Dean Smith's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Fiscal Policy, Defence Properties | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
Government senators are guilty of suffering from the effects of long COVID—selective memory and forgetfulness. When we talk about the budget decisions that were taken by the Morrison...
Government senators are guilty of suffering from the effects of long COVID—selective memory and forgetfulness. When we talk about the budget decisions that were taken by the Morrison government, let's remember only one thing: the pandemic. In fact, had Labor's measures been adopted by the Morrison government, that level of spending as a percentage of GDP would have been considerably higher, not lower. Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, was elected on one pledge. He said that Australians would be better off under Labor. Well, the beginning of 2026 has been marked by a trifecta of trouble for Australian families and Australian businesses, with energy costs rising, inflation rising and now interest rates rising. And who is paying the price for this? Australian families and Australian small businesses. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has said that electricity prices increased by 19.9 per cent in the year to November 2025, and it identified seven per cent in just one single month. The average residential energy debt for Australian families is now up by almost $1,500, or 38.6 per cent, since Labor was elected in 2022, and 205,000 Australian families are now on electricity hardship programs. Inflation is the menace in any economy. It hurts pensioners. It hurts young families. It hurts businesses. The inflation rate has now risen to 3.8 per cent. The trimmed mean rate for inflation is now 3.3 per cent. Both of those numbers sit outside the RBA's band for inflation, so it's no surprise that the RBA has had to step in to correct the government's bad management. That bad management is being driven by excessive levels of government spending. The inflation rate in Australia is now higher than in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Japan and Germany. That is the record of that Labor government. And, of course, interest rates—Australian families woke up this week to discover that they had to find more in their income in order to meet mortgage repayments because the banks, not surprisingly, have now followed through on that RBA rate decision and increased interest rate payments for Australian families and households. This is what happens when you have a government that doesn't understand this economic fact: high levels of government spending always result in higher levels of inflation, which always result in higher interest rates. That is the economic law that Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese think that they can ignore. But there is one Labor government minister who understands what's happening, and she belled the cat in the media this week. Congratulations to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Amanda Rishworth, for calling her own government out. And what did the minister say? She said that it was 'unwelcome' that inflation had ticked up. She also said, when asked how the government can respond, that it's important that we make sure that the government is 'repairing the budget'. Why does the budget need repair? Because the government's spending in the budget is now the highest it has been for 40 years. The government's own economic documents say that government spending for 2025-26 will be 26.2 per cent of GDP. That is the highest level of government spending outside of the pandemic. It is the highest level of government spending in 40 years. Government spending is growing at four times the rate of growth in the economy. This is why 2026 has started off badly for Australian families and Australian businesses—and guess what? Australians are about to find out that it's going to get worse under Labor. (Time expired)
Energy | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
Yesterday the Reserve Bank of Australia delivered the verdict that Australians had feared and that the Albanese Labor government pretended would not come. The Reserve Bank lifted the cash rate by...
Yesterday the Reserve Bank of Australia delivered the verdict that Australians had feared and that the Albanese Labor government pretended would not come. The Reserve Bank lifted the cash rate by 25 basis point, to 3.85 per cent, in a unanimous decision of the board. To the average household, that decision will mean around $100 more every month in mortgage repayments. This is the first rate rise since 2023, and it comes for one reason only: inflation remains out of control, stubbornly above the Reserve Bank's target band. The rate rise did not come out of nowhere; it did not fall from the sky. It was a predictable consequence of Labor's economic mismanagement and reckless spending, and it is interconnected with another major policy failure: energy. Energy is not a side issue; energy is not symbolic. Energy is the economy. It flows through every household bill, every business cost, every inflation point. Yesterday's decision confirms what Australians already knew: the Albanese Labor government has lost control of the economy, in large part because it has lost control of energy prices. If energy policy were judged on speeches, symbolism and international travel, the energy minister's 2025 performance must be declared a triumph. He has announced, promised and travelled and he has basked in international admiration. But, for Australian families, manufacturers and workers, it's outcomes that matter—affordability, reliability, confidence and economic security. On every one of those measures, Labor's energy plan is failing. Minister Bowen is the architect of an extraordinarily ambitious transition—a 62 to 70 per cent emissions cut by 2035; 90 per cent renewables; a sixfold increase in storage; and the wholesale restructuring of industry, transport and the grid. While he may want history to crown him the author of Australia's climate future, 2025 revealed a very different reality. That was of a minister driven by ego and ambition, increasingly detached from economic realities and unable to deliver on the commitments he has made on behalf of the Albanese government. Australians were promised cheaper, more secure energy. Instead, power prices have surged, volatility persists and Labor's $275 power bill reduction promise hangs around its neck as a symbol of broken trust. The Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms that electricity prices surged 19.7 per cent in the year to November 2025, including almost seven per cent in one single month. This is not a smooth transition; this is a price shock. The ACCC's inquiry into the national energy market similarly confirms that electricity costs rose throughout 2024 and 2025. The consequences are now being felt not just in power bills but in household debt. The Australian Energy Regulator reports that average residential energy debt on the east coast now sits at $1,367—up a staggering 38.6 per cent since Labor took office. Small businesses are carrying average energy debts of $2,516. More than 205,000 Australian households are now on official electricity hardship programs, with hardship debts rising sharply year on year. The minister insists, with increasing theatrical confidence, that decarbonisation now can be accelerated at more than double the current pace. Yet emissions progress has stalled at around 28 per cent—well short of the government's own pathway. If Labor can't deliver on near-term commitments, why should Australians trust even grander promises? This government is racing ideologically ahead without regard for cost, without regard for reliability, without regard for delivery capacity and without regard for investor certainty. Business leaders warn that Labor's ambition requires hundreds of billions of dollars in capital as well as unprecedented coordination. The former chief scientist, Alan Finkel, has described this transition as the 'most difficult economic transition' in human history. The minister talks about this in routine terms, but it is now economically treacherous. When coal exits faster than reliable replacement enters, Australians pay the price in higher bills, higher inflation and higher interest rates. Renewables without adequate firming are not a transition; they are a gamble. That gamble is costing Australians every month through their mortgages. Labor fails not just on policy but also on transparency. When the incoming government brief for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water was finally released—after months of Senate pressure from my colleagues and me—we discovered that 97 per cent of that document was redacted. But what did remain was a telling truth. The brief warned of further significant increases in retail electricity prices this financial year. It conceded that emissions reductions needed to accelerate rapidly for targets to be met. In other words: higher prices, slower progress, deeper failure. And, while Australians struggle, Labor's priorities remain misplaced. At Senate estimates, officials confirmed that $1.6 million was approved to send 43 bureaucrats to COP30 in Brazil—nearly $40,000 per bureaucrat. A further $1.36 million was allocated for a pavilion to 'tell Australia's climate story'. These climate theatrics occurred while households were pushed closer to hardship and, from yesterday, closer to default by another interest rate rise. As I noted earlier, this energy crisis is part of the inflation crisis. Yesterday's Reserve Bank decision makes that crystal clear. In December 2025, the consumer price index showed inflation at 3.8 per cent—well above the Reserve Bank's band of two to three per cent. That CPR result ended all talk of rate cuts in 2026. Markets immediately priced a 70 to 75 per cent chance of a rate rise because energy driven inflation has proven structural and stubborn under Labor. Yesterday, the Reserve Bank confirmed what everyone was fearing. Australians have now endured 13 interest rate increases under the Albanese government and only three reductions. That is not global bad luck; that is domestic policy failure. The Reserve Bank has made it clear that inflation—not wages, not productivity—is the core problem. Experts have been warning Labor for months. Some of the nation's leading economists had questioned the Albanese government's fiscal settings ahead of yesterday's RBA rate decision. Government spending as a share of GDP averaged around 22 per cent for decades. Under Labor, that figure had ballooned to around 28 per cent, a level not seen since the Second World War. The Chief Economist of AMP, Shane Oliver, put it bluntly yesterday. He said that the best thing the government can do to bring down inflation is to cut spending. He noted that government spending had boomed over the past six or seven years and never properly retreated after the pandemic. The Chief Economist at IFM Investors, Alex Joiner, has warned that the government's 'fiscal guardrails have come off', and EQ Economics's Warren Hogan said that the government needs to tighten fiscal policy, even modestly, to stop inflation becoming entrenched. But Labor refuses to listen. Instead, it fuels inflation through reckless spending and then forces the RBA to take the responsible path. The result is an additional $1,200 a year for the average mortgage holder on top of power bills that are already hundreds of dollars higher than promised. This comes after the very Christmas when Labor failed to deliver its promised power bill relief. Australians are now being squeezed from both sides with higher power bills and higher interest rates. The consequences of Labor's failure now extend beyond mortgages and power bills. New national data shows that Australians are being forced back into the workforce at record levels to cover their cost-of-living expenses. (Time expired)
Freshwater Bay Primary School, Blackham, Ms Sandra | Adjournment | Senate debates
I rise this evening to commend the students, teachers and community partners involved in the Freshwater Bay Primary School Karrakatta Cross Initiative, a remarkable local project that brings...
I rise this evening to commend the students, teachers and community partners involved in the Freshwater Bay Primary School Karrakatta Cross Initiative, a remarkable local project that brings history, service and remembrance to life for young Western Australians. Since 2021, Freshwater Bay Primary School has partnered with the Claremont RSL sub-branch to ensure the sacrifices of Australian service men and women buried at Karrakatta Cemetery are not forgotten. Last year, 79 year 5 and year 6 students took part in this deeply moving program, joined by families, dignitaries, community members and RSL representatives as part of the school's broader Remembrance Day commemoration. In the weeks leading up to their visit, students research an assigned soldier, examining enlistment records, service histories and medals through primary sources such as the National Archives, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board records. This transforms classroom learning into a meaningful act of civic remembrance, helping students understand the human stories behind our nation's history. The program was originally developed in response to the cemetery renewal program under the Cemeteries Act 1986, during which many official grave commemorations were regrettably removed and destroyed. While the veterans' remains were undisturbed, the loss of their headstones erased visible evidence of their service. Freshwater Bay students are helping to restore that remembrance. During the visit to Karrakatta, each student pair delivers an ode of remembrance for their chosen soldier, locates their gravesite, reflects on their life and lays a decorated wooden cross, poppy or Australian national flag in tribute. Last year, 39 soldiers buried in the renewed Anglican sections were honoured. This initiative is shaped by outstanding teachers Ben Turner and Cindy Carboni and enriched through the school's growing alliance with the Claremont and Nedlands RSL subbranches. Students have met veterans, nurses, historians and family members, adding depth, context and compassion to their studies. The Karrakatta Cross Initiative embodies respect, reflection and gratitude. It strengthens community remembrance and ensures the next generation understands the enduring impact of service and sacrifice. Tonight I'd like acknowledge and commend all who make it possible. I rise this evening also to place on the record remarks marking a very special birthday for Sandra Blackham, a woman whose contribution to our community deserves recognition far beyond this chamber. Many words come to mind when I think of Sandra—selfless, generous and warm—but, above all, she is someone who is constantly in the service of others. Within the Burmese Buddhist community in Perth's northern suburbs, Sandra is often described as the mother of the community—a constant presence, a quiet organiser and a reminder that kindness and generosity, when practised consistently, have a way of multiplying. Since the military coup in Myanmar, the suffering of the Burmese people has weighed heavily on Sandra. Like so many in the diaspora, she has carried deep personal heartache and disappointment. But what distinguishes Sandra is that she has transformed that concern into action. With compassion and resolve that far exceed her petite presence, she has worked tirelessly to support those in desperate need, coordinating assistance, offering comfort and ensuring the voices of her community are heard. Her service to the Burmese Buddhist community in Perth's northern suburbs and to those still suffering in Burma deserves much wider public recognition. In a complex and uncertain world, we are all better for Sandra's presence. To Sandra's family, I say thank you for sharing her time and energy with so many others. Happy birthday, Sandra. May you be blessed for many years to come.
Bondi Beach: Attack | Condolences | Senate debates
I rise to support the condolence motion. I do so, with a heavy heart, both personally and on behalf of Western Australians, to honour the innocent Australians murdered at Bondi Beach. It was...
I rise to support the condolence motion. I do so, with a heavy heart, both personally and on behalf of Western Australians, to honour the innocent Australians murdered at Bondi Beach. It was there, at a celebration of light overcoming darkness on the first night of Hanukkah, that evil reared its ugly head in our country. Bondi is not just a beach; it's an Australian icon. It represents freedom, openness, community and joy. That is why it was chosen. This was not random violence; it was targeted terrorism—an antisemitic attack on Australia's Jewish community and an attack on the Australian way of life and the freedoms that bind us together as a nation. Today, as on every day during the past month, we mourn the victims, we mourn the families whose lives have been shattered and we mourn a loss that will echo through this country for generations. From Cottesloe to Scarborough, from Cable Beach to Esperance, Western Australians grieve alongside Sydney because, when one part of Australia is attacked, all of Australia is attacked. Only weeks before this atrocity, Britain's Chief of the Defence Staff, Richard Knighton, delivered a stark warning to his nation. He said the world is now 'more dangerous than I have known during my career' and that nations must prepare not only their armed forces but their entire societies for a far more unstable era. He warned that democracies would need to build national resilience and that more people would need to be ready to fight for their country as extremism and authoritarian threats grow. At the same time, the new head of MI6, Blaise Metreweli, told the world that we are no longer operating in a time of clear peace or war but in what she called 'a space between peace and war'. She warned that hostile actors and extremist movements are operating in the grey zone, using cyberattacks, disinformation, intimidation, radicalisation and terrorism to weaken open societies from within. And she said something especially chilling that has stayed with me: … the front line is everywhere. The front line on 14 December was Bondi Beach, and it is now potentially every Australian suburb, every community and every public place. Bondi has shown us that Australia was not exempt from this reality. The Albanese government was not operating in a vacuum. The same forces destabilising Europe and other regions of the world—radicalisation, grievance politics, online extremism and imported conflicts—were also operating here. After 7 October 2023, the terrorist massacre in Israel and the worst mass killing of Jewish people since the Holocaust, this government failed to draw a clear moral line. Instead of confronting extremism, it equivocated. Instead of protecting social cohesion, it tolerated intimidation. Instead of stopping radicalisation, it minimised it, and extremists noticed. When MI6 warns we are operating between peace and war, when defence chiefs warn that the front line is everywhere and when security agencies warn that radicalisation is accelerating, no government has the right to claim shock. Complacency was a choice and inaction was a choice. For too long, Australians were told everything was under control; it was not, and Bondi Beach was the tragic consequence. In my home state of Western Australia, our Jewish community has felt this tragedy deeply, not only in grief but in fear. As someone who's worked closely with WA's Jewish community for many years, I know very well how shaken many families now feel about their safety, their children and their place in a country they love. No Australian should ever feel targeted, threatened or unsafe because of who they are or what they believe. The Australians murdered at Bondi Beach never chose to carry the weight of a national tragedy. They were parents, they were workers, they were surfers, they were tourists and they were families celebrating light and the hope and peace of Hanukkah. Some were called upon to, and did, act as heroes, and the remarkable actions of the first responders will never be forgotten. All of those people trusted the Australian government to keep them safe. That trust was broken. To honour those who died, Australia must now do what our allies are already doing. We must fight antisemitism wherever and whenever it arises, we must strengthen intelligence, we must disrupt radical networks, we must restore zero tolerance for terror, and we must build the national resilience that Richard Knighton spoke of so that free societies are not left defenceless against those who seek to destroy them. I'm confident I speak for west Australians in particular when I say to the families of the victims and to the Australian Jewish community that you are not alone, your grief is our grief, and your loss is our loss. We cannot bring your loved ones back, no matter how dearly we want to, but we must ensure their deaths mark the moment when Australia chose clarity over complacency and security over silence. Bondi Beach should never have become a target, and the fact it did is a tragedy. What we do now will define us. We deserve to have a country that is safe, united and strong; a country that confronts hatred, not excuses it; a country that protects its people, not its political comfort. That is how we honour the dead, that is how we protect the living and that is how Australia moves forward.
Scrutiny of Bills Committee; Scrutiny Digest | Committees | Senate debates
I present Scrutiny digest 9 of 2025 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills together with ministerial correspondence, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. As Chair of...
I present Scrutiny digest 9 of 2025 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills together with ministerial correspondence, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny digest 9 of 2025. In this digest, the committee concluded its consideration of eight bills previously introduced into this parliament. The committee's initial examination of the eight bills introduced into parliament between 3 November 2025 and 6 November 2025, including the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, are not included in this digest. The committee instead considered these bills inScrutiny digest 8 of 2025, which was tabled out of sitting on 18 November 2025 during the Senate's adjournment. Digest 9 highlights the considerable importance of ministerial responses to the technical scrutiny of bills and legislation undertaken by the committee. The provision of reasoned justifications by the executive supports the committee to reach a considered view about characteristics or impacts of legislation that may raise scrutiny concerns. This dialogue serves to enhance the transparency, accountability and oversight of the legislative process and to safeguard public confidence in the maintenance of the rule of law in Australia. Ministerial responses that directly address the scrutiny concerns raised by the committee can mitigate or resolve such concerns. Having considered the advice from the Minister for Health and Ageing in this digest, the committee has considered that its inquiries about the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 in Scrutiny digest 6 of 2025 have been appropriately addressed. These include initial concerns about the availability of merits review of decisions to compel information, including personal information, and defences under which individuals rather than the prosecution would be obliged to prove certain elements of a criminal offence. A response that directly addresses the concerns outlined by the committee in the manner of this response assists the committee to advise the Senate that its scrutiny concerns have been resolved. This bolsters parliamentary oversight by giving confidence to senators that the bill has been subject to effective scrutiny. This digest also contains a concluded entry in respect of the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. In particular, the committee has acknowledged that aspects of the Attorney-General's advice lessened the committee's initial concerns about a proposed general discretion for the Administrative Review Tribunal to decide to hear matters on the papers. The committee retains concerns, however, in relation to the framing of this power and the potential to incorporate greater guidance which the response to the committee has not addressed in detail. Considered engagement with the initial scrutiny concerns raised by the committee also provides an opportunity to improve the clarity of explanatory materials, thereby improving the accessibility of the law for the broader public and those affected by its operation. In Scrutiny digest 6 of 2025 the committee queried whether the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025 would in fact render decisions to publicly confirm an investigation into a particular charity immune from judicial law. The committee, having drawn this concern to the attention of senators, welcomes the Assistant Treasurer's commitment to table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum clarifying the continued availability of judicial review. Addenda of this kind serve to increase understanding of the law and assist with the day-to-day interpretation of legislation that is passed into law. These examples demonstrate that meaningful engagement with the committee's comments enhances the parliament's scrutiny of bills and improves the transparency and accountability of the legislative process. Where other responses have not fully addressed the information requested by the committee, the committee will often draw its concerns to the attention of the Senate for consideration. Accordingly, it is important for the integrity of the committee's scrutiny function that ministers respond in a manner that directly engages with the committee's concerns and analysis. In light of these benefits, the committee draws particular attention to two overdue responses to the committee. The response to the committee's comments relating to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 was expected by 23 September 2025. It is now outstanding for 64 days. Similarly, the response to the committee's comments relating to the Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 was expected by 13 November 2025 and is outstanding for 13 days. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny digest 9 of 2025to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Housing | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
Minister, the government is failing to build houses. In the last financial year, you fell over 60,000 homes short of your target. Unbelievably, new home completions fell by over 3½ thousand...
Minister, the government is failing to build houses. In the last financial year, you fell over 60,000 homes short of your target. Unbelievably, new home completions fell by over 3½ thousand compared to the year prior. Will your government admit your housing accord promise is now destined to be broken?
The Prime Minister promised to build 1.2 million homes by 2029. So far, every state and territory is on track to miss their housing targets. Minister, is your government still committed to this...
The Prime Minister promised to build 1.2 million homes by 2029. So far, every state and territory is on track to miss their housing targets. Minister, is your government still committed to this promise?
On Monday, the Labor premier of New South Wales, Chris Minns, lashed your government's housing record, saying that the billions of dollars promised for hitting new home targets offered 'zero...
On Monday, the Labor premier of New South Wales, Chris Minns, lashed your government's housing record, saying that the billions of dollars promised for hitting new home targets offered 'zero motivation for the states to reach their housing goals'. Minister, why are even your own Labor state colleagues now criticising your housing policies?
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On Monday—
Minister for Climate Change and Energy | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, has presided over rising electricity prices, falling energy reliability and an emissions reduction program that is flatlining, but Prime...
The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, has presided over rising electricity prices, falling energy reliability and an emissions reduction program that is flatlining, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has decided to reward the minister for energy with the full-time frequent flyer role of being a part-time Australian energy minister while he takes up the role of 'His Excellency the PON', 'His Excellency the President of Negotiations', for the COP31 conference that will happen next year in November. This is my bold prediction: electricity prices for Anthony Albanese will be like the carbon tax for Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. Remember, it was Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, who robbed Bill Shorten of his election victory in 2019. And now it is Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, who is going to rob Anthony Albanese of his third parliamentary term at the next election. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese instead thinks that he should reward the minister for energy. There are some questions for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and some questions for Chris Bowen, the minister for energy. As he assumes his position as the PON, the President of Negotiations, for the COP31 conference, these are the questions he needs to answer. Will the minister for energy attend every parliamentary sitting day in 2026 up to the point of the COP31 conference, which happens in November? That's the first question: will Minister Bowen attend the House of Representatives on every sitting day to take questions from the opposition about a whole range of matters—predominantly why electricity prices are still rising in our country? The second question is: what Australian taxpayer resources and which officials from which departments will be used to support the minister for energy, Chris Bowen, in his new role as the PON? The third question is: will the minister for energy, Chris Bowen, excuse himself from cabinet deliberations on issues where there's a clear conflict between Australia's national interest and the work that he does to negotiate for COP31, where the interests of other nations might be ahead of our own national interest? The fourth question is: when the minister for energy, Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, is travelling around the world doing his President of Negotiations work—remember that Istanbul, in Turkiye, is 15,000 kilometres away from Canberra and that it takes 24 hours to fly from Canberra to Istanbul—who will look after the interests of the citizens of McMahon? Those 120,000 voters deserve to be represented by a full-time member of the House of Representatives. Those are the four primary questions that Prime Minister Albanese might like to think about and might like to turn up to the House of Representatives tomorrow and Thursday with clear answers to. If he cannot provide clear answers to those four questions, then Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, is the wrong choice. Despite what Chris Bowen, the minister for energy, has said, it is totally incompatible for him to be the minister for energy at a time when electricity prices are rising, when reliability is falling and when our own emissions reduction experience in this country under his watch is flatlining and to also take on the role of President of Negotiations. You might ask: why is this happening now? I've got an answer to that question. It just so happens that it coincides with this month's release of the Australian Energy Council's report on the future of electricity prices in this country, on the future of energy reliability and on the future of emissions reductions. It's a very, very bad and gloomy report, and it marks the minister for energy down. This is not the time to be rewarding Chris Bowen. (Time expired)
Geneve, Ms Vyonne | Adjournment | Senate debates
I rise this evening to recognise a remarkable Western Australian, Ms Vyonne Geneve, and to congratulate her on her retirement as president of the Art Deco and Modernist Society of Western...
I rise this evening to recognise a remarkable Western Australian, Ms Vyonne Geneve, and to congratulate her on her retirement as president of the Art Deco and Modernist Society of Western Australia, a role she has a fulfilled with unmatched dedication and scholarship. This year marks a truly rare conversion of milestones: the grand century of Art Deco and Ms Geneve's own entry into her 10th decade, celebrating her 91st birthday on 3 June. It is a fitting moment for her to pass the baton, for few have done more to champion and safeguard Western Australia's proud art deco and modernist heritage. Western Australia's art deco story is unique. The post-depression recovery and the gold mining boom of the 1930s left Perth and regional Western Australia a rich architectural legacy, yet the demolition blitz of the 1960s and subsequent decades wiped out much of St Georges Terrace, including cinemas and beloved buildings that defined our city. It was in this climate that, in 1987, Vyonne Geneve stepped forward. Her research, advocacy and resolve led to the formation of the society and helped galvanise public awareness and Western Australia's architectural heritage. Under her leadership, the society became a founding member of the International Coalition of Art Deco Societies, hosted the 1991 World Congress on Art Deco, helped shape Western Australia's first heritage legislation and worked with the National Trust to create the most extensive inventory of art deco structures in the state. The society has saved iconic buildings, from the Raffles, Cottesloe and Swanbourne hotels, and today it leads the fight to preserve the Windsor Theatre in Nedlands. Ms Geneve's outstanding scholarship includes the acclaimed Picture Palaces of the Golden West, a definitive record of WA's golden age of cinema. Her retirement follows a triumphant autumn program, including discovery walks and an exhibition, drawing over 3½ thousand visitors. Although she is stepping down as president, Ms Geneve will serve as presidentemeritus, contributing to the much-loved Dear Decophile newsletter. Tonight, I would like to thank my good friend Vyonne for a lifetime of stewardship and scholarship to Western Australia's built and cultural heritage.
Energy | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
Australians deserve honesty and transparency from their government about the true cost of its reckless energy plan, and they are not getting it. The latest red flag is in the Australian Energy...
Australians deserve honesty and transparency from their government about the true cost of its reckless energy plan, and they are not getting it. The latest red flag is in the Australian Energy Council's report just released on 17 November, which reveals how concerned the energy sector is with Labor's faltering energy transition. The reports says: AEC members have become increasingly concerned about the rising pressures on affordability and feel there needs to be a more honest and transparent public narrative about the cost of the transition. Instead of having an honest dialogue with Australians, now part-time energy minister Chris Bowen is keeping them in the dark while driving up their power bills and risking network security and reliability. It's time for Labor to stop the insults and spin and answer one simple question: when will power prices come down under Labor like they promised? The energy sector attitudes revealed in the Australian Energy Council report are damning. The report notes: Most CEOs expect energy prices to rise in the coming years … This is due to sustained upward pressure. These CEOs are sounding the alarm on Minister Bowen's misguided plan, with one stating: Network cost is only going to go up and go up by increasing levels. And the Australian consumer is not even really wise to that yet because they haven't seen the worst of it. Just think about that. Energy sector leaders themselves are saying that network costs are going up, going up and going up, and who are the last people in the country to know about that? It's energy consumers—families and businesses. Australian households, businesses and industry deserve a policy that provides affordable energy and seeks to deliver responsible emissions reductions. Labor has failed on both measures while hiding the true cost of its policy from the public. Families are struggling to make ends meet, small businesses are being forced to close their doors, regional Australians are paying the price for poor planning and industry is being pushed offshore. For Australian households, power bills are up by almost 40 per cent. Where Labor promised a $275 cut to power bills, Australians today are paying around $1,300 more. More than 200,000 families—think about that—across Australia are now on financial hardship plans with their electricity providers. That's an increase of 50 per cent since mid-2022. The Australian Energy Regulator has reported that both the number of customers in debt and the size of the average debt have increased in the last 12 months. Energy leaders have raised concerns over the unintended consequences of leaving vulnerable people behind. One energy leader said: So bottom line is, we're going to make a large segment of the population more vulnerable again with electricity. For small business, the story's the same. For small businesses, electricity bills have increased by as much as 80 per cent. COSBOA, the peak industry association for small businesses, reports that one in three small businesses are struggling to pay their electricity and gas bills. It's no surprise that, under the Albanese government, we have witnessed the insolvency of almost 40,000 businesses. Under Labor, Australian industry is being hollowed out. In fact, 1,911 manufacturers have closed their doors since the Albanese government came to power. As one contributor to the AEC report observed: Australian industry will not survive without access to affordable energy. For these Australians, prices are soaring, while Australia's emissions are flatlining. Despite $75 billion in extra climate spending—the equivalent of an extra $7,000 per household—national emissions are virtually unchanged under Labor. Recent figures show that, for all this economic pain, emissions have barely moved, falling just 0.7 per cent. Think about that—emissions have fallen just 0.7 per cent under Labor. This is a reckless government setting targets it cannot meet at a cost Australians can't afford. The coalition's plan is to deliver affordable power and responsible emissions reductions. It's a practical pathway to affordable power and lower emissions. It's not Labor's recipe of soaring prices and targets that cannot be met.
Dismissal of the Whitlam Government: 50th Anniversary | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
November 11 marked 50 years since the 1975 Dismissal, an event still debated but, too often, misrepresented. Contrary to Prime Minister Albanese's claim that it was a 'partisan ambush', the...
November 11 marked 50 years since the 1975 Dismissal, an event still debated but, too often, misrepresented. Contrary to Prime Minister Albanese's claim that it was a 'partisan ambush', the historical record tells a very different story. First, Sir John Kerr was no 'conservative plant'. He was nominated by Labor Prime Minister Mr Gough Whitlam and appointed Governor-General in July 1974. He was Whitlam's choice. He was Whitlam's man, entrusted with the constitutional responsibilities that accompany the office. Second, the circumstances that led to the Dismissal were not manufactured pretexts, but the product of a genuine constitutional impasse. By late 1975, the Whitlam government did not command a majority in the Senate. A series of controversies, most notoriously the loans affair, had eroded confidence. In that context, opposition leader Malcolm Fraser exercised the Senate's lawful power to defer supply. With the government unable to secure the funds required to operate, the nation faced the real prospect of running out of money. Sir John Kerr, acting on established constitutional principles and confirmed legal advice, concluded that the Prime Minister must either resign or call a general election, but Mr Whitlam refused to do either. Mr Kerr then exercised the sovereign reserve powers vested in his office, powers that exist precisely for such deadlocked circumstances. Third, the ultimate arbitrators were not politicians, but the Australian people, and their verdict could not have been clearer. At the 1975 election, the coalition won 91 of 127 seats—the largest parliamentary majority in Australian history. It was Australians who overwhelmingly rejected the Whitlam government. The dismissal was controversial, certainly, but it was constitutional. (Time expired)
Bhutan Festival, Goods and Services Tax | Adjournment | Senate debates
In Perth on Tuesday, there will be an important event, a celebration even. It's called Bhutan Festival 2025, and it will take place in the heart of the Perth central business district. Although I...
In Perth on Tuesday, there will be an important event, a celebration even. It's called Bhutan Festival 2025, and it will take place in the heart of the Perth central business district. Although I cannot be there in person, I want the Bhutanese community of Western Australia to know that I'm very much with you in spirit as we celebrate Bhutan Festival 2025 and mark the 70th birthday anniversary of His Majesty the fourth King of Bhutan. This is a moment to honour His Majesty's remarkable legacy, a reign defined by wisdom, humility and a vision that placed human happiness and environmental harmony at the centre of national progress. The philosophy of gross national happiness continues to inspire people far beyond Bhutan's borders, reminding us that true prosperity is measured not just by what we build but how we care for one another. When I visited Bhutan as part of the inaugural Australian parliamentary friendship group, I witnessed firsthand the depth of that vision. From the leadership of the fourth King's son, His Majesty the fifth King, and the Queen of Bhutan to the optimism of Bhutan's young people, our discussions reaffirmed that Australia and Bhutan are more than friends. We are partners grounded in shared values of democracy, education and respect. In Western Australia, those ties are alive and very, very strong. The Bhutanese community has become part of our state's story, enriching our campuses, our workplaces and our neighbourhoods with their generosity, discipline and joy. May this festival strengthen those bonds even further, and may the friendship between Australia and Bhutan continue to grow, guided by the same spirit of harmony we are celebrating now. In the last few days, the Premier of Western Australia, accompanied by the Labor Treasurer of Western Australia, have found it necessary to come all the way to Canberra from Perth to defend WA's GST deal. Why would they do that? They would only do that if they thought the GST deal was under threat. Roger Cook, the Premier, knows the legacy of this issue perhaps better than many people, particularly when it comes to the history of the support of Western Australian federal Labor MPs for the GST deal. When Roger Cook was the Deputy Premier of Western Australia, he said that his federal Labor colleagues needed to take more notice and to get real about the GST issue. When Roger Cook and Rita Saffioti come to Canberra to defend the GST deal, they need more than advertising campaigns. They must come prepared with the facts and to defend the deal. On this trip, Roger Cook forgot some of the most important GST details. Roger Cook and Rita Saffioti travelled all the way across the country, and they forgot the most important details when it comes to defending WA's GST deal. We know in Western Australia that our GST relativity fell to just 29c 10 years ago, and the trajectory was that it would go lower. The GST relativity for Western Australia has been lower than 50 cents for 10 of the last 25 years. Compare that with New South Wales and Victoria, which have never had a GST relativity lower than 83c. In fact, New South Wales has had GST relativity above 90c for the 13 of the last 25 years, and Victoria has had a GST relativity above 90c for 14 of the last 25 years. Queensland's GST relativity has never dipped below 90c and has been above 100c for 19 of the last 25 years. Roger Cook and Rita Saffioti should not be wasting a million dollars of Western Australians' money on ill-informed advertising campaigns. They should stick to the GST facts because the numbers speak for themselves. Roger Cook and Rita Saffioti came to Canberra this week because they were concerned about the GST deal. If they can't get confidence from federal Labor MPs from Western Australia that the GST deal is safe, then Roger Cook and Rita Saffioti need to stay home and make the argument in Perth and not in Canberra. Senate adjourned at 16:47
() (): I present Scrutiny digest 7 of 2025 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 5 November 2025, together with ministerial correspondence. I also seek leave to incorporate...
() (): I present Scrutiny digest 7 of 2025 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 5 November 2025, together with ministerial correspondence. I also seek leave to incorporate by tabling statement into Hansard. Leave granted. The incorporated speech read as follows— As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2025. This Digest contains the committee's consideration of 14 bills introduced between 27 October 2025 to 30 October 2025 and amendments agreed during this period. The committee has commented on 6 new bills and 1 amendment, and concluded its consideration of 1 previously introduced bill. I wish to take this opportunity to draw Senators' attention to the committee's comments on several bills that enable charges to be set in delegated legislation. While not the sole focus of this Digest, this recurring theme serves to illustrate why fees, charges or taxes in delegated legislation raise scrutiny concerns. Among the most fundamental of the Parliament's functions is the making of laws that impose taxation. Under the Constitution laws imposing taxation must only deal with taxation and the Senate may not initiate or directly amend such laws. That the Constitution imposes such constraints underscores the significance of taxation—including duties of customs and excise—being legislated directly by the Parliament. Where a bill permits the Executive to set charges, levies or duties by delegated legislation, the Parliament's oversight and scrutiny of these matters is reduced. Clause 7 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, for example,allow for charges to be prescribed by regulations in relation to any prescribed matters connected with the administration of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.Identical provision is made by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025 and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, albeit for customs or excise duties. The committee's consistent scrutiny view has been that it is for the Parliament, rather than the makers of delegated legislation, to determine the rate of taxation. In this instance, the committee has welcomed that each of these charging bills explicitly require that charges must be no more than necessary for appropriate recovery of costs. However, the committee's expectation is that bills should themselves set an amount for any charge that may be characterised as general taxation. Where charges are to be set by delegated legislation, fixing calculation methods or maximum charges in primary legislation serves to ensure greater parliamentary scrutiny. The committee is therefore seeking further information about how these charges are to be determined and whether it is necessary to do so in delegated legislation. The committee also raises similar concerns in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025. The bill seeks to impose various charges relating to measures proposed in the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025. It provides that the amounts of these charges, which must be more than zero, may be set out in regulations. The regulations may also provide the method to calculate the amount of these charges. The committee is requesting information from the minister about the appropriateness of these matters being set in delegated legislation. The committee has enquired whether the maximum amount for these charges or further guidance about the calculation methods could be provided within the bill. The bill would also require the minister to arrange regular independent reviews of all charging regulations made under the bill. While the reports from these reviews must be published on the department's website, there is no requirement that they be tabled in the Parliament. As this may further limit Parliament's scrutiny of the charges imposed by regulations, the committee is seeking the minister's advice about why these reports would not be tabled in Parliament. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, introduced in the House of Representatives less than a week ago, has not been considered by the committee in this Digest. At 473 pages long, the bill is the largest to have been introduced during this Parliament. This is more than 300 pages longer than the second largest bill that has come before the 48th Parliament. The committee has agreed to consider the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 prior to the resumption of the Senate on 24 November. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2025 to the Senate.
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; Order for the Production of Documents | Documents | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that order for the production of documents (OPD) no. 47, agreed to on 29 July 2025, required the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment...
I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that order for the production of documents (OPD) no. 47, agreed to on 29 July 2025, required the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water to table the incoming government briefs prepared by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water for the incoming minister after the May 2025 federal election by no later than midday on 31 July 2025; (b) notes that, in responding to the order on 30 July 2025, the minister did not provide Volume 1 of the brief and Volume 2 was presented with redactions; (c) notes that the minister did not address why Volume 1 was not provided or why Volume 2 was presented with redactions, other than noting that briefs have been released publicly in response to a freedom of information (FOI) request 'with exemptions applied in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act'; (d) notes that: (i) when the Senate orders ministers to produce documents, they are obliged to do so, subject to the determination by the Senate of any claim that it would not be in the public interest to comply, and (ii) public interest immunity claims must be accompanied by a statement of the ground for that conclusion, specifying the harm to the public interest that could result from the production of the document in the Senate; (e) rejects the direct application of the exemption categories in the FOI Act to orders for the production of documents because they do not provide an adequate basis for withholding information or documents from the Senate; and (f) requires the minister, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 5 November 2025, to either: (i) table both volumes of the incoming government brief to the Minister for the Environment and Water without redaction, or (ii) provide the Senate with a proper explanation of the harm that would result from release of the briefs that would enable the Senate to determine the claims raised. Question agreed to.
I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) the Senate has passed 4 resolutions in relation to the production of the incoming government briefs for the Climate Change, Energy, the...
I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) the Senate has passed 4 resolutions in relation to the production of the incoming government briefs for the Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio, but the unredacted briefs have not yet been provided to the Senate, (ii) on 31 October 2025, in a response to order for the production of documents no. 100, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy advised that 'Appendix D remains redacted as it relates to the work of Minister Watt's portfolio', (iii) this response does not address why it would not be in the public interest to release Appendix D, (iv) the Minister for Climate Change and Energy may consult the Minister for the Environment and Water on the release of Appendix D, and (v) the Senate has previously rejected public interest immunity claims on the basis that release of the incoming government briefs would compromise the public service's role in managing the transition from one government to another or would disclose Cabinet deliberations; and (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 5 November 2025, an unredacted version of 'Appendix D: Other department policy areas' of Volume 1 of the incoming government brief to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Question agreed to.
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025; Order for the Production of Documents | Documents | Senate debates
I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 5 November 2025, all written or digital correspondence, briefing...
I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 5 November 2025, all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes, or other records of interaction between the minister or his office and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water relating to stakeholder meetings and engagement on the Environment Protection Reform Bill package since 9 October 2025. Question agreed to.
Australia-Japan Society of Western Australia | Adjournment | Senate debates
I rise this evening to acknowledge the Australia-Japan Society of Western Australia and to place on record my appreciation for the exceptional work it does to strengthen the relationship between...
I rise this evening to acknowledge the Australia-Japan Society of Western Australia and to place on record my appreciation for the exceptional work it does to strengthen the relationship between Western Australia and Japan. For more than six decades, the Japan society has served as a bridge, connecting communities, fostering understanding and celebrating the shared values that underpin one of our state's most important international partnerships. Through its language programs, cultural festivals, educational exchanges and community outreach, the society has helped generations of Western Australians gain a deeper appreciation of Japanese culture, history and values. These efforts do not merely enrich our social fabric; they sustain the trust and mutual understanding upon which modern diplomacy depends. The Japan society's work gives these links meaning. Whether through its support for Japanese language education, hosting cultural events or building partnerships with schools and universities, it ensures that our friendship with Japan is lived and experienced, not just spoken about. The friendship between Western Australia and Japan is one founded on trust, respect and decades of cooperation. A defining moment came in 1966, when the first trial shipment of iron ore from Rio Tinto's Mount Tom Price mine left Dampier on the Houn Maru bound for Yawata Iron and Steel in Kitakyushu. That single act was the beginning of a partnership that not only transformed our economy and helped fuel Japan's remarkable post-war recovery but changed the face of Western Australia forever. Nearly 60 years later, the partnership endures—broader, deeper and more ambitious than ever. Japan remains one of Western Australia's largest and most valued trading partners. Our state supplies the iron ore, LNG and, increasingly, the critical minerals that power Japan's industry and energy needs. In return, Japanese investment has built much of the backbone of our modern economy—our ports, railways and resource projects. It is a partnership of mutual benefit. But the true strength of this relationship lies beyond trade. It lies in the human stories—in the teachers and students learning each other's languages and in the artist, engineers and entrepreneurs. Through initiatives like those of the Japan society, Western Australians and Japanese alike experience firsthand the value of understanding curiosity and respect. Our sister-city relationships, from Perth and Kagoshima to Belmont and Adachi, are living examples of this cooperation in action. They show that international friendship begins at a local level, where people share culture, knowledge and opportunity. As we both look to the future, our shared values of democracy, innovation and mutual respect will guide us through new challenges. Through the people-to-people links sustained by organisations like the Japan society, the next generation will inherit a partnership strengthened by understanding and friendship. The Australia-Japan Society of Western Australia continues to remind us that diplomacy is not only the work of governments; it is the work of communities. It is found in classrooms, cultural centres and family friendships that span the Indian and Pacific oceans. To all who contribute to this mission, I extend my gratitude. Your work ensures that the friendship between Western Australia and Japan, forged in trust and respect, will continue to flourish for generations to come.
Economy | Matters of Public Importance | Senate debates
I don't think they'll be doing that again in a hurry. 'Teenage stress caused by inflation,' write Isabella and Isabella: If you're like most teens of today, you may or may not have thought about...
I don't think they'll be doing that again in a hurry. 'Teenage stress caused by inflation,' write Isabella and Isabella: If you're like most teens of today, you may or may not have thought about your future, but those who have, realized the horrors they may face. Teenagers today are under more stress than ever, and two major reasons are work and inflation. With prices rising for food, transport, and even school supplies, many families are struggling. Some teens are working part-time jobs, not just for spending money, but to help support their households. This leaves less time for study, hobbies, or rest. 61% of teenagers who feel this way, also have a crippling fear of not being able to afford houses, food, clothing or transportation when they eventually move out, Fear of failure and leaving families suffering. 86.56% of 15-17 year olds have part time jobs and study full time— in order to beat the ravages of inflation. These are not my views and not senators' views, but the contributions of two young ladies in their mid-teens.