Tim Wilson
Goldstein · Liberal Party · Australia
“Now, we see even more immoral leadership as the Prime Minister and his ministers refuse to audit whether federal money has found its way into the hands of organised crime through the CFMEU Labor cartel.”
“The silence that we heard from our prime minister and our national leaders every step of the way led to horrific incidents like, on 10 November, the protests at the front of Central Shule in Caulfield South in the Goldstein electorate. It led eventually to the most horrific terrorist incident on our most famous national beach.”
“The idea that you would put the social solidarity of the most marginalised section of our community on a ballot paper knowing it would fail is an abrogation of leadership and responsibility and something I do not think this prime minister will ever be able to shake.”
“I've recently been spending a lot of time thinking about what moral government is and what type of government seeks to divide citizens, feed corruption and break trust within the community. The short and sharp of it is that it's an immoral government.”
“But to engage in citizenship stacking, where they deliberately went around and targeted electorates and got people to become Australian citizens on the eve of a national poll, is absolutely disgraceful.”
“There is hope. We can have a moral government again that's focused on uniting Australians and building trust and taking Australia forward together. But the only way we can do that is by seeing a change of government and the end of the Albanese government.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,081 lines we hold for Tim Wilson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 22.
“That's not going to happen because of this type of legislation, particularly the sloppy drafting of the minister.' Then, you have the Australian Retailers Association. They come out and say: 'It would remove flexibility in wage negotiations and introduce additional costs, complexities and administrative pressures. Retailers argue that many workers prefer consistent, reliable income rather than complex penalty structures and modern agreements that could include higher base pay and offer stability and simplicity without sacrificing take-home pay.' Okay. We've now got ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; the Australian Industry Group; and now the Australian Retailers Association saying this law doesn't actually achieve what they say it's going to achieve.”
“All of a sudden, we're undermining wages and we're undermining people's capacity for workplace flexibility, things like mums being able to go and pick up kids from school and dads going to pick up kids from school in between their workplace arrangements, which is something I certainly always support. The Australian Industry Group continued: It will reduce avenues for lifting productivity when we're about to convene a Roundtable on how to lift it. You know that thing the Treasurer, who sits over there somewhere on the other side of the chamber, keeps going on about? He keeps going on about how important productivity is because we've got to increase standards of living—a point I agree with—but the Australian Industry Group is now saying: 'No, we're calling you on that one.”
“All of a sudden, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry says: This change is a backwards step and out of touch with the realities of a modern economy … This bill is at odds with the government's plans to improve productivity, and instead injects more rigidity and complexity into the Fair Work laws. That's not an endorsement, even though we were told there was all this consultation and everybody was on board. Then, of course, the Australian Industry Group came out and said: This is badly drafted legislation that is going to make it harder for employers to employ people who want to work when it suits them.”
“Of course, what would have happened is they wanted to do that little 'whoop, whoop' victory lap around this chamber and say, 'We've done this, we've saved it.' We know the rhetoric. I love a bit of rhetoric myself, but the Prime Minister loves it more. He doesn't have the equivalent of a card, but maybe we'll get a card that he'll flash around the chamber for this purpose. Let's wait and see; you never know. The prop, even though we're not allowed to use them, pops up every now and again. But you can just imagine in the PMO that the Prime Minister is sitting there, and he just wants to have his moment in the sun.”
“Now we've asked this outrageous thing, 'Can we have an inquiry in the House of Representatives?' The answer, by the way—the decision of parliament and the Labor government—was no. They chose to silence and censor small business as part of this process. So you can imagine the Prime Minister, who just wanted this perfect outcome, but, all of a sudden, the media went, 'Actually, that's an entirely reasonable question—where is the regulatory impact statement?' and the minister, then said, 'Well, we haven't got one.' The media said: 'It's an entirely reasonable question. What are the impacts on all the small businesses in the country?' Of course, it's a simple point. There are no penalty rates on jobs that don't exist, and, when you've got record business insolvencies and rising unemployment, it's this little point.”
“You're flooding over to the other side of the parliament, with the egos that go with it. They've gone over and succeeded in getting elected. Here it is—we're now passing a piece of legislation to stop workers getting paid more. It's an interesting revelation. Then, of course, last Thursday, the Prime Minister wanted his great victory lap day where it was all going to be about penalty rates, and he was going to be doing a little 'whoop, whoop' around this chamber and out in the public square, doing press conferences. They had the people as props for exactly the argument they wanted to run. What happened? We asked simple, reasonable questions of the minister: What's the regulatory impact statement? How many small businesses are going to be impacted? What's the consultation process?”
“So—shock, horror!—some people say, 'Actually, it's cheaper to pay workers more than it is to pay an army of lawyers, accountants and all these other people to seek advice, because I'd rather that the people who work for me be happier and have better outcomes.' Funnily enough, the Fair Work Commission has come along sometimes and said, 'Actually, that makes a lot of sense.' They're not in the business—well, they shouldn't be, anyway—of making accountants and lawyers richer. They certainly shouldn't be. Their practice and purpose should be making sure Australians get paid well for the work they do as part of lifting the Australian economy. But you can just imagine it: alright, Labor's been elected. We all accept it. It is what it is. They've got 94 seats.”
“And maybe for someone who's just set up a small business—at a strip shopping centre, or working from home, or maybe they rented out a warehouse and are moving stock, or are running a digital business online and want to employ people—it's not their core focus, the details of this, that and the other and the regulations and everything else. It's not their focus. The laws are a bit complex, and they're not getting it right.”
“So, if you shelve a book, it's one price; if you swipe it through the swiping machine, it's a different price. If you wash a dish, it's one price; if you lay it on the table in front of somebody who has ordered the dish, it's a different price. I don't know about you, but that sounds like the definition of insanity to me. You don't need to take my opinion for it. You just need to look at—I don't know—the government department that is legally responsible for oversighting policy and employment law in this nation. Even they can't figure it out, so much so that they have short-changed their own employees. When the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations in Australia cannot figure out how to pay people under Labor's laws, then perhaps—I've got a funny feeling—the laws aren't that clear; they're a bit complex.”
“They are quite effective at it; you've got to give them credit where credit's due and respect your opponents for the skills they have. They ran a scare campaign because the retail industry of Australia said, 'We want to pay workers more so we can make it simpler, easier and fairer.' The assumption of the Australian Labor Party is that every retail outlet in this country—the local milk bar, the local bookshop—has this massive HR department sitting behind them, and they go over these legislative tomes bit by bit to understand: we're going to employ somebody who's going to pick up dishes, or shelve a book, during the minutes and the seconds of different times of day, but the rates should be different depending on whether they're washing the dishes or working at the checkout.”
“It's extraordinary, frankly, how much the minister has stuffed this process up. If you think about this legislation, their claim is that there has been this great threat to penalty rates, when that side of the chamber supports penalty rates and this side of the chamber supports penalty rates. I do concede that I haven't canvassed the views of the crossbench and the Independents—or the corporate funded Independents—but I'm willing to bet that they're not kicking up a stink about this, as far as I'm aware; I might be wrong. We have about 95 per cent of the entire parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in support of penalty rates, but apparently they're under threat. It's a pretty amazing claim, but we know the history of the Labor Party in finding pathways to run scare campaigns on the community.”
“When we had our briefing with the minister, we asked for simple information since Labor had gone on this pathway of introducing its legislative victory lap. We asked simple questions. You're proposing new legislation that directly undermines the independence of the Fair Work Commission. So, tell us now, Minister, when we can see the regulatory impact statement. 'Well, there isn't one.' So we asked another question: how many small businesses in Australia will be impacted as a consequence of this legislation? 'Ah, we don't know.' In fact, as I said in the other debate, they are taking the three-monkey approach—hear no small business, see no small business, speak to no small business—because they have no interest in understanding the consequences, because they are simply engaging in their legislative victory.”
“That was his magnificent, intelligent, insightful contribution. There's just one problem. The changes to the titles haven't actually been printed yet. According to the Clerk of this House, he is wrong and it would have been justified, and there would have been an inquiry had it passed. So what the Leader of the House did in this place was use bluster and bluff to once again convince those on the other side of a justification about why Australians should not have input into legislation that affects them and directly impacts small businesses across this country. There's one reason they're doing this. It's that they can't tell anybody what the impact of this legislation will be on small business across the country.”
“We're back here again talking about the importance of penalty rates and this legislation, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025, which the government simply doesn't want to hear the voices of Australian small business on. Deputy Speaker Freelander, you may recall only a few moments ago we had a division in this chamber because we wanted to send this legislation off to a committee inquiry. We then had the Leader of the House, the ultimate in bluster, come into this chamber and make an excuse about why this legislation should never see the light of day from the perspective and the input of the small businesses of this nation. His argument was allegedly that the motion we put forward referring it to a committee was inaccurate because there had been a change in the title of the committee.”
“Now is the time to stand up and support our simple recommendation of inquiry, and I'm quite sure that the gaggle of Labor members appearing in the chamber, including the Leader of the House, is of course because they are going to come in here and support an inquiry to back their legislation.”
“As I will go through again, the Australia Industry Group's own observations were, 'This is badly drafted legislation that is going to make it harder for employers to employ people.' When you get that sort of language from employer groups saying that it is going to be harder to give people jobs, give labourers jobs, allegedly the people that the Labor Party claimed they represented—today it's not really clear who they represent, but that's a separate issue and a topic for another day. The reality is, when you get that sort of language and that sort of clarity, what you get is a reflection that they do not understand what they're doing. I get they've their political priorities. It does not mean, 'Hear no business, see no business, speak to no small business.' We want them to be part of the conversation. Now is the time for them to turn up.”
“I would have thought, if the government so believes in their legislation, they would have no problem sending it off to a committee to have the proper consideration of the legislation. All we want to do is make sure that Australians have their say in the laws that come before this parliament. We had an election. We're respecting the fact that of course the government has a right to go on. They've run their scare campaign, and they've succeeded in it. They're now trying to implement it. Let us be realists. That is, make sure that you do no harm in the process of implementing your scare campaign and that we actually do things to back Australian workers and jobs so that we have the pathway to bring in Australian voices, small businesses, into the conversation when the minister wants to shut them out.”
“The Minerals Council, once they saw the legislation that came out of the vault from within the government and the drafting process, before the minister had socialised or consulted successfully with anybody to the point where anybody would have highlighted its significant shortcomings, reflected: The government's changes will reduce productivity and compromise Australia's competitiveness in global export markets. The laws are also becoming a decisive material factor in whether new projects proceed or not— Again, the difference between whether you get a job or not— and whether billions of dollars in investment capital is invested in Australia or elsewhere. This is simple.”
“But it is so important that we have this process right now, because the sloppy drafting that the stakeholders have raised raises really serious issues about what needs to be done so that we can protect Australian jobs, Australian small businesses and, of course, penalty rates and economic opportunity for this country. I'm going to draw attention again to the realities. The Australian Retailers Association, who wanted to give workers a 35 per cent pay rise, made the case that it would remove flexibility in wage negotiations and introduce additional cost complexities and administrative pressures. Retailers argue that many workers prefer consistent, reliable income rather than complex penalty structures and that modern agreements which include higher base pay offer stability and simplicity without sacrificing take-home pay.”
“If it is your first job—your first opportunity in the workforce—and if you want to see a lift in the standards of wages and work, then we want to back you in as part of the bigger conversation. We want to see your success tied to Australia's national success. When we win, we all win. So the legislation before the parliament right now still needs work. I understand that the minister wants to ram it through the parliament and doesn't want to go through the process of inquiry—probably not in the House or the Senate, but who knows what goes on in the mystical land of the red chamber!”
“It's a simple proposition, and I would have thought that if the government were so confident about their legislation—if they believe their legislation is so good and that it's going to do exactly what they think it is designed to achieve—they would of course support the process. Why wouldn't sunlight be the best disinfectant for the legislation put before the House? That is why we table this here; to bring in the voices of the future to the parliament of this country. That is what I think members in this parliament should want as well. I want to make sure that the members of this parliament have the opportunity to enable and mobilise the small businesses of this country to be able to have their say in the committee process as well. That's because we are on the side of empowering Australians to do the best they can.”
“But Australian jobs, Australian wages and of course small businesses and their success as part of the foundation of the future success of this country are on the line. We are not simply going to allow the government to trample over and ignore proper process, including the sloppy drafting of the legislation by the minister. We simply want a process where a committee can go off to look at the legislation and give it due consideration: socialise it with the community, look at the reality of what it is going to do and, more importantly, seek the feedback and counsel of small businesses across the country and bring those voices into this nation's parliament.”
“We want to make sure that we can stand up and give them their say in the nation's house and in the process of the legislation that is so important for the future of this country. We want to make sure that we're actually doing things to lift up and empower small business to be part of the success of this country. But if we see a situation where the government wants to silence small business—to silence those who would benefit from the economic opportunity of having terms and conditions that work for them—and shut down any debate from the voices in this important issue, then we will see the real face of the Albanese government revealed once the mask has slipped. We get that they have a political agenda; we completely understand. Of course they'll engage in their legislative victory lap after the last election.”
“This whole process began because the retail industry applied to Fair Work to aggregate up penalty rate arrangements so that workers could be given a 35 per cent pay rise. So all those mums out there who work in retail during the week, but who don't want to work on weekends because they're supporting their families, and all the young students who might decide that they want to have flexible education arrangements, are losing out because of the Albanese government. All we want to do is to give them a say by making a recommendation to the employment, workplace relations, skills and training committee for proper consideration of this legislation. It is a reasonable request, but sloppy work and sloppy legislation is being put to the parliament. Now is the time when those voices need to be heard in this parliament.”
“It's important that they have the opportunity to stand up and speak for themselves, to directly challenge the agenda of the government when they are not acting with any goodwill and to make sure that they have a pathway to be heard on the record of this nation. We are not getting that from this government. As I said, the minister has not consulted them successfully to date. She has not really even engaged with the sector to date. They are now raising their deep and abiding concerns about the legislation that has been put forward that the government is trying to ram through. They're trying to ram through the legislation because—believe it or not—they actually want to block workers from getting pay rises.”
“The impact is going to be felt by the workers of this country because they are the ones who will bear the brunt of the sloppy work of the Albanese government, who don't understand how to draft the legislation to bring their legislative victory lap to full effect. There is simply a reasonable request on behalf of the opposition that, when we have legislation of this nature in the context of trying to change the laws around penalty rates and overtime rates, we have a reasonable process of consideration, consultation and engagement to bring small businesses and their voices into the parliament of this nation. It is so important. Small businesses in this country right now feel abandoned by this government. They feel they have no voice and no say in the national conversation.”
“Everything that should be going down is going up, and everything that is going up should be going down. This is the lived reality of small business. We should make sure they are fully considered in the conversation on this legislation. But, instead, the approach of the government is see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, or see no small business, hear no small business, speak to no small business. That is the reality of the engagement this minister has had currently on her industrial relations legislation, and the impact is not going to be felt just by small businesses—although, of course, it absolutely is. Deputy Speaker Young, you understand the realities of small business very clearly.”
“It's simply a reality that we need a proper process to give due consideration to this legislation to remove the risks that are now being proposed as a consequence of the sloppy work of this government, because we simply cannot have a situation in this country right now where the government isn't on top of its agenda. But, in addition, there's this downstream impact where we could see Australian small businesses go into the Albanese government's sinkhole and, further than that, see jobs lost and lost economic opportunity. I'll keep making the point that there are no penalty rates applied to jobs that don't exist. When you look at the broader economic environment that we have right now—you've seen the data—the number of small businesses is declining and unemployment is rising.”
“When you have sloppy legislation that is poorly drafted, where stakeholders are now directly calling it out, where the minister can't even answer how many small businesses this legislation impacts, where a regulatory impact statement has not even been completed by the minister and there is clearly no interest in doing so, it means at every single step of the legislation to this point we have had a minister incapable of doing their job and consulting with the industries that are going to be impacted. Ironically, the people that they claim they are going to assist and support as a consequence of this legislation are the ones most likely to bear the brunt of the sloppy work being done by this government.”
“We have heard directly from the Australian Industry Group, who have said: This is badly drafted legislation that is going to make it harder for employers to employ people who want to work when it suits them. It will reduce avenues for lifting productivity when we are about to convene … on how to lift it. We have industry saying there is no consultation or engagement on this sloppily drafted legislation from the minister. We know a very serious and real impact is that it will undermine the capacity for Australians to get employed by small businesses, and, as we know, we have a much bigger challenge across the Australian community right now with the record number of business insolvencies. That could then have a direct impact, where we could see Australians lose their jobs because businesses no longer exist. There is a simple reality.”
“The legislation which has been put forward to this parliament is sloppy and poorly drafted, and there has been very poor consultation with the Australian community. We have seen this. As an example, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said: This change is a backwards step and out of touch with the realities of a modern economy … … … … This Bill is at odds with the Government's plans to improve productivity, and instead injects more rigidity and complexity into the Fair Work laws. When the minister was asked directly about the number of small businesses that will be impacted as a consequence of this legislation, there was no answer because there was no consultation and there was no consideration.”
“I move: That the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill 2025 be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and Employment for consideration and an advisory report by 7 October 2025. During the election, the Albanese government put forward a proposition and ran a successful scare campaign amongst the Australian community that there was a serious issue—that penalty rates across this nation were at risk. There was simply no basis to do so, but, since the election, the Albanese government has put forward legislation to bring effect to its scare campaign, to make sure that they can deliver on the basis on which they went to the last election. We understand that. The coalition supports penalty rates, but there has been a fundamental problem since we have got to this point.”
“So thank you for your sacrifice once more, and for sacrificing our time for our country's future. But you also know that, for me to be myself, we need to go through this.”
“But, of course, there is no-one I need to thank more than my husband, Ryan. Every time you walk into this chamber, you end up leading the news. Sorry about that. We were the change that needed to be at a time in times past. And that is the greatest gift that anybody could ever give. Now, I know you have been prepared, somewhat willingly, to give us over again to the community and to the nation, so all I can do is promise that I'll do everything I can to protect our summers on the peninsula, keep our Melbourne and Bayside pads clean and make time for roast pub lunches on Sundays. And, when there is something to celebrate, I'll do my level best to make sure that we do it together. In public life, you never feel as lonely as when you are in defeat. Yet, despite having lived it, in the 17 years we have been together I have never been alone.”
“There were days I was touched you trusted me to carry your grief in a rant down a phone line, a joke on WhatsApp or an education on woodpeckers; that's specific to Trev. Yes—woodpeckers. You'll never appreciate what it meant to me to be able to pick up the phone and talk through stories, strategy and sadness. Mostly it was Trev talking Jason off the ledge, but that's same old, same old. Thank you for your friendship. My mother, Linda Morris, stood on Hampton early voting for two weeks straight, and I know she did it because so many people said to me in the community, 'I've met your mum.' And they still do, including Raf Epstein. David Morris capably aided the campaign team every step of the way and continues to do so. To my father, Robert, and to Janet Wilson, who both wished us well and helped in their way from afar: thank you.”
“I still remember when you came to the Hampton bowls club shortly after the 2022 election. I remember your surprise that defeat wasn't in my eyes. I think some of the members opposite are starting to realise that, no matter what they do, that's not going to change. I am sanguine about our moment, but I am excited about your promise. To my dear friends Trevor Evans and Jason Falinski—I know Jason has eventually found his way to the right spot in the gallery today: we all remember the Monday week after the last election when we sat in my former office amongst boxed memories. We toasted with what could have been our last shared G&T. Since then, we have shared a different journey.”
“To the members for Monash and Berowra: you don't know this, but when I spoke to both of you, to congratulate both of you on your pre-selections seven years apart, you had the kindness to respond with exactly the same set of words, 'I hope to share this journey with you.' And you're sitting right in front of each other. I didn't lose in 2022 just so you could both have this experience. However, I am glad to fulfil your wishes. Specifically to you, Mary—this is such a huge day for you: we have come a long way from level 2 of S block at Monash Caulfield together. I know your family is proud of your achievements, and Ryan and I, as your political family, are cheering you on. I've got a warning for everybody else: get ready; it's Mary time. To the Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley: thank you for being a willing supporter.”
“To the member for Moncrieff: thank you for your friendship in the out years and, particularly, for storing all my stuff in this place. To Senator Andrew Bragg: Braggy, during my interregnum, whenever I got the itch and abstention to probe public servants or to call out recalcitrant super funds or the corruption of corporate housing, you were there to channel my spirit, so thank you. To Senators James Paterson and Jane Hume: thank you both for being supporters during the down days. While I suspect you both had your private doubts—and that's fine, by the way—you never let it show.”
“Nine years ago Jeannette Rawlinson and John Rudden couldn't have foretold the events to come, but their support was important because they supported me regardless of the test yet to be revealed. Thank you also to Mike and Anne for their love. I hope I've made you proud. To the friends who stuck by me in difficult times, to Blake Kimpthorn and Michael MacNamara; Claire Tobin and Hugh Tobin; Phil Starkins, Emma Duffy and Ryan Lewis; Adrian Barrett and Pat Miller; Jane Starkins and Shaun Levin; Cathy Baker, Susan Craw, Jared Parks, Marty Barr and Jimmy Roche; Henry Gawatillit and John Gawatillit; and Pete Thorn, Kevin Foster, their son Will and their son and my godson, Patrick: thank you for your enduring friendship and love—and, most importantly, thank you for taking care of Ryan.”
“There are too many volunteers to name, and, without taking anything away from anyone, I particularly want to thank Michael Savva and Robin Savva, Janet Aberdy, Karen Cohen, Helen Rolfe, Linda Mellon, Peter Hirusidanis, Otan Otesha, Janice Cook, Judith Pratt, Fraser Hearst, Tony Armstrong, Galen Sullivan, Maddy Hamilton, Ken Marshall, Suzanne Rumble and Jim Colombo. Thank you to those who helped in their unique ways, from Peter Cantwell and Katia Gidley to Ray Johansen, George Goring, Jacqueline Pascal, Danny Rubrie and Faye Barrow. Thank you to Professor Chris Berg and Professor Sinclair Davidson for their support, as well as to Will Dempsey and Paul Ritchie, who ensured I never put a word wrong. On such occasions the memory of absent friends is also not far.”
“There was a nervousness about the scale of the task, but you both stepped up with Stav Personis, Conan Daley, David Morris, Jase Garbosa, James Loveluck, Roy Rose, Milly Edwards, James O'Collins and Andrew Galway, as well as our regional champions Richard Codran, Judith Eronovitch, Rob Etelling, Jennifer O'Brien, John Gilbert, Deb Gilbert and Peaches the pug, supported by Ben Tialen, Jake Lowry and Billy Allsopp. To the Goldstein electorate team, including Carson Mumford, Olivia Brooks, Shane Small, Lisa Bond, Hanife Bushby and Gab Street: thank you. But there is no-one I should thank more than my electorate chair, Maree Kidd, who not only willed me to recontest but put her money where her mouth is and stepped up to take on the task of chairing the membership and mobilisation effort.”
“Will we be the Liberals that side with the young and new Australians who live our daily aspiration? Will we be the Liberals that turn on the lights in a nation for all of us that delivers hope, reward and opportunity to be bold again, to build again, to believe again and to lead again? As I said to the people of Goldstein, I'm not quite done yet. There are a fair number of people I need to thank. First, I need to thank my campaign team, led by my campaign directors, Ed Davis and Rob Sayer. I still remember the first campaign meeting where we held and mapped out the scale of the plan and what was required.”
“Take it from me that history is there to be made. To quote one of my heroes, 'It can be done.' It can be done because it has been done, because it must be done. At our local campaign launch I said Goldstein was ground zero for the fight for our future. Goldstein found its voice, and the people of Goldstein sent me here to lead, to build, to mobilise and to storm. Our choice now is clear. Will we be the Liberals that honour generations past by handing on a better future than our own? Will we be the Liberals that inspire Australians to turn to each other and see a shared destiny? Will we be the Liberals that strengthen our nation to be sovereign, confident and secure? Will we be the Liberals that build a clean industrial future so prosperity is on our horizon.”
“If we do not, no-one will. The gravitational pull could not be stronger, the call to Liberal courage could not be heavier and the stakes could not be greater. If Australians do not share our Liberal call to action, it is not their failing; it is ours. We must find that spark and spirit it, nurture it and feed it into a flame. As Harvey Milk once said, 'The only thing they have to look forward to is hope,' because liberalism does not live in the words we say but in the aspirations Australians live. Liberalism lives when Australians sets their sights one angle higher and with a range one step farther to the horizon. The Australian Liberal project is built from a spiritual belief in our shared success and calls for people to not just vote for us today but vote for us tomorrow, because hope is inevitably tempered by the weight of history.”
“And for our nation, it is a choice about the type of people we want to be and whether we carry our inheritance of freedom, prosperity, hope and opportunity forward for a new generation or sit idly by and watch its decline. On every flank, we are outnumbered. The armies of vested interests have never been stronger, better resourced and ready to finish us off. Organised labour is seeking to suck the remaining initiative out of private enterprise. Organised capital is leveraging their power to bend corporate bureaucrats to their will. Foreign globalists are propping up front groups and corporate candidates who want to de-industrialise Australia for their profit. We are at a Menzian moment, and the gift of defeat is the opportunity of Liberal revival. We are all that is left to stand up for the public and national interest.”
“Right now, the source of our next chapter of growth seems utterly foreign, and we're unprepared for the end of the frothy prices of our mineral resources and the realities of artificial intelligence that could displace employment—let alone the flexibilities of a work force that will increasingly be a mix of salaries, side hustles and shared equity. Indeed, our biggest challenge is not capital but an abundance of complacency in a time that demands urgency. We are now at a pivotal moment for our party, our values and our nation. For our party, coalition and movement, we are now at our lowest ebb since the Albury rebuild eight decades ago. For our values, the vote harvesters are hoping we let the social democratic conformity march unchallenged so the only story sold is the false promise to hand over power for security.”
“We must live limited government because it is a simple truth that big government makes us small citizens, and no society has ever been better because people have been encouraged to take less responsibility. We must be trusted and reliable partners and defenders of our alliances because a world without strong friends is a world where we risk standing defenceless and alone. And we must be advocates for the re-industrialisation of Australia and its farms in the future and an energy mix based on physics and economics because the foundation of our economy is dug and grown.”
“Because when we do, the nucleus of social, economic and political power rebalances from the corridors of this place in Canberra and those of the corporates back to the kitchen tables of this nation. While no-one has a right to the size of a home or a specific suburb, we cannot strengthen families when involuntary distance divides generations and their mutual support. We must stand for fiscal prudence because borrowing from the future fuels inflation today, taxes tomorrow and indebts those who follow. When residents living with Down syndrome are raising concerns about the NDIS's fiscal trajectory just after 7 am at McKinnon railway station, it says the anxiety is not just economic.”
“It comes from agreement on a shared common story for our nation, because we cannot expect new Australians to integrate into a story that we cannot tell, and from a belief in Australia and its progress because we can tell a story of Australia that recognises, respects and has reconciled and takes the best of our past to define our future. We can defend our national unity and stridently stand against the poisons of racism, whatever its extremist origins, and particularly the gateway of socialised antisemitism. We must again be the democratic defenders of our values and equal dignity of free people, and we must grasp Menzies' great vision of homes material, homes human and homes spiritual that places home ownership at the centre of public policy.”
“We are experiencing the culmination of relaxed and comfortable leadership, and, as Liberals, we must have the courage to tell uncomfortable truths today about what we know is on the horizon. If not, Australians will have no reason to trust us on how to confront them as they are revealed. We are at an inflection point in our nation's history that demands controlled breathing to confront the future with confidence. The nation is but the sum of its people, and we must always be mindful to nourish the soil of our society, from which future generations draw their strength. Nourishment does not come from fostering the division of identity but investing in our common bonds, knitting the social fabric of family and community, finding our cultural confidence and promoting excellence in education once more.”