Most people don’t have trusts, or multiple houses: Bill Shorten on the budget’s tax changes

Summary

Podcast Summary

Podcast: The Morning Edition
Episode: Most people don’t have trusts, or multiple houses: Bill Shorten on the budget’s tax changes
Date: May 21, 2026
Host: Jacqueline Maley (The Age/Sydney Morning Herald)
Guests: Bill Shorten (Vice Chancellor, University of Canberra, former Labor Opposition Leader), Paul Sakkal (Chief Political Correspondent)

---

Overview

This episode dives into the public response and political implications of the Albanese government’s latest budget—particularly its tax reform proposals. Hosted by Jacqueline Maley, the discussion features former Labor leader Bill Shorten and political journalist Paul Sakkal. Shorten—no stranger to tax backlash, having taken similar reforms to previous elections—reflects on the challenges of selling tax changes, examines the fairness of the proposed reforms, and comments on the interplay between state and federal Labor figures. The episode also addresses broader issues: property investment, intergenerational equity, income tax, trust structures, immigration, and the NDIS.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Political Climate and Tax Reform Backlash

• Jacqueline Maley sets the stage, noting current criticisms: accusations of a “death tax,” attacks on “aspiration,” and widespread concern among business owners and investors (00:16).
• Bill Shorten argues Australia is ready for tax reform:
  • He doesn’t believe past election losses were down to negative gearing or capital gains changes (02:06).
  • The surge in non-property-owning voters, growing rental market, and escalating housing unaffordability make reform more compelling now:
    • “There’s now millions more voters on the roll who don’t have negatively geared portfolios... housing inaccessibility for first home buyers is an acute issue.” – Bill Shorten (02:30)
  • Prioritizes fairness: “Why should property income be taxed preferentially to income derived from going to work every day and slogging your guts out?” – Bill Shorten (02:53)

2. Criticisms: Trusts, Asset Classes, and Investor Concerns

• Paul Sakkal summarizes the two main criticism points:
  1. Tax on testamentary trusts (used for inheritance management)
  2. CGT discount reduction broadened to shares and small businesses—not just property
  • “Government framed this as a bid to make the housing market fair, but changes affecting all assets prompt claims that investment could suffer.” (03:20)
• Shorten recalls Labor policy history (04:08), concedes uncertainty over past policy targeting shares, and asserts:
  • “A lot of people actually don’t have multiple investment properties or fancy discretionary trusts.” (04:55)

3. Anticipating and Handling Public Blowback

• Shorten suggests the property investment narrative has landed well, but pushback from shareholders and small business may present political challenges (05:03).
• Predicts negotiation in the Senate could reshape the legislation and quell opposition as facts emerge:
  • “It wouldn’t be unknown for a government to propose a legislative package [that changes] by the time it gets to the Senate.” – Bill Shorten (05:53)
  • “A lot of noise, a lot of fireworks, but I’m not sure the government isn’t winning the argument here.” (06:35)
• He expects that once legislative wrangling is over, the political onus shifts to the opposition to either repeal reforms or explain how to budget for their deletion:
  • “If the government sticks to the position that income is taxed too heavily, and property interests are taxed too light, I think a lot of Australians would nod their head in agreement.” (08:11)

4. Debate Around Personal Income Tax and Political Dynamics

• Discussion of the “Watto”—a new tax offset for workers instead of adjusting income tax brackets—deemed by Shorten as a step in the right direction, though not the “holy grail” of tax reform (09:52).
• On news headlines of a Labor ‘civil war’:
  • Shorten dismisses media hype over comments by NSW Premier Chris Minns urging more income tax relief:
    • “I’ve been in a civil war. This is not a civil war.” – Bill Shorten (10:34)
    • “Exchange of opinions is not a disaster... but certainly not a civil war.” (10:41)
  • Tackles the realities of party factionalism and reiterates routine nature of state-federal policy differences.

5. Budget Reply and Coalition Immigration Proposals

• Shorten critiques the opposition’s budget reply:
  • Advises focus on a single key message (either tax or immigration) rather than both (14:18).
• On proposed immigration caps and welfare restrictions for immigrants:
  • Shorten highlights that many permanent residents make significant contributions without ever becoming citizens.
  • Warns against demonizing migrants, noting:
    • “Immigrants tend to be a predictor of paying more tax and being more in the workforce.” (16:11)
    • Argues loss of local industry, health access, and cost-of-living, not just migration, are core sources of regional discontent (17:11).
    • “There is a genuine sense of being forgotten [in the regions]... It is a sense that globalization hasn’t delivered.” – Bill Shorten (17:47)

6. Migration: Labor’s Political Strategy

• Panel discusses Labor’s tendency to avoid explicit migration debate in the budget or public statements (20:18).
• Shorten views the debate as nuanced; stresses immigration’s overall benefit, especially via international education.
  • “International education is only just behind coal, iron ore, and gas... delivers outcomes for Australians.” (21:00)
• Emphasizes pragmatic discussion:
  • “You can win that argument with science and evidence, but you can’t just sneer at someone who’s concerned about making sure our infrastructure keeps up.” (25:19)

7. NDIS: Achievability and Political Risks of Reforms

• Shorten, the program’s original architect, says slowing NDIS growth is possible, but hitting Labor’s new spending targets will require careful policy and execution:
  • “We’ve got to make sure that if we’re going to move people from the scheme... they’re not kicked out with nothing.” (28:53)
  • Warns not to repeat mistakes from attacks on other universal schemes (e.g., Medicare):
    • “Tackle the fraud but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” (28:59)
    • “Budgets are a tool to help the people. Governments serve the people. People don’t serve governmental budgets.” (29:53)

8. Testamentary Trusts and ‘Death Tax’ Rhetoric

• Discussion returns to the budget’s inclusion of testamentary trusts in the trust crackdown, an emotional political trigger—Shorten clarifies:
  • “There’s always an issue about testamentary arrangements. You’re talking about inheritance, which leads to the possibility of a scare campaign.” (30:27)
• Maley jokes about the PR hazard:
  • “Just don’t use the word ‘testamentary’—it conjures images of death estate planning.” (30:57)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The whole case for reform is... why should property income be taxed preferentially to income from work?” – Bill Shorten (02:53)
• “A lot of people are not commenting because, frankly, they don’t have a fancy discretionary trust or multiple investment properties.” – Bill Shorten (04:55)
• “It’s a matter of record I led the charge against the Abboth Hockey 2014 budget... If [Labor] negotiate these matters through the Senate... the onus of proof changes back to the opposition.” (07:14)
• “Sometimes being in the same party isn’t always a predictor of relationships. There’s a saying in Labor: ‘Why does that person hate me? I never did them a favour.’” – Bill Shorten (13:03)
• “If the government sticks to the position that property interests are taxed too light, a lot of Australians will nod their head.” (08:11)
• “Immigrants tend to be a predictor of paying more tax and being more in the workforce.” – Bill Shorten (16:12)
• “Tackle the fraud but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” – Bill Shorten (28:59)
• “Budgets are a tool to help the people. Governments serve the people. People don’t serve governmental budgets.” – Bill Shorten (29:53)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Budget backlash and framing of tax changes: (00:16–03:20)
• Reflections on past Labor reforms: (02:06–04:08)
• Trusts, asset classes, and the scope of tax reform: (03:20–05:03)
• Government strategy, Senate negotiation, and political optics: (05:46–08:56)
• Intergenerational equity and income tax reform: (08:56–09:52)
• Chris Minns, internal party debate and state-federal dynamics: (10:16–13:10)
• Budget response and opposition immigration pledges: (13:26–16:11)
• Coalition’s ‘immigration and housing’ stance; risks of scapegoating: (15:14–18:28)
• Regional Australia’s economic grievances and party strategies: (16:11–20:18)
• International education and economic impact of migration: (20:50–22:51)
• Labor’s narrative challenge on immigration: (24:25–26:29)
• Social cohesion and centrist politics: (26:30–26:59)
• NDIS reforms, feasibility and political risks: (26:59–29:59)
• ‘Death tax’ rhetoric and testamentary trusts: (29:59–31:05)

---

Tone & Style Notes

The conversation is lively, candid, and sometimes self-deprecating, with banter and historical references. Shorten is reflective, occasionally humorous, and forthright but maintains diplomatic caution on sensitive intra-party issues. The hosts blend seriousness with dry wit.

---

For Listeners New to the Debate

This episode is a thorough, insightful guide to the current budget’s tax reforms and the surrounding political storm, spelling out both the technical policy elements and the emotional, cultural context driving public opinion and political strategy in Australia right now.

Transcript

[A]

Want to keep up with everything trendy. From breaking news to shareable jokes, pop culture bites to viral food spots, it's all on TikTok. Download TikTok now to explore.

[B]

I'm Jacqueline Maley and you're listening to Inside Politics from the newsrooms of the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. We have so much to talk about today because we're officially in our budget backlash era, as Taylor Swift might have it, with claims of death taxes and the killing of aspiration and the outraged cries of crypto bros across the nation. Not to mention, of course, the genuine anxiety amongst regular small business owners and regular shareholders who are now unsure about how all of these changes might affect their own arrangements. Our special guest star this week is former labor opposition leader Bill shorten, who is now the Vice Chancellor of the University of Canberra. And it's very fortuitous that we have him on because he knows a thing or two about backlashes to reform proposals. And of course, I'm also joined by our chief political correspondent, Paul Sakal, who is in Canberra. Bill is joining us from Melbourne. Hi, fellas.

[A]

Good morning, funsters. Ready for another discussion about politics?

[C]

We're all split up today.

[B]

I know we've really got to get our act together and all get in the same room one day, but who knows what would happen that would be so crazy. Is the world even ready for that anyway? No, it's not. Is the world ready for these tax changes? That's the more pertinent question. Bill, you famously took changes to negative gearing capital gains tax to the 2016 and 2019 elections. So you're probably having a bit of deja vu right now. They were rejected by the public after strong critic on mainstream media and social media. Again, not unlike what we're seeing now. So I'm really interested in your reflections on the backlash and the criticisms to these reforms which has really heated up this week. And for any listeners who haven't been following along super closely, you know, the criticisms are along the lines of, you know, the government's making a tax grab in general, but they're also taxing aspiration and they have even been accused of wanting to instituted death tax. What do you think, Bill?

[A]

Well, great to be back with you both. Listen, I'm not in politics anymore. I'm enjoying leading the University of Canberra. But from the cheap seats at the university, I would say that the country's been ready for these tax reforms for at least 10 years. I don't share that analysis that these reforms are the reason why we didn't get enough votes. Remember, we narrowly lost to Turnbull and to Morrison. I think there were plenty of factors in that loss and I wouldn't put that at the feet of negative gearing. So I think the nation is ready and my data for that is that there's now millions more voters on the roll who don't have negatively geared portfolios. Some of the people who voted in 2016 have passed on. So there's a sea change and now even more, as we predicted. But now even more Is housing inaccessibility for first home buyers an acute issue? I mean, 40% of Sydneysiders are renting nearly that in Melbourne. Housing prices just skyrocketing in Brisbane and Perth. Ordinary punters, first home buyers have been losing. And the whole case for reform is that why should property income derived from property be taxed preferentially to income derived from going to work every day and working Slogging your guts out Bill on

[C]

the reaction, particularly this week, it seems that the crux of the criticism is on two points. One, the inclusion of a new tax on testamentary trusts. And the second point is a question of whether the government needed to include all asset classes in its CGT discount changes or whether they should have been narrowed just to property. The framing of the budget is clearly around making the housing market fair, so critics have argued that those changes shouldn't have been extended to productive assets, which could crimp investment. There's been some reporting this week that suggested that Your policies in 2015 did include shares and small businesses. I wonder, is that the case and was this considered at the time by the opposition that first put forward these proposals?

[A]

Oh, you're going back into history. We took CGT changes and negative gearing to 2016. Then in I think the New South Wales ALP conference of 2017, we introduced trust changes in 2016. I think my recollection is we were proposing a 25% discount rate, not a 50% discount rate. You've got me on whether or not shares were included or not. I've gone back and checked and someone absolutely tells me they were and someone else absolutely tells me they weren't. I guess it's online at the pbo. But yeah, this government's changes are slightly different. You know, I think it'll be a matter of negotiation through the Senate. But you know, I think there's a lot of people we talk about backlash. There's a lot of people who are not commenting because frankly they don't have some sort of fancy discretionary trust and they a Lot of people actually don't have multiple investment properties.

[B]

Yeah. I guess the point sort of there is that, you know, the property investment suite or the property investment case seems to have gone down actually pretty well. The government framed this and nobody seems to be objecting to that. In terms of the property property investment case, the government framed this very much as a property investment sort of, you know, redress and also as an intergenerational equity narrative. But what they seem to maybe not have anticipated is all of this blowback on people who are just normal share investors and also small business and startup investors, or small people, business people. Do you think they sort of didn't even think about that, or is this all kind of what they expected in terms of the blowback?

[A]

I don't know. In short, you know, I wasn't privy to the discussions on the latest version of our reforms. I'm sure they would have acted on the best advice at Treasury. I think the government said they want to get this through sooner rather than later. I'm sure they'll have a look at all the concerns. It wouldn't be unknown for a government to propose a legislative package, but by the time it gets to the Senate to negotiate, it'll all depend on what evidence comes forward. So whether or not they've underestimated the resistance. I know that when you want to have a discussion in Australia saying that personal income tax is too high, but property taxes are probably too low, there will always be some people who have constructed their arrangements to avoid paying the high marginal rates of tax and chase the lower tax rates through property. I understand that that's uncomfortable. I think the government's been pretty sensible in what it calls grandfathering. In other words, if you've invested under the current set of laws, you can keep going. You're not retrospectively changing laws. You know, I think there's a lot of noise, a lot of commotion, a lot of fireworks, but I'm not sure that the government's not winning the argument a bit here.

[C]

Do you suspect that this period now, Bill, just a week on from the budget, or a little bit more, is that noisy, heightened period of anxiety that then billows out and the government wins on the merits? Or do you suspect that, like the unrealised super policy last year, that it might actually be a slow burn and the concerns will widen over time?

[A]

Well, it's a matter of record that I led the charge against the Abbot Hockey 2014 budget. The issue there, though, I mean, one, it was, you know, great advocacy, but another issue from the Opposition there was that the Abbott hockey cuts were stuck in the Senate. If Anthony and the treasurer, Jim Chalmers, are able to negotiate these matters through the Senate in quicker time, I think then the onus of proof changes back to the opposition. Will they repeal these changes?

[B]

Well, Tim Wilson said at the press club this week that they would repeal the changes. So then they basically have to go to the next election saying not only will they repeal all these changes and give back these concessions to investors, they'll have to pay for them somehow in the budget along with their income tax pledge, which we're going to talk about later. So I guess as you say, the focus, the onus will shift a little bit onto the opposition if it can

[A]

get through the Senate. Absolutely. Then it's a different debate. I mean, at the heart of it, I think if the government sticks to the position that the argument that income is taxed too heavily and that property interests are taxed preferentially, too light, I think a lot of Australians would nod their head in agreement if they stick to the argument that why should a first home buyer, a young couple in the outer burbs of Melbourne or Sydney or Perth or Brisbane or in the regions, why should they be competing with someone who's got the coin, taxpayer coin in their pocket as an investor? So the ironic thing is young couple trying to buy a house are also paying taxes to help the other guy bid against them. Look, it's a bit silly, isn't it?

[C]

You've always said, Bill, since 2019. I think we asked you the last time you were on this podcast thinking about future changes, that the most compelling argument you could have made in 19 was that any tax hike on assets would have been given directly back through structural change to personal income tax. So relief for workers in compensation. And Bill Kelty has called that real reform, including this week, Jim Chalmers rejects the idea of changing the brackets and indexing brackets to keep up with inflation, which has been put forward by Angus Taylor. He's instead created a new mechanism called the Watto. This is a tax offset that might grow over time just for salary earners. Chris Minns, the New South Wales premier, said on Wednesday that the government had to do much more on income tax.

[A]

Do you think? I bet Jim and Anthony appreciated Chris's intervention nod.

[C]

Sure they did. Do you reckon the government has struck the right balance in the grand bargain here? Have they done enough on income tax or is more needed to be done?

[A]

Well, that'll be up for the voters to decide ultimately, but I think they've taken steps in the right direction. A tax offset is a reduction of the income tax you pay. You know, reducing the rates is very expensive. I think that's the sort of the Holy grail. But I think the tax offset is a step in the right direction.

[B]

So, Bill, what did you make of Chris Min's intervention? Because, you know, particularly News Corp went really big on it, and they said it was a civil war within labor. And, you know, it was. It was. Obviously there were very pointed comments from the New South Wales premier, who's supposed to be on the same side as our labor prime minister. What did you make of that? Do they not like each other?

[A]

I've been in a civil war.

[B]

You know, all about.

[A]

This is not a civil. This is not. This is not a civil war. Why was it?

[B]

Why was it?

[A]

But no, listen, no doubt, no doubt there'll be people and the Prime Minister's office going, oh, thanks, Chris. And no doubt, Chris. Chris is, you know, Chris doesn't work for the Feds. He's the premier of New South Wales. So I think the exchange of opinions is not a disaster. It's certainly not a civil war. I can imagine, though, the feds weren't happy with the state intervention. And no doubt at some point the state will do something and the feds will share their free opinion, too.

[B]

Yeah. What do you think Chris Meen's angle was there? I mean, obviously he talked about the pay rises that he's given to nurses and teachers and basically said they're being eroded because of bracket creep. I suppose he's got an election that he's facing next, so maybe he doesn't want to. He wants to differentiate himself from the federal brand. If it's unpopular in this sense.

[A]

Oh, you know, one can conjecture and forecast and predict and read the television.

[B]

That's what we want you to do, Bill.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Come on. One of the dilemmas is, of course, I know just about everyone in this debate.

[B]

I know. That's.

[A]

So I'm not really sure that. I'm not sure that I can meaningfully add anything which either Chris Minns or Anthony Albanese will be sitting, taking notes, although they should be listening to this podcast because there's insight here. There's gold era

[B]

that was very skillfully sidestepped.

[C]

Yeah, that was nice.

[A]

There's gold. No, no, that's good. You guys are like gold prospectors in

[C]

a bigger picture sense. What do you make of the relationship between those two, really? You know, powerful labor figures, biggest leader of the biggest state, prime minister, both ascendant in different ways. What do you make of their relationship and the contest between them?

[A]

Only what I've seen. I'd say it's respectful. They've each got a job to do. But New South Wales government's interests will coincide with the federal government's interests and vice versa. But sometimes the feds will have a different perspective and sometimes the states will. You know, it's called having different levels of government. So, yeah, I'm not sure I can add any more than that. I don't have any juicy inside tidbits. I don't know what they say to each other on signal or about each other on signal disappearing. Some of you got good connections there. Maybe you could find out the inside drum and give it to us.

[C]

I'll try.

[B]

Bill, we know that Gladys didn't much like Scott Morrison, that's for sure. But that's going back into the distance past.

[A]

I wonder sometimes being in the same party isn't always a predictor of relationships.

[B]

No, in fact the opposite.

[A]

Sometimes there's this saying they have in the Labor Party. Why does that person hate me? I never did them a favour.

[C]

Well, what was your biggest civil war? You said this isn't a civil war. What comes to mind when you think about your biggest internal campaign?

[A]

The biggest civil war was the one between the states and America. I wasn't there for that in terms of myself when the AW went for amalgamations of the ironworkers. Lordy, that was complicated.

[B]

Wow. Ok. Yeah, we're going back. I want to ask you, Bill, about budgets. Budget in reply speeches. Because you're something of an expert in them, I think you told me.

[A]

Yes, six of them later. Yeah, six.

[B]

So that makes you. I mean, you could give a TED Talk about budgets and reply.

[A]

No one would listen, but that's okay.

[B]

What was your big takeout from Angus Taylor's book? I mean, he did make some big pledges in it. There was a few good headlines out

[A]

of it, a lot of content in it and it's the one time in the year that the opposition leader gets equal billing. So it's a very important speech. Listen, without getting into what I think about the specific policies, just from an ins, you know, from a former insider's view in that half an hour, and it's about half an hour you've got. I think you're probably better off trying to do less than more. So I think he had two big points in his speech. One was about immigration and then at the 22 minute mark he got to the bracket creep policy I'd have, you know, everyone's an expert. I say to Angus, if he's listening, everyone used to tell me what I didn't do properly, but I'd have probably picked one of the issues and focused on that rather than trying to cover two. And I'd have probably thought bracket creep. The challenge with one nation, and maybe we'll talk about them, is you can either try and out one nation, one nation or you go to the economy. And I think that's clearly what Jim and Anthony did in theirs. And I mean, one nation's certainly a giant force these days and it's getting everyone's attention, as it should. But I think that when you're talking about tax and bracket creep, I'd probably, I don't know, listen, everyone's an expert. After the event, it was a meaty speech he gave, which was, that's significant, but I'd have probably focused on one, not two items on the.

[B]

I mean, as you say, he sort of front loaded the speech with the immigration pledges. So he said that, you know, he would tie immigration levels to housing one house per one immigrant, basically, so he wouldn't tell us what that meant in terms of numbers of immigrants. And he also said that immigrants would be restricted from accessing certain welfare programs, including the ndis, until they became citizens. And some people, of course, kind of never become citizens. They stay here almost their whole lives as permanent residents, never become citizens and pay tax and what have you, but they wouldn't be allowed to access certain welfare programs. Now I wonder that front loading might have been a response to their sort of fear about one nation, like eating their lunch. I just wonder what for your reflections, Bill, about how careful the coalition has to be in not demonising immigrants or offending immigrant communities within Australia and also holding this hard line on immigration and are they managing that balance at the moment?

[A]

I think the main parties have a challenge. In some parts of Australia, there's a backlash against the high rates of immigration. On the other hand, there are quite a lot of immigrants in Australia. And also, I think on balance, the data shows that immigrants tend to be. Being an immigrant tends to be a predictor of paying more tax and being more in the workforce. So it's a difficult issue which the Western world is grappling with. So, you know, I recognise there's countervailing tendencies. I think part of the question is, after one nation's remarkably successful showing in Farah, with a massive primary vote, the major parties probably more for the Liberal than Labor parties. But you know, labor can't ignore it is what's the best way to provide an alternative? Because I do think one nation has tapped into a resentment in especially regional Australia, but not just regional Australia. And the resentment isn't just about immigration. I think some of the polls I've seen, about 30% of One Nation voters at the moment are voting on immigration, but the other 70% aren't. It's about the economy. You know, a lot of these regional towns and Farah, but not just Farah, and also for Labour or perhaps Central coast or Hunter or other parts of Australia, it is a sense that globalisation hasn't delivered. 30, 40 years ago, I remember as a junior AW organiser, you know, there would be an avatar in a lot of these towns, there'd be a small manufacturing outfit, you'd have local hardware producers, so you'd have a range of services and a lot of them are gone. The other thing is, in regional Australia, some of the health statistics are alarming and, you know, Australians across the board under a cost living crisis may put off necessary medical treatment, but that's even greater in the regions. So I think there is genuine a sense of being forgotten. You know, a lot of younger people are moving to the big provincial cities and there are some very successful country towns or to the coast. And so you've got an ageing population who feel forgotten. And the question is, do you try and tackle that by attacking immigration or do you tackle it by looking at the economy and provision of health?

[C]

Yeah, I think that's a big debate in the Liberal Party is most of the moderates are kind of gritting their teeth at the moment, letting Taylor take increasingly hard line stances, but quietly thinking to themselves, can't we just talk about the tax policies? On the other hand, you've got the people around Taylor, who've taken the view that you can't even start to talk about practical economic policy unless you've won back the trust of conservatives on issues that are more emotional, like migrations.

[A]

Taking the 30,000ft perspective of this debate, which I can now do, I could ask you, do you like standing in the rain in a poll? And most people will say, no, I can ask, but that doesn't mean they're voting on whether or not it's raining. I can ask people in a poll, do you think immigration's too high? Most people probably say, well, yeah, but that doesn't mean they're voting on immigration. And these days, what, 34 in every hundred? 31 in every hundred? I should know this off by heart were born overseas. There's significant and welcome diasporas of Australians of South Asian heritage or Chinese heritage who are contributing. No one ever complains if you've got a small businessman from one of those origins, move next door or your local kids cricket team has one of the kids or you know, your small, your school has parents from different backgrounds. Cause you know that's gonna add to the story of your own kids experience. But I think there is a view that especially in some of the cities, that the infrastructure's overstretched. So I guess the immigration debate's not black or white. And I always worry about people who say, give a simple answer to what I think is nuanced. Having said that, I think it is about the economy. And you know, again, labor doesn't have to take this advice. But if they focus on health in the regions, the quality of health, they focus on educational opportunity. If they focus on supporting industries in the regions, it's all about economics.

[B]

What do they say about immigration though? Because at the moment, I mean, they've pledged to bring the immigration numbers down because they went to historic highs after, you know, after Covid. They've said that they will bring them down. That seems to be locked in. But otherwise they seem to avoid the issue almost entirely. It wasn't mentioned in the budget or any of the commentary around the budget. If you're advising labor now, do you tell them just to keep avoiding the issue as much as possible or.

[A]

I don't think it's avoiding the issue.

[B]

They're not talking about it.

[A]

No. But it's not the only issue. I think a lot of people are feeling cost of living pressure. I think a lot of people, not just in the regions but in parts of the regions feel forgotten. That's about jobs, that's about health. They're actually good areas for labour. I talk about that just with the immigration from a university perspective, people forget. And I perhaps didn't appreciate it fully till I came to the University of Canberra. International education is only just behind coal, iron ore and gas. You know, Australia has an incredible reputation and it delivers outcomes for Australians. Every International student generates $70,000 in economic activity here. 80% of these students do actually go home. But in the meantime, we are the beneficiary. There used to be the big four in international education. US, Canada, UK and US. Now there's the big 14, Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore. Like we have a distinct national advantage, but it's getting the. The number of international students who rent premises in Australia is barely 4 or 5% of the total renting market. So whatever we do on international students, we need to be careful we don't throw the baby out with the bath water. And it does deliver economic outcomes.

[B]

That is one of the visa classes that both sides of politics are talking about rolling back. Because whatever the reality is, the perception is, particularly in the big cities, that international students and temporary visa holders there isn't the infrastructure to support them, particularly in dancing.

[A]

If you can't get an MRI scan within two hours, drive in the country. That's not the fault of an international student. No, if your abattoir, I mean, in fact, most abattoirs have been kept alive by using visa workers, frankly.

[B]

Well, the person doing your MRIs is likely to be from, have been born in another country.

[A]

Good luck if you can go to any hospital in Australia and you need urgent care and we don't end up saying thank you to someone who's come here through a visa.

[C]

Just quickly, Bill, on how the centre left reacts to the new debate on migration. With one nation shifting well out to the right, the Liberals mimicking them in some ways, it obviously leaves a big gap and shifts the Overton Window a bit in where the debate is and what the policy solutions are. Do you think labor has an opportunity to develop some kind of new language around culture and values that doesn't lean into anything near racism, but just allows the government to come to the centre and acknowledge the problem a bit, particularly with the political ascendancy it has? Or should the party stay where it is on migration?

[A]

What was that window which was opening?

[C]

Overton Window?

[A]

This is.

[C]

There's an idea that, like, you know, the window of things that are seen as within, you know, possibility of being acted on can shift if someone changes the debate and brings in a radical solution and that becomes mainstreamed. It's used a lot in the us. Jack, your colleague, your friend James Masola likes to use his Sydney's columns quite a bit.

[A]

Free product placement for James Masola and the Ovision window. Sorry to be hyped. All the things that you didn't want, didn't know, didn't know you didn't know about the Overton Window. Anyway, I just didn't want to let that go by because I think it's important that you know this should be educated for the kids, this show. Listen, I think as a general rule of thumb, parties are the centre. By moving to the extremes, you're never going to be better than the extremes at doing extreme. So you're better off playing on your home Ground advantage. So in terms of policy, the economy, the economy, the economy. In terms of labour, health.

[B]

But when. What we're getting at, Bill, is when they do talk about immigration, what do they say? What's the line? Is it we. You know, the line so far has been basically, Australia is a successful country of migrants and it's very pro immigration, if you like. Meanwhile, you know, we're also going to cut back the numbers. What should the line be? What should the narrative be for labor on immigration?

[A]

They'll work that out. But I think that we can't walk away from the advantages of immigration. We all came here from somewhere else other than indigenous Australians, So that's about 97% of us. I think my first ancestors were convicts, which won't surprise some of my detractors on the far right.

[B]

All the best people are descended from convicts.

[A]

Yeah, it was 200 years ago. I did have a rally at the. I'm gonna flex here. I did have a relative at the Eureka Rebellion at Ballarat. That makes sense.

[C]

That's where your union blood comes from.

[A]

Well, also small business people complaining about licenses and charges. Anyway, that's a rebellion with something for everyone. The. I think we've got to stand up for migration. I think it's been good. I do think that there is an anxiety that how many, how fast can our infrastructure keep up? You know, you can't ignore that argument. You can't tell people they're racist for being concerned to make sure that we can house our own and we can do our things. But you can win that argument with science and evidence, but you can't just don't sneer at someone who's worried about making sure that our infrastructure keeps up. I think beyond that, you know, we've seen Bondi and we've seen pressure on social cohesion. We've seen the rise in anti Semitism. I think there's a level of disquiet in the community. We want to make sure that our migrants are adding to social cohesion, not exacerbating it. The truth of the matter is our migrants, you know, to a vast, vast, vast, vast, vast percentage, do add to our social cohesion. I think a lot of people. I've done hundreds of citizenship ceremonies. One of the things which migrants from all around the world have said is, thank goodness they're in Australia, where there's

[C]

the rule of law.

[A]

Where there is, you don't have sort of the rampant corruption of other countries. So I just think it's one of these things where the world is Feeling uncertain. And we're seeing the rise of authoritarianism, we're seeing the onslaught of social media, the attack on critical thinking, the ability of social media to allow us to sit in left wing silos, right wing silos, chicken wing silos. And so I just think the parties at the centre do best when they govern from the centre.

[B]

What about just to switch gears a little bit? We haven't checked in on the NDIS changes. We haven't asked you about the NDIS changes because we haven't had you on the podcast since they were announced. Huge, huge savings are going to be cut out of that program. You have intimate knowledge of it. Do you think those savings are achievable?

[A]

Quite a few of the policies which were announced in the budget stuff, which was based on the reports done in my term as minister, I think it is possible to restrain the growth of the scheme. When labor got elected in 2022, in the middle of that year, the previous financial year, the scheme grew by 22%. That's too much. In my time we got the growth rates down to around 10%. That's still too high. But I think the trick is to make sure these policies work. One, we've got to have a good gateway into the scheme, be clear on eligibility. Two, you've got to make sure the people providing the services are fed income and registered. I think. Three, we've got to make sure there are services outside the NDIS which deliver for people whose needs mightn't be the full NDIS orchestra but still need some support. So I think. And the other thing of course is all of that has to be done with co design with people on the scheme. The scheme's changing lives. I think if people think it's just to pay for another nuclear submarine, that's a disaster, which it's not. I think this is about making sure that the money's getting through to the people and the scheme was designed and it's not being wasted elsewhere.

[B]

So with your knowledge of the scheme, do you think that the cuts, the level of cuts, the quantum of cuts that Labor's proposing are achievable if they

[A]

do all of those things? I said I think the trajectory from the first term can be sustained to reduce the level of growth, whether or not they get to a particular percent? Well, it's going to require a lot of very hard work.

[B]

What do you think the political risks are for them in cutting such a well used program?

[A]

If you read the headlines of some of the press, you think everyone's just got A pitchfork and hates the scheme. The reality is that people hate the crooks and they hate the waste. But there's been no government scheme where there hasn't been crooks trying to con in on it. I think ever since the rum corps there's always been someone trying to get government money to line their own pocket. Medicare's now over 40 years old, but it had pretty bumpy spots and even now you've got a proportion of Medicare fraud. So I think that tackle the fraud but don't throw the baby out with the bath water to mix my metaphors. I think the scheme's helping a lot of people and just make sure that if we're going to move people from the scheme to the appropriate level of services they need, that they're not kicked out with nothing. And so I think it's just gonna require a lot of seven day a week, 24 hour stewardship and attention. Cause this is about people, it's not about the budget, it's about people. Budgets don't exist as an end in themselves. Budgets are a tool to help the people. Governments serve the people. People don't serve governmental budgets.

[C]

One more for me and I know I'm ruining the flow cause I forgot to ask this earlier, but one of the big talking points out of last week's budget was the inclusion of discretionary testamentary trusts in the trust crackdown. That wasn't part of your PAC in 2015 and 16, Bill. It's been labelled a death tax, perhaps misleadingly. Why did you leave that out at the time?

[A]

Well, that being a complete pedant. Our trust policy we introduced at the New South Wales state conference in 2017. So there was nothing on trust in 16 but for the 19 election. Listen, I can't completely remember every fine detail of that amazing platform, but I don't know if we included testamentary trusts or not. I have to go back and check the parliamentary budget offices. There's always an issue about testamentary arrangements that you are talking about inheritance, which then leads to the possibilities of a scare campaign in a way that Franken Credit's weren't. But. So I'd have to go back and refresh my memory.

[B]

Just don't use the word testamentary. It's a long word to say and it conjures images of death estate planning.

[A]

No happy ending.

[B]

No happy endings. That's all we've got time for. It's been a pleasure, Bill. Can we have you back on again so soon? And to spill. To spill. Actual tea on the Chris Minns. Anthony Albanese civil war, as dubbed by certain members of the media this week.

[A]

I keep saying I've seen a civil war.

[B]

Okay, it wasn't a civil war, but

[A]

it was an afternoon tea fracker.

[B]

It was appointed. It was appointed whack. I don't know whatever you'd call that. It was. It was. It was an unhelpful comment from the Prime Minister's point of view, and it was made very deliberately so. I thought it was interesting. Anyway, thank you for coming. It's been a pleasure.

[A]

Thank you for inviting me.

[B]

Thanks, fellas.

[A]

Have a lovely day.

[C]

Great to talk, guys.

[B]

You can read all of our political news on our website, ch.comau or smh.comau Today's episode was produced by Chee Wong, with help from Debbie Harrington and Cormac Lally. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Martin and Tom McKendrick. Before you go, please follow Inside Politics and leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify. I'm Jacqueline Mailey. Thank you for listening.