Ben Small
Forrest · Liberal Party · Australia
“My question is to the Prime Minister. Aussie legend Joseph Daoud spent $17½ thousand of his own money on billboards telling the Labor government to drop their ambition taxes. He's paid up again, winning an auctioned tennis match at the Lodge to get the Prime Minister's attention.”
“What creates that situation is where people are forced into a choice no Australian should have to make—a choice between getting care or keeping up with the bills. That's just not good enough.”
“Health care in this country, despite the press releases and the political spin, is under real pressure. In regional communities like mine, the pressure continues to mount on families who simply can't afford it. We're seeing hospitals under strain and emergency departments stretched thin.”
“I was recently contacted by Kim in my electorate who shared his telling experience with our local healthcare system. Kim doesn't need to see a doctor very often, but, on this occasion, he required a basic consultation by phone. He was told that it would cost him $75 for a few minutes on the phone.”
“The dissenting report the coalition has tabled in response to this details a litany of gross overreach on the part of this partisan witch-hunt because, ultimately, this is anything but a fair, balanced and impartial approach to assessing the feedback of the Australian community that we saw in the wake of the 2025 federal election.”
“By leave—Unfortunately, I stand here today to convey to the House that the coalition's position is that one of the most serious committees in the parliament has been reduced to a one-eyed, hyperpartisan witch-hunt of a group of religious Australians.”
The complete record
Every one of 464 lines we hold for Ben Small, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
“My question is to the Prime Minister. Aussie legend Joseph Daoud spent $17½ thousand of his own money on billboards telling the Labor government to drop their ambition taxes. He's paid up again, winning an auctioned tennis match at the Lodge to get the Prime Minister's attention. The Prime Minister told the Australian people before the election that his word was his bond. So when Joseph gets to the Lodge, will the Prime Minister tell him why his word on negative gearing and capital gains taxes was broken, or will Joseph be served up another Labor tax hike?”
“This is a question of systemic underresourcing. That's what I've heard from the locals. I encourage everyone in the Margaret River area and the surrounds to have their voice heard in this place by signing my petition to upgrade the Margaret River Hospital. If state Labor won't fund it, federal Labor should. At the end of the day, someone needs to step in and salvage this totally unacceptable situation for local people. Together, we must stand up for better health care in Forrest, because this Labor government surely isn't.”
“What creates that situation is where people are forced into a choice no Australian should have to make—a choice between getting care or keeping up with the bills. That's just not good enough. Despite every talking point from those opposite, people in the regions don't feel the progress that this government claims to have delivered when it comes to health care. Take, for instance, Margaret River, where a surging population for the last 25 years has placed an ever-increasing demand on healthcare services. The local community in Margaret River is crying out for upgrades to the Margaret River Hospital because the current situation is simply unsustainable. That's through no fault of the local staff, the nurses and doctors on the ground, who are doing absolutely everything they can to deliver quality care to locals.”
“I was recently contacted by Kim in my electorate who shared his telling experience with our local healthcare system. Kim doesn't need to see a doctor very often, but, on this occasion, he required a basic consultation by phone. He was told that it would cost him $75 for a few minutes on the phone. How can we expect that people struggling to manage their health affairs are faced with this as the first point of call with the health system? At the same time, we know that families are dealing with a lot right now. The cost of living is rising. Groceries, power bills, rents—everything seems to be going up. For those managing an ongoing or chronic condition, those pressures don't just add up; they multiply.”
“Health care in this country, despite the press releases and the political spin, is under real pressure. In regional communities like mine, the pressure continues to mount on families who simply can't afford it. We're seeing hospitals under strain and emergency departments stretched thin. Last year, I rose in this very chamber to draw attention to the ambulance ramping crisis in my seat of Forrest, and, since that time, neither Labor government has taken action to address it. Ambulance ramping is unacceptable anywhere, but in the regions it's worse, because there isn't another hospital just down the road. The reality is that, in regional communities like mine, the consequences are sharper and felt more deeply for local families.”
“The dissenting report the coalition has tabled in response to this details a litany of gross overreach on the part of this partisan witch-hunt because, ultimately, this is anything but a fair, balanced and impartial approach to assessing the feedback of the Australian community that we saw in the wake of the 2025 federal election. I won't go on, but I urge Australians to read the dissenting report. It's a stinging condemnation of the hyperpartisan approach that was taken through this committee, a very serious committee, an approach that ultimately leaves our parliament and our democracy cheaper.”
“By leave—Unfortunately, I stand here today to convey to the House that the coalition's position is that one of the most serious committees in the parliament has been reduced to a one-eyed, hyperpartisan witch-hunt of a group of religious Australians. That someone would seek to deny someone, on the basis of their faith or indeed not having faith, a role in our precious democracy should be called out for what it is. This is a committee that has had standing in previous parliaments as being charged with stewarding, upholding and protecting our precious democracy.”
“And every possible reality may well be within reach when they work like nothing else until their ambition is met. These people are not spectators in their nation, but they are active participants building it and pushing it ever on. Of course, we shouldn't be turning our backs on those who need support, but we must have regard to those for whom ambition is everything. The goal must always be to lift the Australian people from dependence and deliver them towards independence. That's backing Australians to do the right thing, and that's what so easily forgotten in this place.”
“We need to focus government on its core functions—to protect Australians, maintain our sovereignty and set out the framework for opportunity. That's the type of government that enables Australians to flourish. We need to find that balance between support and independence because it's in that sweet spot that the best growth exists for our country. When we allow those decent people of Australia to grow and to get on with their own lives, they build the nation with us. Growth therefore is defined by the people who live it every day. It's something that the people themselves create, and it's why ownership matters. When we allow people the chance to determine their destiny, they seize it. They take responsibility. They invest and build. They dream.”
“When the state does overreach, not only does it grow in size, but it shrinks the space in which those individual Aussies can act, thrive and grow. That's the fundamental principle that we seem to have forgotten in this place. A strong society is not built by a bigger government. It is not grown by expanding the reach of career politicians who've never worked a real day in their lives. It is built by stronger citizens who make the best decisions they can, who take responsibility for their lives, who jump on opportunity, who build, who create, who participate—not because the government tells them so but because they choose to. The challenge facing us as Australians is to once again define government properly. A government that attempts to do everything will ultimately achieve little and come at great cost to those who support it.”
“It is this exact instinct that has plagued our nation in recent times and exacerbated the issues we seek to confront. But what if reaching for an expansion of the state was replaced with backing the strength, the judgement and the responsibility of our Australian people? Australia is at its best not in the halls of this building or in the bureaucracy around it but in each of its citizens. It is our people who must grow for our nation to thrive, because to grow the government the people themselves must wither, because the state is inherently parasitic. This is about building a society of responsibility, not one of dependency. No government could ever replace the judgement collectively of our Australians, and that judgement must again lead the way forward.”
“I've spoken about the damage that east coast activists will cause if they succeed in getting rid of the fuel tax credits for our farmers, builders, fishers and miners. A new Parliamentary Budget Office report shows that it isn't just small businesses who'll be impacted. If these east coast activists get their way, it is you who will pay more. The impact will flow through the economy with higher costs for your food, freight, housing and local services. It will put further pressure on jobs, investment and our regional community. It's time we stood up and told the influencers and activists from the east to bugger off, so go to the website and sign the petition to keep their hands off our fuel. Too often in this place, in response to some issue or another, the answer is always the same—more government programs, more rules and more spending.”
“You might not have heard, but east coast activists are trying to get rid of the fuel tax credits that our farmers, freight companies, builders and fishers in the Forrest electorate depend on. Fuel tax credits simply refund a road tax on fuel that is not used on roads. These activists are supported by the senator for Canberra in the other place just over here, whose answer to everything is a new tax and the solution to every problem is simply more government spending. They don't understand that getting rid of fuel tax credits just means another cost to the small businesses in our community at a time when they can't afford to pay more in tax. Enough is enough. It's time regional WA stands up against the east coast on this, so go to the website and sign the petition to keep their hands off our fuel.”
“It is a disgrace that it's dressed up under the Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1 bill title. As I said, it should be the 'racketeering and union rorts bill of 2026' instead, because then the Australian people would have a real sense of what their government is trying to do here today. As coalition members have said previously, when it comes to the sensible parts of this bill that were put forward, we could absolutely support those any day. But the fact that they have been tied together with such an egregious assault on our freedoms is unacceptable.”
“The Housing Industry Association are particularly concerned, of course, because those who have been at the coalface of construction know just how bad this can be. They're joined by the Master Builders of Australia, who said: The potential exclusion of those legally operating under an industrial award, including those providing above award conditions, is fundamentally unfair, particularly for small businesses operating in the building and construction industry who make up 98 per cent of the industry and generally do not rely on an enterprise agreement. Well, we're seeing what the Labor government are planning for those small and family-owned businesses; they're going to crush them out of existence. They are going to mandate a union cartel across the construction sector in Australia and funnel taxpayer money into it accordingly.”
“Having booted the then Queensland Labor government out, Queenslanders are now discovering that the project costs in their state were inflated by some 25 per cent, creating a blowout of $17.1 billion. This is on top of the $15 billion to $30 billion that we saw squirrelled away into organised crime and the union corruption racket that we had in Victoria. So to see that the best-practice industry conditions, having been abolished in Queensland, are now being resuscitated by the backdoor with this federal legislation and put on steroids—given the government's addiction to spending—we should be gravely concerned. But it's not just the coalition members of this place that are concerned; it's stakeholders across the board.”
“But, because we're dancing to the tune of union paymasters, it would seem, this bill, the workplace relations legislation amendment bill, which has been very cutely named, as I said, is a trojan horse for an absolutely egregious assault on freedom of association in Australia and a complete perversion of any decency when it comes to Commonwealth government procurement. We could have looked not just at Victoria but also at Queensland to learn some lessons here from the so-called Queensland best practice industry conditions. I guess this is a bit of a trend we've got here. It sounds great—best practice industry conditions. What could possibly go wrong with something like that? We actually know.”
“You can't get in if you don't know someone. An individual being recorded in an undercover sting, and who described himself as a fixer, said about the price of entry: There's a fee to get an EBA. I think the upfront fee is cash. Is this the sort of thing that we should be encouraging the Commonwealth government to be setting as a national standard for procurement? On this side of the House, we actually don't believe in that. We don't believe in taking taxpayer money off hardworking Australians and funnelling it straight into that sort of corruption.”
“It would be gravely concerning on a point of fundamental value, but it is particularly concerning in the wake of the Watson report, which I know previous coalition speakers have touched on. The title of that report R otting from the to p by Geoffrey Watson, SC should say it all. It is a looking glass into what would happen if we allowed this sort of legislation to go through without belling the cat. Watson found that the enterprise agreement system in Victorian construction had been so thoroughly corrupted that he described it as an old-fashioned 'pay to play' corruption. There was no genuine bargaining under that system. A CFMEU official told a contractor executive: There is no bargaining—no, nothing will be changed in this agreement. The quotes continue: … they control the market. The Big Build is theirs.”
“The Commonwealth government is not going to use the taxpayer money they take from you to enable you to bid for work and to supply the Commonwealth, because they've gone and slammed the door shut so that they can shovel that money off to their union mates. That is limiting freedom of association. It is a conflict of the very central procurement principle that the Commonwealth should be focused on value for money. It also risks turning Commonwealth procurement into a mechanism for pushing union covered enterprise agreements across government contracts and down through supply chains. When you consider just how big the federal government has got under this current government—at some 27.1 per cent of GDP on the government's own budget papers—it should be gravely concerning that they're opening the door to this sort of discrimination.”
“These provisions are particularly concerning because they allow—and the moment you allow something when you've got the Labor party in charge you know that it will result in Commonwealth procurement contracting processes that will preference employers with union covered enterprise agreements. If you are a small or family owned business in Australia who's done the right thing, who's sat down with your employees and negotiated individual agreements, for instance, that might best reflect the skills and experience and the particularly productive employees in your workplace, you've got no chance now.”
“It is an outrageous and blatant attempt to curry favour with their union mates. We understand why. Union donations in; union policy out—I get how it works. But they should look the Australian taxpayer in the eye and explain that that is what they are doing. They shouldn't bury it at the back of the so-called Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. It should be called the 'giving taxpayer money to our union mates bill'. In that case, we could have a rip-roaring debate in this place about what they are trying to do.”
“As I said, that freedom applies both ways—the freedom to associate and the freedom not to associate. Again, I turn to the claim that we hear from the government that it doesn't force any agency or entity to use those provisions. This would be the only such discrimination that would be allowed under the act, and it would permit the government to do something that is currently prohibited by the Gillard government's Fair Work Act 2009. The government claims that the secure jobs code will provide the detail on how this will be used in practice. But let's not skip past the fundamental point. In this country, we believe in Australians making the right decisions for themselves. Here, the government is creating a loophole for itself, and itself only, to provide taxpayer funded support in union preferred procurement.”
“But this bill creates an exemption that would allow the Commonwealth to do exactly that, to discriminate, and allow the Commonwealth to prefer procurement from a supplier whose employees are covered by a union covered enterprise agreement. Put simply, the bill is creating an exemption by allowing discrimination where the employer's employees—that is, their workers—are not covered by an enterprise agreement or a kind of enterprise agreement that does not reflect the union coverage. That's one-directional. It only excuses discrimination that favours union dominated enterprise agreement coverage in workforces. Shouldn't that be, if we refer to those earlier comments where we believed in the freedom of association, as the government says that it does, a complete contradiction in terms?”
“The so-called end of legislation, which was promised by the Prime Minister, has gone exactly the same way as all of his other promises. It has been broken. So, currently, the Fair Work Act prohibits discrimination against an employer based on whether or not its employees are or are not covered by certain industrial instruments, including the National Employment Standards, workplace instruments and enterprise agreements. That's a reasonable position because it means that no-one in Australia, including the Commonwealth government, can prefer one company over another just because it has union affiliated enterprise agreements.”
“The Gillard government's 2009 introduction to the Fair Work Act, including principles that made a condition for participation as part of the federal government's procurement principles, included a requirement that tenderers for government work operate under an enterprise agreement containing a dispute resolution procedure that allows the settlement of disputes by Fair Work Australia. The government in 2014, the then Abbott government, repealed those. Here we go, 12 years later, because this bill is seeking to make amendments to the Fair Work Act regarding exactly that—discrimination in procurement related to bargaining. But I thought it was called the 'building cooperative workplaces No.1 bill'! Well, this is because you've got to look at the detail.”
“They will absolutely enforce this sort of preferment to the union cartel in Australia. We've seen that in the state of Victoria—the formerly great state of Victoria, I would say—where some $15 billion to $30 billion at the moment has been squirrelled away into organised crime and union facilitated corruption. That's just unacceptable. For it to be included, as the member for Cook rightly said, as some beltway banditry in this bill is not something that we will let slide.”
“That was until the government released a media statement saying that the bill 'does not impose any obligation on the Commonwealth to require enterprise agreements in contracting, but how and when to do so is being carefully considered as part of the development of the Secure Australian Jobs Code', notwithstanding that we're in 2026. The reality—the simple reality; we see this time and time again—is that union donations go into the Labor Party and Labor Party policy reflects the union demands. That's how it works—union donations in; union policy out. We've seen it time and time again. So it's a little bit cute to say that this wouldn't be a mandatory requirement of the legislation if it were passed, because we know very clearly what the Labor Party will do in government.”
“The consultation paper invited comment on whether that so-called secure jobs code could require contracting entities to demonstrate, amongst other things, that they 'support freedom of association and representation in the workplace' and 'ensure that enterprise agreements used on government funded projects are genuinely agreed'. The issue with that is that, if you actually believe in the freedom of association, you accept that employees have a right not to be part of a union and a union based agreement just as much as they have a right to be part of such a collective agreement. What we're seeing here is, a couple of years down the track, the government trying to take away that very fundamental freedom for Australians en masse. The submissions on that paper closed on 20 February, and there have been no further announcements since.”
“But this just continues a pattern that we see of a government that does one thing before the election and then rams through some 'wedge-islation' later—and from a prime minister who promised he was going to end 'wedge-islation' because he cited the Australian people as having combat fatigue. Well, here we go again. So why is it a problem? The 2022-23 October budget, the first of the Albanese government, included a buy Australian plan committed to establishing the so-called secure jobs code. That, ostensibly, was to prioritise secure work in government contracts and ensure that government purchasing power is used to support businesses that engage in lawful, fair, equitable, ethical and sustainable practices. So the fluffy-sounding, nice things that we can all agree to can continue.”
“'Beltway banditry', as the member for Cook describes, is the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. Let's strap in and continue to examine exactly what is going on here. It sounds innocuous enough, 'building cooperative workplaces'. On this side of the chamber, we believe in that. We believe that employees and employers should be empowered to come to an arrangement at their workplace that delivers value for both parties. However, what this bill seeks to do, in a sneaky and underhanded way, is to require the Commonwealth to prefer its procurement to those contractors and suppliers who have union based agreements. If that was argument they wanted to make, they could have made it before the election.”
“It's no coincidence that our nation backs Ronaldo. It backs discipline, effort, hard work and ambition. We need a government that matches that ambition, and that is what the coalition is offering.”
“We'll also cut red tape because building homes and, indeed, businesses, workshops, factories and new mines should be encouraged in this country. We should be ambitious for our future. We're committed to allowing aspiration to once again flourish in this nation, and that starts with our policies. It would be wrong to forget the real engine room of our economy. Small businesses or family businesses each day are taking risks, employing Australians and driving growth. Our permanent instant asset write-off for $50,000 gives them the confidence to invest, expand, take risks and create opportunities for other Australians. When you support small business, you are supporting Australian aspiration—the very thing that this country is built on. All of this is underpinned by an economic management plan to stop our spiralling national debt.”
“Right now, Australians are being pushed into higher tax brackets due to inflation, and they're simply not getting ahead. That punishes effort; that punishes ambition. The inflation is crippling that reward for effort for Australians. Our plan to index those tax thresholds ensures that Australians keep more of what they earn and is putting more money into their pocket each and every year rather than into the Treasurer's coffers. Look at housing. For too many young Australians, the dream of homeownership is drifting out of reach, so we'll align housing completions with population growth and migration. We'll invest some $5 billion into the infrastructure that's required to unlock housing lots and get new homes built in this country.”
“That's the Australia that I want to believe in. The study went on to say that those who favour Ronaldo report higher levels of self-esteem and, most importantly, higher levels of ambition. That is the point because ambition matters. Aspiration matters. The belief that your blood, sweat and tears will be rewarded matters. When this Prime Minister pushes the false pretence of ambition, Australians see right through that because they know what ambition truly is. They live it, they embody is, and they long for a government that will reward it. That's the Australia that I want to fight for in this place and the Australia we mustn't forget. That is exactly why the coalition has unveiled its policies across the economy. Aspiration must be backed by practical policy. Take our Tax Back Guarantee.”
“Across 26 countries, researchers found a clear pattern: those of a more conservative persuasion tend to favour Ronaldo, while those of the left-wing inclination lean toward Messi. I'm here with the Assistant Minister for Defence who confirms that is the case tonight! What is more, the Australian public shows a propensity for Ronaldo. Now, I think that tells us something because Ronaldo represents something unmistakable. He presents discipline, drive, the relentless pursuit of results, and the belief that hard work, ambition and self-confidence are the path to success. That resonates with Australian. It resonates with a country that believes in aspiration. It resonates with a people who understand that effort must lead to reward. It resonates with those who put their head down and have a crack. In short, it resonates with Australians.”
“As World Cup fever grips our nation and, indeed, the globe, I'm reminded of sport's rate power to transcend borders, ideology and the differences in our community. It unites us in moments of joy and despair, and, believe me, as a Dockers man, I have known my fair share of the latter. While we rally behind the Socceroos, there remains one question that divides households, friendships and workplaces alike—Messi or Ronaldo? It's a question of immense magnitude, a question argued in schoolyards, pubs and dining rooms across Australia right now and in every corner of the world. It's a question that, at least initially, might seem trivial but perhaps implies something deeper because new research out of Singapore suggests exactly that—that this debate is not merely about football but is about the essence of our character.”
“In fact, they were so appreciative that they crafted a handmade wooden plaque of appreciation that I was very pleased to present to the men's shed advocate on the other side of the chamber, the member for Hunter, and I think the locals were so impressed to see that we could have a great deal of bipartisanship when it came to recognising these sorts of achievements in our local communities. So to Kathryn, who runs the show, and all of the members at the Brunswick community men's shed, because they are proudly open to both men and women: thank you for welcoming me into your shed, and I look forward to coming back in just a few weeks to see these upgrades in all their glory.”
“I got a very warm welcome on a very cold morning when I visited the Brunswick community men's shed back in April. Operating an organisation like this most days of the week is no small task for a regional community group, but they know the important impact that they're having on the community that gives people of all ages the opportunity to participate in a range of activities. The Brunswick community men's shed is growing, quite literally, and, make no mistake, it is great to see. The grant they received from Lotterywest will go directly towards the essential upgrades to and the extending of their shed that are underway as we speak. They have a great deal of gratitude after receiving a grant from the Department of Home Affairs to conduct cybersafety awareness.”
“Only one-third of towns have access to a charger within 20 kilometres, and more than two-thirds of towns have no charger at all within five kilometres. That means there are stretches of hundreds of kilometres without access to a single fast charger, which makes EV ownership totally impractical for regional Australians, who rely more heavily on the types of utes, four-wheel drives and other internal combustion vehicles I referred to earlier. For the government to crow about a scheme which, as I said, made Teslas cheaper for surgeons than for nurses and to throw hundreds of millions of dollars a year—and climbing—towards Chinese manufacturers, money that was taken from hardworking Australians, it does expose this EV fantasy for what it really is.”
“That necessarily means that renters, apartment residents and those without off-street parking face real and ongoing barriers to cheap and reliable charging. Those challenges are even more pronounced in regional and rural communities like mine. Australia has currently got an estimated 1,500 fast-charging sites nationwide. For a country as large and as decentralised as Australia, that network is still very thin, representing less than two chargers available per 10,000 people in the country. But the bigger issue is not the number of chargers but where they are actually located, because most charging infrastructure is concentrated in the capital cities and not out in the regions, where my community live.”
“That price difference is particularly significant at a time when families are dealing with sustained cost-of-living pressures, fuelled by the Albanese government's out-of-control spending and the inflation that it is causing, which is running rampant in the economy and seeing the worst decline in living standards in the developed world. The government's claims about affordability are not being felt in the community. That's because, when it comes to the Labor Party, you must look at what they do, not listen to what they say. Many Australians don't have the capability to reach into their pockets and fork out for an expensive EV and an expensive charger, because any savings from running an EV depend heavily on access to cheap and reliable charging.”
“These are the choices that Australians ought to be able to make for themselves without facing a tax impost or a fee levy from the Albanese Labor government. We find ourselves now with about 410,000 EVs in Australia compared to the many millions of conventional cars that Australians still choose overwhelmingly to purchase for their own use. The government is overstating, I think, how widespread and accessible the transition really is, because upfront cost remains a major and ongoing barrier for many households considering an EV. This is because EVs typically cost between $10,000 and $15,000 more than a comparable petrol model.”
“That is an appalling breach of faith against the Australian people, and I do think it is extraordinary that the government continues to defend the indefensible when it comes to EVs. Admittedly, with all of these subsidies and taxpayer funded largesse, EV uptake has increased. Indeed, from a very low starting point, it just crept above 12 per cent for the 2025 year in car sales, which still means that the overwhelming majority of Australians are purchasing internal combustion engine vehicles. Indeed, in my part of the world and that of the member for Grey, here, our communities rely on internal combustion engines, whether it's for travelling the vast distances in our electorates, getting around the farm or lugging the boat down to enjoy the pristine waters of Geographe Bay on a weekend.”
“We find ourselves in here to have a pretty extraordinary debate. For the first time—I think in Australian history—the government is taxing Australians and sending that money to China. You heard right. Under the Labor government's car and ute tax, ordinary Australians are being penalised for driving petrol or diesel internal combustion cars, and the money that they are being levied is being dispatched to Chinese manufacturers of EVs. If that wasn't extraordinary enough, we also find ourselves listening to Labor MPs crowing about the fringe benefits tax exemptions that have been afforded to EVs in recent years. Those same exemptions made a Tesla cheaper for a surgeon than for a nurse.”
“In the south-west and all over Australia, our growers and winemakers may well be the best in the world. But they're facing worsening conditions, and they need a government that is willing to give them a helping hand. Instead, they've received a slap in the face from a government who has callously cut the only federal grant program that was helping jobs in the wine industry. The government simply can't ignore Australians who have put their hand up and are having a go to produce supply and give back locally. It's time we got behind our wine industry and did the right thing not only in restoring the program that was cut in this year's budget but by delivering on the very modest ask of this industry crying for help.”
“We've got the 166-year-old family winery Tahbilk, which has been burning vineyards planted in the 1990s—vines its winemaker said were producing very good wine. But that is the simple reality across this industry. This is mortgages, livelihoods and family stories, and the mental health of those families pushed to the brink. The industry hasn't asked for a blank cheque, though. Australian Grape & Wine has a three-year plan that would cost, in total, $139 million—some $60 million to help growers transition or exit with dignity, $40 million to rebuild export markets, $20 million for wine and regional tourism and $15 million for the mental health of growers in crisis. This is a very modest ask as far as transitional support goes in the agricultural sector or, indeed, any other part of the economy undergoing such challenges.”
“Global consumption of wine is at its lowest since 1961, and the market is tipped to shrink another eight per cent, or some 1.5 billion litres globally, which is, to put it in some context, four times everything that Australia produces in a year. Our producers are lucky to some degree, in that they typically produce premium wine, which has suffered less perhaps than other markets. But Tate Wine is not alone. Just last week, a video was doing the rounds on the internet of an excavator tearing down grapevines at De Bortoli Wines, something of a household name even in my part of the world. Darren De Bortoli spoke frankly about the decision and said, 'That's the cruelty of it. The old vines produce the best fruit, but they're shiraz, and at the moment shiraz can't find a market.' He's not alone.”
“In May's budget it axed, at the worst possible moment, the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grants program, the only federal program directly supporting cellar doors and jobs in the wine industry. In September last year my office was notified that Brookland Valley and Houghton Cellar Door on Caves Road, also in Margaret River, would be closing, with the loss of four local employees accordingly. This just underscores why it is the worst possible time for the government to be cutting support to this industry. But the scale of this problem isn't just limited to a bad patch. These are structural issues across the country and, to some extent, across the globe. Last year, production outran sales by some 52 million litres.”
“But it is clear, from speaking to the families and producers on the ground, that times really are tough for this industry. Just last November, Tate Wine collapsed into receivership, and by December its creditors had voted to wind it up. The Tate name in Western Australian winemaking goes back more than 50 years, some half a century, to when their father helped plant vines in Wilyabrup, at the heart of the Margaret River winegrowing region. That family's history in wine is now gone. The receiver himself said it plainly: 'The Australian wine industry is struggling from the structural impacts of oversupply.' So how has the government responded to an industry which is clearly under pressure?”