Australians deserve a fair, affordable, transparent and predictable energy system, not the export distorted market that we have today. We have lots of gas, let's be real. This is an Australian resource. But, instead of prioritising our domestic markets, we have for far too long allowed companies to exploit it for great profit for export, prioritising other markets over our domestic market. We do not need more gas approvals. What we do need is to be smarter about where we use it, where it can be sold, what we have and who we prioritise.

Our gas security scheme has previously relied on a combination of market interventions, voluntary agreements and emergency mechanisms to manage supply concerns. These arrangements applied temporary bandaid solutions to avoid shortfalls, building an energy system reliant on fossil fuels and continuing to let the gas industry shape policies long after the science has shifted, also prioritising their profits over Australian consumers. Since liquefied gas exports started in Queensland over 10 years ago, eastern Australia's domestic gas consumption has fallen by about 32 per cent, while prices have tripled. In 2023-24, Australians paid more than four times on HECS debt payments to government revenue than gas companies did on PRRT.

Instead of rules to protect our domestic requirements, producers have had strong incentives to maximise exports for great profits. Projects like Santos's GLNG project in Queensland have siphoned gas away from the domestic market to fulfil export commitments. It is plain wrong, because while they do that at great profit Australians pay. This bill seeks to create a licensing regime for LNG exports from 2028. Each exporter must supply the domestic market with up to 20 per cent of what it exports. The theory behind that approach is clear. More gas in the market means, hopefully, lower prices for consumers, so it's an objective I support. But there are concerns around this bill.

As it stands, the Domestic Gas Reservation Bill 2026 presents significant concerns. The bill is incredibly complex, at 190 pages long, and after 18 months of consultation it's still unclear how it will work in practice. The bill is unclear about the core areas of the operation of the scheme: how much gas is to be provided to the domestic market, who supplies it and what counts, in fact, as supply. The government seems to be retrofitting a policy on top of projects that were considered without a domestic supply policy and trying to do so without upsetting the gas companies—the great lobbying sector that gets straight into the government—and not wanting to disrupt this sector, its investment business or anyone else. So I would say this is not the best drafted piece of legislation I've seen.

A significant amount of the scheme's operation still depends on future ministerial discretion and decisions by the Australian Energy Regulator. In a joint response, the Australian Workers' Union, Australian Conservation Fund, Australian Council of Social Service and Australian Industry Group have all highlighted that the bill has some major weaknesses that carry the risk that the scheme will be gamed and undermined, potentially to the point of hampering the efficacy of the reservation as a whole. Let's get real. The Australian public is pretty cynical at the prospect of the gas industry yet again gaming this legislation and whether or not the government is yet again creating a policy that will favour the gas industry's superprofits over Australian markets and Australian users. This should concern the government, and I hope they are hearing that feedback. Australians should not have to rely on future ministers making the right decisions behind closed doors. Parliament should provide greater certainty upfront through clear legislative safeguards, transparent decision-making and independent oversight. Australians deserve confidence that this scheme will deliver real, more than just simple paper, compliance.

First, there should be greater limits on ministerial discretion. Ensure that the key principles of the scheme are contained in the legislation itself. There are too many critical questions that are left to future rules, future determinations and future regulatory decisions. If this scheme is to endure, Australians deserve certainty about how obligations will be calculated, how compliance will be assessed and how decisions will be made. A reservation scheme should operate through clear rules, not ongoing ministerial intervention.

Second, we must strengthen the principle of additionality. The bill outlines two ways that you could meet your domestic supply obligations if you are a gas provider—through providing your own gas to the domestic market or by providing additional gas to the domestic market—but how additional gas is determined is not defined in the bill, Instead, it will be provided through the Australian Energy Regulator or ministerial decree. It's simply not good enough. I think the Australian public should be allowed to know how additional gas is to be defined and considered. This should be simple. If gas is counted towards a domestic supply obligation, it should result in a genuine increase in gas available to Australian consumers. There are really legitimate concerns that this can cause gaming by these companies. The fact is that this is not clearly defined. There is—excuse the pun—a Santos sized hole in this bill. Buying gas that was meant for the domestic market anyway and using it to fulfil your own obligations is allowed under this bill, and that is really problematic.

Third, the bill should better align with Australia's energy transition. I welcome the fact that the framework recognises demand size measures, electrification and alternative pathways, but these provisions must be designed to reduce Australia's dependence on gas, not create new incentives for gas expansion.

Fourth, transparency and accountability must be strengthened. The advice provided by the regulator should be published wherever possible. Determinations should be accompanied by clear reasons, and compliance decisions should be transparent and subject to scrutiny, because can I say again, the Australian public is highly cynical about the decisions government has made—this government and previous governments—in relation to the gas sector. Every decision has resulted in a system that the gas sector has been happy with because it continues to make super profits; meanwhile, Australians pay through the roof. It's not good enough.

This bill does not include a mandatory review period or operation to actually even assess whether the reservation scheme is working as intended in putting downward pressure on domestic prices. Ultimately, I hope that this bill provides a mechanism by which Australian gas for Australian consumers will be more affordable. But if the government gets this design wrong, we create a different problem. We don't want a policy designed to improve affordability to incidentally then become a vehicle for the expansion of fossil fuel production on this excuse of providing for the domestic market while maximising sales to export markets.

Whilst in principle I support there being a gas reservation scheme to ensure the domestic market is supplied fairly at a reasonable price, we have to be really clear that there is a high level of scepticism and cynicism when it comes to the involvement of the gas lobby and its power when it comes to dealing with this government and previous governments, so I urge the government to close the loopholes and ensure there is greater accountability and transparency.

To that effect, I move the amendment as circulated in my name to ensure that we have much greater transparency and accountability, pointing out that, for successive governments, there's been a real failure in delivering a fair stewardship of Australian resources for the Australian people.

This is the fourth intervention in the gas market in under a decade, and yet we still don't have a fair system. Such market interventions do undermine the market functioning. This bill relies on ongoing active management on the part of ministers and the regulator to achieve the policy intent. As I've said in my contribution, I am concerned that that makes it unclear as to what could happen in successive governments.

I do, in the amendment as circulated in my name, call on the government to: prevent the expansion of further LNG export capacity; accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels; enshrine the key principles of additionality in this bill instead of deferring to an Australian Energy Regulator instrument and remove ministerial determination; ensure acquisition cannot bypass the additionality test; and transparently publish the Australian Energy Regulator's advice and determinations to ensure the domestic gas reservation scheme does not encourage the development of new gas fields.

That the following words be added after paragraph (2):

(a) successive governments have failed to steward Australia's natural resources for the public benefit;

(b) this is the fourth intervention in the gas market in under a decade and that such market intervention undermines market functioning;

(c) this bill relies on ongoing active management on the part of ministers and the regulator to achieve the policy intent; and

(d) there are concerns that this bill may create incentives for new gas developments that are inconsistent with Australia's emissions reduction commitments; and

(4) further calls on the Government to:

(a) prevent the expansion of further LNG export capacity;

(b) accelerate a transition away from fossil fuels;

(c) enshrine the key principles of additionality in this bill instead of deferring to an Australian Energy Regulator (AER) instrument and remove ministerial determination;

(d) ensure acquisitions cannot bypass the additionality test; and

(e) transparently publish AER advice and determinations ensure the Domestic Gas Reservation Scheme does not encourage the development of new gas fields".