The debate over how much tax gas companies pay in Australia is heating up, with a Senate inquiry held in Perth last week – just ahead of next month’s federal budget.

Independent Senator David Pocock recently went viral claiming the government collects more tax from beer than from offshore gas exports.

But is that true – and could anything change?

Here’s what to know.

Much of the debate centres on the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax (PRRT).

It is a 40% tax on the “super profits” of oil and gas projects.

“Super profits” are earnings made after a project has recovered its costs and reached a benchmark return – meaning companies can go years without paying PRRT while they recoup upfront investment.

The Australian Taxation Office reports just under $1.5 billion was collected from 16 companies under the PRRT in 2023-24.

At a Senate Estimates hearing in February, Treasury Deputy Secretary Shane Johnson said around $2.7 billion in beer excise is expected in the financial year.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that comparison is misleading, because it counts only the PRRT for gas – not the billions more the industry pays in company tax.

The Greens-led parliamentary inquiry is investigating whether Australia should introduce a 25% tax on gas exports or increase the PRRT.

Think tanks like The Australia Institute argue the largely foreign-owned gas industry is not paying enough tax and sends most profits offshore.

The issue has gained traction following viral moments like Senator Pocock’s beer comparison.

Even former Shell executive Idris Jala has called for higher energy taxes, warning Australia to “never waste a crisis” after recent global oil shocks.

The inquiry will hand down its findings on 7 May, less than a week before the federal budget.

Oil and gas giant Woodside warned a tax increase could threaten new projects and energy supply.

"If you were putting that on top of PRRT [Petroleum Resource Rent Tax], if you were putting it on top of corporate income tax, I'm not sure how any project would survive," Woodside’s chief financial officer Graham Tiver said.

Industry group Australian Energy Producers (AEP) also said the current tax system already delivers a fair return.

Meanwhile, political influencer Konrad Benjamin (aka Punter’s Politics on Instagram) backed higher taxes, saying no issue drives more engagement on his platform. He warned politicians to ignore the issue “at their own peril.”

The Prime Minister has ruled out increasing the PRRT, despite the growing calls.

He told The Daily Aus last week that the beer comparison is misleading, because it only counts one tax on gas. While PRRT raises about $1.4 billion a year, Albanese said gas companies also pay tens of billions in company tax – which should be included in the total.

With cost-of-living pressure mounting ahead of the 12 May budget, the government has also signalled it will honour existing gas export contracts.

Reporting by Lachlan Keller.

To learn more, listen to or watch today’s podcast on The Daily Aus. You can listen on Apple here, YouTube here, and Spotify here.

What’s the difference between Bull and Bear markets? 

→ Bull markets generally mean rising prices and investor optimism.

→ Bear markets bring falling prices and more investor caution.

Understanding the difference helps you decide whether to chase growth or protect your portfolio. Markets change constantly – staying informed is the key to smart investing.

^{Transparency: This is a sponsored section of the newsletter. It’s the best way we can keep this newsletter free for you.} 

^{Information is general in nature. Investing carries risk. To find out more, you can visit commsec.com.au}  

TikTok and Instagram are fast becoming financial advisers for young Australians, with more people turning to influencers and AI over licensed experts.

Against that backdrop, Australia’s corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), has warned the trend of online financial advice is putting consumers at risk.

The watchdog warned four Australian influencers last week over alleged “misleading and deceptive conduct,” highlighting growing concern about the sector.

ASIC said the “finfluencers” were suspected of handing out financial advice and making misleading claims, such as guaranteed returns on social media, despite not having a licence.

Let’s unpack the growing trend.

Younger Australians, particularly those at the beginning of their financial journey, are among the most vulnerable to losing money based on misleading advice.

Drawn to quick, low-cost and easy-to-understand content, many are turning to social media for guidance without the experience or context to properly assess risk.

Without personalised advice, experts warn people may make decisions that feel logical in the moment but prove damaging over time.

The trend reflects a broader shift in how Australians – particularly younger people – engage with money.

More than half of respondents to a new survey by ASIC’s Moneysmart platform said they somewhat or completely trust information shared on platforms such as TikTok and Instagram.

Roughly the same proportion (52%) said they were confident in advice from finfluencers, while almost two-thirds trusted AI platforms.

Meanwhile, almost three quarters of Gen Z Australians (72%) said they had seen social media advertising encouraging investment in cryptocurrency in the past 12 months.

ASIC said this points to some young Australians placing “high levels of trust” in “unreliable sources” – a combination that could lead to risky financial decisions.

ASIC’s surveillance has focused on finfluencers targeting Australian investors and promoting a range of financial products, from complex high-risk investments to shares and exchange-traded funds.

At the centre of the issue is a blurred line between content and advice.

“What people see online is shaped by algorithms designed to drive clicks and engagement, rather than promoting accurate information. This means consumers are more exposed to biased or misleading content,” ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said.

He warned that promises of easy money or guaranteed returns may be illegal, and leave consumers out of pocket.

“If a social media influencer isn’t licensed or authorised, they cannot offer financial advice in Australia and could face up to five years’ imprisonment or million-dollar fines.”

Finfluencers and AI tools are gaining traction among young Australians because they offer fast, accessible and low-cost financial information, according to financial adviser Marisa Senese.

“The shift we’re seeing is less about distrust in advisers and more about accessibility and immediacy,” she said.

She warned the more easily accessible content is often generic and fails to account for individual circumstances, however.

“The biggest risk is that it is not taking personal goals, circumstances or views into consideration. The key issue is that AI and finfluencers provide information, not advice.”

ASIC is urging Australians to verify credentials and think critically before acting on financial content they see online.

It warns consumers to be cautious of content promising fast or guaranteed returns.

“Seek advice from a reputable financial adviser who is appropriately licensed under Australian law and has a strong reputation and track record,” Senese said.

“Look at established firms that have been providing advice to clients over a significant time frame with client testimonials and proven strategies. And look for and ask for referrals from other professional advisers and clients.”

Reporting by Adella Beaini.

Investing in trends sounds exciting – but it’s worth asking questions

Thematic ETFs focus on big trends: AI, clean energy, healthcare or future megatrends. The appeal? Investing in industries you believe will shape the future.

But there’s a catch: these ETFs can be more concentrated - meaning performance may rise or fall with a single trend.

That’s why many investors treat thematic ETFs as one piece of a broader, diversified portfolio, rather than the whole strategy.

^{Disclaimer: Information is general in nature. Investing carries risk. To find out more, you can visit commsec.com.au}  

You likely saw reports that Donald Trump was the target of a suspected assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner over the weekend.

What you may have missed, though, is that just hours earlier he hosted an exclusive cryptocurrency gala at his Mar-a-Lago resort, attended by boxer Mike Tyson.

The event marked the second consecutive year that top holders of his official memecoin, “$TRUMP,” were invited to attend.

Memecoins are cryptocurrencies that typically derive their value from online attention and speculation, rather than underlying utility.

The $TRUMP token has traded below $4 for much of the past month, down from highs of around $US75 shortly after its launch. Prices fell again on Sunday – the day after the event — suggesting a possible post-event sell-off.

The gala and Trump’s involvement in the project have drawn scrutiny in Washington, with some lawmakers and ethics experts raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest and market manipulation.

Reporting by Lachlan Keller.