Julian Leeser
Berowra · Liberal Party · Australia
“Third, the bill gives the minister unilateral power to impose conditions on higher education providers under the new section 36-65 of the HESA, which is introduced by this bill. The current version of section 36-65 of the HESA requires that there be an agreement in place with the provider. The new version does not.”
“Presumably, if you're a university and you get a bad decision, then your only recourse is judicial review, litigation or a constitutional writ. It's not a great option when the target of your litigation will be the minister who will make the future decisions that shape your ongoing financial viability.”
“This bill changes it from capped funding to capped places, but the places cost different amounts depending on the course. The Commonwealth contribution to a history degree is $1,316; agriculture costs $32,400. Could a university which typically teaches history be allocated 100 places and decide to convert them to agriculture?”
“I said very clearly that I understand the value of international students to Australia. I also said: We will want to make changes to the settings around international students, but I want the sector to know that we want to work closely with you to develop these policies and announce them in due course.”
“This so-called system steward, ATEC, can be bypassed at any time by a minister choosing to exercise this power. Again, this means universities are, under this bill, subject to extraordinary control by this minister or any future minister.”
“He said that Australian kids should be taught Australian values, which he defined as democracy, the rule of law, basic freedoms and a fair go.”
The complete record
Every one of 784 lines we hold for Julian Leeser, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 16.
“All these things are for the minister to explain. Coming back to the central theme, though, this bill is not really about funding. The funding decisions about the amounts to be spent on the sector and the number of places to be purchased were all made separately as part of the budgetary process. They were in MYEFO 18 months ago and perhaps should also have been in this year's budget. But that's not what this bill deals with. The budgetary decisions and the legislative drafting are related but separate. The decision to spend money to increase university places in particular could have been made with or without this bill. The minister could have increased funding under the current model. Equally, he could have switched to a managed growth model without changing the funding envelope.”
“It was concerning back in May in relation to schools, and it's concerning again today in relation to universities. It goes to the issue of whether the government is being transparent with the Australian people. Why do the relevant MYEFO papers show $2.5 billion spending over 11 years when the minister is announcing a $3.6 billion spend over a decade? If numbers change, why didn't the minister include that update in this year's budget? How can Australians trust that the $3.6 billion the minister is talking about today won't become a higher number tomorrow? What prompted the minister to contradict his own explanatory memorandum in his speech and his press release? Where's this money coming from? Was it offset through the government's savage cuts to research or simply more debt to be added to Labor's trillion-dollar pile?”
“Why is there a $1.1 billion discrepancy between the minister's second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum he tabled on the very same day? It's not the first time the minister has changed the figures he uses in announcements. On 25 March this year the minister stood in front of this chamber to talk about some other expenditure for which he was responsible—this time on schools, not universities—and told us he was spending 'an extra $16.5 billion over 10 years'. Nine weeks later, on 27 May, the same minister referring to the same expenditure stood in this chamber and told us he was actually spending '$20 billion over the next decade'. There was no new spending decision, but there was suddenly an additional $3.5 billion in the nine weeks to May. The minister has never given an explanation.”
“On the very first page of the explanatory memorandum, the minister tells us: The Bill supports an additional investment of $2.5 billion by the Australian Government in the higher education funding system over the medium term and is expected to result in an extra 200,000 commencing domestic students at university over the next decade. In the financial impact statement of the EM he went on to qualify that quote. Those measures were announced in the 2024-25 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook: the government will invest an additional $2.5 billion in net funding over 11 years from 2024 to 2025. It's an extraordinary discrepancy. Why the sudden jump from $2.5 billion to $3.6 billion? Where does the extra $1.1 billion come from? Where did they find the extra 30,000 places?”
“There's a common thread that links these four points. It's not the ATEC. It's not the student places. It's not opportunity or increased spending in the sector. It is the minister. That should be no surprise, because, despite the sales pitch about dollars and university places, this is a bill that is designed to centralise power over Australian universities in the hands of the minister. In passing, it's worth briefly commenting on the sales pitch, because all we heard about were the dollars of additional funding the minister's announcing and additional university places he'll buy. The minister said it in his second reading speech: an additional $3.6 billion over the decade and a further 230,000 university places. He said it in his press release, he said it in the media, but he didn't say it in the explanatory memorandum.”
“Apart from the fact that it has a terrible name and should have been called the 'Managed growth bill', what do we know about this? It's a bill that does four basic things. First, it allows the minister to determine the pool of Commonwealth supported places, which will then be distributed by the ATEC. Second, it allows the minister to determine the pool of international students, which will then be distributed by the ATEC. Third, it confers extensive powers on the minister to allocate places directly, including to individual powers; to give binding directions to the ATEC; and to impose conditions on universities and other higher education providers. And, fourth, it establishes the needs based funding system to support students from identified backgrounds in accordance with guidelines that are to be determined by the minister.”
“More importantly, the powers are so far reaching they actually offer a pathway to resolve desperately pressing problems outside the university sector: Labor's uncontrolled migration and the pressure it's placed on housing, infrastructure and services; the fracturing social cohesion that has its very roots in the university sector; insufficient support for private higher education; and neglect and limited economic opportunities in the outer suburbs and regions. This bill gives a pathway to address all of these issues. If this bill comes to a vote in this chamber before the committee hands down its report, which I should indicate would not be my preference, we will not oppose it here. We will finalise our position based on the committee findings. Let me then turn to the bill itself.”
“Instead, it ends financial independence, competition and, by necessity, autonomy within the sector. But, on the other hand, the message vice-chancellors and the university sector have sent so far is this is what they want. You do not want to have the freedom to compete. Those institutions do not want to have the freedom to compete, to attract the student pool that they want to attract and to run their institutions in the way they see fit. This will instead be in the hands of the current minister and any future minister.”
“I'll also say this, and let me be very clear both for the benefit of those in this building and for those in the sector who are watching: I will talk to the government. There is a world in which the coalition ends up supporting this bill, but there's also a world where the coalition ends up opposing it. I could summarise it this way. The whole structure, design and intent of this bill is to hand unprecedented powers to the minister. That is the inevitable consequence of moving the university sector into a centrally planned economic model. It is a return to 'Moscow on the Molonglo'. This is not a bill about equity. It is a bill about power—about ministerial power—and it's antithetical to my Liberal instincts. It's not about using competition and deregulation to drive innovation and growth.”
“It's worth spending a minute on this, because I'll tell you what we're hearing already. We're hearing that the universities didn't see this bill before it was tabled. We're hearing there are elements of the drafting that have surprised the sector. We're hearing that the decision to avoid an exposure draft was deliberate. We're hearing that the consultation was so thin that it disappears when you view it from side on. We're hearing about stakeholders being shown a PowerPoint presentation and, extraordinarily, a non-disclosure agreement. It's not the type of process Labor promised in opposition, but it is the type of process they've delivered in government repeatedly. So, as I said, we will give this bill scrutiny.”
“I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. I'll start by saying this. I was amused to hear the minister tell me last week my own position on this bill. Apparently I oppose the bill and so does the coalition. Well, I hate to disappoint, but the minister's wrong on that. We haven't finalised our position on this bill, and that's because the coalition take this bill seriously. We approach it seriously and we will refer it to a Senate committee for inquiry and report and make our decision based on the evidence. We want the committee to examine this bill closely. That's the right course of action. It's the sensible and orthodox course of action. It's the course of action you take when the detail matters. When the drafting makes a difference, you examine it closely.”
“So today I make a simple ask: sign the petition, add your name and share it with the community. I'll keep collecting signatures and making the case for as long as it takes, because Iran will one day be free. And I want Australia to be remembered as a country that stood on the right side of history with the free Iranian people.”
“A few weeks ago I launched a petition calling on the government to invite Reza Pahlavi to Australia. More than 1,500 people have signed it in the past two weeks. Let me share just a few of those comments: 'The government needs to invite Reza Pahlavi as a gesture of support and goodwill for the Australian Persian community. Given his growing international profile and the strong support he receives, such a visit would be highly meaningful.' 'Inviting Reza Pahlavi to Australia is a great step towards a peaceful Middle East.' 'Reza Pahlavi should be invited as a guest of our parliament so he can share his own understanding of the regime with us and meet the Persian community here who've waited so long to welcome him.' Freedom from a regime like Iran's is never handed over; it's won when enough people refuse to stay quiet.”
“When our parliament and this government make decisions about Iran, we must make those decisions on the best information available. Few people across the world understand the truth of this regime better than Reza Pahlavi. He spent decades advocating for a free, secular and democratic Iran. He has immense credibility with the Persian diaspora, which I've seen firsthand as I've met with the community. Just as in earlier times with different conflicts—we had people like Desmond Tutu coming to talk to us about South Africa and Xanana Gusmao and Jose Ramos-Horta talk to us about East Timor, pre-independence—Australia needs to hear the voice of Reza Pahlavi, and this parliament does too. He's been welcomed in the US, the UK, France, Israel and Germany.”
“But we shouldn't be naive about who sits on the other side of that table, because, at the very moment that this regime tries desperately to present itself to the world as a partner for peace, it continues to show us exactly what it is: a regime that waged war on our own country, Australia, in a violent firebombing campaign which shook our community for months. This is a regime that rapes, beheads and massacres its own people, including children and pregnant women. Days ago, an Iranian court sentenced a young singer, Parastoo Ahmadi, to 74 lashes. Her crime was singing a patriotic song without wearing a hijab in a video she shared online. Parastoo is 29 years old. Her aunt lives in Dural, in my electorate. Members of my own community know her. They've spoken with her and fear deeply for her.”
“I want to begin by saying how immensely proud I am to represent the third-largest Persian community in the country. I'm proud of their passion not only for our country, Australia, but for their friends, their family and the fellow countrymen that they've left behind in Iran. I share their dream, the dream that one day the darkness will lift and we will be able to see a free, democratic Iran emerge. Right now, the United States and the Iranian regime are in peace talks in Switzerland, with a 60-day negotiation underway towards a lasting agreement. Australia wants to see peace in the Middle East.”
“Nine out of 10 small businesses get nothing while Labor's toxic taxes still leave them worse off. Labor's idea of backing innovation is a committee in Canberra who decides who qualifies. Nothing says 'enterprise' like a permission slip from a bureaucrat. Labor's taxes are a punishment on hard work, a punishment on aspiration and a punishment on ambition at the very moment Australia needs more investment, more enterprise and more reward for effort. The coalition has a better plan. We will axe Labor's toxic taxes. We will deliver lower taxes for small business, and, through our tax-back guarantee, we will give Australians an automatic tax cut that grows every single year. Under Labor, Australians work harder, pay more and fall behind. Under the coalition, they keep more and get ahead.”
“About one per cent of people can do a backflip, and I'm not one of them. But you can imagine my surprise watching the Labor circus in recent weeks, watching the Prime Minister and the Treasurer do backflip after backflip over the unfair tax changes Labor promised 50 times they would never introduce. Australians were told Labor wouldn't touch capital gains tax, negative gearing trusts or super, and Labor broke those promises. If you couldn't trust Labor on tax a month ago, you certainly can't trust them now. Labor's toxic taxes don't need a tweak. They don't need a carve out. They don't need another Canberra fix. They need the axe because you don't fix a bad tax by making it more complicated. You scrap it. The so-called small business carve-out is a con.”
“She says life's been much harder over the past four years. Inflation swallowed any relief that came from tax rate cuts. Her family's weekly grocery bill has gone up by 100 bucks, and her electricity bills are now 40 per cent higher. Before the budget, she said, there was still some hope. She said: Things were difficult but we believed if we kept working hard we could eventually come out the other side—grow the business, perhaps sell it one day, buy a second … home where ageing parents could live and continue doing the right thing by our family and our community. But this Budget feels like that hope has been taken away. Labor did not just take 'Today' from me. They took 'Tomorrow' too. To every Australian: you didn't vote for this. You deserve better, and the coalition has your back.”
“The big question today is: will Labor vote for our tax-back guarantee for bigger and better tax cuts for working Australians, or will they keep taxing Australians into the Stone Age? There is white-hot anger in the community about Labor's toxic taxes. Let me quote Philip, from Dural. He says: … the utter dishonesty and deceit of Albanese and Chalmers in not first taking these extreme changes to an election. This egregious dishonesty is compounded by the Government's refusal to even acknowledge these are broken promises and their attempts to pass them off as merely changed positions. Even Whitlam, for all his superciliousness, would not have actively lied and broken solemn pre-election promises like Albanese … has done with this budget. Nailia, from Hornsby, has two kids, a mortgage and a family business.”
“And has the government considered amendments to allow the Attorney-General to step in in relation to the return of children who would otherwise be at risk of physical or sexual abuse under a Hague return order? These are important and serious issues which concern the safety of Australian children and the way in which an international convention that is 50 years old deals with those under Australian law. They're important issues. I raise them in a serious way because of the effect that they've had on my constituents and other families across this country.”
“My questions to the Attorney today are as follows. At present, the Hague convention's return orders are procedural in nature only. There's no cross-examination of evidence, and sometimes evidence isn't even considered. Are there plans for Hague cases to be heard like other family law cases and become proceedings where evidence can be heard and tested? Has the government considered amending the law to require that domestic violence 'must' be considered when assessing the grave risk of harm to the child, rather than, as currently is the case, that it 'may' be considered. Has the government considered legislative changes so that, in Hague convention cases, the psychological effects on young children who are exposed to domestic violence can legitimately meet the grave-risk-of-harm threshold, as outside observers will tell you that they do?”
“This was well intentioned, but my concern is that it has simply not gone far enough. In November 2024, the Family Law Council did a report on the Hague convention. That report Protecting victims of family violence, including children, in the family law system: international child abduction made several recommendations for legislative reforms, but it did not consider the merits of the convention itself. Today, I'm calling on the Attorney-General to convene a public inquiry into the Hague convention. That inquiry should examine whether the grave-risk-of-harm threshold is fit for purpose; consider whether courts should be required, not merely permitted, to take evidence of domestic violence into account; and ask whether Australia should advocate at an international level for reform of the convention itself.”
“When issues of domestic violence are raised they're often not tested, as would be the case in ordinary family court proceedings. The way courts deal with the Hague convention cases reflect an outdated understanding of attitudes towards child safety. In the 46 years since the Hague convention, the world has changed. Our understanding of the hurt inflicted on children who witness or experience abuse has changed enormously, and the convention has not. When I was the shadow attorney-general in 2022, I raised these issues with the then attorney-general Dreyfus. I asked him to review the application of the Hague convention. His department made a small amendment to the Family Law Regulations. This was a legislative note which clarified that courts may have regard to the risk that returning a child would expose them to family violence.”
“Adopted in 1980, it was designed to deal with children being taken across international borders. The purpose of the convention was to return the child to its habitual place of residence. Under the convention, the removal to the habitual place of residence can only be challenged where there's a grave risk that the return of the child would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. But those terms are interpreted very narrowly. Practitioners who've worked in the field for many years have rarely, if ever, seen a case where the Australian child is allowed to remain in Australia. Judges may but are not required to consider family violence when determining these matters.”
“The situation for my constituent came about because of the actions of the application of an international convention that doesn't put the protection of Australian children as a paramount consideration. On Sunday, Channel 9's 60 Minutes broadcast an investigation into the way in which the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is currently being implemented in this country. I commend 60 Minutes for bringing those stories to the Australian public. What was shown was deeply confronting. I encourage every member of this parliament to watch it. Since that story was broadcast, I've been contacted by other people whose families have been adversely affected by the application of the Hague convention and who are fearful for the safety of their children. The Hague convention was well intentioned.”
“I want to raise an issue of child safety and whether an international convention, which is nearly 50 years old, and its application is serving the interests of the safety of Australian children. This is an issue I've worked on and raised several times throughout my parliamentary career. It's an issue I became aware of because of one of my courageous constituents who has been forcibly separated from her infant daughter for several years. Her Australian daughter no longer lives in the safety of this country and has been forcibly returned overseas by a court order. Since meeting my constituent, I've met other people whose Australian children are in similar situations overseas. Because of this law, Australian courts, Australian bureaucrats and Australian police aided the removal of Australian children to foreign countries.”
“And they've taken $67 million out of the National Environmental Science Program. Research drives innovation, which drives productivity, and we desperately need productivity at this time. Just today, we've seen reports of Australian universities slipping in world rankings. We now have no universities in the top 50 in the world. My final question is: Minister, why are you ripping $2.2 billion out of research at this absolutely critical time for Australia?”
“The third area I want to talk about is the $2.2 billion research funding cut, which is short-changing our researchers at a critical time. This budget rips $2.2 billion out of research over the next 10 years, through cuts to Australia's Economic Accelerator. That's devastating for our universities, but, worse, it's part of a pattern. In 2023 Labor ripped $46.2 million out of the accelerator through a cash grab hidden in MYEFO. In 2025 they did it again, taking a further $76 million from research. Now they're taking a further $800 million over the forwards and $2.2 billion over the decade. On top of that, the government has abolished the Trailblazer Universities Program. That was worth $86 million this year, intended to fast-track research and boost commercialisation.”
“In government schools, increased costs are borne by the taxpayer, but in non-government schools those increased costs are borne by parents in higher fees. This government sees independent schools as elite. We know differently. We know independent schools educate more than 22,000 Aboriginal students, more than 187,000 students with disability and keep fees, on average, across the sector at just $6,060 a year. And yet this budget provides no guarantee, no commitment, no clarity about what will happen after 2029. School funding decisions should not punish parents for exercising choice. They should support affordability, protect diversity and make sure funding follows the student. So, Minister, will you guarantee that non-government schools will receive funding that supports parental choice and ongoing affordability beyond 2029?”
“For the millions of Australians who send their children to Catholic and independent schools, who have made genuine financial sacrifices, they deserve certainty beyond the forward estimates, and yet there is none. The non-government sector now educates 40 per cent of Australian students. According to an analysis by the AEC Group, independent schools save the Australian taxpayer an estimated $12½ billion in expenditure through recurrent education and capital costs. Under Labor, education costs have risen by 21 per cent. The government has failed to keep downward pressure on the drivers that increase out-of-pocket expenses for families—energy prices, insurance premiums, land and capital costs, regulatory complexity, taxes and all the other things that make it more expensive to deliver a high-quality education that parents ultimately pay for.”
“Maybe if Labor hadn't funded $15 billion of taxpayers money to the crooks and crims at the CFMEU, kids in Victoria would have a better chance for an education, but it's now Victoria's school children who suffer the consequences. So my questions to the minister are: Are you going to sign a bilateral agreement on school funding with the Allan government? What date will it be signed? Why have you left such an agreement until the eve of the Victorian election? And given the state of the Victorian Labor budget and the fact there is no specific allocation for this funding in the federal budget, don't the Victorian public have a right to be cynical about any agreement that is signed between the Albanese and Allan Labor governments? This budget sets up a non-government-school funding cliff beyond 2029.”
“And, as of today, there is still no plan for an increase in Victoria. The best they can manage is a stopgap with no increases that terminates at the end of this year. You can't believe the Albanese government on taxes, and you can't believe them on school funding either. Thanks to the Allan and Albanese Labor governments, Victorian government schools have the lowest funding of any state in the entire country. Compared to New South Wales in this year alone, Victorian high schools and public schools are short-changed by $860 per student for every single one of the 667,000 Victorian public school students. Compared to South Australia, it's $900 less per student. And compared to Tasmania, it's $1,740 less per student.”
“This is a budget of broken promises and broken dreams. For the last six months the government has been congratulating itself for reaching a schools funding agreement with every state, but in Victoria the spin doesn't match the facts. This government has been constantly gaslighting. When the Prime Minister stood up in March last year and said every jurisdiction was on track to receive an increase in school funding and to receive the full school resourcing standard, it simply wasn't true. The proof is publicly available. To get an increase in funding, what you need is a document called a bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and the relevant state. In March last year, there was no bilateral agreement with Western Australia and there was no bilateral agreement with Victoria. It was a falsehood.”
“I want to wish them and their families every success on their journey and thank them and everyone who's supporting them by making a difference to all Australians who are affected by cancer.”
“I also want to acknowledge the local businesses and community members who are supporting their efforts, including Repco Hornsby, Claire Burrows, Daniel Brown, Thea Bloomfield, Clementine Leedham, Ian Friery, Nicole Mulgrove and Jacaline Reilly. Their support highlights the strong community spirit behind this important cause. Along the route, Murray and Phil will visit regional communities, helping to raise awareness and supporting the small towns that welcome participants on their journey. Murray and Phil represent the very best of the Berowra community. Whether helping people through floods or raising funds to fight cancer, they continue to put others first.”
“Importantly, Murray and Phil are aiming to raise more than $10,000 for the Cancer Council and have already raised more than $6½ thousand dollars towards that goal. Like so many Australians, they've seen firsthand the impact that cancer can have on families. They've lost loved ones, supported friends through treatment and know that almost every Australian family has a cancer story. As SES volunteers, they've spent years helping communities during floods and emergencies across New South Wales, including deployments to the Hawkesbury, Forbes and Coonabarabran. The rally is simply another example of that same spirit of service.”
“Murray's been involved with the Hornsby SES for 23 years. He's currently the operations field officer, but he's had many roles over the years, including rescue officer, deputy unit commander, and team leader. Phil's been involved with the Hornsby SES for about five years. They've worked together on many flood rescues. Anyone who's owned an older Volvo may tell you they're built to last, but getting one that's worth less than $1,500 to complete that journey is a leap of faith that would test even the most optimistic mechanic. They were very grateful that Repco Hornsby sold them their S-box for a dollar after hearing it was to be used for a charity rally. They have put the finishing touches together, including a mandatory UHF radio, which they'll use to communicate with their team along the journey.”
“I want to recognise two amazing local Berowra heroes in what, for parliamentary purposes, we might call the S-box rally. It involves driving a car worth less than $1,500, covering 4,000 kilometres. Murray Oakley and Phil Fairhall are volunteers with the Hornsby SES and are taking on this challenge to raise funds for cancer research and support services for Australians affected by cancer. Recently, while doorknocking in Berowra, I had the opportunity to meet Murray and Phil and hear about their mission. Competing under the name Floodwits, a nod to their flood rescue work with the SES, they will drive a 2008 Volvo XC70 from Port Douglas to Melbourne in seven days from 11 July. Murray has lived in our electorate for more than 30 years, and he's raised his children in Berowra, while Phil moved up from Canberra five years ago.”
“And they deserve a government that understands what Frank from Normanhurst, what Judy from North Epping, what Robert from Pennant Hills and what nearly 2,000 residents of my electorate took time to say: that confidence matters—that, when government keeps breaking the compact with the people who plan, who save and who build, the damage goes well beyond the hip pocket. It goes to the heart of what this country is supposed to be. This is a series of bad-faith measures. They are an assault on aspiration. They pull up the ladder of opportunity from young Australians before they get the first foot on the rung. This isn't intergenerational fairness; it's intergenerational fraud.”
“These people deserve a genuine housing plan—not tax changes that close investment pathways that first home buyers were using; not tax changes that drive up rents and deliver 35,000 fewer homes, by the government's own reckoning. They deserve a government that backs small business—one that understands, as Alan from Galston does, that building a business over decades and selling it to retire isn't greed; it's actually the Australian dream. They deserve the certainty that Robert from Pennant Hills identifies as the lifeblood of confidence.”
“Frank from Normanhurst said it plainly. He said: 'This government is not just damaging household finances. It's damaging morale.' And that's why this set of tax laws that are before the parliament need to be opposed. The people of Berowra deserve so much better. They deserve a government that understands that a discretionary trust is not a tax lurk; it's a legitimate structure for families like Nicole's to secure a child's future. It's a legitimate structure for Alan, who built a business over 36 years, on the promise he could retire from it; and for Judy from North Epping, who worked hard all her life, only to find the rules changed at the final hour. That's a betrayal of trust, and I won't let it go untested.”
“Our survey identified the groups most affected by these changes: family trusts, with 61 per cent of respondents; small businesses, at 51 per cent; property investors, at 60 per cent; retirees, at 44 per cent; and even young investors, at 42 per cent. These people are the backbone of communities like Berowra's. But what stayed with me was not the statistics. It was the loss of confidence that hard work would be rewarded, that rules wouldn't change without warning and that government was competent at the basics. As one small-business owner wrote: 'I don't expect the government to solve all my problems. I just want them to stop making new ones.' A nurse who owns a home in Berowra Heights wrote to me: 'I did everything right. I worked hard, I saved, I bought a house. Now I feel like I'm going backwards.' And she isn't wrong.”
“Nearly 2,000 residents, as I say, took time to complete the survey—a number that speaks about how much is truly at stake. The response has cut across all age groups, property owners and renters, business owners and employees. Of the 18 per cent who identified as small-business owners, almost all expressed serious concerns. Of the 66 per cent who own shares, the vast majority believe that their investments will be materially worse off. Of the 37 per cent who own investment properties, the message was the same. I should say again: Berowra is the electorate with the third-highest number of people in the country that have taken advantage of the negative gearing arrangements, in order for people to build wealth.”
“She and her husband bought a property through their trust, so that their child—who has a disability and can never earn enough to keep up with the rent or mortgage—would have somewhere to live when they're gone. That's not a tax lurk; that's a parent's love, translated into a legal structure. And this government's changes effectively impose what Nicole rightly calls a death tax on that arrangement. I ask every government member to sit with that for a moment. Tony from Cherrybrook is equally clear: these changes are a breach of promise and will drive investment offshore. These families are not asking for a special exemption; they're asking to be heard. And I make that commitment every day—that I will hear them, I will stand up for them and I will take their concerns to this parliament.”
“For a family business like theirs, that affects decisions around reinvestment, around remuneration and around the generational transition of the business that is actively, right now, underway. Think about what that means in practice: a family that has spent decades building something is now trying to pass it to the next generation, and, at precisely the moment that that transition is happening, the government is changing the rules. Judy from North Epping said that these changes will negatively affect Australians who've worked hard all their lives to provide for their families and themselves in retirement—people who find the retirement they'd planned now made much harder by a government that has moved the goalposts. Nicole from Dural put a human face on what these structures actually are.”
“Opposition won by a significant margin: 67 per cent. And when asked whether these proposed changes amount to a death tax by stealth, 65 per cent agreed. These are not the responses of tax avoiders; they're the responses of families who structured their affairs carefully, in good faith and under the rules as they existed. I recently met with a family from my electorate who run a well-established local business. After our meeting, they followed up in writing. I want to bring their words into this chamber. They'd gone to their accountant, following the government's proposed changes. His advice was measured. Their current structure is as well-positioned as it can be, but distributing funds from these structures is now materially less tax-effective than it was.”
“The Prime Minister was asked questions directly in question time to rule out a death tax, and he wouldn't. We now know why. He couldn't rule it out because he'd already announced one. This is a government that told untruths more than 50 times before the election about not introducing new taxes on homes, on rentals, on investments and on family savings and then tried to sneak a death tax through on top of it all. The deception is breathtaking. This government has tried to frame its trust tax as a technical question. It's not. It's a question of principle. It's a question of whether this government can be trusted to honour the assurances it gives to Australian families who are trying to do the right thing. Our survey put the question directly: do you support or oppose Labor's proposed minimum 30 per cent tax rate on discretionary trusts?”
“The government isn't just taxing business; it's taxing a life's work. Alan from Galston, with 36 years of lived experience, captured this. He and his wife started their business with one assumption: that they could one day sell it and retire. That's not greed; that's planning. This budget has shifted the ground beneath them at precisely the moment they were preparing to step off it. Robert from Pennant Hills puts it plainly: 'This budget is political spin. It adds complexity, does nothing for productivity and, above all, removes certainty, the lifeblood of business confidence. When a government sacrifices certainty for political positioning, it isn't managing the economy, it's gambling with it.' The Albanese government has buried a 30 per cent death tax in these papers, deliberately hidden, hoping no-one would find it.”
“FSC data confirms that aggressive investors, typically younger Australians aged around 35, will be hit hardest by the CGT changes. Young Australians with the most ambition have the biggest target on their backs. Small business insolvencies are running at eight closures every business hour. The Treasurer is surveying the damage his own policies are causing and declaring victory. The government is coming for small business with a 47 per cent stake claim. They've done none of the work, taken none of the risk, but they want nearly half of the business. The Prime Minister is that person in every group assignment who never shows up but expects the same grade at the end. Small business isn't just the backbone of the economy. For many owners, it's their retirement savings, their family legacy and the first job for the kids in the community.”