When it comes to energy policy, Australia has long been a battleground for competing visions of how to balance economic growth, public ownership, and global trade. Pauline Hanson’s recent proposal to replace the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) with a 10% wellhead royalty on LNG production has sparked a firestorm, not just because of its numbers, but because it embodies a deeper ideological clash over who controls the nation’s natural resources. Personally, I think this isn’t just about gas—it’s a referendum on whether Australians want to be passive beneficiaries of their own energy wealth or active stakeholders in shaping its future. The proposal, which also includes a co-investment scheme where taxpayers take equity stakes in new gas projects, is a bold attempt to rewrite the script of resource extraction in Australia. But does it go far enough? Or is it just another version of the same old game?
Hanson’s plan to emulate Norway’s model—where the state takes a direct financial stake in oil and gas operations—has drawn both admiration and skepticism. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, now worth over $3 trillion, is a symbol of what happens when a nation treats its energy wealth as a long-term asset rather than a short-term cash cow. Yet, Australia’s situation is different. The country’s reliance on unconventional coal seam gas and LNG exports, rather than direct pipeline exports like Norway, creates a unique set of challenges. What many people don’t realize is that Norway’s model isn’t a simple formula—it’s a result of decades of political will, regulatory stability, and a culture that values long-term fiscal responsibility. Australia, by contrast, has often treated its energy sector as a series of quick fixes, which is why Hanson’s proposal feels like a necessary reset.
But here’s the thing: Hanson’s 10% royalty is a tiny step in a much larger conversation. Independent Senator David Pocock, who has been a vocal critic of the current system, argues that the number is shockingly low. He points out that polling shows a majority of One Nation supporters want a 25% tax on gas exports—a figure that would have been a more equitable return for Australians. From my perspective, this highlights a fundamental flaw in the current system: it’s designed to reward corporations while leaving the public with a fraction of the profits. A 25% tax, as Pocock argues, would not only generate more revenue but also incentivize domestic consumption, which could help stabilize prices for households and businesses. Yet, the gas industry has spent $11.2 million fighting this idea, which raises a deeper question: Why do the companies that profit from Australia’s energy wealth seem to have such a strong interest in keeping the system as it is?
The government’s refusal to entertain a 25% tax on exports has further complicated the situation. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese dismissed the idea as a ‘populist’ measure that would undermine investment and risk damaging trade relationships. But what if the real issue is not just about taxes, but about the broader narrative of who owns the energy? Albanese’s focus on east coast gas reserves and domestic supply suggests a prioritization of short-term stability over long-term equity. This is a dangerous disconnect. If the government is truly committed to securing Australia’s energy future, it should be investing in a system that ensures the public gets a fair share of the wealth, not just the corporations that extract it.
What this all points to is a deeper cultural shift in how Australians view their natural resources. For too long, the energy sector has operated under the assumption that the state is a passive regulator, not an active participant. But Hanson’s proposal, with its emphasis on co-investment and sovereign wealth, is a radical departure from that model. It’s not just about money—it’s about power. If Australia is to truly control its energy destiny, it needs to move beyond the rhetoric of ‘fair return’ and start building a system where the public is not just a beneficiary, but a partner in the process. The question is, will the political will be there to make that happen?
