SENATOR DEAN SMITH
SHADOW ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR COMPETITION, CHARITIES AND TREASURY
LIBERAL SENATOR FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TRANSCRIPT – INTERVIEW WITH GARY ADSHEAD
TOPICS: Greens salmon stunt, Federal Budget, Budget in Reply, North West Shelf approval delay.
E&OE
GARY ADSHEAD:
It’s a perfect way to bring in my next guests, who are of course Madeleine King, the Federal Resources Minister, and WA Liberal Senator Dean Smith. And no doubt he, probably, hopefully he got to see this with his own eyes.
[RECORDING] SENATE PRESIDENT
Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary.
[RECORDING] SARAH HANSON-YOUNG
Thank you. The Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, WWF, the Australia Institute. They’ve all condemned these laws. That’s right. On the eve of the election, you have sold out your environment credentials for a rotten stinking extinction salmon.
[RECORDING] SENATE PRESIDENT
Senator Hanson-Young, remove the prop from the chamber. Senator Hanson-Young, you’re not in a debate with me, it’s a prop. It’s a prop. Remove it from the chamber.
GARY ADSHEAD:
It was actually a dead fish. And Madeleine King, the Federal Minister for Resources, and WA Liberal Senator Dean Smith join me now. How are you both?
MADELEINE KING:
Well, I’m very distant from any salmon, I’d have to say Gary. I was not there. I’ve seen the footage. The magic of the Senate.
DEAN SMITH:
I’m very well as well this afternoon Gary, great to be on the show. I was in the Senate Chamber. I did see the salmon. It was wrapped in plastic, so we couldn’t smell it, but we could definitely see it. I think it sort of exposed the fact that the Australian Greens aren’t very good at debating the issues, that they have to bring props into the Senate.
GARY ADSHEAD:
Well I did ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Miles, whether he’d ever seen a fish in Parliament, of any houses, and he categorically said no. Is that the first time you’ve ever seen a fish in the, in the Senate, Dean Smith?
DEAN SMITH:
Actually it’s interesting you say that Gary, because before I came to the Senate there was some…this may not be the first fish incident. Let me go away and do some Senatorial homework for you. You know that I’m a bit of a Senate nerd. Let’s just see whether this was the first fish incident or whether there have been others.
GARY ADSHEAD:
Okay, well I look forward to that update. Of course, we do know about some coal being taken into Parliament down in the lower house at one point. So that’s well and truly documented. Okay, on with it then. We, we did just have a Federal Budget of course, last night. So Dean Smith, I’ll start with you on this. Clearly Angus Taylor and Peter Dutton have described the tax cut that’s been offered by the Albanese Government as a hoax, a cruel hoax. So if that’s a cruel hoax, what tax cuts are you going to give?
DEAN SMITH:
We’re voting on the tax cut bill tonight in the Senate. That’s the plan and we’ll be opposing it. I think the Coalition in the Senate might try to rename the tax cut bill to the 70 cents a day paid sometime next year bill, because it is a cruel hoax. Because the Budget in its entirety is really an election Budget. There’s no doubt about that. Jim Chalmers and Anthony Albanese have taken a decision to try and bribe Australian voters with just 70 cents a day, paid sometime next year. I spoke in the Senate this afternoon, Gary, when you read more deeply into the Budget papers, it’s quite revealing because while it might be a Budget for the election, it’s certainly not a Budget for the future of this country. Those Budget papers that were released last night by Jim Chalmers show that the gross debt for this country will tip over $1 trillion for the very first time. It shows also that the plan to put the Budget in balance, which was to happen over the next decade, is now into the never never. Alarmingly it shows an 8.7% increase in government expenditure to $731 billion. And for the first time in 40 years, the first time in 40 years, government spending is going to tip over the 27% of GDP mark. So yes, it’s a Budget for the 5th, for the 3rd of May, the 10th of May, the 17th of May. Madeleine might be able to enlighten us on that during the show. But it’s certainly not a Budget for the future. And if Australians are voting for the future, then they can’t vote Labor, they have to put Labor last.
GARY ADSHEAD:
So yeah, well if it is small fry, then it’s not much of a bribe according to what you just said then, Dean Smith. But Madeleine King, if it’s so small fry, was it worth the $17 billion extra going into the deficit?
MADELEINE KING:
Well, Gary, I’ll just start by saying it’s, it’s interesting to see the, the Coalition now following the lead of the Greens in undertaking a stunt this time just maybe not a fish, but it will go down like a, like a maybe a dead cat
DEAN SMITH:
That was a rhetorical flourish. There is no Coalition plan to rename the legislation. Just to get ahead of this before we get back into the Senate.
MADELEINE KING:
But anyway, that’s what happens in the Coalition and of course they’ve voted against a series of tax cuts because they don’t want to deliver any tax relief for Australians. And you know, the, the Coalition has scoffed at these latest tax cuts, but what I know when talking to people in my community in Rockingham and Kwinana is every little bit helps. So this tax cut announced last night, on top of the tax cuts of the previous Budgets, are about for every Western Australian, on average, sorry, it’s about $2,600. And that’s nothing to sneeze at. So we are a Government that is delivering more tax relief, we are delivering more energy bill relief and these are things that the Coalition consistently vote against. They consistently vote against cost of living. And if we want to talk about responsible Budgets or election Budgets, this Budget that Jim Chalmers, and he’s a great Treasurer, he delivered $95 billion in savings on the Budget on Tuesday night. Now if we look to what happened in March 2022, before the election in May of 2022, the Coalition delivered a Budget with absolutely zero savings. So I think it’s a bit of a long bow to say that there is any sniff of irresponsibility in this Budget, when in fact it is the Labor Government that is delivering savings. We’ve paid down nearly $180 billion in debt. The economy is over $200 billion better off than the one we inherited in 2022.
GARY ADSHEAD:
But it’s not a Budget that, it’s not a budget that looks into the out years in terms of deficit does it? If you’re looking at a structural deficit problem now for a decade, then, then the Budget goes nowhere to do that.
MADELEINE KING:
Well these are challenge, they’re challenging times. We know there are issues.
DEAN SMITH:
They’re not, they’re not actually challenging times, are they? What the Budget shows is that there has been an increase in the level of personal income taxes that have been received by this government in the last 12 months. The Budget also shows that there have been high commodity prices paid for products like iron ore, coal and gas. So it’s not as if Jim Chalmers and Anthony Albanese have been burning the midnight oil and expending their blood, sweat and tears to get the Budget in good shape. Not at all. This is a lazy Budget from a lazy Government because they are living off the back of higher revenue receipts from personal income taxes, paid by people like us. In addition to that, from historically high commodity prices for iron ore, coal and gas. And the problem with the Budget is this, as Madeleine just said, Gary, we live in uncertain times, in volatile times. So let’s say there was to be another pandemic, let’s say global conflict, let’s say trade wars were to engulf this country or the, the effects of those were to engulf this country over the next 12, 18, 24 months. There is no lifejacket in this Budget for the Australian economy. There is no insurance policy. So this is not a Budget for the future and I hope that when Australians think about their election choices, they’ll be thinking about the future.
GARY ADSHEAD:
Well if anyone wants to call – sorry, just one second, sorry Madeleine – 1300 222 720. You might want to reflect on the Budget and what it meant for you and whether you could see any value in it for you. And it always comes down to sort of interest, self-interest first. Just quickly though, I mean, the, the five bucks, you know, I mean maybe I’m scoffing at it too because I know that bracket creep for a lot of people will just eat that up. Inflation could go back up according to Treasury to 3% by next year. So that’ll eat that up. I mean, I’m just trying to say that really it’s, it’s tokenistic, that’s why I don’t even see it as a bribe because it’s quite tokenistic.
MADELEINE KING:
I totally disagree, Gary. Like, I don’t see how you can scoff at a package that delivers an extra $150 in energy bill relief on top of, you know, a combined $700 along with the State Government’s contribution in the last Budget. That 150 on top of the amount already said, is not nothing. This $5 is not nothing. And it means that the average benefits for taxpayers under a Labor Government, which is what the Coalition voted against, and they voted against tax cuts today. I never thought I’d see the day, to be honest, where I’d see a Liberal Party and a National Party sitting on the ‘no’ benches of the Parliament saying no to tax cuts for every single Australian. But what I think the Australian people, the West Australian people, need to ask themselves when they think about going to an election, as Dean has foreshadowed that kind of thought as well is, what are, what are they going to cut in these years? Is it going to be pension indexation? Is it going to be the services we provide to veterans and to make sure their applications for, for their benefits get processed? Which, you know, they left an abysmal mess a few years ago. So people need to ask yourself what is the Liberal and National Parties going to cut to pay, well one for their nuclear fantasy, but goodness knows what else they’re gonna roll out tomorrow night.
GARY ADSHEAD:
Here’s Tim, what do you think, Tim? What did you think of the Budget?
CALLER ONE:
It’s pretty disappointing that we’re going through as, as was previously highlighted, an increase in minerals resources, the income there and we still can’t seem to reduce debt. And I’d say there’s a lot of semantics going backwards between all politicians, but till someone really has the power or the strength to come to the royalty side of things and actually start pinning that to the value of what we’re exporting, nothing’s ever going to change. But that takes some, a big set of so, so-and-so’s to really pull that in and, and take on some of these big mining companies and oil and gas companies to say, you know, you’ve got to pay a bit more for what we’re letting you basically send overseas for very little return and a politician wants to do that, it’s just semantics.
GARY ADSHEAD:
Yep. Alright, thanks for that, Tim, what do you say to that first up Dean? I mean, he’s got a point, hasn’t he? Because I, I always almost laugh out loud when I hear that we might have to start importing gas.
DEAN SMITH:
I mean, the first step is that, you know, we have achieved a better GST distribution for Western Australia. So that is not to be scoffed at. That was a very, very important and, you know, significant battle. The challenge is to make sure that Jim Chalmers doesn’t cut spending to Western Australia and other areas like roads or education or health as a way of punishing Western Australia for a very generous and very fair GST deal that was struck after lots of effort from Liberal Parliamentarians in the first instance. It was great that the GST Bills enjoyed bipartisan support through the Federal Parliament. I hear what Tim is saying, but I would just caution that any radical change around royalty regimes do have the risk of undermining investor confidence. And it is important that we maintain a very strong and vibrant resource industry in Western Australia for Western Australia’s financial prosperity and the provision of jobs. And I hope we talk about the Northwest Shelf again before the news. And so it’s very important that we, you know, that we understand what are the drivers of investment and making sure that that regulatory environment, which includes royalties, is stable and certain for people so that they can invest.
GARY ADSHEAD:
Madeleine companies that, obviously, people like Tim are talking about, you know, they, they earn billions and billions of dollars in profit. Have we let them off too lightly?
MADELEINE KING:
Well that, that may be so, but we also need their continued investment to progress development, whether that be further mining onshore or other gas offshore and, it goes across a range of commodities and we see companies like Rio Tinto now applying that profit into more commodities and that includes lithium. And can’t, we, we really do need those big players in our system to continue to keep participating and investing because they bring that private capital. But I, but I understand what the caller is saying about this and I’ll just, you know, repeat that we have paid about nearly $180 billion in debt off in this last Budget and reduce the interest payments that the, the Australian Government pays. But really importantly is these companies do pay a lot of tax. And people may be dissatisfied by that for some reason, but the problem is I think we see a lot of misinformation passed around the place by various so-called public interest institutes that, to be honest, some independents here in the Federal Parliament wave around as if it’s the gospel when it is in fact not. It has an agenda to push onto the public, onto the media and all sorts of media, about exactly what it is that the resources sector contributes to the community. And, you know, what it contributes is a lot of jobs for a lot of people and they’re safe, stable jobs and that also means support for families, support for businesses in each and every community. And, moreover, the tax that the companies do pay pays for our hospitals, pays for our schools, pays for the roads that we build. So they make an extraordinary contribution.
GARY ADSHEAD:
Kylie’s on the line. Hello Kylie?
CALLER TWO:
Yes, good afternoon. I just actually, it’s quite interesting, you know, we’re talking about this $5 tax relief now. I’ve just driven from the gym past two petrol stations. The Government’s not talking about petrol right now as it was $1. 99 and $2 for diesel. $5 is not going to cover anybody filling up their car, but also what’s added on, because that’s going to go back onto the food, that’s going to go back onto everything…
GARY ADSHEAD:
You don’t see, you don’t see much value in the five bucks, is what you are saying?
CALLER TWO:
No, it is not going to do anything for anybody. Now I’m, as I said, I’m actually just amazed that fuel’s gone up so quickly within a couple of days.
GARY ADSHEAD:
Yeah, well that’s our wonderful fuel cycle that we have here. That’s something else that no one even understands. Certainly me. Well, there you go. That’s the point about the $5. I do want to talk about Northwest. The Northwest Gas Shelf project, have you parked that off until after the election, Madeleine King? Because it’s just too controversial and you don’t want to lose any more of those Teal voters – oh and Green voters?
MADELEINE KING:
Not at all. It’s a proper process of decision-making, which I’ve, I’ve spoken about before on this show, But on others as well. The Department requested an extension of, of the Minister to consider the documentation. There’s a lot of documentation as you’d expect. It’s a very significant project and, as I’ve said before as well, it’s been vital to our economy. Built in the eighties. I’ve visited a lot, the Prime Minister’s visited a number of times. So, the Government’s well aware of its importance, but we’re also well aware and very cogniscent of the importance of proper decision-making. And, as I’ve explained often, and unfortunately I think the Coalition choose to ignore this because it suits their political narrative, if you make decisions in a hasty manner without considering the documentation properly, and then last week, Peter Dutton, you know, prejudging his decision on this extension, you jeopardise the decision and risk putting it back to square one. And we are responsible Government, we will not do that. And so the Department requested and a Minister did grant an extension to the decision.
GARY ADSHEAD:
Dean, what’s happening here as far as you are concerned?
DEAN SMITH:
It’s all sounding a little bit too convenient, under the cover of Budget week. The Government decides to extend again its decision on the Northwest Shelf project. Remember, and we’ve talked about this on previous shows, remember the Government had already shifted the decision to the 31st of March. Myself and others argued that that was to get over the political difficulty of the WA State Election. Now, this week, Budget week, everyone’s looking over here, look at the Budget, look at the Budget, and there’s Tanya Plibersek sneakily putting in another extension for the Northwest Shelf, which will take it to the 31st of May, on the other side of the Federal Election. This is shameful, shameful politics. Look, Labor deserves a medal for giving it a go, but this is shameful politics and a very powerful demonstration, as if West Australians need another reason, of why Anthony Albanese is bad for WA and why Anthony Albanese is putting at risk WA’s future prosperity. Particularly around resource projects, particularly around jobs. This comes on the back of the ‘are they, are they not’ legislating the nature-positive laws. On again, off of again. And, of course, we know on Friday there was a very important rally in Western Australia for ‘Keep the Sheep’. So, there is a narrative, more than a narrative, these are very clear policy decisions where Anthony Albanese is putting at risk the agricultural sector in our state, but also the resource sector.
GARY ADSHEAD:
Does it put you under pressure Madeleine, though, here in your home state of Western Australia? And you well know that there’s some very hostile media around this delay?
MADELEINE KING:
Oh, I think Western Australians are sensible people and they appreciate proper process and good decision-making. I mean, what they witnessed, what I witnessed, was the former Coalition Government under Scott Morrison where the Prime Minister of the day hoovered up about, was it six or seven other portfolios so he could make decisions because he didn’t trust anyone and proper process was thrown out the window. As you know, I’ve been at work for two and a half years on court cases, which is the detritus of the Morrison Government and Ministers shooting their mouth off about decisions before they actually got to see the documentation or let the Department do their job. So I will absolutely defend the, the, the application of the Department to seek more time because this is important. It’s an important decision. It shouldn’t be, you know, thrown into a kind of election commitment basket like Peter Dutton’s is thrown into. And you know, if past performance, if past performance shows, you know, what this Coalition is capable of doing, it’s about making dodgy decisions that just end up in the court and put life of mine, life of project extensions, new exploration permits, literally the site for, you know, low-level radioactive waste in the trash can, because they make bad decisions.
DEAN SMITH:
Going into an election, going into election, if Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers, and indeed Madeleine King and Patrick Gorman and Tracey Roberts and Ann Aly and others, wanted to give West Australians a clear sign that they were backing WA and that a vote for Labor was a vote for WA, than Tanya Plibersek, perhaps under the influence of Madeleine King, would’ve worked much harder to make sure a decision was clear to WA voters. Instead, we have got delay, increased level of risk and, I suspect that, well I would hope, that West Australians add this to their list of issues of concern when they think about voting for Labor in Western Australia in the next election. This is a very real risk and it doesn’t stand the pub test. Not at all.
MADELEINE KING:
To the extension of the Northwest Shelf, the risk is posed by Peter Dutton and the apprehended biases now bought in, brought into the decision-making process. So, you know, they might want to reflect on the things they say and, and Dean, we need to be careful here because it is a decision that has to be made properly. I’ve lived this before and, and I know where it ends and it’s not where we want it to be. Alright?
DEAN SMITH:
When Anthony Albanese comes to Western Australia the next time, he’s been a very frequent traveller to Western Australia, we can’t deny that, I hope that he goes with Tracey Roberts to the electors of Pearce and goes with Tanya Lawrence to the electors of Hasluck, which have high proportions of FIFO workers that travel backwards and forwards from their homes in Perth’s northern suburbs to the mine sites, to operations around Karratha. I hope that he calls them to a public meeting and says he guarantees that the Northwest Shelf project is safe.
MADELEINE KING:
This is the point. This is exactly the point. If a Prime Minister does that, it jeopardises the whole decision-making process. I mean…
DEAN SMITH:
He’s the Prime Minister…
MADELEINE KING:
You cannot prejudge a decision of Government and, and Gary and listeners, it just goes to show how little respect the Coalition has for good Government and good governance. It just, just…this is madness.
GARY ADSHEAD:
Alright, well, okay. Just before I let you go, though, Madeleine, you might know the answer to this. I’ve got to be really quick and I’m probably just looking for a yes or no if you do. Is the Federal Government waiting to see the second year results from a state-sponsored monitoring program on the condition of sacred Aboriginal rock art near the gas plant before a decision is made? Do you know anything about that?
MADELEINE KING:
What I know is that the Department has asked for more time to look at the, the evidence and the application before it. And, and I’m not the decision-maker. That’s true, but I also don’t want to jeopardise the decision in any way.
GARY ADSHEAD:
Alright. But whether it’s the rock art, it, it’s a possibility that that’s one of the things it’s factoring into, into this?
MADELEINE KING:
I imagine there are many things factoring into the whole application and, I mean, what you’ve seen in the media would tend to indicate it could be any number of things.
GARY ADSHEAD:
Alright, well look, I really appreciate you both joining us. Dean, you need to get off and get some salmon from Sarah Hanson-Young and enjoy your dinner. Alright, take care.
DEAN SMITH:
Best wishes. Thanks again.
ENDS