This podcast is brought to you by Australia's LGBTQIA Plus Community Media Organisation, Joy. Keep Joy on air by becoming a member, a subscriber or donate. Head to joy.org.au. Joy, a diverse sound for a diverse community. Hello, this is Neil Mitchell from 3AW. What are you listening to? Well, you should know you're listening to Saturday Magazine on Joy 94.9.
Indeed, you are. Thanks, Neil. You are on set mag with Macca and Nevena. Our next guest in the studio, Dean Smith, Senator for Western Australia, author of the Marriage Equality Bill. No, it wasn't Malcolm Turnbull.
Welcome Dean, but before I just want to quickly tell everyone who we've got you. Then following yourself is the independent member for Goldstein, Zoe Daniel, then Richard Keen from Living Positive. He's going to talk to us about a World AIDS Day. A. Polieli, Greens MP for Northern Metropolitan. I'm going to talk to us about the Parliamentary Accounts Committee and Police and PIL testing. It's going to be a PIL testing trial in Victoria Dean.
Then Justin Ellis, Lecture in Criminology University of Newcastle. How could Donald Trump target the LGBTQIA plus community? Well, I think let's look at the T first.
Then I pinched my bed of paper. We're going to talk about the gender pay gap with Dr. Leonora Reese from University of Canberra. Good morning, Dean. Good morning to Macca and Nivena. A pleasure to have you in the studio. Great to be back in Melbourne. So, Dean. Briefly. Yeah, briefly. Now, you're off somewhere else today. I am, actually. And tomorrow. What are you up to?
This afternoon, I'm giving a little contribution to the Robert Menzies Institute at the University of Melbourne. And tomorrow, I'm going to attend the annual general meeting of the Council of Executive Jury in Australia. And then back to Parliament and Canberra. So, what's the subject of your chat at the Menzies event? Can you not guess? Constitutional monarchy? Close. Yeah.
Menzies and the appointment of governors general in Australia I know I know and what is your it is actually interesting. It is actually interesting. I know I Don't expect you to rush down to the university mode, but it is actually interesting. Can I tell you my cement the most in store play for it?
You might recall that many, many years ago, I used to work at Insurance Australia. Yes. Headed up their government regulatory affairs function. And I got quite a fascination with insurance. Very, very hard for people to understand that. Anyway, the IAG executive that gave me the job was none other than our current governor general. Wow. Small world.
So have you reminded me? But I wasn't involved in the selection process. But have you reminded her of that? You've been there? Not crossed paths yet. We did cross paths in the Senate chamber, but it was a little bit difficult. She was sitting in the sovereigns chair and I was sitting in the second row of the coalition in opposition.
Dean, we must share some kind of brain chemistry because I also have an interest in insurance and when I was with the Victorian Pride Lobby, we undertook this enormous study and research report on discrimination faced by LGBTQ people
across the industry and we found that one in two people reported discrimination and exclusion but with the work of this report we've been able to work with inter-insurance pride and some very dedicated people who work across many of the different companies to particularly alter some of the policies around HIV underwriting amongst other things and we'll be speaking at an event next week reflecting on the progress that's been made in two years since the report
was published. If you're looking for a patron I'd love to accept. Oh yes there we go. Now we've got a couple of messages from listeners, one which I'll read out but I don't expect a comment. Can you ask Dean about welcoming Tim Wilson back to politics? Well he hasn't been elected yet but
Tim would be an excellent contribution to the Coalition. He's made a very, very good solo contribution already. Comes to the job experience. Would hit the ground running. Cool. I have Zoe Daniels listening. I do work closely with Zoe on issues. Burmese issues. Human rights are in Burma matters. She's good to work with. She is.
And we'd like to continue to work with them. That's for the electors of Goldstein or Stein. I'm sure I'm going to get in trouble. I'm sure I've got one of those wrong. Well, I'll probably correct you at the accounts of Australian Jewry tomorrow. So, Dean, in particular, Nevin has got a question after this. She's held her finger up. But I wanted to ask, you're the shadow minister with responsibility for charities. That's correct.
This is an area that really doesn't get much attention. We know the size of the not-for-profit sector. We know the size of charities. We know the work they do. We know how important support from government is yet really.
It's a lot of, there's not a lot of talk about it, but you're trying to raise the bar here. Well, what I'd say, there's not a lot of partisan talk about it. And I think that's probably a blessing. So in the coalition, my role is the, what we call the Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, supermarkets, banks, airlines, et cetera, charities and the Treasuries. So I support Angus Taylor and Jane Himm in their role. But in the charity space, you know, things are critical. Yes.
So I'd say that in this parliamentary period, in this parliament with things that have dominated our time and attention have been cost of living in the economy, the events after the 7th of October, and in the charity space, I've been very, very careful to do a couple of things, to make sure that people understand my door is very, very wide open and I'm very, very accessible.
to impress upon those in the charities and not for profit sector that I think the best way to operate is to approach coalition MPs like myself with an open mind. And I've also been keen to sort of demonstrate to people my interest in the charity sector by identifying practical issues that I've been able to fix or resolve for them. And pleased to say on the eve of the election, there's a number of those issues that I've been able to champion for the sector.
And they would know that they would know that themselves. But in addition to that, I have also brought full what we call a private senators bill, another one. And I think I think this is a night where I know that this is an idea that is broadly accepted across the charities sector and endorsed by many people in the
in the parliament, and I hope that Zoe would throw her support behind it as well. And this is to provide a tax incentive for the donation of surplus food materials to food relief charities. So we have this almost perverse situation in our country at the moment where food relief charities like Food Bank, Oz, Harvest, they can buy it.
are under increasing huge levels of demand, because the cost of living crisis is real for people. People have identified food insecurity as a real concern, so they go and take themselves off to food bank and other places. Then, at the same time, we have got like 7 million tons of edible food going to landfill.
and in speaking to charities but also in speaking to farmers associations and others what we know is it's the transport cost is the cost of taking the food surplus from a farm gate or from a food manufacturer to the food relief charity
That is the cost-inhibitive factor. That means that this food goes to waste. So my idea, now I've turned this idea into a bill. This is an idea that food banks second, but Oz Harvest have been putting around the parliament for almost 18 months. No one else has taken it up. I've taken it up. We've put it through the Senate Economics Committee. I'm an optimist, so at this particular point in time, the government is saying they're not going to do it.
it doesn't make sense to me. They say that they've got various other cost of living relief initiatives. I say that this is an idea that's endorsed by over 60 organisations across our community, including a Salvation Army, United Care, Anglicare. In addition to that, the Trucking Association, lots of other organisations. And what I'm arguing is that this tax incentive, this tax offset would operate for a time-limited period. We would hope that the cost of living
crisis and the cost of doing business crisis dissipates over time. But this would operate for two or three years. It would be, it's fiscally responsible, responsible, and it would bring two food relief charities, you know, abundance of food waste, well, abundant of food that is currently being wasted. So I'm hopeful we've got one week of parliament. It won't come to a vote next week. But if the parliament does return for the two weeks in February,
then I'll be bringing it to a vote in the Senate. The Greens have not yet announced their position, but I'm hopeful. What's interesting about the Federal Government's position at the moment is that the House Agriculture Committee last year agreed that this was an idea worth supporting. That is a committee of the Parliament dominated by Labor Members of Parliament. Its Chair is a Labor Member of Parliament.
So I'm hopeful that the government will sort of see the good sense in this. It's practical, it's got wide endorsement. If they want to give it another name, they can knock themselves out. Because the time is absolutely right on this. Is it a case of not invented here?
It could be a case of not invented here, but as soon as I get the call from Andrew Lee, he says, Dean, I'd love to stand next to you and do a joint announcement about this. And can we brand it as a parliamentary initiative as opposed to a political party initiative or a particular government's initiative? So absolutely, Andrew, let's go on with this. The time is right for it. And I think that people would be horrified to learn about the scale of the food waste that's happening in this country at the moment.
And with regards to the financial implications of the tax incentive, who receives the tax incentive? So it would be received by the person who is making the food donation. So it might be a farmer, it might be a food manufacturer, and it's
limited to the size of the tax offset is limited to the turnover of the particular organization. But like I say, it's time limited, so it's fiscally responsible. The impact on the budget would, I argue, minimal. And many people, I think, well, we've had a committee inquiry, many, many submissions. The idea has been floating around the community for a long time. And I just think the time is absolutely right on this. And I do have a bit of a track record when it comes to getting built through the Senate.
You do. So it's Andrew Lee is the minister who said no. Yep. Okay. Well, minister, have another think about it. Just think. Now, Andrew might come say, Oh, well, Senator Smith, he's going to make these tax incentives available to Woolworths and Coles. Not true. Not true. And just to be absolutely sure about that, I will amend the B and I will amend it.
There we go. Lock solid. Senator, I was very interested to read your opinion piece, which is published in the West Australian titled, Our Democracy is in Decline, in which you highlight very alarmingly the decline in Australia's ranking on the Economist Democracy Index, particularly in metrics such as political participation and culture.
I would be very interested to hear from you any specific policies or initiatives you believe could potentially reverse this trend and strengthen Australia's democratic engagement.
very good question. I didn't realize by opinion pieces in the West Australian newspaper got such good coverage, but this is actual research. This is important and fascinating. And it was interesting to hear what John talked about. So over the time, and I'm a joiner,
I joined my Rotary Club, I obviously joined the Liberal Party years ago. So I'm someone who is a joiner. So I think that civil participation is very, very important. And going back to your point, Makra, I think one of the things I've been very, very keen to do is make sure that people who are participating in charities, supporting charities, not for profit organizations, you know, know that the Parliament values that contribution.
So it's interesting what John said, over the last few years, I've become very, very clear about one thing. And that is the importance of preserving Australia's existing democratic structures. So I believe that the existence of full preferential voting, coupled with compulsory voting,
means that our politics is debated and contested at the center. It's not debated at the fringes. And I think in voluntary voting environments like the United States and the United Kingdom, and this is why I'm always very careful about drawing too much comparison or analysis between ourselves and those two particular countries on electoral matters. I think one of the reasons why our debates have perhaps not been as ferocious, there've been
They've been prosecuted with passion, but we've avoided some of that extremities and perhaps some of that violence because the compulsory nature of our voting system and full preferential forces the conversation to the center. And so to answer your question, Evan, I think it's the preservation
of those things and explaining to Australians why they are just not, they're just not, they're just not features of our system. They actually work to keep it civilized. Because it surprises me, Dean, that let's talk in round figures about 40% of the American population that are eligible to vote don't, don't. Donald Trump got half the votes that were voted. They're abouts. So effectively you've got 70%
of the eligible electorate in America don't vote or didn't vote for Donald Trump. Now you could say 30% vote for Donald Trump. Now in Australia,
Our participation rate is very high because it's compulsory. We have invalid votes and spoiled votes, et cetera, and people that don't vote. I think it hovers between five and eight percent as a total. I think that's right. I think it's high 90. Okay, so let's just be generous and say,
90 to 92% of Australians cast a valid vote. Now, whether it's a donkey vote, whether they really thought about... But they participated in the electoral process. So they've made a decision that they have to vote. Now, I know you're passionate about this, but this view on compulsory voting and preferential voting is not
universally held across the parliament. No, no. And this is this is why in responding never as never as question, I'm saying, you know, reminding people of the virtues of our existing system, I think is the starting point. And I really do believe that. I mean, when I, you know, you know, coming into the parliament, I would have been sort of, you know, evenly divided about the merits of compulsory versus voluntary voting. But as I've participated in the parliamentary process as a member of parliament observed it in other countries, seen the
that the nature of the political contest over recent years, I've decided that I firmly land on the side of the virtues of compulsory voting.
And just validating that there's an interesting piece of research that came out earlier this year from the Australian Leadership Index on the Civic Health of Australia. By most metrics, joining, volunteering is in decline, political satisfaction is in decline. But most interestingly, the evidence that they compiled shows that political voice does, and this completely affirms what you're saying, Senator, plays a key role in sustaining people's faith in democracy.
Yes, and it's very, very important. And I'm optimistic about the nature of Australia's civil society. I'm optimistic about the strength of our parliamentary democracy. People will, at different points in time, on different sorts of issues, they'll have varying degrees of faith, absolutely. But we have regular elections, we have the orderly transfer of power in our country without violence.
These are things that you can no longer take for granted in other countries. And I think when we, and some of the political contests that we've had on some very, very sensitive issues, issues that are important to our community, you know, have been really vitriolic and awful, but.
when they're settled, and they're settled in mature and sensible ways. I think the marriage debate is a really powerful example of this. As horrific and unfortunate as that debate was, once the matter was settled, never heard from it again. We do have to take a break very shortly, but we will be back with Senator Dean Smith. You are on Saturday magazine with Nevena and Bakker. We'll be back very quick.
So, Tanya Plubasek, you're listening to Saturday Magazine on Joy 94.9. Indeed you are. With Senator Dean Smith, Senator Liberal Senator from Western Australia, and my co-host is Nevena. I want to ask quickly, Daniel, that we've got a few minutes left, and then we're going to speak with a colleague of yours, someone you work with and enjoy working with, Zoe Daniel. But that's not saying that Zoe has the Liberal Party's endorsement. She doesn't.
Donation reform. There's someone who sits across from you in the Senate that cost $116 million if someone's money to put him there. Senator Babbitt or Senator Babbitt, as I call him, right? Clive Palmer spent $116 million in the last federal election. And the outcome he got was Senator Babbitt. Well, you know, what about
donation reform, the government has introduced legislation supported by your party, opposed by the teals, the independence. I'm sorry, I'm calling them the teals, the independence. Not sure where the Greens sit on this yet. There's probably six of them in a room with seven opinions. But why is this a good idea? And what impact is it going to have? If I wanted to stand for Parliament,
It looks to me like my ability to attract money, apart from the fact it's me, is going to be limited by these reforms. Tell us, why is the Liberal Party supporting it?
Well, the first thing I'd say is that the financial contributions, I believe, and I think the evidence does stand up to this though, Zoe and people like David Pocock and others, may have a different view. I believe that money in the political process, money supporting political parties and political candidates does not buy you an outcome. It does not buy you an outcome. Well, it certainly doesn't get you someone sensible and bad.
Well, well, interesting. So all of that money was spent supporting Ralph Bewitt's election to the Senate. Yeah. And what has that money delivered in terms of an outcome?
for the people who financed Senator Weber. And I would say, zilch, zilch. So not a prudent expenditure of someone's, you know, private, private money. So I absolutely believe that the expenditure of money doesn't buy, particularly people, political outcomes. I also believe that the country has been very, very well served by two very, very strong parties in ourselves. So in the coalition, the Liberal and National parties and the Labor Party, and I'm someone who's very, very comfortable with independence being elected to the
to the parliament because that means our parliamentary democracy is vibrant and alternative views are being being represented. So I think what Senator Don Farrell, the Labor Senator from South Australia is seeking to do with these reforms is to restore some public trust in
the political process that might have been destroyed? What, no political self-interest? Sorry? No political self-interest from Senator? Well, if you're sort of suggesting that these laws have been designed to sort of, you know, deliberately try to cut out independence- I don't think that's true. No, I don't think that's true. Sorry, this will be the focus of the debate in the Senate next week before we break for Christmas.
I suspect it's going to occupy a lot of time. David Pocock and the Australian Greens and others will have lots to say. I just don't think that they've made, and I've listened closely to what they have said on other radio programs during the course of the week, I just don't think they have made the case very, very strongly at all, that this will undermine their participation in the electoral process.
Interestingly, and very on topic, we've had a message from 894 saying, yes, but the two-party system is stale, hence the rise of independence in our parliaments. Can Dean acknowledge this unpopularity amongst wealthy constituencies? Because if you look at those seats, particularly, and the ACT Senate, that these constituencies are wealthy.
and you only need to look just up the road here, Ku Yong, once held by Josh Ridenberg, lost convincingly by Josh Ridenberg. A wealthy constituency, Goldstein, wealthy constituency, the other independent members in the House of Reps. There's one thing they have in common, and that is a very high average income, and these people are
deserting, not just your party, but Labor as well. And you would add to that list, you know, curtain in my homestead of Western affairs. So I would say this, that informed electors are looking for established political parties to be more representative.
of their particular views, I think to show more flexibility around some important issues. So, you know, going back to the rubber menses Institute this afternoon, what the point that I will be making is that while it's important to have values, values are very, very important, but it's important to recognise that values have to sit within our contemporary context.
And it's not that values need to change, but how those values are interpreted and how we talk about those values is very important. So I would say that in those particular seats that you've identified, Liberal and Labor, and I suspect even independent voters are looking for political parties and candidates to be accessible and to be responsible to their particular local needs, but perhaps even to changing conditions on those sort of more national or international issues.
Just very quickly, it's been interesting on a local level in Victoria to see the rise of independence at a council level. So there was a coordinated effort amongst many different areas to have independent groups. Interestingly, one that very much changed the makeup of Yarra City Council, which you might remember as the Greens dominated council,
that was said to be quite dysfunctional, set up in its constitution, a mechanism that once elected, the party is disbanded and the candidate sit as true independence, but run as a collective. It's interesting that the person who sent there was at 894, 894. Thank you, 894. It's interesting that characterised the system as stale.
But I actually think the system is actually very vibrant because voters are prepared to change their vote. Voters, I think, are looking closely at candidates and political parties. In Western Australia, Liberal Party, for example, I spoke very, very strongly in favor of this. We have introduced websites for our lower house state seats, but also lower house federal seats, plebiscite. So every member of the Liberal Party gets to participate.
So that has changed the culture of pre-selections. It has meant that different sorts of candidates have been selected. And it's, I argue, it's an important first step in a sort of a broader reform process that's necessary in the West Australian Liberal Party. So I'd say that our democratic practice is actually vibrant. Yes. I've got a question from a listener. Does Dean think that John Howard and Peter Costolo were the architects of the housing crisis?
No. This listener does. Okay. This is 846. Yes. I thought Bill Shorten had left parliament. Yeah, yeah, no. Actually, he's 845. No. Yeah, look, it's just a jab, Dean. Ouch. Ouch. Just finally. We've seen participation rate. You say our participation rate is in politics is great and that people are engaged.
and the rise of the independence. And I mean, you know, I'm not disagreeing with you is a signal that our politics is still vibrant and people are engaged. But what we see is we see Labor Party and the coalition in first party preferred votes combined, they struggle to get to 70%. So 30% of the population says no.
Historically, elections were decided by about, in some cases, about 10% of the population. So how has it grown from, and I'm just talking around figures, from 10% of people were not adherents of the major parties to 30%. Why is that? Well, a couple of things are happening. So the first I'd say is that people who are interested in being engaged
can be engaged. They can join established political parties. They can create their own movement. That's the point. The second point is there's no, you know, so as a community, we've gone from getting our information from Sunday morning and being told by the parish priests to reading one or two newspapers to reading many newspapers. But no, this is how people used to get their information once upon a time. Now they're getting all of their information
over their digital device. They're reading the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, lots of different Dean Smith's opinion pieces. They're reading lots of information and they're coming to different sorts of views and they're expecting political parties to be more vibrant and more responsive. So I'm not going to sit here and say, oh, isn't it terrible that people are going to look, that people are going to other political parties to find their values expressed in the political process. I'm saying, wow,
If all these people are shifting to the independence, and once upon a time, Liberal Party voters are shifting to independence, I'm someone who says, well, what can the Liberal Party do better to represent liberally minded people that choose to vote for an independent or so? And I think that
issues like the economy, I think have now become more important to many people, not all the issues like climate change. I think the representation of women and making sure they're established political parties like the Liberal Party have strong female representation. We have heard those messages. So I think it sort of adds to the vibrancy. I'm not someone who says, oh, well, because we've got a large number of people voting independent, somehow our democracy is weaker.
and I don't necessarily think either, that they will always vote for independence. We're actually out of time, D. I'm encouraging them to vote Liberal in the Senate in Western Australia in 2028. Even if it is above the line,
Dean Smith won. That's what you want. I know you're not allowed to advocate for... No, I want Liberal Party won. Yes, yes. In 2028, in Western Australia. We've still got a minute or so, never know. I'm interested, Senator, in your reflection. We've seen David McBride has been featured in the news again. He's reporting threats from other inmates in Canberra and prison.
On democracy, do you think we have enough protections on whistleblowers or is this something that we need to spend more time interrogating and potentially in the policy sphere, reconsidering how we might reshape that to strengthen our democracy?
At a very high level, I think dissenting voices are very important because they keep the system responsive. Government is big. It is opaque to many people. So I would not be opposed to improvements to whistleblower protections and legislation. To be honest, they never know it's not something that I have committed a lot of my time and energy and thought to, but that would be my first principle approach here.
I appreciate that, Dean. I mean, the reality is, I'm sure, as a senator, and that in your electorate office and also in your office in Canberra, a lot of people come to you and tell you about things that they're not happy about, but the things that are happening that are within the purview of the federal government. And some of these people work
for the federal government or work in, you know, instrumentalities.
If they don't come to you and talk about it, and they're not protected, that is not good for democracy, and it's not good for any corruption, is it? It's not good, but this is one of the virtues of the Senate that I get to see that House of Representatives members don't get to see. There are a lot of transparency mechanisms in the Senate. We have what are called OPDs, the order for the production of documents. I move a motion if the Senate agrees, so 50% plus one, then I can get the government to release a whole series of documents.
freedom of information are requested. These are mechanisms that do keep the bureaucracy more transparent than might otherwise be the case. We have parliamentary committee hearing processes and part of that process is for witnesses to go in camera so they can say things confidentially to a committee that they wouldn't say publicly. So these are mechanisms that ensure our democracy is vibrant.
Can they be improved? I'm sure they can be improved, but they're also always in a state of evolution. Evolution in the right direction, not regression.
The honourable Senator's time has expired. The host will recognise Zoey Daniel, the member for Goldstein. Good morning, Zoey. Thanks for listening to another Joy podcast brought to you by Australia's LGBTQIA Plus Community Media Organisation. Joyy.
Help keep joy on air. Head to joy.org.au. Joy, a diverse sound for a diverse community.
