Sussan Ley pushes for new collaborative policy process in bid to avoid Peter Dutton-style party control
At a meeting of the joint Coalition party room in Canberra on Friday, the opposition leader will outline a bottom-up approach for new policy proposals.
Details of the plan were circulated to MPs on Thursday night, after a meeting of the shadow ministry at Parliament House.
Liberal sources said Ley wanted consultative design work for ideas to be led by shadow ministers and specialist working groups before the 2028 federal election.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
The new process will allow backbench policy committees more say in the opposition's pitch to voters, ending idea bottlenecks and taking advantage of MPs' expertise and community connections from outside politics.
The scale of the Coalition's loss on 3 May is expected to be discussed at Friday's meeting, before a formal review led by Howard government minister Nick Minchin and former New South Wales state minister Pru Goward.
Before the election, some Liberals complained about policy ideas being ignored by Dutton and the opposition leadership team, with backbench committees being asked to rubber stamp ideas immediately before they were announced.
Ley has told MPs she wants a more strategic approach, based on expert advice and better external engagement.
In a speech to the National Press Club this week, she announced the first working group, which will consider energy and emissions reductions policies. Led by shadow minister Dan Tehan, it will consider Dutton's nuclear power plan amid fierce internal debate about net zero by 2050 policies.
'Our policy development process will be iterative and continuous,' Ley said on Wednesday.
'It will evolve throughout the term in response to internal and external feedback, emerging issues, and ongoing engagement with the community.'
Her promise to be a 'zealot' on recruiting more women to Liberal party ranks is being debated internally but frontbencher Angus Taylor on Thursday talked down any move to introduce gender quotas.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
'It's not something that I think is necessary in order to get the outcome,' Taylor told Sky News.
'I think attracting, mentoring, retaining great people and great women in the party is incredibly important work for absolutely everybody, for all leaders. And I take that very seriously.'
Nationals leader David Littleproud used the opening of the shadow ministry meeting to energise dispirited colleagues.
'You can do one of two things: you can get in the foetal position, give up, or you can come out swinging,' he said.
'Let's come out swinging. Let's hold this government to account, and let's show Australians that we are here for them and we have the solutions for them.'
The minister for women, Katy Gallagher, warned the Coalition needed to do more than identify its failures on gender representation. Labor introduced quotas for female representation in the mid-1990s.
'It's actually the next step that matters, which is: what are you going to do about it?
'I think we'll just have to wait and see whether the rhetoric is actually matched by action,' Gallagher said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Couples warned to ‘keep clear records on source of wealth' following landmark divorce ruling
A retired banker who gave his wife nearly £80 million to avoid paying inheritance tax will not have to split that money with her equally following a divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled. Five justices unanimously agreed that because most of the money had been earned prior to the marriage, Clive Standish, 72, was entitled to keep the largest share. He had transferred the multimillion-pound assets to his wife Anna Standish, 57, in 2017, to take advantage of the Australian's non-dom status and allow more money to benefit their two children. Mr Standish, being domiciled in the UK, was worried about paying around £32 million in inheritance tax if he died with the assets in his name, Lords Burrows and Stephens explained in their ruling on Wednesday. Sam Longworth of Hudson Sandler and the lead partner for Mr Standish said: 'The Supreme Court has also provided essential guidance as to when assets which do not have an originating connection to the marriage partnership should be considered marital. 'This guidance will give the courts a clear framework to ensure individuals cannot benefit from running false arguments as to whether they had or had not agreed to share certain assets during the currency of their relationship.' Claire Reid, a partner at Hall Brown Family Law, said the ruling was more 'goalposts being moved' than a 'paradigm shift', adding that other spouses 'looking to manage their wealth to minimise their tax bills' should be 'very circumspect in how they do so'. She said: 'Given the recent changes to the inheritance tax rules announced by the Government, there are likely to be many individuals undertaking the kind of estate planning that Mr and Mrs Standish were. 'Wealthier spouses will now be alive to the need to formalise the terms of any transfers of cash or other assets even more clearly to avoid falling into the same complicated situation.' Sarah Norman-Scott and Victoria Walker, family law partners at Hodge Jones & Allen and Moore Barlow respectively, said couples should keep clear records on the source of their wealth. Ms Walker said: 'Going forward, families will need to keep tighter records to demonstrate that transfers were executed for specific purposes. 'That said, if spouses cannot meet their respective needs from the pool of available assets, the court will still draw on non-matrimonial funds to ensure fairness. 'However, for high value separations where plenty of wealth is available, Standish delivers a clear message: intent is everything.' Yael Selig, a family law partner at Osbornes Law, predicts a 'a surge' in prenuptial and postnuptial inquiries following the Supreme Court's decision. She said: 'Whilst such agreements are not yet considered the norm, they are becoming that way and particularly for couples where there are significant assets involved, although the court's decision will always be grounded in making sure that the financial needs of both parties are met.' Lucy Stweart-Gould, second partner for Mr Standish at Hudson Sandler, said owning money or assets at the time of the divorce, known as having title, is not enough to claim ownership; what matters is how that property is intended to be used. She said: 'Title alone is insufficient evidence to permit a party to share in a non-marital asset. 'What is required is an intention to share and treatment of the asset as shared; on the proper analysis of the facts of this case there was neither.' Jennifer Dickson, family law partner at Withers, agreed. She said: 'The judgment makes clear that non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle and matrimonial property should ordinarily be shared 50/50, but that non-matrimonial property can be 'matrimonialised' depending on the couple's intention and treatment of that wealth during the marriage. 'Had the tax planning exercise been designed to benefit Mrs Standish, rather than their children, it may well have been a different story.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Ex-wife loses Supreme Court fight against retired banker over the £80m he gave her in a bid to avoid tax - before she divorced him and kept the money
An ex-wife of a retired banker has lost a Supreme Court battle over an £80million sum he granted her in an attempt to avoid tax before their divorce. Clive Standish, 70, a sheep farming tycoon and former chief financial officer of banking giant UBS, we d Anna Standish, 56, in December 2005. But the couple separated in 2020 after a 15-year marriage, during which they had two children. The marital assets at the time of the split amounted to £132million, almost all of which had grown from the £57.3million fortune Mr Standish brought into the marriage. He retired in 2007, living off the profits of a £28million sheep farm in Australia, while the couple enjoyed life in 18-bedroom mansion Moundsmere Manor, set in 83 acres near Hampshire village Preston Candover. The court heard of Mr Standish's worries about changes to the inheritance tax regime announced in 2016 by HM Revenue and Customs. He feared these would expose his personal assets to a 40 per cent levy on his death. He then transferred £80million-worth of assets to his wife in 2017, with a plan for them to eventually be placed in an offshore trust for the benefit of their children. But the marriage hit the rocks before that could happen, leaving the couple estranged and Mrs Standish claiming the £80million was hers outright. She said it had been 'gifted' to her and so should form part of the matrimonial pot to share on divorce. Mr Justice Moor ruled in the divorce courts in December 2023 that Mr Standish should get £87.6million of the total family wealth valued at a total £132,648,326, with his wife walking away with £45million. That decision was made using the so-called 'sharing principle' of dividing the family fortune. Mrs Standish was said to have insisted the £80million was 'matrimonial' money to be divided equally, despite bringing 'no significant wealth' of her own into the marriage. Last year the Court of Appeal cut her payout, ruling that the 'fair outcome' of the case would leave Mrs Standish with £25million rather than £45million. She has since taken the case to the Supreme Court in a bid to get the ruling overturned and reclaim the extra £20million. But today five of England and Wales' most senior judges upheld the earlier verdict, saying that the £80million had not been turned into 'matrimonial assets' simply because it was put in her name to avoid tax. The court ruling stated: 'Tax planning schemes to save tax, involving transfers of assets from one spouse to another, are commonplace. 'The problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. 'Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children. 'The parties' intention was that the £80million should not be retained by the wife.' Tim Bishop KC, for Mr Standish, had said during the Court of Appeal hearing that the husband had 'a very successful career in banking'. He told the judges that in June 2004 his client was worth £57.3million, while Mrs Standish had 'no significant pre-marital wealth'. Mr Standish is British but moved to Australia in 1976 before moving back to England with his family in 2010. That potentially left him open to a huge inheritance tax hit when prospective changes were announced in 2016 - affecting anyone with a British domicile of origin returning to the UK from a country they had made their new permanent home. In the face of this, he 'commenced a process to shield his property from IHT' by 'transferring his assets to the wife to hold for a period and for the wife then to settle the transferred assets into a trust', the court was told. Mr Bishop said: 'The husband made the transfers in March 2017, but the wife failed to transfer the assets into trust by the time the marriage ran into problems in 2019 and then broke down finally in 2020.' Mr Standish's barrister criticised the divorce judge's eventual division of the assets last December as 'unfair'. Mr Bishop argued it had been wrong for the £80million to have been regarded as 'matrimonialised' property, rather than the personal property of the husband and not to go into the pot for division. The Court of Appeal went on to rule that 25 per cent of the £80million should be shared, as that money had been made by the husband during a time when he was being supported by his 'homemaker' but that the rest should not - cutting her divorce payout by £20million. For Mrs Standish, Richard Todd KC said the £80million was her property and everything else apart from the sheep farm ought to be equally split - leaving the former spouses with £56.3million apiece. But delivering the Supreme Court ruling, Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens, with whom Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd Jones and Lady Simler agreed, said the Appeal Court had got it right. They said: 'Here, the source of the pre-marital assets within the 2017 assets was exclusively the husband. 'Those assets have been transferred to the wife. But the problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. 'Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children. 'The parties' intention was that the £80million should not be retained by the wife but should be used by her to set up trusts for the children, thereby negating inheritance tax. 'In short, there was no matrimonialisation of the 2017 assets because, first, the transfer was to save tax and, secondly, it was for the benefit of the children not the wife. 'The 2017 assets were not, therefore, being treated by the husband and wife for any period of time as an asset that was shared between them. 'In relation to a scheme designed to save tax, under which one spouse transfers an asset to the other spouse, the parties' dealings with the asset, irrespective of the time period involved, do not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared between them. Rather, the intention is simply to save tax. 'Transfers of capital assets with the intention of saving tax do not, without some further compelling evidence, establish that the parties are treating the capital asset as shared between them. 'The 2017 assets comprise, first, the husband's pre-marital assets and, secondly, earnings that the husband made in the years 2004-2007 to which the wife contributed by being the home-maker and childcarer during those years. 'It is not in dispute that the latter constitutes matrimonial property. That should be shared on an equal basis. 'The Court of Appeal assessed the latter, i.e. the matrimonial property, as comprising 25% of the £80million.' The judges said that meant that 25 per cent 'was to be shared equally, and the former, i.e. the pre-marital assets/non-matrimonial property, as comprising 75 per cent of the £80million'. They added: 'We see no reason to interfere with that assessment. The decision and orders of the Court of Appeal should therefore be upheld. For all these reasons, we would dismiss the appeal.' Legal experts have responded by describing the judgment as a 'landmark ruling' - and suggesting it offered a cautionary note to many other couples. Aasha Choudhary, family law partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, said: 'Merely transferring assets into joint names or to a spouse does not automatically transform them into matrimonial property, unless there is clear and documented intention to share an asset. 'While it may not be the most romantic topic before a wedding, this decision is a timely reminder of the value of prenuptial agreements. 'Divorces can be emotionally fraught, and decisions made during a separation don't always reflect long-term intentions. 'A well-drafted prenup allows both parties to set expectations early and protect their respective interests with transparency and fairness, saving the financial and emotional cost of litigation. 'Most crucially, this ruling makes it clear that if couples want a non-matrimonial asset to become shared property, it must be recorded clearly. 'Without that, the default position may now lean toward such assets remaining non-matrimonial, a major shift in the legal landscape.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Kanye West barred from entering Australia over Hitler song, Tony Burke says
The US rapper and artist Kanye West has been barred from travelling to Australia after the release of his widely condemned song Heil Hitler, which has been banned on Apple Music, Spotify and YouTube. The home affairs minister, Tony Burke, disclosed on Wednesday that the government had revoked the rapper's visa after his song referencing the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was released independently in May. Burke inadvertently revealed the news about West – who has legally changed his name to Ye – during an interview with the ABC's Afternoon Briefing program when the minister was asked about the visa cancellation of an Israeli-American tech advocate who wrote 'Islamophobia is rational'. Burke said he would not let anyone who tried to argue that either Islamophobia or antisemitism was 'rational' enter Australia to go on a speaking tour, given the purpose of the visa in question was to 'give public speeches'. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'Most of the visas that have been cancelled under this section have been where someone was seeking to make a public speech,' he said. 'The only one I can think of where it wasn't for public advocacy – the visa – but we cancelled it anyway, would be Kanye West.' Burke said Ye, whose wife, Bianca Censori, is from Melbourne, had been coming to Australia 'for a long time' and had family here. But Burke alleged Ye had 'made a lot of offensive comments that my officials looked at again once he released the Heil Hitler song and he no longer has a valid visa in Australia'. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Asked if it was 'sustainable' to keep the ban in place given the possibility for international concerts, Burke replied: 'I think that what's not sustainable is to import hatred. 'Every visa application gets reassessed by my officials each time,' Burke continued. 'I'm not taking away the way the act operates but even for the lowest level of visa, when my officials looked at it, they cancelled that following the announcement of that song.' A spokesperson for the home affairs department said it did not comment on individual cases, but all non-citizens who wanted to travel to Australia must satisfy the 'character' requirements under the Migration Act. 'The Australian government will continue to act decisively to protect the community from the risk of harm posed by individuals who choose to engage in criminal activity or behaviour of concern, including visa cancellation or refusal where appropriate,' they said. Guardian Australia attempted to contact Ye for comment through his fashion label, Yeezy.
