and that intergovernmental funding arrangements may impose additional conditions.

9. No IP or commercialisation pathway details

• Although accelerating commercialisation is an express purpose (s 5(3)(b)), the instrument does not set out who will own or exploit IP arising from funded projects, or how commercialisation benefits will be shared. Expect those issues to be negotiated in grant agreements. Parties should not assume standard IP terms.

10. Administrative discretion will determine practical outcomes

• Because the instrument leaves operational rules to implementing instruments and the Act, administrative decisions will substantially shape who wins funding and on what terms. Applicants must engage with program guidelines and Ministerial/agency guidance to understand the real tests and evaluation metrics.

In short, the main “gotchas” flow from omissions in the instrument: where it sets high-level scope and purposes but defers critical operational detail to other documents and authorities.

This instrument prescribes a program and eligibility classes but contains no application mechanics or contract terms. Compliance for prospective applicants therefore has two tracks: ensure project and entity-level alignment with the instrument’s express criteria, and obtain and comply with the program’s implementing instruments and agreements. Below are practical, source‑grounded steps.

1. Confirm applicant status under s 7

• Verify that your entity is an eligible applicant as listed in s 7: constitutional corporation; State or agency/authority/instrumentality of a State; Territory or agency/authority/instrumentality of a Territory; or an authority of the Commonwealth (s 7). If your entity is not in those categories (for example, a sole trader, partnership or unincorporated body), identify an eligible entity through which to participate, such as a corporate sponsor or government partner.

2. Map your project to the programme scope (s 5(2))

• Ensure your project is clearly a pilot project or pre‑commercialisation activity relating to either (a) capture of carbon dioxide for subsequent use or storage, or (b) the use or storage of carbon dioxide (s 5(2)). Prepare documentation that demonstrates: the stage of development (pilot/pre‑commercial), technical scope (capture/use/storage), and how the activity fits the definitions in the instrument’s scope. Because “pilot” and “pre‑commercialisation” are not defined in the instrument, expect the administering body to set criteria; articulate technology readiness, demonstration objectives, milestones and intended scale to show alignment.

3. Align project objectives with programme purposes (s 5(3))

• The instrument’s purposes include reducing emissions in specified sectors, accelerating commercialisation and encouraging hub development (s 5(3)(a)-(c)). Frame project outcomes and measurable benefits against those purposes: quantify estimated emission reductions (sector-specific where possible), describe commercialisation pathways and investment leverage, and explain any hub or regional cluster objectives. These alignments will be material to selection criteria used by the administering authority.

4. Obtain program guidelines and grant agreement templates

• The instrument does not include procedural rules, funding amounts, reporting obligations, or IP treatment. Seek and review the program guidelines, application forms, assessment criteria and draft grant agreement templates published by the administering agency or Minister. Those documents will specify key compliance obligations (reporting, audits, milestones, IP, confidentiality, audit access, default and repayment clauses).

5. Prepare for cross-jurisdictional approvals and compliance

• Projects involving CO2 capture, transport, injection or storage will intersect with environmental, planning and safety approvals at Commonwealth and State/Territory levels. Identify required permits and approvals early and budget time and cost for regulatory approvals. Because States/Territories can be applicants (s 7(b)-(c)), consider partnerships with relevant agencies to streamline approvals and align funding with public-sector objectives.

6. Clarify funding terms, co‑funding and procurement expectations

• Do not assume a funding quantum or that grants will cover total project cost. Confirm whether co‑funding, matching contributions, or in‑kind contributions are required in program documents. Also clarify whether procurement rules apply to project contracts and subcontractors, as Commonwealth grants can be subject to procurement and value-for-money principles.

7. Address intellectual property and commercialisation pathways

• Because the instrument’s purposes include commercialisation (s 5(3)(b)), you should negotiate IP terms early if selected. Request draft IP clauses, licence terms and exploitation rights in grant agreements, and assess the commercial implications for investors and partners.

8. Prepare robust evaluation and reporting structures

• Although the instrument is silent on reporting requirements, typical Commonwealth grants require milestone reporting, financial acquittals and audit access. Design internal project governance, milestone tracking, and financial record‑keeping to meet these likely requirements.

9. Consider governance and conflict-of-interest arrangements

• Ensure board-level or executive oversight of funded projects, and establish conflict-of-interest policies for decision-makers and advisors. While the instrument is silent on conflicts, grant administrators will expect robust governance to mitigate risk and to comply with public-sector standards.

10. Monitor legal and administrative developments

• The instrument specifies constitutional and treaty basing (s 6) and refers to the Act (s 3). Stay up-to-date with any program amendments, grant rounds, guidelines, and the Act’s subordinate instruments. Check official registers for amendments and for any administrative or judicial developments that could affect project viability.

11. Engage early with administering agency and potential partners

• Given the limited detail in the instrument, early engagement to obtain guidance, ask for pre-application feedback and form partnerships (with States, Commonwealth authorities or constitutional corporations) will reduce bid risk and clarify expectations.

12. Document compliance evidence

• Maintain contemporaneous technical and financial records that demonstrate the project’s pilot/pre‑commercial nature, milestone achievement, use of funds, and alignment with emission-reduction and commercialisation objectives. This evidence will be central to grant compliance and to defending any audit or review.

In essence, compliance starts with ensuring that both the applicant and the proposed activity fit within the instrument’s narrow eligibility and scope (ss 5-7), then proceeds by obtaining and conforming to the detailed administrative rules and contractual terms that will implement the programme under the Act.