One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has unveiled a gas policy inspired by Norway's model, featuring government equity stakes in oil and gas projects and a sovereign wealth fund. However, experts highlight crucial differences, particularly regarding taxation.
The Norwegian Model vs. One Nation's Proposal
Norway charges an effective 78% marginal tax rate on oil and gas profits, combining a 71.8% special tax and a 22% corporate tax. This high taxation, along with extensive public ownership, generates over $100 billion annually for Norwegian taxpayers. In contrast, One Nation proposes a simple 10% royalty on production, replacing Australia's petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT), which analysts say may yield less revenue.
Equity and Ownership
Norway holds ownership interests in about 30% of its oil and gas reserves and owns two-thirds of Equinor, its largest energy firm. One Nation's plan allows companies to opt into government partnerships, potentially limiting public ownership to riskier projects. The government would be a silent partner but could direct its share of production to domestic industries or exports.
Timeline and Revenue
Under One Nation's policy, benefits could take a decade or more to materialize, with a sovereign wealth fund unlikely to make a significant impact until the late 2030s. In contrast, Norway's fund, worth $2.9 trillion, already provides substantial returns for public services. Experts like Rod Sims advocate for a 'fair share levy' of 40% on cash flows, which would raise billions annually from existing projects.
Climate Concerns
One Nation's pro-exploration stance conflicts with Australia's net-zero commitments, which Hanson opposes. Analysts question whether supporting new gas projects aligns with voter expectations on climate action. The policy's opt-in nature and lack of higher taxes raise doubts about its ability to secure a 'fair share' for Australians.
