Energy Crisis Narratives in Australia’s Tax Inquiry

Introduction

In April, the Australian Senate convened a Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources to examine a proposed 25% tax on gas exports and address growing public concern over energy costs, domestic gas supply, and Australia's climate commitments. As one of the world's largest exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG), Australia faces mounting pressure both to capture adequate public revenue from gas exports and decarbonize in line with 1.5°C pathways.

This insight examines how the fossil gas industry has deployed a coordinated and well-established narrative playbook to oppose the tax in Australia. Fossil fuel companies often amplify narratives around energy security and affordability to argue for greater fossil fuel investment during periods of geopolitical instability. With the Iran regional conflict ongoing, fossil gas entities from Australia and Japan are now using these same "crisis narratives" to justify fossil gas expansion.

Previous InfluenceMap research documented significant Japanese investment across Australia’s LNG value chain and revealed the significant influence of Japanese companies over Australian gas policy. The research showed that Japanese and Australian corporate interests frequently make claims supporting LNG expansion under the banner of energy security, narratives that appear again on the proposed gas tax. While only one Japanese company engaged directly on the gas tax, the engagement is international, and other companies seem to be speaking on Japan's behalf in this debate.

Fossil Gas Opposition to Australia’s Gas Tax

A total of 13 companies and industry associations in InfluenceMap’s database submitted consultation responses or appeared as witnesses before the committee. These entities, from a range of geographies, represent some of the largest producers and most prominent industry advocates in Australia’s fossil gas sector. The four industry associations that engaged have members based in either Japan or Korea who are involved in the LNG value chain, including Mitsui & Co. and JERA.

Across submissions and testimony, the companies and industry associations in the table above frequently relied on materially similar arguments concerning energy security, investment risk, and sovereign risk. All 13 entities opposed the tax while simultaneously calling for increased investment in fossil gas production and LNG expansion, positions InfluenceMap assesses as misaligned with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidance on 1.5°C pathways.

The consistency across their messaging suggests a coordinated narrative strategy. The Australian Energy Producers (AEP), of which all nine companies are members, appears to have played a central convening role.

• AEP confirmed it “engages regularly with ministers and ministerial offices.” Other companies, like Santos, acknowledged contributing to AEP’s campaign as well as directly engaging with Treasury representatives and attending Treasurer-hosted events in its testimonies.
• Woodside stated in its submission after the testimony that it had been “actively engaging through industry associations, particularly the Business Council of Australia (BCA) and the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia (CME), which are coordinating industry input and engagement with the Government’s Fuel Supply Taskforce.”
• Shell disclosed that it contributed approximately AUD $1 million to an AEP campaign opposing the gas tax, and indicated that several other entities contributed similar amounts.
• Chevron, Woodside, Santos, and INPEX also acknowledged contributing directly to AEP’s campaign.

Previously unseen FOI materials reviewed by InfluenceMap show ConocoPhillips Australia using recurring fossil fuel narratives in direct engagement with the Australian Treasury before the inquiry began taking evidence. In a March 31 email—sent after the Senate inquiry was established but prior to submissions and hearings—lobbyists representing ConocoPhillips argued that changes to LNG taxation would undermine investment, domestic gas supply, and Australia's role as a reliable supplier to Asian trading partners, while also seeking a meeting between the company’s CEO and senior government representatives to discuss the proposed reforms.

InfluenceMap analysis has previously documented the appearance of fossil gas narratives in policymaking language, identifying near-identical framing between industry actors and ministers in both Australia and Japan. In the present inquiry, InfluenceMap identified a similar pattern: 7 of 13 (54%) entities in the inquiry referenced a figure published by Australian Energy Producers claiming that the oil and gas industry made AUD $22 billion in tax and royalty payments in 2024-2025, despite repeated challenges from other witnesses throughout the inquiry over its composition and accuracy. The Prime Minister later cited this figure in an interview, which Australian Energy Producers then quoted in its testimony to oppose the tax.

The Narrative Playbook

InfluenceMap’s 2024 Fossil Fuel Narrative Playbook identified three recurring framings used to oppose or delay climate policy: Energy Security and Affordability (emphasizing economic and supply risks associated with the transition), Policy Neutrality (opposing government intervention in favor of markets), and Solution Skepticism (questioning the viability of clean energy). All three appear in comments on this inquiry.

Most prevalent was the Energy Security and Affordability narrative, which 12 out of 13 (92%) entities used across both their submissions and testimonies to the inquiry. Respondents framed the tax as a threat to supply reliability, jobs, regional economies, and export competitiveness, while simultaneously advocating for increased LNG exports and gas supply. Figure 1 illustrates the fossil gas industry's frequent use of Energy Security and Affordability narratives to advocate against the energy transition throughout the inquiry.

Notably, 11 of 13 (85%) actors referenced the recent Iran-related conflict and energy crisis to justify expanding gas investment, deploying a fossil gas industry playbook which, as noted above, it repeatedly uses during major geopolitical crises. The fossil fuel industry tends to double down on fossil fuel expansion narratives during global crises, framing new gas investments as the solution to energy security and affordability concerns and deflecting attention from structural reforms and renewable alternatives as durable solutions to mitigate the effects of geopolitical disruption.

The fossil fuel industry has opposed the taxation of Australia’s gas resources for many years, consistently pushing back against repeated calls for reform by policymakers, experts, and civil society groups, as portrayed in the Business Council of Australia’s 2019 submission to the Senate Inquiry into Australia’s oil and gas reserves. The reframing of this long-standing opposition around the Iran-related conflict suggests that gas industry actors are using the current crisis opportunistically to reinforce an entrenched advocacy position.

11 of the 13 (85%) companies and industry associations suggested the tax would lead to energy shortfalls. Three entities, including Business Council Australia, specifically cited East Coast gas shortages to oppose the tax. Origin Energy claimed that "without timely investment in new supply, structural tightness in the east coast gas market is likely to persist," while Santos argued that "the problem in the east coast domestic gas market has been moratoriums, bans and approvals process delays" — using domestic supply concerns to call for faster permitting of new gas projects.

Industry submissions argued that Australia must maintain stable fossil gas exports to secure reciprocal supplies of refined fuels from trading partners. Such arguments effectively hinge Australia’s domestic energy security on ongoing exchanges of fossil fuels, highlighting the fundamental structural risks associated with continued fossil fuel dependence.

Strikingly, the majority of submissions criticized the proposed tax through the lens of Japanese energy security rather than Australian energy security. 8 of the 13 (69%) entities explicitly referenced Japan or voiced concerns on behalf of Japanese trading partners. This is consistent with previous InfluenceMap findings that Australian and Japanese LNG interests frequently coordinate, and that Japanese companies channel their influence through industry associations to advance their interests in Australian policy processes.

Across their submissions, Australian oil and gas interests recycled arguments previously used to oppose Australia's Future Gas Strategy. Their reappearance throughout this inquiry suggests that the fossil gas industry is applying a familiar playbook across distinct policy debates, reflecting its long-standing interest in entrenching fossil gas dependence in Australia.

How Gas Industry Narratives Distort the Debate

None of the companies or industry associations that engaged on the inquiry advocated for science-aligned policy consistent with IPCC guidance on limiting warming to 1.5°C, instead using misleading narratives to push for continued or expanded fossil gas supply. Their advocacy departs significantly from IPCC and International Energy Agency guidance, both of which conclude that limiting warming in line with the Paris Agreement requires a rapid decline in fossil fuel use and no continued large-scale expansion of gas supply.

The conflict in Iran has meanwhile exposed the central contradiction of these narratives. One-off LNG cargoes from Australian projects sold for more than double their pre-conflict prices in March, generating windfall profits for exporters while Australian household energy costs increased. This follows Australia's LNG export earnings nearly doubling after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Despite claims that fossil fuels are critical for energy security and affordability, Australian fossil fuel dependency has created a cycle in which geopolitical disruption threatens energy security and affordability in the region.

• Expert bodies such as the IPCC have found that a rapid transition to renewable energy is critical to long-term energy security, providing more stable operating costs and reducing exposure to global fuel price volatility.
• An IRENA study found that 91% of newly commissioned utility-scale renewable capacity in 2024 produced power cheaper than the lowest-cost new fossil fuel alternative.
• Moreover, wholesale electricity prices nearly halved in late 2025 as record renewable generation supplied more than half of Australia’s total electricity demand. The recent rapid growth of Australian rooftop solar and batteries has put a downward pressure on wholesale prices, strengthening resilience to price shocks linked to geopolitical events.

The fossil gas industry's argument that new gas production is required to address East Coast shortfalls similarly lacks empirical support. East Coast gas production has doubled over the past decade, yet domestic consumption fell by 25% over the same period, largely due to gas prices tripling and Queensland LNG exporters diverting production to export markets.

The fossil gas industry has consistently portrayed continued LNG exports as essential to the energy security of Asia-Pacific partners, particularly Japan. Yet Japan resold a record 44 million tonnes of LNG from April 2024 to March 2025, approximately 1.7 times the volume it imported from Australia, raising questions about whether Australian gas is serving Japan's energy security or its commercial interests. The IEA finds that Southeast Asia holds sufficient untapped solar and wind potential to meet future demand growth while materially strengthening energy security. Locking the region into further gas infrastructure does not enhance energy resilience but rather entrenches the model of fossil fuel dependence that the current crisis has exposed.

Implications for the Energy Transition

A growing number of Australian industry voices, including clean energy and automotive associations, are countering fossil gas advocacy by arguing that the current energy crisis reinforces the need to accelerate renewable energy deployment and electrification.

• The CEO of Smart Energy Council, for example, recently supported the tax on gas.
• The Electric Vehicle Council urged the government to respond to the global energy crisis by advancing electrification.
• Fortescue called for the removal of diesel subsidies as part of a broader shift away from fossil fuel dependency.

In a policy landscape shaped by powerful corporate advocacy against measures such as Australia’s proposed gas tax, greater transparency around industry influence and increased science-aligned advocacy from a broader range of corporate actors may help strengthen pathways toward a science-aligned transition across the Asia-Pacific.