One Nation unveils bold Norway-style gas plan, slamming 25% export tax as economic vandalism

One Nation has put forward a significant interventionist policy aimed at reforming Australia’s offshore gas industry, proposing the abolition of the current offshore gas profits tax and advocating for the Commonwealth to acquire a 30% equity stake in all new gas ventures. The party asserts this strategic shift, drawing inspiration from Norway’s successful resource management, would unlock “vastly greater returns” for Australian taxpayers, ensuring national resources primarily benefit the nation’s citizens. This ambitious plan seeks to reframe how Australia capitalizes on its abundant natural gas reserves, moving towards a model where the government plays a more direct role in the ownership and profitability of these crucial projects. The proposal has ignited a fervent debate across the political spectrum and within industry circles, with proponents arguing for increased national benefit and critics raising concerns about government overreach and economic viability.

The party’s leader vehemently criticized the existing 25% export tax on gas, labeling it as “economic vandalism” that undermines the industry’s potential and Australia’s competitive edge in global markets. This strong condemnation highlights a core tenet of One Nation’s argument: that current policies are hindering, rather than helping, the nation’s ability to maximize its resource wealth. The proposed policy aims to rectify what the party perceives as a fundamental imbalance, where foreign entities and large corporations disproportionately benefit from Australian natural resources.

Such a comprehensive overhaul of gas policy signals a profound shift from traditional market-driven approaches, suggesting a future where state participation is not just a regulatory function but an active ownership role. The party believes this direct involvement is essential to secure long-term prosperity and energy security for Australia, moving beyond what it views as short-sighted revenue collection methods.

One Nation’s resource vision

The central plank of One Nation’s new gas policy is a dual approach: eliminating the contentious offshore gas profits tax and establishing a 30% equity share for the Commonwealth in all future gas projects. This strategy is designed to provide the Australian government with a direct stake in the success of these ventures, allowing it to share more substantially in the profits generated from the nation’s natural resources. The party argues that this direct ownership model would mitigate revenue volatility and secure a more consistent income stream for public services and national development.

By abolishing the offshore gas profits tax, One Nation aims to simplify the tax regime for gas producers, potentially encouraging new investment and reducing administrative burdens. However, this move would be offset by the direct equity acquisition, ensuring that the government still captures a significant portion of the value created. The party envisions a scenario where Australia transitions from merely taxing resource extraction to actively participating in and profiting from the entire value chain of its gas industry.

A model from the North Sea

The “Norway-inspired” aspect of the policy refers to a model where a national government holds substantial ownership in its natural resource sectors, particularly oil and gas. Norway’s state-owned energy company, Equinor (formerly Statoil), has been instrumental in managing the nation’s vast petroleum wealth, channeling profits into its sovereign wealth fund, which is now one of the largest globally. This model is often cited as an example of how a country can leverage its natural endowments for long-term national benefit, rather than allowing profits to predominantly flow to private or foreign corporations.

One Nation’s proposal seeks to emulate this success, advocating for a more direct and controlling role for the Australian government in its gas industry. Proponents suggest that by adopting such a model, Australia could build a similar sovereign wealth fund, providing intergenerational wealth and stability, cushioning the economy against future shocks, and funding essential infrastructure and services. The party believes that the sheer scale of Australia’s gas reserves warrants a more nationalistic approach to their management and exploitation.

The adoption of a sovereign equity model could also provide Australia with greater control over its energy supply and pricing, enhancing national energy security. This aspect is particularly pertinent given global energy market volatility and the increasing focus on domestic resource utilization. A 30% stake would give the government a significant voice in strategic decisions, production levels, and export arrangements, ensuring national interests are prioritized.

Criticisms and comparisons

The ambitious proposal immediately drew sharp criticism from various quarters, including the government, industry stakeholders, and the Coalition opposition. A primary point of contention, articulated by the Coalition, is the comparison of One Nation’s policy to economic models found in countries like Venezuela. This comparison suggests a move towards state control that could deter private investment and lead to inefficiencies, rather than fostering a dynamic and competitive industry.

Critics argue that a 30% government equity stake in new projects could be perceived as an unwelcome intervention in a market that traditionally relies on private capital and expertise. Such a move, they contend, might increase sovereign risk, making Australia less attractive for international energy investors who prefer stable, predictable regulatory environments. The fear is that government involvement could lead to politicization of investment decisions and operational inefficiencies, hindering project development and ultimately reducing overall returns.

Economic implications and industry concerns

Industry bodies have expressed significant apprehension regarding the proposed policy, particularly the potential for increased government intervention to stifle investment. Gas projects are capital-intensive and require long-term commitments, and any perceived instability in the policy environment can lead investors to seek opportunities in other, more predictable jurisdictions. The abolition of the existing profits tax, while seemingly beneficial, is overshadowed by the requirement for government equity, which could be viewed as a form of nationalization.

Leia Tambem

Michael Schumacher’s private health journey continues in 2026 as F1 legacy endures under family’s vigilant care

Cientistas da NASA detalham percurso e composição do cometa interestelar 3I/Atlas

Portugal logs unprecedented may temperatures as europe battles intense heatwave conditions

Concerns also extend to the practicalities of government co-ownership. Questions arise about how the Commonwealth would fund its 30% stake, manage its operational responsibilities, and navigate potential conflicts of interest with private partners. Industry players often emphasize the need for a stable and competitive framework that encourages exploration and production, arguing that government overreach could undermine these crucial elements.

Furthermore, the “economic vandalism” label applied to the 25% export tax sparked debate about the balance between revenue generation and industry competitiveness. While the tax aims to capture more revenue from exports, critics argue it could make Australian gas less competitive on the global stage, potentially leading to reduced production and overall economic activity. The challenge lies in finding a sweet spot that maximizes national benefit without deterring the investment necessary to unlock and deliver these resources.

The export tax debate

The 25% export tax, which One Nation seeks to abolish, has been a contentious issue since its inception. Designed to ensure Australians receive a fair return from the export of their natural resources, it has been met with resistance from gas producers who argue it impacts their profitability and international competitiveness. Pauline Hanson’s strong denouncement of this tax as “economic vandalism” underscores a belief that it damages the industry more than it benefits the nation.

The debate around the export tax often pits the desire for immediate national revenue against the long-term health and investment prospects of the gas sector. Supporters of the tax argue it is a necessary mechanism to capture a greater share of profits for the public good, especially during periods of high commodity prices. Conversely, opponents, like One Nation, contend that such taxes can disincentivize new projects, reduce overall production, and ultimately lead to a smaller tax base in the long run.

The party’s proposal to replace this tax with a direct equity stake suggests a different philosophy for revenue generation. Instead of a blanket tax on exports, the government would become a direct shareholder, benefiting from the success of individual projects. This approach aims to align the government’s financial interests more closely with the operational success and profitability of the gas ventures themselves, potentially fostering a more collaborative relationship between the state and the industry.

Broader political landscape

The introduction of such an interventionist policy by One Nation injects a new dimension into Australia’s energy policy debate, challenging established norms and pushing for a more nationalist approach to resource management. It forces other political parties to articulate their own positions on state involvement in key industries and the optimal balance between private enterprise and public ownership.

This policy comes at a time when global energy markets are undergoing significant transitions, driven by climate change concerns, geopolitical shifts, and technological advancements. Australia, as a major energy exporter, faces increasing pressure to adapt its policies to ensure both economic prosperity and environmental sustainability.

The path forward for Australian energy

The One Nation proposal opens a crucial discussion about Australia’s long-term strategy for its natural gas resources. It highlights the tension between attracting foreign investment and ensuring maximum national benefit from finite resources. The “Norway model” presents an intriguing alternative to traditional market-led approaches, prompting a re-evaluation of how Australia manages its vast energy wealth.

As the debate unfolds, stakeholders will closely examine the economic modeling and practical implications of such a significant policy shift. The success of any new framework will depend on its ability to balance national interests with the need for a vibrant, competitive, and investable energy sector that can continue to deliver reliable and affordable energy for both domestic consumption and export markets.