Matter of Public Importance
Senate · Monday 23 March 2026
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
The Senate debated a motion to impose a 25 per cent levy on gas exports, with proponents arguing that multinational corporations are profiting excessively from global conflicts and resource extraction while paying less tax than many Australians. Opponents contended that such a tax would deter investment, reduce domestic supply, and exacerbate the cost-of-living crisis by destabilising energy markets. The government defended its existing reforms to the petroleum resource rent tax and announced a future domestic gas reservation policy, while independent and crossbench members largely supported the levy or similar measures to ensure fair returns for the public.
The debate concluded without a vote, as matters of public importance are for discussion only.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Opened the debate
Brockman introduced the matter of public importance, which proposed that the government apply a tax of no less than 25 per cent on gas exports from highly profitable firms. The motion specified that the revenue generated should be used to support Australians facing rising fuel and energy costs. Brockman facilitated the submission of the proposal to the Senate for discussion under standing order 75.
Opposition response
McDonald argued that the proposed tax would cause economic damage by discouraging investment in gas production, which is essential for fuel security. McDonald stated that increased taxes would lead to reduced domestic output and fewer jobs, citing concerns that capital would flow offshore. McDonald emphasised that Australia needs streamlined approvals and more production to ensure energy stability, rather than higher taxes that could freeze new projects.
Hodgins-May argued that gas companies are profiting from conflict and climate destruction while avoiding fair taxation. Hodgins-May highlighted the environmental impact of gas extraction, including algal blooms and climate disasters, and called for accountability. Hodgins-May stated that a 25 per cent tax could raise significant revenue to ease household bills and fund disaster recovery.
Walker argued that a simple export levy could destabilise supply and increase costs for households in a tight global market. Walker highlighted government reforms to the petroleum resource rent tax that have already increased revenue from companies. Walker stated that the government is focusing on stabilising energy supply, providing cost-of-living relief, and investing in renewables to lower long-term costs.
Tyrrell advocated for a 25 per cent gas export tax, noting that it is currently being costed by the Prime Minister's department. Tyrrell argued that multinational corporations should pay more tax than they currently do, especially during times of conflict when profits surge. Tyrrell proposed that the revenue be used to reduce the fuel excise, thereby lowering fuel prices for consumers.
Ananda-Rajah noted that gas companies are benefiting from price spikes due to Middle East conflicts, with some selling cargoes at double the benchmark rate. Ananda-Rajah announced the introduction of a domestic gas reservation policy starting in 2027 to retain 15 to 25 per cent of production for local use. Ananda-Rajah acknowledged that Treasury is considering additional taxes or levies to ensure fair returns from the industry.
Hanson-Young argued that gas companies have long underpaid taxes compared to ordinary Australians, such as nurses and teachers. Hanson-Young linked the high profits of gas firms to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, describing the earnings as blood money. Hanson-Young called for immediate action to tax these profits to alleviate the pressure on households.
Payman supported the motion, stating that gas companies are not paying their fair share despite billions in profits. Payman highlighted that fuel prices in Western Australia are soaring, with families paying high rates per litre. Payman argued that a 25 per cent tax could have raised substantial funds in previous years, which could be used for education and healthcare.
Faruqi argued that ordinary people are paying the price for war and corporate profiteering, while corporations make record profits. Faruqi called for a 25 per cent gas export levy to support Australians struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. Faruqi stated that the revenue should be used to help those impacted by rising prices for fuel, food, and housing.
Pocock supported the 25 per cent tax, comparing Australia's low returns to Norway's high tax rate and sovereign wealth fund. Pocock argued that a flat tax on exports would prevent companies from using accounting strategies to avoid corporate tax. Pocock stated that Australians are angry that they do not benefit more from the country's status as a major gas exporter.
Shoebridge argued that the government supports a war that benefits fossil fuel corporations while harming civilians. Shoebridge called for a 25 per cent tax to claw back profits from companies benefiting from the conflict. Shoebridge stated that the revenue should be used to help with energy bills and public transport, reducing the burden on regular people.
Bell argued that the Greens' proposal would destroy the gas industry, resulting in no revenue for the public. Bell stated that One Nation has long advocated for sensible policies, including reserving 15 per cent of gas for domestic use. Bell emphasised the need for fair returns and ownership of resources without wiping out the industry or deterring investment.
Steele-John argued that major political parties have historically favoured the gas industry over the public interest. Steele-John highlighted the disparity in tax contributions between corporations like Woodside and individual workers such as nurses. Steele-John called for corporations to pay their fair share to provide immediate cost-of-living relief to the community.