David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Hansard source

Well, that got Senator Wong agitated, didn't it? That was a bit of truth-telling from my colleague Senator Hodgins-May about the fact that we know who writes Labor's gas policy. Woodside and Santos write Labor's gas policy! They probably come together in a nice little room then deliver it to the Labor Party and say, 'This is in Australia's national interests because the member for Woodside—sorry, the resources minister—agrees with it.' That's what they'd say. And isn't it just a surprise where every single Labor federal resource minister ends up when they leave politics? Where do they go and get a job? They go to the resources industry and the gas industry. Time and time again, when there's a debate about whether or not a 25 per cent gas export levy should be put on, what we find is that Labor members, particularly those from WA—which is a petrostate run by WA Labor; let's be frank about it—come in here one after the other and just read onto the record the talking points from Woodside. It happens time and time again.

Now we get this linguistic gymnastics from Senator Wong. Senator Wong is asked about the position that the Labor members put in the gas export inquiry. In that position, the Labor members agreed to a finding that when things settle down, when there's some kind of next stage in the war in the Middle East, then Labor will consider a 25 per cent gas export tax. Of course, on 15 June, Senator Wong came out and welcomed Donald Trump's apparent peace deal in the Middle East. The Greens have always said: 'Why on earth did Labor support the war in the first place? Are they embarrassed by that position? Were they surprised when supporting Donald Trump and Netanyahu's war of aggression went off the rails?' Apparently Labor were surprised when that went off the rails. Maybe they should learn more.

But what we find is this: on 15 June, Senator Wong comes out, welcomes this peace agreement and is talking about the positivities, and then when she's asked, 'Well, OK, now will you put a tax on gas exports?' we get a different set of talking points. You see, it's one conversation to keep Donald Trump happy, and then it's another conversation here to keep the gas lobby happy. And who gets cut out each and every time? The Australian public and the national interest. You see, if you've got a government that, on the one hand, is trying to please Donald Trump and, on the other hand, is trying to please the gas lobby and the gas exporters, who gets cut out every time? The Australian public. It's about time they got a say in this place. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.