Ben Small's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Cowan Electorate: Australia Day | Constituency Statements | House debates
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' statements has expired.
Western Australia: Fishing Industry | Constituency Statements | House debates
I rise today to give voice to the Western Australian families who were shafted by the WA state Labor government's decision to close down the demersal fishing industry, commercially forever and...
I rise today to give voice to the Western Australian families who were shafted by the WA state Labor government's decision to close down the demersal fishing industry, commercially forever and recreationally for some 21 months, with the ban curiously being lifted just out from the next state election in 2029. I'm sure it was on the basis of robust scientific advice. But that's where the plot thickens a little, because on 31 October last year the Commonwealth certified the demersal fishery in Western Australia as sustainable for the seventh time. So the Commonwealth's science, for the seventh consecutive time, suggested that the fishery was perfectly sustainable, and 33 days later the Western Australian fisheries minister stood up and described the industry as being on the brink of causing extinction for species like dhufish. Being locked out from fishing some 900-kilometre of closure is impacting 80 per cent of the Western Australian population, particularly in towns like Bunbury and Augusta in the electorate of Forrest, home to multigenerational fishing businesses. This has stripped them of their livelihoods and their family businesses, built over some 100 years of experience in those particular fishing grounds, with less than a month's notice. This was particularly brought home to me when, standing on the fishing wharf in Bunbury, I met a young guy of about my age, mid-30s, who had stepped out from the family fishing business, gone to the bank, got a very substantial loan of some hundreds of thousands of dollars and bought his own fishing boat. The Western Australian government processed the licence transfer so that he too was a commercial shark fisherman, and 10 days later the government announced the permanent closure of the fishery. There have been no details on the compensation package. There is no future for him, his business or the new employees he'd just taken on, and, of course, that boat that he'd just bought is now worthless because nobody in Western Australia can buy a shark fishing boat. Why is a shark fishing boat caught up in a demersal fishing ban? It's because 0.4 per cent of the dhufish and snapper caught in Western Australia is bycatch of shark fishing, and 0.4 per cent was enough for the Western Australian minister to cancel their licences permanently. I don't know whether they've jumped the shark—whether their science is wrong and the Commonwealth's is right or vice versa—but there are clear questions to answer, and I've written to the federal minister to ask her to intervene and sort this mess out. Unfortunately, in the first response, she's denied any responsibility or any concern about the science. This has a long way to go.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025, Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I joke with friends that representing Forrest in this place should really be called being the member for wineries and breweries, because I take both a close personal and professional interest in...
I joke with friends that representing Forrest in this place should really be called being the member for wineries and breweries, because I take both a close personal and professional interest in their affairs throughout the south-west of Western Australia. I started my very first business in the hospitality industry with a tavern that was focused on showcasing local produce, beer and wine to local people. I've subsequently sold that business, but the point is I come to this place with a deep understanding of the impact that excise tax plays on both the alcohol industry and the hospitality industry more broadly, and what isn't widely understood is that the craft brewery industry, whilst it only accounts for about 10 per cent of the Australian beer market by volume, accounts for some 47 per cent of the jobs that the industry creates. And so, when we consider reform to the excise tax system, it must be through the lens of enabling those predominantly small and family owned businesses to do what they do best, and that's create jobs. The reality is that the excise tax system, which, for decades now, has slugged consumers and businesses with an increase twice a year, regardless of economic conditions, consumer demand or the health of the businesses that pay it, means that it is pubs and punters that pay excise tax and that it is pubs and punters who pay through the glass when the government fails to control inflation. Unfortunately, in the last few years, that is exactly what has resulted in the price of pints skyrocketing. Whilst I won't stand between Australian consumers and some relief, the reality is that the government's bill is, in effect, giving Australians a 1c per pint reduction in that excise tax. I think Aussies at the moment are asking for some fairness, some sustainability in the industry and some common sense, and, unfortunately, this bill falls short of that. Because alcohol excise is ultimately a consumer tax, every increase flows straight through to consumers. A two-year freeze on that, delivering some 1c per pint in relief, is just a start. The reality is that Australians—certainly the people in my electorate—are doing it tough. That means that they're not indulging on the night out with the family, they're not going down to the pub with their mates to watch sport, and they're not investing in their own community, and that is what is ultimately making this cost-of-living crisis bite harder. It's making it harder for families and harder for Australians to enjoy an affordable social experience. I think, when our social fabric is under perhaps more tension than it has been for many decades, that is worthy of deeper attention. Slashing excise would provide immediate relief not just to those small businesses but to the everyday Australians who are their customers, and that's why we shouldn't be talking about a two-year freeze but about wholesale reform of the excise tax system. As I said, ultimately, our craft brewing industry in Australia is predominantly one of small and family owned businesses. They're innovative. They add character. They bring tourism opportunities and local jobs to our communities, especially in the seat of Forrest. But those producers currently face one of the highest beer-tax regimes in the world. Depending on whose numbers you believe, Australians are paying certainly in the top five and perhaps even in the top four levels of excise tax on their beer in the world. That's not giving our small and family businesses in this industry a break, and it's not helping our consumers in Australia spend in their local communities. Excise is charged by volume, not profitability, and that means that a small brewer owned by perhaps just a husband and wife pays the same tax per litre on the beer that they brew as the very large multinational corporations who operate in Australia, even though they do so with very different scale, very different margins and very different market power with which to absorb those costs. For many craft brewers, excise is one of their single largest expenses, and it has a massive cash-flow impact, because it needs to be paid at the point of production not the point of sale. That means that these small and family businesses are carrying several hundred thousand dollars a quarter, in many cases, of excise liability on beer that hasn't even been sold yet. As industry groups have consistently warned, the excise system in Australia currently discourages innovation, investment and growth in an industry that I think all Australians have a soft spot for. So, if we acknowledge the pressure on hospitality venues, we've got to understand that those pubs are more than businesses. They're community hubs; they're employers of young people, often giving them their first leg-up into the workforce; and they're anchors of the local economy, especially in regional parts of Australia. But this continual rise in excise—twice a year, automatically—combined with the higher wages, higher energy costs, higher insurance premiums and higher rents has pushed many venues to the brink. Again, a two-year freeze in excise goes no way to addressing these cost pressures on these businesses. And, because it is pubs and punters that pay the price for the government's failure to manage inflation, ultimately you pay the price, through every pint of beer, for the ongoing inflation problem we have in Australia. A healthier hospitality and brewing sector means more jobs, more investment and stronger local supply chains. In the seat of Forrest, that means more people growing barley and hops, which requires a great deal of innovation to do in Australia. It includes more opportunities for truck drivers, technicians and tourism operators. Cutting the excise tax in Australia would stimulate economic activity in my part of the world, when we continually talk about the need to diversify away from the mining sector and yet do nothing about it. Over time, I believe that the impact to government revenue through a significant cut to excise would be offset through the increased economic growth and increased employment growth that we would see directly result from that decision. I guess there's always the fun police, though, that want to say that any change to alcohol tax in Australia would unleash a wave of irresponsible drinking. No industry group or participant in the hospitality sector opposes sensible regulation, effective education and harm minimisation in our communities. But blunt, automatic and heavy-handed tax increases go no way towards substituting for targeted health policy in Australia. Indeed, they currently punish everyday responsible Australians and the small businesses that they support while doing very little to address harmful drinking behaviours in our community. Smart policy could balance health objectives with the economic reality that these small and family businesses face, and that's why I think that our excise regime overall needs to be the subject of parliamentary inquiry to take stock around Australia, to understand the impacts in the beer, wine and spirits sectors, and to land at a reform package that would benefit Australia and Australians. Instead, we've seen a stunt, frankly, that delivers Australians 1c per pint in tax relief but nothing else. And I think that's why this is such a missed opportunity for Australia.
Bondi Beach Attack Victims | Condolences | House debates
There have been, as many colleagues across the aisle have reflected, many words. Many fine words have been exchanged here today, but the one that has been missing, from the Prime Minister's...
There have been, as many colleagues across the aisle have reflected, many words. Many fine words have been exchanged here today, but the one that has been missing, from the Prime Minister's address down, is 'sorry'. So I am sorry for being part of a parliament that was supposed to keep Australians safe and failed to do so. For a government that seems unable to say it, I am sorry for the failures in this building that led to 15 Australians being butchered on the sands of Bondi. In a cold moment of reflection, we must acknowledge, each of us, the 226 legislators, decision-makers and leaders that come to Canberra to represent our communities, that this wasn't unthinkable. Rather, when just 48 hours after the October 7 attacks we saw a congregation of hatred in Sydney chanting death to a community in Australia, there was a warning sign. It is unthinkable, when the ensuing 800 days saw a continuation and indeed an escalation of that hatred by those who would seek to sow division in our community, that this attack was unthinkable. It was less unthinkable after we saw schools graffitied, synagogues firebombed and indeed our nation's national threat level escalated in a formal communication from our intelligence and security apparatus that Australia was expecting a terrorist attack within 12 months. To each of the families, the friends, the neighbours, the colleagues and those community members who have lost a loved one in this attack, I am sorry for my part in that. This attack represents a loss of innocence for all Australians and indeed the country that we love. We owe it to each of those who have lost their lives and those impacted by this to root out and banish from this country the root cause, which is—we have to call it for what it is—an extremist Islamist fundamentalism that has no place in a free and open Australia. In any tragedy, in any dark moment, there are of course shining lights. This is no exception, with acts of heroism from police, paramedics, surf lifesavers and ordinary Australians who ran towards the danger. They ran towards the gunfire to act in almost unimaginable valour. I think that is the best of what our country can be and indeed the best of what our country should be. The late Queen Elizabeth II said that grief is the price we pray for love. I think they are fine words for our grieving families and communities to remember as they cherish those that they have lost. For me personally, I will take their loss—each of those murders—as a stark lesson of the responsibility we carry in this place as legislators. I thank the House.
Yates, Mr Raymond Leslie (Ray), Valedictory | Adjournment | House debates
That's got to be some runs on the board!
Richardson, Hon. Graham Frederick, AO | Condolences | House debates
I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask that all present do so. Honourable members having stood...
I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask that all present do so. Honourable members having stood in their places— I thank the Federation Chamber.
Forrest Electorate | Adjournment | House debates
Just last week the Prime Minister of Australia visited Forrest. I welcome him to come to Forrest as often as he'd like with a visit like that, because he really disappointed the people of my...
Just last week the Prime Minister of Australia visited Forrest. I welcome him to come to Forrest as often as he'd like with a visit like that, because he really disappointed the people of my electorate with what he didn't do while he was in our community. He didn't address the issues that matter most to the people of the south-west. He didn't talk about housing pressures, rising costs or the challenges facing our families, businesses and community groups. The people of Forrest deserved much more than a fly-in photo opportunity of him on his private jet at the underfunded and underdeveloped Busselton airport. They deserved answers from the country's Prime Minister, and they didn't get them, so tonight, in this House, I want to put on record the issues that matter to the people of Forrest, because my community deserves to be heard in this parliament when it is ignored by the country's Prime Minister. Housing remains one of the biggest pressures in our region. According to REIWA, median house prices in Western Australia have increased by some 67 per cent since 2001 and median rents are not far behind, with an increase of 57 per cent. Families, young people, key workers and even retirees in Forrest are all feeling the pressure from these sorts of price hikes. That's why I've consistently called for action on both demand and supply. This is a market that experiences both. It means controlling migration levels to better manage housing demand and it means unlocking additional supply by cutting red tape, clearing delays and removing the barriers that are blocking builders and councils from getting new homes to market. If the Albanese government refuses to act, this crisis will only continue. More Australians will be priced out, rents will climb and the dream of home ownership will slip further from the grasp of another generation of Australians. I'm fighting for practical solutions, faster approvals, more homes and genuine affordability. Importantly, I'm fighting for practical immigration reforms that support our regional workforce without crippling our housing market, because migration should strengthen our community, not overwhelm it. The 2025 cuts to travel allowances and service rates for NDIS providers in communities like my community in regional Australia are a betrayal of those in regional Australia, including our most vulnerable. A one-size-fits-all policy may work in the inner-city suburbs and in places such as here in Canberra, but it doesn't work in the south-west of Western Australia. In Forrest, where services are already limited relative to metropolitan areas, these cuts have led to appointments being cancelled and providers closing their doors to our community's most vulnerable altogether. In some sort of sick postcode lottery, families are being punished simply because of where they live. It's unacceptable, and I stand with the families in my community and the NDIS providers who have been so badly let down by the decisions of this government. In the interests of fairness and accessibility to a safety net that every Australian deserves, I ask the government to reconsider the changes that it stands by. The Margaret River Hospital, just south of where the Prime Minister landed his plane, is outdated and increasingly unable to meet the needs of a growing, ageing population, not having been upgraded since 2001. The health minister is pretty quick to come into this chamber and crow about what he's done for the good people of Forrest, but the reality on the ground is a sad story indeed. Residents shouldn't have to travel three or four hours to Perth for services that should be available locally—a fact totally lost on the WA Premier, Roger Cook—so a major upgrade to the Margaret River Hospital is essential. I'm committed to advocating for a modern, expanded hospital that delivers the high-quality care in the community that my region deserves. Apprentices, like everyone else in our community, are already facing lower wages and rising living costs. Cutting their travel and accommodation allowances makes it even harder for young people at the start of their careers to complete their training, especially in a regional electorate like Forrest, where long travel to the city is simply unavoidable. These cuts punish the very people that we need most: young Australians who are learning a trade, rolling up their sleeves and helping to fill our national skills shortage. I'll continue fighting to ensure that our apprentices and trainees get the support that they need. Finally, one of my key priorities is advocating for a new terminal at the Busselton Margaret River Airport, the same airport the Prime Minister is very fond of landing his private jet at. He had the perfect opportunity during his visit to acknowledge the enormous pressure on the facility from our FIFO workforce, our tourism and trade opportunities and the freight for our region. Instead, he said nothing.
Forrest Electorate: Community Organisations, McDonald, Ms Alexis | Constituency Statements | House debates
Today, I rise to commend two remarkable youth organisations in my electorate, the Bunbury Sea Scouts and the Bunbury Girl Guides, on achieving the truly extraordinary anniversary of 110 years of...
Today, I rise to commend two remarkable youth organisations in my electorate, the Bunbury Sea Scouts and the Bunbury Girl Guides, on achieving the truly extraordinary anniversary of 110 years of local operation. I was privileged to join Jaysen Miguel, the City of Bunbury mayor, at their respective halls in Bunbury to celebrate this momentous milestone. Such longevity comes from an unwavering commitment of parents, leaders and volunteers alike over decades upon decades, and we owe them a deep gratitude for the contribution that they've made through time to our local community. As a former sea scout who sailed in the United States representing Australian Scouts in 2007, I find the core objectives of these youth organisations—building teamwork, self-reliance, patriotism and citizenship in our community—more relevant today than ever. I congratulate the Bunbury Sea Scouts and the Bunbury Girl Guides on achieving a truly outstanding milestone. In the heart of my electorate lies something very special indeed. The Ludlow Tuart Forest is the only remaining natural tuart forest in the world. The Ludlow Tuart Forest Restoration Group is a group of individuals who've banded together to work tirelessly to ensure that this special part of the world isn't lost to history. A few months ago, I had the privilege to see the local group in action, so a special thank you to Des, Holger and Phil for welcoming me, for their time and for allowing me to understand more deeply the true scale of the work that the group are doing. To all at the Ludlow Tuart Forest Restoration Group, thank you for the energy and passion that you bring to our community. Your tireless work doesn't go unnoticed. I rise today to recognise and celebrate the amazing work of local star Alexis McDonald. I use the word 'star' very deliberately. In 2019, at just 17 years old, Alexis McDonald created the app HerHelp. It's a platform that serves as a safe and inspiring place for women to access support for issues such as mental health. The HerHelp platform now reaches millions and millions of users across the globe. In 2023, Alexis was a recipient of the prestigious Diana Award that celebrated these achievements. Not done yet, earlier this year she was named in the Forbes 30 Under 30 Asia 2025 list and, more recently, was announced as a 2026 Western Australian Young Australian of the Year nominee. Alexis, congratulations. Thank you for the important work that you do in our community and, indeed, across the world.
Medicare | Private Members' Business | House debates
It might seem old-fashioned when we talk about our health system to talk about triage. But, at the end of the day, I think that lights are unfortunately flashing red on the...
It might seem old-fashioned when we talk about our health system to talk about triage. But, at the end of the day, I think that lights are unfortunately flashing red on the dashboard—because every symptom that we look at indicates we've got a very sick patient on our hands indeed. In fact, rather than the strengthening Medicare policy doing what it says on the tin, I worry that in regional communities like mine it will actually undermine health outcomes entirely by pushing regional general practices closer to the brink than they already are today. I think that we've got to get our regional health system off life support. Unfortunately, the only way we can do that is by recognising that the system doesn't do better with volume over value. The domino effect that we've seen with hospital blockage and GP overload is the first point of failure. The government's failure to recognise that core funding is now having a devastating domino effect across the health system is manifesting itself through record ambulance ramping and acute bed block in our public hospitals in Western Australia. This crisis means that patients with complex needs or those requiring just minor procedures as day patients can't get timely care in a hospital setting. It's reasonable to ask, 'Where do these patients go?' They present to the last accessible link in the chain in regional Australia—that is, of course, their local GP clinic. But our GPS are increasingly being asked to manage advanced care that far exceeds the scope of a standard consultation. This is where the funding model creates an impossible paradox for our doctors on the front line. The average length of a GP consult might be around 19 minutes, but the economics of the bulk-billing incentivisation rather promotes the shortest possible transaction. So our GPS can't simply flex their patient throughput to absorb the hospital overflow that we're seeing. Complex cases that do require longer consultations—level C or D consultations of 40 minutes or more—are being diverted, yet the government's new bulk-billing incentives don't adequately fund this time that the doctor invests in the care relationship. Instead, they reward volume, frequency and shorter consults. I suspect that we'll see the consequences of this policy being quite severe. For a regional practice in the south-west, like those in Bunbury and Busselton, if they dare to stick with a mixed-billing model to survive as businesses, the consequence is of course that they forfeit the significant bulk-billing practice incentive that requires 100 per cent of consults through the business by 100 per cent of doctors for 100 per cent of patients to be billed accordingly. Unfortunately, by being unable to access those incentives, they face the immediate erosion of their patient base, as the patients most sensitive to cost are being forced to migrate to fully bulk-billing clinics to stabilise the practice's patient loyalty and long-term viability. These are small businesses that we're talking about here, and the compounding risk of vertical integration in the health system and block funding is a critical concern because local clinics are raising with me the issue that conditional funding is structurally dangerous in our health system. Centralised control occurs the moment the large private entities—we're seeing it through private health insurers or private equity groups—consolidate GP practices in Australia, which forces GPs to rely on a single conditional funding stream, whereas in fact we've seen significant benefits to the taxpayer through a health system that focuses on improved preventive health consultations, and they of course take time and cost money. That cost is an investment in better health outcomes in the longer term. So we're undermining the quality of health care, and we're generating churn within GP practices, and I think that that is going to manifest over time. We're allowing isolated and frankly unsafe outcomes. We're implementing a flawed MyMedicare registration process that registers patients to a single doctor instead of a practice, creating endless administrative churn and placing yet further burdens on the small-business operators who are at the heart of regional medicine in communities like mine. At the end of the day, this leaves overheads rising and practices unsustainable, putting regional health at risk.
United Nations' International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women | Motions | House debates
I spent a decade on the road as a volunteer ambulance officer, and I've been to more than my fair share of houses after dark to see the kids trembling in the corner and the female partner's voice...
I spent a decade on the road as a volunteer ambulance officer, and I've been to more than my fair share of houses after dark to see the kids trembling in the corner and the female partner's voice cracking with emotion as she says, 'It's fine; it's fine; no, no, no, I'll be alright.' The statistics that we've heard today in this place tell the real story, and that's a stain on our national story. The reality is that women around Australia today and the kids growing up in those homes aren't fine. Indeed, when we talk about prosperity in this place, about our true wealth as a country, I think we need to measure it not only by how high we can reach economically but by how low and how broad our safety nets in this country really are. We can't lay claim to being a prosperous nation in the true sense of the word with our blind eye turned to so many. Unfortunately, it has manifested as it has across the country in the south-west of WA. In my own community there's an organisation called Harbour refuge who are dedicated to providing support to victims of family and domestic violence. Of course, this was a city recently visited by the Prime Minister and his whole cabinet, so I think it's an appropriate time to put on record what Bunbury can be like for a largely unseen cohort of our community who are pretty much focused on survival. I want to put on the record today the numbers that evidence the failings of the 'system' in Australia today. In a single month this year, Harbour refuge received 122 calls for assistance, and 84 of those were in direct relation to a domestic violence incident. In the course of the financial year, Harbour refuge reported it received 1,410 calls from domestic-abuse survivors in that period alone. To put that into context, the Harbour refuge in Bunbury has only seven beds for women. That's 1,410 calls for assistance and seven beds. Reporting in my local community has highlighted that significant gap, and Harbour CEO Ali White has gone on to say to local media that 817 vulnerable women and children were unable to be accommodated in the most recent financial year. So, while they've managed to support some 246 women through their Safe at Home program, the capacity to deliver that outreach service is constrained, with just three FTE funded through to 2027. That's 817 left on the street, with nowhere to flee to, being told there is no room. Of course, in a regional community, unlike in a metro area, the ability to flee is further compounded by issues like limited public transport. There's no room for mothers who have summoned the courage to flee violence and no room for the children who witnessed the fallout. We need to do better as a country. Although more federal money is not the answer to everything, the reality is that we simply do need to do better in terms of funding ongoing operational staffing and providing resources to organisations like Harbour. On a day like today, when we're discussing these sorts of issues, I think it is fair to say that we can do better, because only through backing our non-profit and our community based organisations can we truly provide wraparound services in every community in Australia. This is not a 'one size fits all' sort of problem. Indeed, it's not a problem that we can simply announce a particular program for and expect that, magically, we will have resolved one of the great and intractable problems of our society. But the failure of our governance really, as I said earlier, is a stain on our national character, and, unfortunately, in that plight of every mother and her children sleeping rough, we see a tragic loss of humanity in our country. If taxpayer dollars are allocated to that human indignity, then we need to see some long-term, compassionate and specialised solutions for safe accommodation in every community across Australia. I'm very pleased to advocate for organisations like Harbour refuge because the work they do is truly meaningful.
Mullins, Mr Dean, Forrest Electorate: Roads | Statements by Members | House debates
I rise today to celebrate a genuine local hero in Dean Mullins, who, a few months ago, marked an extraordinary milestone: some 20 years of service on the road as a volunteer ambo with St John...
I rise today to celebrate a genuine local hero in Dean Mullins, who, a few months ago, marked an extraordinary milestone: some 20 years of service on the road as a volunteer ambo with St John Ambulance. This is no small feat, because every single day our first responders confront the most demanding of circumstances, never knowing what the next phone call from comms will send their way. Putting his community first has been Dean's unwavering commitment for over 20 years now. That's why, earlier this year, Dean was named this year's Harvey citizen of the year. This accolade, awarded just three years after moving to Harvey, is testament to the impact he's had on our community already. So, Dean, congratulations on this remarkable achievement. Thank you for your two decades of selfless service, and I must also recognise the sacrifices your family have made along the way. I also rise today to recognise the power of voices in regional Australia. A few weeks ago, this government opened public consultation on its proposal to lower the open-road default speed limit to 70 kays an hour, citing the poor condition of regional roads. Today I'm pleased to announce that the voices of regional Australia have finally been heard here in Canberra. After receiving some 11,000 submissions, the government have quietly backflipped on their attack on regional Australia. Well done, Mr Albanese. Now all that's left is for you to fix our roads.
Tobacco Regulation | Statements by Members | House debates
Prohibition didn't work in 1920s USA, and taxing ciggies out of existence simply won't work in today's tech enabled world. I'm referring to the catastrophic failure of government policy to...
Prohibition didn't work in 1920s USA, and taxing ciggies out of existence simply won't work in today's tech enabled world. I'm referring to the catastrophic failure of government policy to control illicit tobacco sales that is burning a hole in our national budget, seeing local shops firebombed and undermining children's health. For decades, Australia was a global leader in tobacco control, yet today we have simply become the world's most lucrative market for organised crime. Excise has increased by 282 per cent since 2013. By refusing to acknowledge basic human behaviour, the Albanese government is allowing tobacco policy to go up in smoke, and organised crime is holding the match. I've met a local IGA owner in the South West of WA for whom it is cheaper to buy black-market cigarettes on Facebook Marketplace, delivered by none other than Australia Post, than it is for a wholesale IGA to buy them. That means $8½ billion in excise revenue that is now funding gang warfare, not our schools and hospitals, in Australia. Excise should be dramatically cut, making lawful cigarettes cost-competitive with the black market. But, before the health set start, the thing to remember is that these unlawful cigarettes are not branded and do not carry the requisite warnings under Australian law. The price difference is stark. We simply need to understand reality whilst beefing up enforcement.
Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Slowly, slowly, and then suddenly! Within the coalition, the speaker's list on this bill started as something of a renegade action to begin a long and necessary debate on the need to dump Labor's...
Slowly, slowly, and then suddenly! Within the coalition, the speaker's list on this bill started as something of a renegade action to begin a long and necessary debate on the need to dump Labor's net zero agenda, especially the taxes, penalties and big government schemes that now see taxpayers forced to stump up for the generation, storage, transmission, retail and even the consumption of power, directly supporting the businesses in Australia who are no longer viable in this country because energy prices are through the roof. So much for a future made in Australia. Without taking money off nurses and tradies, the Mount Isa refinery—closed; the Port Pirie smelter—closed; Whyalla—closed; Alcoa Kwinana refinery—closed; Tomago—closing. Instead, in just a few months, we have landed on a coalition position to put Australians first. I am not sure when we as a country decided that Canberra always knows best, with unelected bureaucrats who live far, far away from communities like mine somehow best placed to decide what ordinary Australians do in their homes, businesses and communities. It's a lens through which I've come to look at most policies of government. I am a 'live and let live' sort of guy, after all, and I honestly believe that an important part of the Australian psyche still holds that we just don't want to be told what to do all of the time. When we come to the issue of net zero, it seems that this government decided that it knows better than Australians or, more egregiously, perhaps, that it simply doesn't trust them to do the right thing in their own circumstances. Rather than leaving it to each Australian to decide whether an electric vehicle is suited to their needs, whether for commuting, recreation with a caravan or boat, or even to suit their work from the construction site to the back paddock, this government decided to impose taxes on folks who choose an internal combustion engine vehicle, pushing up the cost, as just one example, of a new Ford Ranger by some $14,000 by 2029. I think the truly criminal part of the government deciding they know more about what sort of car you should drive is the fact that they have cooked up a scheme of subsidies that makes a Tesla cheaper for a surgeon than for a nurse. I thought Labor was supposed to represent the workers, but they are, instead, running a scheme that gives high-income earners a bigger tax break to buy an EV, and the poor old taxpayers get to foot the bill. So we'll take tax money off a nurse to make a surgeon's novated lease for his Tesla cheaper. Astonishingly, the Parliamentary Budget Office expects this rort to cost some $23 billion over a decade and, yet, Labor stand by it. Why can't we end all subsidies, taxes, penalties and every other way that Canberra is trying to direct how Aussies drive and live their lives and just leave it to them? Internationally, the evidence is clear. Labor's net zero zealotry is doomed to fail Australians, with no country in the world having lower power prices once wind and solar account for more than 20 per cent of generation in the grid. I've been asked by local media about CSIRO's GenCost report and other government modelling that somehow, miraculously, always shows power prices coming down with more renewables. The reality is that none of this modelling has ever been right in terms of cost at the meter, the only place that it counts for Aussie businesses and households. On page 5 of the GenCost report it literally says that it is: … focussed on the investor's perspective and not the long-term value to the consumer. If that doesn't bell the cat I don't know what would. Nobody wants to talk about the Labor Party's RepuTex modelling of $275 power price cuts for Australians by 2025, least of all the minister responsible for the mess, who's now cutting back his hours to spend more time junketing with the COP set. But the Prime Minister of Australia said, 'I don't think; I know that prices will come down.' Here's something else the Prime Minister said in Longford on 12 April 2022: From time to time, if ever I make a mistake, I will own it and I will accept responsibility. Well, Prime Minister, why won't you own this? Why won't you take responsibility, as you promised the Australian people you would? If you did, you'd do the right thing by Australians and dump your net zero agenda that has pushed power prices up while seeing emissions flatline and Aussie jobs exported overseas.
Critical and Strategic Minerals Industry | Constituency Statements | House debates
I rise today to try to cut through some of the froth and bubble of the genuine excitement around Australia's critical minerals industry because, as the member for Forrest and a proud Western...
I rise today to try to cut through some of the froth and bubble of the genuine excitement around Australia's critical minerals industry because, as the member for Forrest and a proud Western Australian, I'm acutely aware that a vast amount of our nation's critical minerals wealth actually sits below WA soil. Of course, the constitutional reality is clear. Those resources are vested in the Crown through the rights of Western Australia in trust for its people. That opportunity must be realised if we are to assert our sovereignty in a new and changing world. I set aside some of the concern that people might have around the government's proposed critical minerals strategic reserve, which involves stockpiling, offtake agreements and other measures. There is a real perception that it makes the government a market player. The reason I set that aside is that the rare earths and critical minerals market is not a free market. The reality is that China absolutely monopolises the global market, with more than 90 per cent of the market share and a clear willingness to manipulate prices to their advantage. We can't have our heads in the sand and pretend that this is a free market in which everyone upholds the rules based order. Whilst there is the risk wherever government sticks its fingers into these things of undermining private enterprise and wasting taxpayer money, and success through resources has typically come from the simple principles that states regulate, private industry operates and markets decide, I actually agree with the government that that can't be the case here. However, the reality, in my view, is that the government can't pick winners, and so the clear opportunity is rather to invest in research and development that will enable the industry to flourish here in Australia. Processing rare earths is technologically complex and, importantly, its also energy intense. So none of our collective ambition for critical minerals can succeed in this country unless we have affordable and reliable energy. Downstream processing and the transformation of these products into high-value products is dependent on our ability to have internationally competitive power costs. If power costs remain high and supply unreliable, the reality is these projects will stall and remain commercially unviable. Our minerals will remain under the ground, unexploited and the opportunity goes begging, whilst other nations seize the opportunity and undermine our sovereignty. High energy costs are already a significant burden on the industry, and we've seen job losses in Western Australia already, with some 3,400 workers collectively laid off and their families impacted in the last year alone.
VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report to the House on the bill.
As there are no further speakers, the question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question unresolved. As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be...
As there are no further speakers, the question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question unresolved. As the question is unresolved, in accordance with standing order 188, the question will be included in the Federation Chamber's report on the bill to the House.
Energy | Statements by Members | House debates
Today is brought to you by the number 5 and the letter F—F for fail—unfortunately, because power prices for businesses in WA are up by 58 per cent in just three years. I have a...
Today is brought to you by the number 5 and the letter F—F for fail—unfortunately, because power prices for businesses in WA are up by 58 per cent in just three years. I have a struggling small family-run commercial property business in my electorate whose owner has opened their books to me, and the numbers don't lie. Their power prices up are by 58 per cent in three years. For anyone who doesn't know how a commercial lease works, it is the tenant who pays for the power that they use. So if your barber shop has been whacked with a power price increase of more than 50 per cent, guess who is paying for that? You are. If your local cafe has been whacked with a power price increase of more than 50 per cent, is it really a surprise that the coffee you were paying $4 or $5 for three years ago is now $7 or $8? The reality is that you are paying for this increase. Businesses really are the canary in the coalmine. Speaking of coal, why is power cheaper in Japan than it is in Australia today? You heard right. Japan, which imports LNG and coal from Australia, has cheaper power than Australia, where the LNG and coal is in the ground here. It's time that we put Australian resources to use for Australians first and cheaper power prices will just be the start.
Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025, Environment Information Australia Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Those opposite refer to the EPBC reforms in front of the House as 'groundbreaking'. But the very real concern that I have representing the electorate of Forrest is they'll lead to no ground being...
Those opposite refer to the EPBC reforms in front of the House as 'groundbreaking'. But the very real concern that I have representing the electorate of Forrest is they'll lead to no ground being broken at all. Before we dive into the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and the six associated bills in some detail, I want to outline to the House my three areas of primary focus when it comes to considering the legislation proposed by the government. The first is what benefit there is for industry in these reforms. As much as we hear hyperbole from those opposite that this is a great thing for industry in our country, the devil is in the detail—and that is of grave concern to many stakeholders from the great state of Western Australia, because it is the mining and resources industry that underpins the prosperity we enjoy in this country today. Secondly, there are conflicting and uncertain statements on unacceptable standards within the bills, and these pose a grave risk to the ability of proponents to get a project up and established in this country—which, again, in an era of declining productivity and declining standards of living, is simply unacceptable for the coalition to support. Thirdly, when it comes to bilateral assessments and approvals, the great state of WA should receive both immediately and simultaneously. We can't afford for there to be delay, prevarication or consideration of the need for a one-stop shop when it comes to these approvals. Without diving into the detail just yet, they are the three areas of concern that mean I, on behalf of the electorate of Forrest, find myself unable to support the current proposals. At the end of the day, the bounty that our nation enjoys stems from the investment and approval decisions through the 2000s—that is, the mines that were first explored, discovered and then progressed, through development to production, date back to the mid-2000s, in reality. Today we enjoy the bounty of decisions that were made under the existing laws some 20 years ago. The question on my mind is: will these current proposed EPBC reforms unleash a new wave of mining investment in our country? The reality is that they won't. What's the impact of that? When you consider that the mining and resources industry has spent some $242 billion of capital expenditure in the last decade and generated some $395 billion of taxes and royalties in the same period, it should be clear to every Australian that our ability to pay for a social security net in this country comes from industry. At the end of the day, without that capacity to pay as a nation, it is our most vulnerable and our most disadvantaged who pay the greatest cost. Mining and resources aren't the end of the story, of course. Oil and gas as an industry, in the last financial year alone, paid some $21.9 billion in taxes and royalties, which is equivalent to the entire cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. When mining does well, when industry does well, Australia does well. Importantly, if we curtail the extraction of resources domestically, we're pushing that production of resources to overseas jurisdictions who have lower environmental standards than those considered by environmental law here in Australia and who have lesser safeguards when it comes to workplace health and safety and the use of labour. Ultimately, we don't change the consumption of resources globally but we move it. We move it away from Australia, we deprive Australians of the benefits of the taxes and royalties that are paid for the extraction of our resources and we see greater environmental harm, accordingly. What I'm looking for is legislation here in Australia that will help our industry 'dig baby dig,' because that's what benefits all Australians. When our industry does well, we all do well. Let's turn to some of the main areas of concern that I have with the EPBC legislation in front of the House. Firstly, when it comes to accreditation, those opposite have been very quick to point to the benefits of streamlining approvals through, effectively, a one-stop shop in licensing state based EPAs to conduct approvals and assessments. The great shame, really, is that there are those opposite who are part of this government who had the opportunity to support such an important reform in this place in 2021. Imagine where we would be as a country if we had knocked the red tape, the restriction, the regulation that's contemplated by that almost five years ago. I won't be lectured by the government on the importance of this, because, like I say, they had the opportunity to get behind that almost five years ago and failed to do so. In fact, just earlier this morning, upstairs in a committee room not far from here, we were discussing the Smokebush Gallium Project in Western Australia, which the Albanese government have been keen to trumpet as a great success story. As a brownfields project, it is not impacted by the EPBC Act. Importantly, the proponents of that project just articulated the reality that if it was impacted, this project would be some five to 10 years away. That's where we need to call out the failure of EPBC in Australia, because we are so bound up in red tape, regulation and restriction and so bound up in environmental 'lawfare' that our industries that generate the prosperity for us all to enjoy and benefit from are simply lagging behind. This bill in its current form does not suitably address that. I say again, Western Australia and its EPA should be accredited immediately and without delay under these reforms. That would be something I could certainly support. In terms of the prospect of a net gain, which is principally what Labor used to call nature positive, until that became politically difficult for them, there's no clear guidance on how this would be applied and measured. It simply can't be put into legislation. Inevitably, we would discover there were unintended consequences or difficulties in the implementation, and the reality is that we would then have to be back debating the legislation once more in the House. If it were pushed off into the standards, we would see the ability for those net gain principles to change over time in a nimble and agile way, as I think, at its heart, the government really sees some benefit in. What they need to do is listen to stakeholders and actually respond accordingly, because there are simply mad examples that abound in our country of offsets that are out of control—one tree with a couple of black cockatoos involved requiring the offset of some thousand trees elsewhere is in the way of housing developments, for instance. We wonder why we can't get housing supply to market. We wonder why the government's Housing Australia Future Fund is simply unable to do that. It's because of these sorts of restrictions and this madness. When we get to unacceptable impacts, the criteria are just too low, and businesses from WA are telling me that it is a real risk to future projects. There are more than 5,000 FIFO employees in Busselton alone that depend on the mining industry for their jobs. I hear those industry participants telling me in private rooms that this is a key risk of the bill. I'm urging the government to follow the Samuel review and put those into the standards, not the legislation, for the same reasons I just mentioned earlier. Importantly, in this place, we should use the powers of retrospectivity very cautiously indeed. It is unacceptable to me on a first-principles basis—and it is unacceptable to many that I talk to at home, in Western Australia—that conditions could be imposed under this reformed legislation retrospectively. You can't go shifting goalposts when it comes to capital investment decisions that amount in the billions of dollars. If the government is upfront and honest with Australians that there is no intention at all to retrospectively alter the environmental conditions attached to projects, they should be clear about that. It's very simple for them to say n-o—'No, we will not impose retrospective alterations on industry in Australia under these reforms.' They've failed to do so to date, and, until they do, I certainly could not vote for this legislation. When we come to environmental protection orders, the threshold is too low in my view, but it's not the main issue with it. The main issue with the way the legislation is drafted presently is that there's no appeal process. There is no right to natural justice for someone impacted by an environmental protection order to seek remedy, to have their day in court and to be heard in that way. That is a severe failing of any legislation contemplated by this House. It would be quite simple for the government to fix. Whilst that single biggest issue is a barrier to the effective implementation of environmental legislation that would have the right balance between the environment and industry in Australia, again, I simply can't afford to support it, because my state's prosperity—and that indeed underwrites the prosperity of the country—depends on getting this stuff right. It's worth reflecting on how we got here, because, yes, the Samuel review was commissioned under the coalition government, as we've heard. But the reality is that, since they came to power in 2022, the government have been shrouding this legislation in secrecy. Stakeholders have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. They've been drip-fed little bits here and there. Now it seems like the minister's in some sort of rush, because we've got extended sitting hours this week, and, all of a sudden, the government are using their numbers in the House here to move around the order of business and have us talk about this stuff until 10 pm each night. Yet, at the same time, the reporting date for the Senate inquiry is March next year. So if there's not some dirty deal at play here, if there's not some sort of stunt in the works, what is the tearing rush? The reality is that this legislation represents a quarter-century reform. It needs to be considered. It needs to get the balance right. In its current form, it doesn't. Anyone that thinks that 1,500 pages of legislation could be suitably considered and scrutinised in this place in just a matter of weeks is honestly delusional. The reality is that the Australian people need to understand what these reforms mean. Industry needs to have the opportunity to have their say, as do environmental stakeholders. There are two sides to this, and it is a matter of getting the balance right, so what is the problem with allowing this process of inquiry through the parliament to take place to allow the issues and unintended consequences to be fixed through suitable amendments? That's ultimately what we are calling for. We're not being obstructionist; we have committed, of course, to being constructive where we can. There is a genuine desire on the part of the coalition to respond to feedback from industry that these laws do need improvement. But, in their current form, for the reasons I've just articulated, the reality is that we simply can't support them. Colleagues have taken some time to step through the concerns and the issues that we're highlighting in the legislation, but what I'm hearing back from the other side of the chamber is that the government is determined to press ahead with this legislation. We're not hearing responses to the criticism; we're hearing government talking points just repeated ad nauseam, one member after another, chewing up time in this place without constructively engaging in what should be a really important national debate. I guess it reflects a government that says one thing and does another. I always urge people in this place to look at what Labor does rather than listen to what it says. We can't afford to get this wrong. We've seen the consequences of legislation like this going wrong in the past, and then there's a mad scramble to try and fix it up. They crunched through all sorts of legislation in home affairs and made a terrible mess and then had to fix it up multiple times. This stuff, which underpins our national prosperity as a country, simply can't afford that sort of risky behaviour. All we're asking for is the time to consider this legislation appropriately and responsiveness on the part of the government to genuine concern from environmental stakeholders, industry groups and project proponents themselves across the entire spectrum of activity in Australia, from housing development all the way through to our largest mining, oil and gas projects. That's what's at stake in this place today and, indeed, this week and that's why we can't support this legislation in its current form.