Latest news with #Rinehart
Sydney Morning Herald
7 days ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
The houses where Australia's billionaires live, and how much they cost
How much does it cost to live like a Rich Lister? Many of Australia's billionaires amassed their fortunes in the property industry, but even those who built wealth in other sectors such as mining or technology have then been keen purchasers of residential real estate. Australia is now home to 161 billionaires, up from 150 a year ago, the Financial Review Rich List for 2025, published in full on Friday, reveals. The top industry for wealth creation was mining, whose rich listers are worth a collective $141.3 billion, followed by property, worth $125.8 billion across 44 entrants. Australia's richest person is mining magnate Gina Rinehart, worth $38.1 billion. Rinehart's residence in Perth's Dalkeith consists of three blocks in a cluster, a strip of land next door and an adjacent empty block that has been for sale for several years and has a price guide of $9 million. Second on the list is property developer and Meriton founder Harry Triguboff, worth $29.7 billion, who owns an expansive waterfront block in Sydney's Vaucluse, purchased in 1983 for $4.1 million, and next door added in 1998 for $6 million. He was followed by cardboard box king Anthony Pratt and family, of Visy, valued at $25.9 billion. Pratt recently made a move to the US, but the family's historic Raheen mansion is in Kew in Melbourne's leafy east.
The Age
7 days ago
- Business
- The Age
The houses where Australia's billionaires live, and how much they cost
How much does it cost to live like a Rich Lister? Many of Australia's billionaires amassed their fortunes in the property industry, but even those who built wealth in other sectors such as mining or technology have then been keen purchasers of residential real estate. Australia is now home to 161 billionaires, up from 150 a year ago, the Financial Review Rich List for 2025, published in full on Friday, reveals. The top industry for wealth creation was mining, whose rich listers are worth a collective $141.3 billion, followed by property, worth $125.8 billion across 44 entrants. Australia's richest person is mining magnate Gina Rinehart, worth $38.1 billion. Rinehart's residence in Perth's Dalkeith consists of three blocks in a cluster, a strip of land next door and an adjacent empty block that has been for sale for several years and has a price guide of $9 million. Second on the list is property developer and Meriton founder Harry Triguboff, worth $29.7 billion, who owns an expansive waterfront block in Sydney's Vaucluse, purchased in 1983 for $4.1 million, and next door added in 1998 for $6 million. He was followed by cardboard box king Anthony Pratt and family, of Visy, valued at $25.9 billion. Pratt recently made a move to the US, but the family's historic Raheen mansion is in Kew in Melbourne's leafy east.
West Australian
29-05-2025
- Business
- West Australian
REVEALED: Australia's 10 richest people and how much they're worth
Iron ore magnate Gina Rinehart may still be Australia's richest person but that massive pile of dosh is now just a little shorter than it was last year. The name behind the Hancock Prospecting and Hancock Agriculture empires — with assets stretching from Roy Hill and Atlas Iron through to Bannister Downs Dairy, Drizabone and Rossi boots — is worth $38.1 billion, according to this year's Australian Financial Review Rich List . Compared to your bank balance that's still pretty decent, no? Mrs Rinehart has now held the title for six-straight years, but this year's figure is 6 per cent down on where it stood last year thanks to a softer market for her No.1 earner, iron ore. Weaker prices for the steel-making ingredient have also dented the fortunes of fellow miners Andrew Forrest and estranged wife Nicola , who's net worth now stands at $12.8b — down from last year's $16.92b and dropping her to ninth on the list of the top 10 wealthiest people in Australia. Fortescue founder Mr Forrest disappeared from the list altogether. Across the top 10, the AFR says their collective fortune now stands at $202b — down 9.2 per cent from a year ago. Property developer Harry Triguboff held on to his spot at No.2 with $29.7b while packaging king Anthony Pratt and Family come in third with $25.9b. Atlassian co-founder Scott Farquahar was fourth with $21.4b. But noticeably absent from the top 10 was his co-founder wingman Mike Cannon-Brookes. Everyone's favourite litigant Clive Palmer has $20.1b, which put him at fifth, and Perth-born founders of online graphic design unicorn Canva, Melanie Perkins and Cliff Obrecht , held at sixth place with a small rise in their fortune to $14.1b. Co-founder of infrastructure and asset management firm Stonepeak, Michael Dorrell , stormed into the charts to seventh, with an estimated net worth of $13.9b. Former Glencore boss Ivan Glasenberg has $13.3b, earning him eighth spot. Kerry Stokes , chairman of Seven West Media and majority shareholder of the diversified SGH empire — which includes Boral, Coates Hire, WesTrac and investments in a host of resource and energy companies — was 10th with $12.7b.
Sydney Morning Herald
16-05-2025
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Why Trump's a term-long problem for the Coalition
On the other hand, Labor merely had to strike a pose of calm defiance in the face of Trump's assault on Australia's interests. Anthony Albanese's government appeared to be stable, sane and safe. It reaped a major dividend at the exact moment that voters sought security. Loading Yet this is not the end of the era of Australia v Trump. To rework the Bunnings slogan, higher tariffs are just the beginning. Trump's administration already plans to assail important Australian interests. Starting with the cherished Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. America's big pharma firms complain that it's a restraint on their ability to charge Australians full freight for their drugs. Which is the whole point. And Trump plans to fight Australia on behalf of Elon Musk's X and the other big US 'social' media and tech corporations. Wherever Australia tries to exert any sovereignty over local internet content – to protect kids, for instance – Trump, Musk & Co. will demand that American profits prevail. Then there are Australia's biosecurity laws. The laws quarantine Australia's beef, pork, apple and pear sectors from imported disease, but their US competitors demand entry, claiming the biosecurity laws are trade protectionism by another name. Trump's America will try to break all of this and more. A problem for the Albanese government to manage diplomatically? Yes. But Trump's hostility is also a gift that will keep giving for Albanese politically. All he need do is maintain his calm defiance in the face of Trump's bellicosity and bluster. And Albanese will be a local hero. And what will the Coalition be doing? The Liberal Party will try to distance itself from Trump. Dutton is gone now, but it is vulnerable nonetheless. Why? Because of a little detail – the Gina Rinehart faction, the local franchise of Trump's MAGA, and its love of fossil fuels, nuclear reactors and climate denialism. The Rinehart faction is mostly concentrated in the Nationals. But Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is one of the staunchest Rinehart reactionaries. She has moved from the Nationals party room to sit with the Liberals. How is this a problem for the Liberals? Because the Liberals, if they hope to continue as the alternative party of government, need to dump the climate wars. But the Nationals and Price don't want to dump the climate wars. They want to escalate the conflict. At her first press conference after her election as the new Liberal leader, Sussan Ley was asked: 'Moderates have been damning about a lack of climate ambition. Can you really afford another climate war to start off your tenure?' Ley answered: 'There isn't going to be a climate war [within the Coalition]. There is going to be sound, sensible consultation.' She's been careful to say that all policy is up for review. Specifically, she's been non-committal on the two frontline Coalition climate policies – the plan to build seven taxpayer-funded nuclear reactors, and the commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. But the Gina Rinehart faction is very committed, regardless of what Ley thinks. Committed to forging ahead with the nuclear reactors. And committed to dumping the net zero commitment. The climate war inside the Coalition is already afoot. It was the Coalition under Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce that started the climate wars as a way to wreck Labor. And, for a while, it worked. But now the climate war is a civil war within the Coalition. So the victim of the war will be the Coalition. Barnaby Joyce was the Nationals' leader who struck the Coalition deal with Scott Morrison to support net zero. But on Friday, Joyce, recovering from cancer surgery, tells me: 'It's obvious in the sobriety of the post-election analysis, it's incontestable in my view – we can't go forward with net zero. There is no love out there for net zero.' Loading He cites his electorate of New England. While there was an overall swing towards him of 2 per cent, he enjoyed a swing in his favour of 15 per cent in part of the electorate, an area of the town of Muswellbrook that previously had been in a Labor-held seat but recently was included in his electorate as a result of redistribution. 'In the past, people didn't know what net zero was, but they went along with it because it sounded harmless. But now they realise it does mean something – and it hurts. We have to have a reality check,' Joyce says. Other Nationals – including Senator Matt Canavan and MP for the seat of Flynn in Queensland Colin Boyce – want to dump net zero. These Nats also hope to retain the nuclear energy policy they took to the election. The Nats leader, David Littleproud, publicly has been evasive on these policies as he entered coalition negotiations for the new parliament with Ley. The Nationals' leader in the Senate, Bridget McKenzie, hasn't been evasive at all. She told my colleague Paul Sakkal this week that it would be 'against the national interest' to drop nuclear power 'if we are serious about staying an industrial economy and reducing emissions'. She implied that it could be a dealbreaker for the Coalition: 'Obviously, our country is best served by a strong Nationals-and-Liberals Coalition government, but the establishment of a coalition between the Liberal and National parties is never a foregone conclusion.' And the net zero policy was up for review because regional Australia was 'absolutely up in arms about [Labor] carpeting their farmland, their communities with transmission lines and solar panels and wind farms'. Yet the Liberals know that if they want to have any chance of forming government again, they need to appeal to the cities and to voters under the age of 60. Without a credible climate policy, they can't do either. The Coalition won't break entirely because the Liberals and Nationals are merged into one – the Liberal National Party – in their stronghold state of Queensland. Besides, the Nats want to be in a coalition so they keep their positions as shadow ministers, and the salary allowances that go with them. But it'll look more like a sullen cohabitation than a coalition. And this civil war is not a clear-cut Nats v Libs conflict. There are Liberals, notably Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who agree with the idea of dumping net zero and keeping the nuclear policy. This roiling internal argument will probably dog the Coalition all the way to the next election. And every time it surfaces, it will remind the electorate that the Coalition simply isn't credible on energy and climate policy. And that it shares its climate-denying, fossil-fuel-loving recidivism with Gina Rinehart and Donald Trump. The state of the Coalition today is reminiscent of philosopher Antonio Gramsci's famous line: 'The old is dying and the new cannot be born.'
The Age
16-05-2025
- Business
- The Age
Why Trump's a term-long problem for the Coalition
On the other hand, Labor merely had to strike a pose of calm defiance in the face of Trump's assault on Australia's interests. Anthony Albanese's government appeared to be stable, sane and safe. It reaped a major dividend at the exact moment that voters sought security. Loading Yet this is not the end of the era of Australia v Trump. To rework the Bunnings slogan, higher tariffs are just the beginning. Trump's administration already plans to assail important Australian interests. Starting with the cherished Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. America's big pharma firms complain that it's a restraint on their ability to charge Australians full freight for their drugs. Which is the whole point. And Trump plans to fight Australia on behalf of Elon Musk's X and the other big US 'social' media and tech corporations. Wherever Australia tries to exert any sovereignty over local internet content – to protect kids, for instance – Trump, Musk & Co. will demand that American profits prevail. Then there are Australia's biosecurity laws. The laws quarantine Australia's beef, pork, apple and pear sectors from imported disease, but their US competitors demand entry, claiming the biosecurity laws are trade protectionism by another name. Trump's America will try to break all of this and more. A problem for the Albanese government to manage diplomatically? Yes. But Trump's hostility is also a gift that will keep giving for Albanese politically. All he need do is maintain his calm defiance in the face of Trump's bellicosity and bluster. And Albanese will be a local hero. And what will the Coalition be doing? The Liberal Party will try to distance itself from Trump. Dutton is gone now, but it is vulnerable nonetheless. Why? Because of a little detail – the Gina Rinehart faction, the local franchise of Trump's MAGA, and its love of fossil fuels, nuclear reactors and climate denialism. The Rinehart faction is mostly concentrated in the Nationals. But Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is one of the staunchest Rinehart reactionaries. She has moved from the Nationals party room to sit with the Liberals. How is this a problem for the Liberals? Because the Liberals, if they hope to continue as the alternative party of government, need to dump the climate wars. But the Nationals and Price don't want to dump the climate wars. They want to escalate the conflict. At her first press conference after her election as the new Liberal leader, Sussan Ley was asked: 'Moderates have been damning about a lack of climate ambition. Can you really afford another climate war to start off your tenure?' Ley answered: 'There isn't going to be a climate war [within the Coalition]. There is going to be sound, sensible consultation.' She's been careful to say that all policy is up for review. Specifically, she's been non-committal on the two frontline Coalition climate policies – the plan to build seven taxpayer-funded nuclear reactors, and the commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. But the Gina Rinehart faction is very committed, regardless of what Ley thinks. Committed to forging ahead with the nuclear reactors. And committed to dumping the net zero commitment. The climate war inside the Coalition is already afoot. It was the Coalition under Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce that started the climate wars as a way to wreck Labor. And, for a while, it worked. But now the climate war is a civil war within the Coalition. So the victim of the war will be the Coalition. Barnaby Joyce was the Nationals' leader who struck the Coalition deal with Scott Morrison to support net zero. But on Friday, Joyce, recovering from cancer surgery, tells me: 'It's obvious in the sobriety of the post-election analysis, it's incontestable in my view – we can't go forward with net zero. There is no love out there for net zero.' Loading He cites his electorate of New England. While there was an overall swing towards him of 2 per cent, he enjoyed a swing in his favour of 15 per cent in part of the electorate, an area of the town of Muswellbrook that previously had been in a Labor-held seat but recently was included in his electorate as a result of redistribution. 'In the past, people didn't know what net zero was, but they went along with it because it sounded harmless. But now they realise it does mean something – and it hurts. We have to have a reality check,' Joyce says. Other Nationals – including Senator Matt Canavan and MP for the seat of Flynn in Queensland Colin Boyce – want to dump net zero. These Nats also hope to retain the nuclear energy policy they took to the election. The Nats leader, David Littleproud, publicly has been evasive on these policies as he entered coalition negotiations for the new parliament with Ley. The Nationals' leader in the Senate, Bridget McKenzie, hasn't been evasive at all. She told my colleague Paul Sakkal this week that it would be 'against the national interest' to drop nuclear power 'if we are serious about staying an industrial economy and reducing emissions'. She implied that it could be a dealbreaker for the Coalition: 'Obviously, our country is best served by a strong Nationals-and-Liberals Coalition government, but the establishment of a coalition between the Liberal and National parties is never a foregone conclusion.' And the net zero policy was up for review because regional Australia was 'absolutely up in arms about [Labor] carpeting their farmland, their communities with transmission lines and solar panels and wind farms'. Yet the Liberals know that if they want to have any chance of forming government again, they need to appeal to the cities and to voters under the age of 60. Without a credible climate policy, they can't do either. The Coalition won't break entirely because the Liberals and Nationals are merged into one – the Liberal National Party – in their stronghold state of Queensland. Besides, the Nats want to be in a coalition so they keep their positions as shadow ministers, and the salary allowances that go with them. But it'll look more like a sullen cohabitation than a coalition. And this civil war is not a clear-cut Nats v Libs conflict. There are Liberals, notably Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who agree with the idea of dumping net zero and keeping the nuclear policy. This roiling internal argument will probably dog the Coalition all the way to the next election. And every time it surfaces, it will remind the electorate that the Coalition simply isn't credible on energy and climate policy. And that it shares its climate-denying, fossil-fuel-loving recidivism with Gina Rinehart and Donald Trump. The state of the Coalition today is reminiscent of philosopher Antonio Gramsci's famous line: 'The old is dying and the new cannot be born.'
