For years, the idea of properly taxing gas exports has been treated as politically untenable - something governments approached dismissively, if at all. But as global conflict pushes up energy prices and gas company profits surge, that dismissiveness is starting to look like negligence.
Fri 20 Mar 2026 00.00
Image: AAP/Rebecca Le May
There’s a shift happening in Australian politics right now.
And it runs straight through the gas industry.
For years, the idea of properly taxing gas exports has been treated as politically untenable – something governments approached dismissively, if at all. But as global conflict pushes up energy prices and gas company profits surge, that dismissiveness is starting to look like negligence.
That shift is now playing out in real time in Parliament, and there is a very clear support for a 25% gas export tax.
At an Australia Institute hosted joint press conference on Monday, Greens and crossbench MPs stood together to make a simple point: the numbers are there to pass a 25% tax on gas exports, and to do it in this coming federal budget. Greens Senators and Independents including David Pocock, Sophie Scamps, Monique Ryan and Andrew Wilkie made clear that support for reform spans political lines. Importantly such legislation could pass the Senate within weeks if the government chose to act. What was once framed as politically risky is now procedurally possible.
And if politicians are only just catching up, the public is already there. New polling from The Australia Institute shows that a clear majority of Australians – 61% -support a 25% tax on gas exports.
Strikingly, this public support cuts across party lines, from Greens voters through to National, Liberal and One Nation supporters, underscoring that this is not an ideological position but a broadly held view about gas companies needing to pay their fair share of tax. Most Australians also support using the estimated $17 billion a year to fund cost of living assistance and essential services like health and aged care. A reminder that this debate is not just about taxation, but about what Australians expect in return for the resources they own.
A recent piece in The Guardian by Greg Jericho captures the zeitgeist well: Australia is experiencing the effects of global fuel shocks, yet the companies exporting our gas are enjoying extraordinary profits from these fossil fuel conflicts- while contributing relatively little back.
And new research from The Australia Institute adds another layer to this story. Not only are Australians missing out on revenue from exported gas, but we are also actively subsidising the fossil fuel industry.
According to the Institute’s 2026 fossil fuel subsidies report, Fossil fuel subsidies cost Australian governments $16.3 billion in 2025–26, an increase of 9.4% on the previous year. This is a larger increase than the 7.6% growth of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Growth in fossil fuel subsidies is driven by the federal government’s Fuel Tax Credit Scheme, which cost $10.8 billion in 2025–26.
In other words, while gas companies benefit from high global prices, Australian taxpayers are helping fund the very industry exporting those profits offshore.
That disconnect is becoming harder to dismiss.
Into this moment stepped Australian Labor Party Member for Chifley Ed Husic, with a speech that, while perhaps not headline-grabbing at the time, may well prove to be very influential.
As highlighted in The Point, Husic challenged one of the gas industry’s most persistent claims: that Australia faces a shortage. Instead, he argued we have something else entirely – a “glut of greed.”
It’s a striking phrase, because it’s an accurate one.
The issue has never really been about how much gas Australia has. We are one of the world’s largest exporters. The issue is where that gas goes (about 80 percent of it) – and who benefits.
Around 30% of exported gas is uncontracted and sold at higher prices on global spot markets.
So, when Australians are told supply is tight, it’s worth asking: tight for who?
What makes Husic’s intervention notable is not just the argument, but the source. These are not the words of an outsider; they come from a former Minister for Science and Industry and a brave voice who speaks out on issues of importance. This is a big signal that the political centre of gravity is shifting.
Husic is not alone.
Support for stronger taxation of gas exports – including a flat 25% export tax – is now coming from across the political spectrum.
The Australian Greens have long advocated for higher taxes on fossil fuel exports, including a minimum 25% tax on export gas as part of the transition away from fossil fuels.
Senator David Pocock has been one of the most consistent voices calling out the imbalance, pointing to the stark reality that Australians often pay more in beer excise than gas companies pay in resource taxes.
And a growing number of crossbenchers, including One Nation and Clive Palmer Australia United Party are converging around the same idea: that Australia should introduce a simple, transparent export tax to ensure the public gets a fair return on our resources.
What was once dismissed as fringe is now being openly debated across Parliament and in the public sphere.
If Husic’s speech reframes the problem, the numbers explain why the politics are shifting.
When Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022, global fossil fuel prices surged. LNG prices followed. Rising from around $530 per tonne before the invasion to $848, then peaking at $1,311 in 2022-23. Even now, prices remain well above historical averages.
For gas exporters, this has been extraordinarily lucrative.
For Australia, it should have been, but we’re just paying higher prices at home.
Analysis drawing on Australia Institute research shows that if a 25% tax on gas exports had been introduced when the Albanese government came to office – and applied from July 2022 – it would have raised $63.8 billion in just three years.
That’s not a hypothetical future gain. That’s money we’ve already missed out on.
Big numbers can feel distant, but what we missed out on matters.
$63.8 billion is enough to fund:
Instead, those windfall profits from conflicts have largely flowed to gas exporters.
This is where the debate shifts from technical policy to lived experience. Because it’s no longer just about how the tax system works. It’s about what Australians are going without.
That shift is evident in how Parliament is beginning to grapple with the costs of climate damage itself. Independent MP Andrew Wilkie has formally tabled The Australia Institute’s Climate Disaster Levy petition signed by over 35,171 people, putting into legislative form a simple idea: if fossil fuel exports are helping drive more frequent and costly disasters, then the companies profiting from those exports should help pay for the damage. As outlined in The Point, Australians are already footing the bill through higher insurance premiums, disaster recovery spending and rising taxes, while fossil fuel exporters contribute little despite record profits.
The proposed levy would apply to exports, not domestic use, raising tens of billions annually to fund preparedness, response and recovery, while shifting the burden away from households and onto the industries driving the risk. In that sense, it reflects the same principle underpinning the gas export tax debate: that Australians should not be left paying for both the damage and the missed opportunity.
What’s emerging is a broader shift from technical arguments to questions of fairness.
Australians are paying more for energy. They are paying more for insurance due to fossil fuel driven climate disasters. They’re seeing pressure on household budgets. And at the same time, they’re watching gas companies export around 80% of gas extracted in Australia, pay very little tax back to the Australian coffers, and report extraordinary profits.
That is unfair.
It’s why Husic’s speech cuts through. It’s why Pocock’s comparisons resonate. And it’s why the Greens’ long-standing position is finding a wider audience.
At current levels, a 25% export tax could raise around $17 billion every year – revenue that could strengthen public services, ease cost-of-living pressures, or support the renewable energy transition.
The policy tools exist. What remains uncertain is whether the politics will catch up in time. You can only tax gas exports once, and we’ve been missing out for decades.
Slowly, but decisively, the gas tax debate is moving from the margins to the mainstream. From something governments avoid to something they’re expected to deliver.
Ed Husic’s speech is part of that shift. So too are the growing calls from the Australian Greens and David Pocock, and others who argue that Australia should be getting a fairer return on its resources.
Because once you know the number we’ve already missed out on since the Albanese government took power – $63.8 billion – it’s hard to unsee it.
And harder still to explain why we’ve missed out on that much revenue, and on current tax policies will keep missing out.
Advertisement
Housing and inequality campaigners are urging Treasurer Jim Chalmers to go big in next month’s budget and abolish the full capital gains tax (CGT) discount and negative gearing, arguing partial changes will do little to ease the deepening crisis.
Here is a truth that those in power have never quite figured out how to deal with: change doesn't start at the top. It starts at the fringes. It starts with people who have the least and stand to lose the most. And eventually, it ends up in the halls of power.
