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 7 of 10.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“At the end of the day, the resources and mining industries in WA were built on successive governments backing the private sector to do what it does well. If the Prime Minster thinks he can treat WA like a cash cow, he will be reminded of how important WA is at the ballot box.”
“Just last year they opened an embassy one kilometre from here, down the road in Canberra. What a joke! Hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent, outgoings and staff, yet 17 federal Labor politicians come here to represent WA every sitting week. Again, why do WA Labor have no confidence in the WA federal Labor team? There's only one test for the Prime Minster when it comes to the GST deal, and that's ensuring that the state of Western Australia is not left a single dollar worse off. He's promised it. Now he needs to deliver it. The Prime Minster is very happy to pocket millions of dollars in royalties and taxes that are generated by WA's mining and resources sectors in particular, so the last thing he should do is breach a solemn promise to the good folks of WA and penalise our success.”
“But, finally, under much pressure after the election, the PM has included an extra cabinet minister from the great state of WA, which wasn't a small increase, but rather a 100 per cent increase, in representation for WA, because we previously had, in the first term of the Albanese government, just one cabinet minister from WA, which is a long, long way short of the five cabinet ministers from WA that we had in the last coalition government. So why don't Roger and Rita trust any of them, or trust all of them? More to the point, if WA Labor can't trust their own federal MPs to ensure that our great state of WA is not left one dollar worse off under the GST deal, then why should Western Australians have confidence in them either? This isn't the first time that Roger and Rita have blown money on some advocacy here in Canberra.”
“This week, WA Premier Roger Cook and Treasurer Rita Saffioti are in town here in Canberra meeting with Prime Minister Albanese as fairness fighters for our GST deal, which, of course, was legislated by the last coalition government. But it begs the question as to what's going on between the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and the WA government themselves. Maybe it's because they saw how easily they steamrolled him on a $217 million racetrack that nobody seems to want, but they're seriously worried about WA's federal Labor MPs being rolled here in Canberra. I don't want to be unfair to the member for Perth. After all, there are 11 federal Labor MPs and five Labor senators to get on the plane every week to come to Canberra when we're sitting, so it'd be churlish to blame him alone.”
“It ensures that more people can live with, and hopefully survive, a cancer diagnosis while maintaining a meaningful quality of life for themselves, their families and their friends. This year the dedication of Bunbury truly broke all records. My sincere congratulations to the outgoing chair, Emily McKelvie, along with her organising committee whose leadership and passion brought the event together once more. Their collective effort enabled 52 fundraising teams involving some 541 Relayers to keep their batons moving for a full 24 hours. Having set a goal of $200,000, they truly smashed it by raising an astonishing $278,369. It really is Forrest at its finest.”
“Five million dollars over 23 years is the incredible legacy that Relay for Life has in Bunbury. This last weekend it was a pleasure to join the south-west pocket rocket and my predecessor, Nola Marino, in the official opening of the 23rd edition of Bunbury's Relay for Life. It's far more than a fundraiser; it's a powerful beacon of hope for those across the South West community afflicted or touched in some way by cancer. The sheer scale of volunteer commitment and funds raised over the last 23 years has been truly staggering. A key driver of cutting-edge research for cancer, the research focuses not only on finding a cure but to pioneer treatments that are more effective and less harsh on patients.”
“Yet, still, we hear all this talk about aspiration, ambition and doing more than ever. The reality is that Australians don't sleep at night under a roof of hot air from this government. They need a home to live in. The coalition is a party that believes in homeownership because the home can be a cornerstone for a family and its place in the world and of course a platform from which we can raise kids and send them off into the world. Yet the reality is that, in my electorate of Forrest, I keep hearing about people with jobs and kids who are forced to live in cars in car parks. It is a shame on this government.”
“So, as I say, it is no wonder that we have a very serious problem. But it shouldn't come as a galloping shock to those opposite, because Treasury gave them the advice that said that they would fail to meet their own aspirational target of some 1.2 million new homes by 2029. Since Labor came to power, not only have they had their own Treasury telling them that they're not going to meet this, we've seen building construction prices up by 20 per cent; homelessness getting worse, not better; and the lawlessness, thuggery, intimidation and rorts perpetrated by the CFMEU getting worse, not better, because of course one of the first things they did was to bin the ABCC. So we took away the cop on the beat trying to keep the construction industry clean. We've had record migration. We've had a collapse in the supply of new housing.”
“The reality is that this government has also overseen a record surge in demand for housing through net overseas migration. I note that, in this debate today, those on the government benches have studiously avoided talking about the other side of the equation. This is a market. It's supply and demand. You can't tackle one side and completely ignore the other. But the reality is, as I say, there's more money going out the door, more people coming to this country and fewer homes being built, and yet they wonder why house prices are through the roof and rents aren't far behind. In just three years, their first term, the government has presided over the biggest boom in Australia's population since the end of the Second World War. At the same time, the housing industry in Australia has delivered fewer homes.”
“The simple reality is that—and the Parliamentary Library has belled the cat—some $60 billion has been shovelled out the door by the Labor government; that's $23 billion in the budget, but of course some $34.4 billion has been just quietly snuck off to the side of the budget. That is at a time when there are fewer homes being built in this country than under the previous coalition government, because we understand that you have to back the private sector to do what it does well. You have to get out of the way of developers—whether they be mums and dads looking to earn a little bit more through a side-hustle, all the way through to our biggest developers—to ensure that the supply of housing meets demand. That's the supply side, of course.”
“We, on this side of the House, as Liberals, want this country to be a country of homeownership—not because it should be easy, but because, if you do the right thing, if you work hard and save to build a better future for your family, then you, too, should be able to join the league of homeownership in this country. Of course, there are circumstances in which it suits a particular person at that phase of their life to rent or to board with family, friends or someone else. But the reality is that the market for housing in Australia has been distorted by the Labor Party spending more taxpayer money than ever before, and, at the same time, we're achieving worse outcomes in housing than ever before.”
“It's interesting to hear the member opposite reflect on his experience in South Australia, because mine, coming from the great state of Western Australia, couldn't be more different. Some nine years after the Labor Party came to government in WA, there are now fewer social homes in that state than there were when the coalition last left office in 2017. The honourable member reflected on targets, ambitions and aspirations, and it seems to be a recurrent theme, whether it's in housing or emissions, that we talk a big game but that the reality experienced by Australians is a sad miss on that high bar.”
“Last time I checked, Aussies hate being told what to do, yet we're all paying for more fun police than ever before. They have now dreamed up a proposal to lower the default speed limit on Australian roads to 70 kays per hour, stating … roads may have sealed surfaces, but may be in poor condition, or lacking the road features that would enable safe travel at high speeds. Here's an idea: how about you just fix our roads? You have until 10 November to have your say on this madness, and I urge every Australian to jump online and do so, because in regional Australia we deserve better.”
“The fun police in this country have gone too far. As taxpayers, we're now employing some 106,000 people here in Canberra to hold clipboards and red pens and stop people doing things, building things or employing people. It's enough people to fill the MCG on Grand Final day, and they create no value whatsoever. They shuffle paper from one desk to another. They no doubt hold a lot of meetings and spend a lot of time and money travelling to conferences all the over the shop, but they don't create prosperity for our country. They don't empower the next generation of entrepreneurs to become the next Kerry Packer. In my view, they do not know more about your life, your family or your business than you do. So why the hell are we allowing them so much control?”
“It really is un-Australian to rack up debt on the credit card and then give the bill to your kids to pay, especially when we've spent their whole lives telling them what to do, think and say. For another example where we could have embraced choice, take the government's mandatory climate reporting legislation, administered by ASIC, which started on 1 January this year. Businesses across the nation are now required to document, calculate and estimate their emissions and credits with a level of detail that, frankly, demands additional staff or compliance specialists. For a large multinational, it's simply the cost of doing business, but, for a family run operator, a manufacturer, a local trucking company or a regional retailer— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 13:19 to 13:43”
“He tells me that it takes at least four months to get the approvals in place to build a commercial shed and just seven to eight days to actually construct it. Just think about that. That's four months of plans being shuffled from one desk to another within bureaucracy, creating no value whatsoever, and then just a week for a crack team of tradies to actually build the shed. That's to say nothing of the truly catastrophic examples like the McPhillamys goldmine which, after years of planning approval work and with more than $1 billion ready to invest, was knocked back. So it's no wonder that more than four in five jobs created in the last two years depend on taxpayer money, and, from there, it is also no wonder that we are already spending $50,000 a minute on interest that our kids will ultimately pay.”
“Returning to choice, however, I recently sat in a room with 25- to 35-year-old folks from Bunbury and watched as the shadow Treasurer asked them a simple question: 'What do you like least about Australia today?' 'Red tape,' 'Overregulation,' 'Constantly going for the lowest common denominator,' and, 'A nanny state'—these statements are from young entrepreneurs who are horrified by the constraints that we've layered upon them. It started with forcing coffee to be sold in cups that say, 'Caution! Contents may be hot'—seriously?—and now the mind virus seems to have completely killed off the drive of Australians to build things, create things and do things. Take my electorate, where a successful young business owner runs a shed-building company.”
“So I wrote to the climate change minister on 6 August this year to understand whether the government had satisfied itself that there was no risk of slave labour in the supply chains of solar panels coming to Australia. Eighty-three days later I'm still clicking refresh on my inbox, waiting for a response from Minister Bowen. It's pathetic that the government appears to be turning a blind eye to credible reports of slavery because it is so infatuated with its pursuit of net zero. Is the affordability of rooftop solar too good to be true? Mr Bowen's green dreams would leave a dark stain on our national history if these claims were ever validated.”
“No, rooftop solar took off in Australia around 2017-18 because the capital cost after incentives finally made economic sense, falling below $1 a watt in terms of capital cost, and Australians rallied to open their wallets and do the right thing. So household installations doubled then, and they've continued at breakneck pace. As an aside, in recent years some troubling questions have emerged that suggest that the manufacturing of solar panels in certain parts of China relies on slaves to achieve their incredibly low cost of production. These reports have come from reputable sources like the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the BBC, New York Post and even Australia's Walk Free foundation.”