Senator Joyce said today that the maintaining of the integrity of trusts is a big win for all those hundreds of thousands of participants in trust structures.

“Trusts have been around for hundreds of years and as an asset protection mechanism they are used to reflect the relationship between assets and individuals, especially families, so that the asset of a family is held by the family over a period of time and not by an individual in time.

“This is the nature of so many family farms where the custom and practice is that the benefaction of the proceeds of the farm are for your sustenance and enjoyment but the asset itself, the land, is to be passed on to those who come after you.

“What the Labor party were endeavouring to do was to force families into a position where the family farm had to be sold, and this was done by changing the definition of families to only two levels of descendants below the instigator of the trust, the test individual. Likewise, the definition of family was defined by Labor under this schedule to be only one level of progenitor once removed from the test individual; that is the test individual's nephew or niece.

“A technical element I agree, but the essential ethos is this: Labor was attacking trusts. They have had it in for trusts for years and they want to move to an entity taxation rule which would take away the meaning of trusts. Trusts are a mechanism for the intergenerational transfer of wealth so that those who work very hard today can leave those who come after them with an asset that reflects the privations of the test individual's life so that his descendants may have an easier life. I believe this is a noble cause, Labor does not, and there is a strong philosophical difference between the parties.

“What is important for those who are not connected to this argument is that once again Labor was completely floundering in explaining the costing and revenue implications of their economic modelling. They continue to take Australia as a fool who accept any fiscal rubbish that they shovel out.

“During Labor's questioning in committee there were many quiet moments of prayer as they tried to describe some very simple numbers pertaining to the revenue and expense implications of this policy. This struggling with the detail could well be determined by many that the detail doesn't exist and the presented numbers are beyond rubbery. I welcome the support of the cross benchers who were essential in keeping the government to account and defeating this anti-family measure.


Ends