Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) despite the overwhelming support of the Australian people for gas corporations to pay their fair share for our resources, the Government has instead listened to the gas lobby and refused to implement a 25 per cent tax on gas exports;

(b) despite the overwhelming support of the Australian people for a ban on gambling advertising, the Government has instead listened to the gambling lobby and refused to implement a full ban; and

(c) prior to the 2025 federal election, the major parties received millions in donations from fossil fuel corporations and the gambling industry; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) implement a minimum 25 per cent tax on gas exports;

(b) implement a total ban on gambling advertising; and

(c) commit to addressing corporate control over our political system.

This motion is about corporate control of politics, and there is no better illustration of that control than what happened on budget night. The Treasurer delivers the budget speech and then heads to a fundraising event. That event is not open to the public; it's exclusive. Tickets cost thousands of dollars. Big corporations and the ultra-wealthy get to cosy up to senior government MPs right after the budget is delivered. Not to be left out, the coalition has its own version of this fundraiser, with tickets also well into the four figures, after the budget reply speech, so it begs the question: Who really runs this country? Is it the gas corporations or the Australian people? The government has chosen the gas corporations.

Prior to the budget, the Prime Minister flew to Perth specifically to reassure gas companies that he would not implement the 25 per cent tax on gas exports that the Australian people are demanding. Who is he really governing for? The major gas companies each gave $1 million to an advertising campaign that wasn't for the Australian people; it was to remind politicians who they really work for. And it clearly worked on the PM—of course it would. The gas companies and the lobby groups of full of former Labor staff, and vice versa. Queensland Labor Senator Anthony Chisholm worked as a lobbyist for gas company Santos—and this is a fact—before he entered parliament. They are all actually mates, aren't they? And we wouldn't want to do anything to hurt the profits of our good mates in the gas industry. This is who we are up against, and that's why I'm so proud of every Australian who signed the petition, sent an email to their MP, shared this campaign online. It's only through people power that we can be louder than the gas industry.

But the gas industry isn't the only powerful corporate lobby influencing the government. The gambling industry, backed in by media moguls afraid of losing advertising revenue, has quietly exerted a huge amount of influence to counter community anger against gambling advertising and the terrible effects of gambling harm on the Australian people. And here's something the government don't want you to know. They are so embarrassed by it they released it on the afternoon of the budget, right when all the journalists couldn't access their phones in the budget lock-up. It was the government response to a key gambling report, which they had been sitting on literally for years, that recommended banning online gambling advertising. I'd be embarrassed too if I completely capitulated to the gambling lobby on an issue that costs Australians $32 billion a year and countless lives and livelihoods. I'd be embarrassed too if I completely capitulated on an issue that unites almost all Australians. We are sick of gambling ads, and we are sick of the effect that they are having on our society. The almost $3 million in donations to the major parties over the last decade from the gambling lobby, has really paid off for them, hasn't it? Including to Labor in government setting the very regulations the industry is subject to.

Who are they governing for again? For the Australian people or the gambling lobby? No; Labor have instead done a token set of reforms purely so they can say they've done something. It's pretty clear that's what they were going for. Some restrictions on specific time slots and types of broadcasts, which will just shift more ads into other unrestricted slots. The government's own modelling says these reforms will only reduce gambling by 0.8 per cent. I'm sure the gambling companies are okay with that.

It's shameful, isn't it, that this is the state of our democracy, but I do have hope because the government clearly do feel like they need to respond to pressure. That's why they are doing things that they think sound good, even if they don't actually fix anything. That means that if all of our voices are collectively louder than the gas lobby, than the gambling lobby, then we can get real change.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Matt Gregg (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It can be easy to fall into a cycle of despair when all progress is taken as a betrayal or failure, when you look at a binary between choosing perfection or inaction. If we continue to engage in this, we forget progress. We forget to recognise the fact that significant steps are being taken.

On the subject of gas, I think there is broad consensus—I agree with the member for Ryan—that Australians deserve a fair share from the natural resources they own. The policy prescription of a 25 per cent tax is one idea that has come up. It's something that deserves, like all tax policy, rigorous scrutiny, careful consideration and timing. We can't ignore the reality we find ourselves in: a global fuel crisis where the partners that are buying our gas are largely the ones from which we're seeking the liquid fuels that industries in electorates like mine desperately require—the diesel that tradies, truckies and bus drivers rely on and the petrol that support workers and others have to purchase in order to provide their services. The work being done to build reciprocal relationships with those partners is essential, and the sudden implementation of an export tariff of a plucked-out number is certainly not something that builds relationships at a time of crisis.

I'm not saying never ever with tax reform. We've already taken significant steps. We've already reformed the PRRT to ensure that gas companies are paying their tax sooner and aren't able to deduct full amounts every single year, and we're seeing increases in the amount of tax given the increase in commodity prices as well. Long term, there should be a mature policy discussion with facts on the table, but what we've seen lately is typical political grandstanding, positioning and submissions to inquiries that look more like social media filming episodes than actual considered policy debate. We need to look at the consequences, the economics, the industry effects. We don't want a position, for example, where imposing more taxes means that the viability of a project means that it has to be bigger and go for longer—which, the last time I checked, was not the Greens' policy either. We need to look at the full ramifications of every policy option, consider them in detail and also consider the appropriate timing of their implementation.

Obviously, that would prevent us from following the binary choice of doing 'exactly what I want, my exact number, or nothing at all'. All progress is nothing according to some, but I think we need to acknowledge progress. It is entirely legitimate for people who want to see more to call for more at the same time, but it is important to acknowledge when progress is being made. It's not insignificant, particularly when you combine it with the multinational tax avoidance legislation that this government has brought through closing typical loopholes like nonsense interest being claimed on loans to similar entities and things like that. Important work is being done by the Albanese government over a period of time. We cannot ever treat all compromises as betrayals and all progress as failure, because that will diminish our political discussion.

On the second topic of gambling reform, again, it is a similar principle. Obviously, there are those that are calling for more, but to ignore the significant progress being made in this area would also be untruthful and misleading. We've got significant reforms to advertising restrictions at the times when people are most engaged in gambling, like during sports events. We also see BetStop, credit card limits, tougher enforcement against illegal operators overseas, the criminalising of match fixing and new protections for children online. This isn't nothing. It may not be everything you want, but, again, progress is progressive. It happens over time. Rather than diminish every single reform, it's legitimate to say this is part of a process. Things are happening more than they have ever happened before, and we do need to acknowledge the good work being done. When we're asserting or implying corruption and conspiratorial nonsense, we're forgetting the fact that significant steps are being taken in the right direction. We deserve mature debate around these things.

It's worth bearing in mind that it is the Labor government that has been proposing electoral reform and donation caps to ensure that the influence of corporates in politics is limited. But, again, we are in the realm of inconvenient truths simply being ignored for the sake of political positioning. People can have a diversity of views, but to pretend that this government has been sitting on its hands on these issues is utter nonsense. We should celebrate the progress being made, talk about how we can better build on it and engage in mature policy discussion that gets the facts on the table, analyses all options and critiques assertions made by all sides of the debate.

I, for one, would not believe just everything handed to me by the gas lobby or everything handed to me by the Australian Institute. We should rigorously assess everything and then consider the options carefully and methodically to ensure that we have the best policy prescription for the interests of the Australian people. That is our job in this place. So, while I can understand and don't question the motivations of the member for Ryan—I acknowledge that there is widespread public support for taking a look at this in the future—most Australians understand we are in a fuel crisis.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Ryan for raising this important issue. When it comes to a full ban on gambling advertising and a fairer tax on gas exports, the government has simply failed to act in a meaningful way. Instead of delivering the reforms, Australians overwhelmingly support, it has chosen to bow to corporate pressure and lobbying. This failure is underpinned by a culture Australians are rightly fed up with: corporate control over our political system and the revolving door between political office and the private sector.

We saw it when the Prime Minister stood before the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the lobby group representing major mining and energy companies, and confirmed the government would not go ahead with a tax on gas exports. This decision was made despite overwhelming and broad public support for a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. Australia exports similar volumes of gas to countries like Qatar, yet Qatar collects around five times as much revenue. Norway taxes oil profits at rates of up to 78 per cent and has built a sovereign wealth fund now worth many times the size of our economy. Meanwhile, multinational gas export companies that extract gas offshore in Australia often pay no royalties—nothing—for the gas owned by Australians. The most recent budget papers show that the petroleum resource rent tax is expected to decline—not ramp up, as this government so often tells us—with forecast receipts in the 2029 financial year expected to be lower than receipts from the 1992 financial year.

Australians are left asking why we still haven't seen a fair tax on gas exports and why a resource-rich country like ours struggles to fund the services people rely on like the NDIS and aged care. A large part of the answer lies in the fact that the fossil fuel industry has poured significant donations into both major political parties, maintaining deep, ongoing access to ministers and decision-makers. Those financial contributions are backed by a powerful lobbying network, including former politicians and senior staffers, and a well-worn strategy of running high-pressure campaigns to warn governments off reform.

This pattern also holds true for gambling reform. The influence of the gambling lobby is pervasive. The Australian Electoral Commission's transparency report revealed there were more than $3 million in gambling related political donations for the 2024 financial year. Gambling industry sponsorship of parliamentary groups, particularly the parliamentary sports club, has sparked major integrity concerns, The lavish events and privileged access to decision-makers by the gambling industry have been well documented. According to Transparency International, the gambling sector has hired 13 third-party lobbying firms to influence parliament, with Responsible Wagering Australia accessing over 100 lobbyists across all jurisdictions. Betting companies have campaigned aggressively against gambling reforms, most recently against the long-overdue measures recommended in the 2023 Murphy report including a full ban on gambling advertising, not three ads an hour.

Meanwhile, the same companies profit from some of the most vulnerable people in our community, tearing families apart and sending people into financial ruin, mental health struggles and addiction. Meaningful reform continues to be delayed. We've seen this playbook time and time again—from the mining lobby's multimillion dollar campaign that killed off the Rudd government's super profits tax to the gambling industry's flood of donations and scare campaigns that watered down the Gillard-era pokies reform.

In 2022, Australians were promised something different. This government came to office on an election platform centred on restoring trust and accountability in federal politics. Yet, while there have been some steps forward, the reality is the system has not been fixed.

This government has done little to stamp out the sources of power these industries thrive on: the political donations, the gifts, the advertising, the paid lobbyists, the frequent access and closed political networks. The revolving door still turns, and the jobs-for-mates culture has not been stamped out. The Briggs review into public sector appointments was quietly released just before Christmas, with its recommendations left unimplemented. My bill, developed in consultation with the Centre for Public Integrity, to ensure transparent, merit based appointments, has not been taken up. (Time expired)

Gabriel Ng (Menzies, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against this motion. I recognise that Australians want and deserve a fair return on our natural resources. I recognise that there is support in the community for a 25 per cent gas tax—and, indeed, many people in my local community in Menzies have spoken to me about it, when I've been out doorknocking and doing street stalls, and have also written to me about it. I appreciate them taking the time to engage with me and to make their views known, and I appreciate their advocacy.

The question of how Australia taxes its natural resources is a serious question; it deserves a serious answer. The harms caused by gambling are real; they deserve a serious response, too. But these issues deserve more than performative motions like these, that offer apparently simple responses to complex issues. Taxation of resources and gambling advertising deserve responsible, measured policy decisions, developed in consultation with experts and the workers and industries affected. And that's exactly what the Labor government is doing.

Let me start with gas. As I've said, I recognise that Australians want a better return on our natural resources that can go into social programs like Medicare and NDIS and the pension. Now, the mover of this motion, the member for Ryan, slings accusations about the gas lobby and corporate control, but she does this knowing full well that the government has already acted to increase taxes on the gas industry. In 2023, we reformed the petroleum resource rent tax. We tightened deductions. We ensured that more tax is paid sooner by offshore gas companies. Not only that, but, more recently, we've announced our domestic gas reservation scheme. Multinational gas companies will be required to reserve 20 per cent of their production for domestic use. This will directly secure supply for Australian households and businesses and put downward pressure on power bills.

The idea of an east coast gas-reservation scheme is something that there have also been public campaigns around—probably from some members of the Greens political party. We've listened to our communities on this, we've consulted with experts and stakeholders, and now we're taking responsible action to ensure energy security and put downward pressure on domestic gas prices. We're committed to the renewable energy transition. But we understand that it will be backed by storage, by hydro and by gas, and that there are industries that rely on gas that will only be able to use this as a fuel source to continue to operate. As usual with the Greens, instead of being constructive and collaborative, they've moved on to the next eye-catching campaign.

As I said, I've engaged with many members of my community who support a 25 per cent gas tax, and I understand the appeal of this. Just this month, Labor senators on the Senate Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources recommended that the government model and evaluate further reform options in the wake of the Middle East energy crisis. That recommendation came from members of this government, Labor members, just two weeks ago. So, when you, Member for Ryan, suggest that this government has simply rolled over to the gas lobby, you're not describing reality. You're describing a grievance that has already been decided upon and then working backwards from it. That's not policy; that's performance.

I understand why people want a bigger return on our natural resources. The question is how we get there responsibly, without compromising energy security, without jeopardising the supply agreements that keep petrol and diesel and fertiliser flowing to Australia, and without exposing this country to unnecessary risk in the middle of an international energy crisis.

There was a lot of support just before the budget for a 25 per cent gas tax, but good policy can take time to develop and understand the implications of. Of course we should consult with the workers and communities that would be affected by any changes. We should also consult with industry. It doesn't mean we have to accept everything that they have to say, but they should be listened to, and we need to understand their arguments. And we need to make sure that projects go ahead, to collect any gas tax at all. That means that it needs to be an environment that people can invest in.

We're operating in an environment of significant global instability. Conflict in the Middle East has tightened energy markets. Our regional partners depend on LNG supply agreements this country has committed to, and we can't expect our regional partners to go without the kind of energy resources that we also rely on. These commitments are not the gas industry's gift to us; they are part of a web of relationships that keep energy flowing in Australia. (Time expired)

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Ryan for bringing this motion forward for debate. These are two really important issues facing our country and they deserve the chamber's full attention. Let me start with gas. Australia is one of the world's largest gas exporters. Gas is a resource that belongs to all Australians, and yet for years we've watched multinational corporations extract our gas, sell it at record prices and then send the profits offshore while ordinary Australians pay more for their own energy and receive little in return. The problem is structural. The petroleum resource rent tax was designed for oil projects and it fails to capture value from gas projects. Companies can accumulate decades of deductions, report near-zero taxable profit and pay nothing even while making billions. We need to fix this.

There are two distinct problems. First, Australians deserve a base return for the right to access and sell our resources. That's what royalties are for, and most gas-producing nations collect them. We don't for our offshore gas exports. Second, when war or crisis drives international gas prices through the roof, the windfall profits that flow to gas companies are not the reward for innovation or risk; they're a gift of circumstance. More of that benefit should flow to Australians.

I support a royalty on offshore gas and a genuine superprofits mechanism. Is 25 per cent the right rate? It could be, but my view is that for projects that are already operational, where big investment decisions were made based on an agreed tax regime, the rate should be set at a level that would not have changed the original investment decision. We will need foreign investment in the industries we need to decarbonise our economy, and we have to be careful about sovereign risk. There is room for discussion about the structure and the rate, but one thing is certain—the current PRRT framework is not delivering for Australians.

While the government points to the obligations we have to our Asian trading partners during a period of global fuel insecurity, once the international situation settles, fixing our broken gas taxes must be the first cab off the rank. This issue will not go away like the Prime Minister hopes it will. Australians are onto this and they want a fairer deal. Every time a gas company reports record profits while Australian households struggle with energy bills, it's a reminder that we must do better.

Now let me turn to gambling. After more than a thousand days of silence since the Murphy report, the government has finally moved on gambling reforms. It announced partial restrictions in line with what the gambling industry wants under cover of the budget lock-up so no media would write about it. I can't find a single person other than the Prime Minister who really thinks that this is enough. The evidence is crystal clear: partial ad bans don't work. The government has developed a model where people are required to opt out of gambling ads. Look at the opt-out model on SBS. Less than 0.1 per cent of SBS users have chosen to opt out of gambling advertising. That is not a sign that Australians are comfortable with gambling ads; it's a sign that opt-out systems do not work.

Australia has the highest per capita gambling losses on earth. This is a $32 billion industry that feeds on addiction and the targeting of vulnerable people. Six hundred thousand children are gambling. Coroners are naming gambling advertising in suicide findings. More than three in four Australians want gambling ads banned. The same proportion of AFL supporters want them banned. This is what the Murphy report recommended.

Prime Minister, if you're going to do this, do it properly. There is already growing anger in your party, because everyone knows that your reforms are a cop-out. Australians deserve a full ad ban, a national regulator and a ban on inducements. The political will exists across this chamber if the government is willing to use it. If the Prime Minister doesn't personally support a full ban, he should put this to a conscience vote so every member in the House has permission to articulate where their community and their conscience stands.

The member for Ryan is right that corporate influence shapes policy. The answer is not cynicism but accountability, and that is exactly what we are here to provide, on a gas tax and on gambling reform. I proposed a ban on political donations from social harm industries in my Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024, but neither major party supported that. We on the crossbench are here to continue to call this out, and that is what we will do.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.