In Canberra, the argument over punters politics has moved from the margins of party debate to the center of a live tax fight. On one side are Labor members and supporters pressing for a bigger return from gas exports. On the other are ministers, industry critics, and state leaders warning that a sharp move could carry wider costs.
The immediate question is simple: how much should Australians get from the resources leaving the country? The deeper dispute is about what kind of government response would satisfy public anger without triggering damage in other parts of the economy.
Why is punters politics driving the gas tax debate?
Labor’s environment action network used evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into gas tax settings to argue for a “very substantial tax” on windfall profits. Janaline Oh, national secretary of Labor’s environment action network, said the group wanted to see “a better return” for gas resources and said that support for better returns to the Australian taxpayer exists within Labor membership.
That internal pressure is unfolding as Labor MP Ed Husic restated support for a 25% export levy. He said it would end what he described as the “obscenely sweet deal” gas companies enjoy under the current petroleum resource rent tax system.
For supporters of a tougher tax, the issue is not abstract. It is tied to frustration that a major national resource is producing too little public benefit. In that sense, punters politics is not just a slogan. It is a test of whether the government is listening to voters who think the system has tilted too far toward exporters.
What options are under review?
The Greens-chaired inquiry is examining the case for a 25% export tax, alongside other options to raise more revenue from major exporters. A separate proposal from the Superpower Institute, backed by Ross Garnaut and Rod Sims, calls for a 40% cashflow levy, described as a “fair share levy, ” to replace the PRRT.
The government has already asked Treasury to model a windfall profits tax and changes to the PRRT ahead of next month’s budget. But appetite for major intervention appears to have weakened amid the global energy crisis sparked by the Iran war. Senior Labor sources have all but ruled out a 25% export tax in the 12 May budget, in part to avoid upsetting Asian trading partners that Australia relies on for diesel and petrol supplies.
Finance minister Katy Gallagher said on Tuesday afternoon that the government’s policies had not changed, while noting Anthony Albanese’s recent focus on securing energy supply guarantees across Asia.
How are the politics splitting apart?
The debate is not limited to Labor’s internal ranks. Opposition leader Angus Taylor said a 25% export tax would “close down the gas industry” and should be opposed. That position puts him at odds with Liberal frontbencher Andrew Hastie, showing the issue can cut across party lines as well as within them.
Western Australian Labor premier Roger Cook also opposed a new gas export tax. He said he understood why many people found it attractive, but did not think it would be good for Western Australia and had made those views clear to the prime minister.
Supporters of a new tax are warning politicians on all sides that ignoring the campaign could bring a voter backlash. That warning gives the issue a broader political edge: it is no longer just a question of budgeting, but of public trust. The argument around punters politics now sits at the intersection of revenue, regional impact, and the government’s relationship with its own base.
What does the wider public case look like?
New Australia Institute research says the Japanese Government collects more revenue from taxing imports of Australian gas than the Australian Government collects from the export of that gas. Dr Richard Denniss, co-CEO of the Australia Institute, said the figures showed Australians had been “ripped off” by gas export companies.
The institute said Japan collected almost $40 billion over the last five years, while the PRRT delivered only $7 billion to Australians. It added that if Labor had introduced a 25% export tax in 2022, revenue would have reached $69 billion by now, and every week of delay is costing $350 million.
That claim sharpens the stakes for ministers. For supporters of reform, delay means lost revenue and rising debt. For opponents, the risk is disruption to industry, prices, and trade relationships. In the middle are voters trying to judge whether the system rewards the country fairly. And that is why punters politics has become such a sharp phrase in this fight: it reflects the feeling that the real audience in this debate is not only parliament, but the people paying the bill.
