Pauline Hanson has unveiled a proposal for a 30% rebate on oil and gas exploration in Commonwealth waters, with the government able to take up to a 30% equity stake in new production licences in return, in a plan she says will channel profits into a sovereign wealth fund for the nation. The One Nation leader described the scheme as a “bold, long-term vision” inspired by Norway’s multi-trillion-dollar Government Pension Fund Global, a model she once called “the gold standard” while declaring that Australia “holds the wooden spoon”.
Under the policy, the newly created Australian National Wealth Investment Corporation (ANWIC) would manage the profits from the government’s equity holdings. Hanson said the money would be reinvested or used to pay down national debt, fund critical infrastructure and bolster defence, with a firm stipulation that it never enter general consolidated revenue. “Public unrest is building because successive governments have failed to secure a fair share while pursuing policies that risk killing the industry that generates that wealth,” she said.
The Norwegian model
The model Hanson points to has been shaped over decades. Norway charges a 78% marginal tax rate on oil and gas company profits, composed of a 22% corporate tax and a 71.8% “special” tax (the corporate tax is deducted first, producing the effective 78% rate). The Norwegian government also holds direct ownership interests in roughly 30% of the country’s oil and gas reserves, with equity stakes in 187 production licences, 48 producing fields and 16 joint ventures that own pipelines and onshore facilities. It owns two-thirds of Equinor, the country’s largest oil and gas firm.
That combination of high taxation and public ownership means Norwegian taxpayers expect to receive more than $100bn in cash from the industry this year, split roughly 60/40 between taxes and the state’s profit share from its equity. The revenues flow into the Government Pension Fund Global, which at the end of last year was worth $2.9tn — equivalent to about $500,000 for each of Norway’s 5.6 million inhabitants. Only around 3% of the fund’s value is spent annually, preserving the principal for future generations. Earnings pay for essential services and free university education, and support the economy during downturns.
Norway’s system has also moved to a cash-flow based special tax regime that allows immediate expensing of new investments, guided by a neutrality principle designed to ensure that profitable projects remain profitable after tax, thereby encouraging investment while securing large revenues for society. Rod Sims, chair of the Superpower Institute, describes Norway as “world’s best practice” for managing natural resources.
Significant differences
Despite the rhetorical embrace of Oslo’s approach, One Nation’s policy diverges in critical ways. The most obvious departure is taxation: Hanson has explicitly ruled out higher taxes on oil and gas profits, accusing independent senator David Pocock and the Greens of “industry-destroying” and “false equivalency” for proposing a 25% gas export levy. “Norway,” she said, “has succeeded because government and industry partner together supported by generous tax incentives.”
Instead of a 78% tax on profits, One Nation wants to replace Australia’s existing Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) with a simple 10% royalty on production for new projects. Analysts believe this may actually deliver less revenue than the current PRRT, which is a profit-based levy designed to capture “economic rent” and has generated more than $22bn for the Commonwealth since 1989, though its complex design has been criticised for allowing companies to avoid payment.
The equity-sharing component is also markedly different. Under One Nation’s proposal, companies can choose whether to take the commonwealth as a partner. This opt-in approach narrows the breadth of public ownership and, as Josh Runciman, lead gas analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), pointed out, means the most marginal and risky projects will be the most keen for taxpayer funding. Runciman questioned “whether it’s ideal for taxpayers to be exposed to exploration and appraisal risk when the government does not have any expertise in this area”.
Hanson has described the government’s role as a “silent and hands-off co-owner” operating at “commercial arm’s length”. Yet she also suggested the government would gain control over its share of physical production, directing it through a special investment vehicle “to Australia’s greatest benefit” — selling to critical domestic industries such as fertiliser production, energy and fuel refining, or exporting when the domestic market is well supplied. That blend of hands-off and hands-on creates a tension that differs sharply from Norway, where the state principally takes its share through a dominant oil company (Equinor) and a high tax rate rather than direct operational control over production.
Resources Minister Madeleine King has highlighted another structural obstacle: Norway is a unitary state, while Australia’s federal system divides control of onshore petroleum resources (owned by states and territories) from offshore resources in Commonwealth waters. One Nation’s policy applies only to new offshore exploration licences, leaving the onshore gas sector — where mining billionaire Gina Rinehart, through Hancock Energy, has donated a plane and hosted dinners for the party — unaffected because those assets are governed by state law. The Coalition has accused One Nation of importing ideas from Venezuela, and energy analyst Saul Kavonic has warned that expanding state control could deter private capital.
The timeline for any benefit is protracted. Runciman said it would probably be a decade before very early stage gas projects began to generate extra revenue for Australians. If One Nation’s policy were legislated after the next federal election, taxpayers would not receive any additional tax windfall until the late 2030s, and the planned sovereign wealth fund would take even longer to accumulate meaningful sums.
By contrast, the Superpower Institute — chaired by Rod Sims — has proposed a “Norway-style” fair share levy that would bring the marginal tax rate to 58% and allow a 40% tax refund on losses. That levy would apply to existing projects (not just new ones) and would not be optional. It is estimated to raise $9.5bn a year during a five-year transition period, peaking at more than $18bn in 2031 before tailing off as the world moves to net zero. The institute also backs a “Polluter Pays Levy” on carbon pollution at source.
Broader questions hover over One Nation’s pro-exploration stance. Australia has legislated targets of a 43% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2050, but Hanson wants to scrap the net-zero commitment. Runciman, while broadly supportive of Norway’s approach to taxing resources — which he said did not change companies’ incentives to invest — questioned whether it was the right way forward for Australia. “From a political point of view, it’s a question of whether the government can be seen to be supporting new gas projects at a time when a lot of voters expect action on climate change.”
