Gojeera Takaichi may be here any minute, but she faces a growing riot in Parliament House in favour of a gas tax.
A proposal to introduce a 25% tax on Australia’s gas exports is being examined by a Senate inquiry, sparking a heated debate over fairness, economic impact, and energy security.
Former Greens leader Adam Bandt argues the tax could raise about $17 billion annually—enough to fund free public transport indefinitely or invest in future industries and disaster recovery.
Supporters, including Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute, framed the policy as a rare opportunity to ensure Australians receive a fairer return from natural resources.
Denniss argued that Australia currently collects less revenue from its gas exports than countries like Japan collect from taxing those same imports.
He also argues the tax would not increase prices for international buyers, as gas is sold at global market rates, and could even boost domestic supply and lower local prices.
Critics strongly dispute these claims. Opposition Leader Angus Taylor warns the tax could effectively “close down the gas industry,” reduce investment, and threaten energy security.
Public voices and some politicians, including Labor MP Ed Husic, support revisiting gas taxation, arguing Australians believe multinational companies receive overly generous deals.
Others counter that higher taxes could damage trade relationships with key Asian partners, though some experts say competitiveness would remain intact since global pricing dominates.
I derive immense satisfaction from witnessing the parade of individuals nourished by MB arguments and data.
It is our job to piss on the tent, not enter it. And piss on it, I will.
I still think the structure of the tax is flawed because it enables the cartel to restrict local supply and gouge the locals. Other policies will be needed to prevent this.
Alternatively, a 100% levy on all profits above a certain price threshold fixes all problems. Over to you, Ken.
Bravo. It won’t harm the market at all.
Gas is currently being sold in Asia $20Gj. Losing 25% of that still makes it obscenely profitable.
Enter Gas Hippopotamus 2, the horribly conflicted Saul Kavonic.
A new tax on gas will raise near-term government revenue. But it will also come at a cost, risking immediate fuel shortages, loss of future investment and tax revenue, and eroding our reputation by breaking our word. Those costs can outweigh the gains.
We must ask if a new gas tax is worth the risk of running out of fuel next month. It would change the rules on our trading partners, including Japan, Korea and Malaysia; the same partners Albanese is asking to keep sending us fuel during the global crisis.
If we break the rules amid a shortage, they may do the same to us. We wouldn’t want them slapping a new tax on fuel exports to us any more than they want us hitting their gas investments.
I agree with the last point. The Gas Tax should be used as a trade-off for diesel and jet fuel. But only in the short-term. The remainder of the argument consists of the sort of nonsensical assertions that gas hippos feast upon.
If the tax costs some future development of supply, so what? If we develop it now, we make next-to-nothing out of it. Better to leave it in the ground until somebody less rapacious comes along.
Or, the government could develop it itself and make all the money.
Gas Hippopotamus 2 works with small gas-producing clients who need high prices to stay in business.
He’s about as independent as my butt is of its anus.
