Is a gas export tax the great idea some punters claim or is gas already paying its way?

By MICHAEL SLOVANOS

KONRAD Murkowski, aka Konrad Benjamin, the young bloke who runs the Punters’ Politics online commentary, has fronted the Senate Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources with Dr Richard Dennis from the Australia Institute political lobby.

Both presented a persuasive argument for a 25% tax on gas exports, that would apparently make Australians a lot richer, like the Norwegians, who benefit from their government’s share in the country’s oil exports.

The Australia Institute has released research showing that the Japanese government gets more revenue from Australian gas imports than the Australian government gets from Australia’s gas exports.

The Australia Institute estimates that a 25% gas export tax would raise $17 billion per year for a country that’s permanently told it has a budget crisis.

“For a country that’s permanently told we can’t afford to invest in services, what a what a once in a lifetime opportunity to collect $17 billion for something as simple as getting a fair price for the gas we export,” said Murkowski.

“The cost of delaying that decision is $350 million a week. So, I do hope that not only does this parliament finally grasp the nettle and get a fair share for Australians, I hope they do so soon because $350 million a week is money we will never get back.

“And while I note that you know there are concerns now, well, let’s go back a step. We’ve been told for a long time the gas industry employs a lot of people. They don’t. You don’t hear them make that claim anymore that their jobs are important for people who work there.

“But it’s around 20,000 of the 25 to 28 million people in Australia working. We’ve been told for a long time that they pay a lot of tax. Well, we now know that’s not the case. We’re now being told that we have to keep things the way they are, lest we upset our customers.

“Well, the research the Australia Institute’s released today makes clear that the Japanese government is happy to tax Australian gas. Indeed, the Japanese government is getting more revenue from taxing Australian gas than the Australian government is. So, I’m sure they’ll understand,” Murkowski argued.

However, Queensland Senator Susan McDonald was not convinced and questioned Dr Dennis on his gas industry employment figures, the international competition for natural gas supply and the fact that the gas exported from Gladstone is Queensland’s gas and it is already taxed with a royalty that goes to the Queensland government.

Murkowski and Dennis reckon the revenue could be used for schools, hospitals and other federal government spending, without imposing additional tax burdens on Australian. But their argument may be a little simplistic.

As pointed out by Nationals leader Senator Matt Canavan and Senator McDonald, the matter of gas exported from Queensland has nothing to do with the criticisms of the Federal taxation of offshore gas areas.

“The campaign to slap a massive 25% tax on gas exports is not designed to raise tax revenue. It is designed to shut down the gas industry,” the Nationals stated in a media release.

“No business can withstand a 25% tax on revenues. It is not a serious response. The people pushing this are happy to play political games with the jobs and livelihoods of people like in Gladstone.

“Gas creates over 3000 jobs in Gladstone and over $300 million is spent by the gas sector on small businesses in the town to support the industry.

“But the hidden agenda of the Greens and Teals is exposed by the fact that they are proposing their 25% tax to be a tax on a tax and hit onshore gas developments too.”

The Australia Institute estimates that Queensland raised $4.3 billion in revenue from mineral royalties in 2022-23, money it says would otherwise have gone to multinational shareholders, but now “is mainly being spent on better public services”. That claim is debatable.

The Institute also noted that Queenslanders received a $1000 rebate on power bills (on top of the $300 rebate the Commonwealth gave at the time) and in South East Queensland public transport fares were reduced to 50 cents per trip, which is still in place.

But indicative of how such revenue can be wasted was the state Labor government’s pledge of $1 billion over five years into “a health strategy for women and girls aimed at achieving gender equality”.

The only commendable action within that program was Australia’s first publicly funded endometriosis and pelvic pain clinic. There was also expanded access to IVF, and free tampons in all state schools, for what its worth.

A further $41.8 million went into “improved access to pregnancy termination services which can be lifesaving for women and girls”, the Institute reported. “The number of social workers and nurses who work on terminations will increase, wraparound services will be improved, and a virtual service will help fix healthcare deserts”.

So windfall resources revenue is spent on IVF clinics to help the alarming number of infertile couples while on the other hand money goes into encouraging children to be aborted by the thousand and up to full term.

The Institute then identified more gross government mispending, even if for the wrong reason. They took a swipe at Queensland Labor for allocating $520 million over six years to attempt to “drive emissions reductions in the state’s highest emitting metallurgical coal mines.”

“Yep, subsidising the state’s most polluting mines,” the Institute noted. Polluting who and where? we might ask. And how much went into the salaries of state environment bureaucrats enforcing “climate policy”.

This is straight out tax-funded “jobs for the boys” Labor-style, or in this case jobs for Labor’s feminist brigade within the state and federal health bureaucracy and a cautionary tale of what can happen to windfall revenue when politics and ideology take precedence over the welfare of people.