On 15 October 2025, Shadow Minister for Education and Shadow Minister for the Arts Julian Leeser launched a new compilation of the poetry of Sir Robert Menzies, titled Fancies I Dare Not Speak. Below is the address he gave on that occassion:

Introduction

I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land of which we gather—the Wurundjeri Woi-Wurrung peoples—and I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging.

I also want to acknowledge tonight:

·       Georgina Downer, the CEO of Robert Menzies Institute

·       Alan and Mary-Louise Archibald, who donated funds that made the project possible

Tonight, I’m going to talk about the poetry of Sir Robert Menzies, and I’m also going to talk about the need to take the lessons from Menzies and adapt them to the way we live now.

“Fancies I dare not Speak”

It is an honour to be invited today to launch this new volume of poetry written by Sir Robert Menzies.

This volume, Fancies I dare not speak: the Hidden Verse of R.G. Menzies edited by William Cook, Georgina Downer and Victoria Hronas is a singular achievement, and I commend you for it.

For most Australians, the thing that springs to mind when one thinks of Menzies and poetry is the image of the Prime Minister welcoming Queen Elizabeth II to Australia in 1963, on the occasion of her second visit to the country, where he concluded his remarks with the couplet from the 17th century poet Thomas Ford:

I did but see her passing by,

And yet I love her till I die.

But as my friend Dr Damien Freeman noted in his excellent introduction to this volume, the reality is that poetry was an important outlet for Menzies throughout his life—an outlet for frivolity, for the transcendent, and for grief.

Poetry played an important part throughout Menzies’ life and in his career.

Shortly after being admitted as a barrister, when Menzies was attending the annual Victorian Bar dinner as one of the most junior members of the bar, his knowledge of poetry helped put him in the good graces of the High Court.

The story is told of how, as a junior lawyer only newly admitted to the Victorian Bar, another barrister was called upon to give a speech at a Bar dinner in welcome of Chief Justice Knox.

The other barrister had given rather a poor speech which had soured the mood; Menzies stood up and recited a few lines which recovered the evening entirely, and set him on the path to popularity in his early career at the Melbourne bar.

Being handy with a few lines of verse helped Menzies throughout his life. His excellent education and well-furnished mind gave him a rich resource on which to draw.

As I read this publication of Menzies’ poetry; one is particularly struck by Menzies’ early interest in nature, and the way that nature plays a part in Menzies’ thinking.

It’s interesting to me that while there is a poem about a football match, there’s no poem about a love interest.

But there an interest in natural beauty.

There are references to the Australian bush, and to the gumtrees and the rivers, all of which would have been familiar to Menzies growing up as a boy in the Mallee.

There is a particular poem that I liked that marks him out as a Liberal from his student days—and that is his poem about “The Soul of Hope”. After speaking about the smug, self-complacent fools who oppose him, the poet speaks about never abandoning his ideal of freedom:

So we march ever, our gaze still before us,

Catching a glimpse of the stars, it may be;

Dreaming the dream of a world that is better,

Seeing the vision of men that are free, …

Menzies was criticised for not going to World War One—unfairly so, given the sacrifices made by other members of his family.

But the war influenced Menzies’ poems as a university student and in particular there is a beautiful poem where he pays tribute to a fallen comrade: “In Memoriam”, dedicated to Lieutenant J.R. Balfe.

As Damien Freeman notes in his introduction, Menzies’ knowledge of poems and his interest in poetry would not have been remarkable in his day.

Menzies and Ben Chifley served together on the Commonwealth Literary Council, and despite the fact that Chifley did not have Menzies’ formal education, Menzies always admired that Chifley was an autodidact and that he was remarkably well read. He enjoyed sharing discussions with his opposite number about literary matters.

As Menzies wrote in 1914:

As an Australian I look forward to the day when Australian literature will take a very high place among the treasures of all time.

As Menzies got older, his poetry became more cheeky and irreverent.

It’s clear in his later poems that he’s not taking himself seriously.

He used his poetry as an outlet for fun—to share with colleagues, friends, rivals, and occasionally even journalists who had been hard on him.

The interest that Menzies has in poetry says something about the life of the mind.

As a Liberal and as the Shadow Arts Minister I think it is fundamental that Australians can engage in literary and artistic pursuits.

The arts can hold up a mirror up to our society and provide a moment of reflection on the current state of the world—but they also remind us of the good, the true and the beautiful.

Engaging with the great poets of the Western canon should be the birthright of every Australian, because it is part of the foundational knowledge which helps build our civil society. A rounded liberal education should include some engagement with poetry, just as it includes some engagement with Shakespeare’s plays.

Poetry is meant to be read aloud.

And for a natural orator like Menzies, it was inevitable he would be interested in poetry.

Because word choice was important to him.

Because the sound of words was important to him.

And because the English language itself was important to him.

Getting the long view

In his twelfth consecutive year as Prime Minister, Menzies spoke at a Commonwealth Club lunch in Adelaide, where the Chairman of the Club remarked on his success and extraordinary longevity as Prime Minister. Sir Robert responded:

When the Chairman said I must have forgotten what it was like to be Opposition Leader he was mistaken. … I remember some of the rules for getting out of Opposition into Government. But I am keeping them to myself.

I wanted to spend a few minutes tonight reflecting on the rules that Sir Robert kept to himself.

Some of which may be useful to where our party finds itself today.

I joined the Liberal Party at 16 in 1992 – I wanted to play my part in removing a bad Labor Government and making our country stronger.

My first campaign as a candidate was for my local Council. I was 19, I doorknocked my ward twice and I was returned as the then youngest councillor in Australia.

I have been involved in every election campaign since.

But at the last election, as Sussan Ley put it so succinctly, we weren’t just beaten, we were smashed. Across the last two elections we have lost more than thirty seats.

There is a quote that encapsulates our situation.

“We are going through a period of political adversity. It will be the best thing that ever happened to us. We shall fight back, we shall think back, get long views, summon our courage and stir our imagination. In that case we shall win.”

Sussan Ley spoke those words shortly after being elected as our leader. She was quoting Sir Robert Menzies in 1944.

There is tremendous wisdom in those words.

Success in politics hinges on the quality of our thoughts, on courage and imagination.

‘Getting the long view’—to use Menzies’ phrase—is about looking forward.

It is about understanding where we have come from, but also the challenges Australians will face in years to come.

And that means coming to grips with some of the extraordinary shifts that have shaped Australia over the last 3 decades which have changed our country and will influence our politics for years to come.

Meeting Australians where they are

In 1949, Menzies talked to a post-war Australia about the incipient dangers of socialism, putting value into the pound and ending petrol rationing.

Those were the issues of his time, and they swept him to power with more than 50% of the primary vote.

John Howard would have been laughed out of Parliament had he re-litigated those issues in 1996 after a long period in Opposition. The country had changed, and so his economic and policy platform changed too.

In his own words, Howard spent “a great deal of his political time listening”.

In the generation since John Howard came to power, the country has changed again, and it has changed radically.

And we once again find ourselves needing to listen more deeply.

To understand where Australians are coming from, so that we can bring forward a policy platform that reflects their needs.

Australia today is more educated, more urbanised, and more diverse than it was a generation ago.

Everything from the way we spend money to the way we consume information has changed.

I want to draw the comparison between the landscape when John Howard came to power and Australian society today.

Because there are stories hiding in our national data, and ‘getting the long view’ means understanding the changes that can take a generation or more to manifest.

Grand demographic, cultural and lifestyle shifts—which only really become apparent through multiple censuses and public policy datasets, over 20 years or more—are reshaping our society.

These trends are slow, but they are profound.

I want to talk about four of those changes tonight:

·       the way we learn;

·       the way we work;

·       the way we live; and

·       the way we consume information.

When Sussan Ley calls on us to “meet Australians where they are”, I believe that these are the types of changes she wants us to understand.

It is a powerful call.

Like John Howard, we need to listen more—so that we can appreciate the implications for our society, and the way these fundamental changes should shape and re-shape our policy offering to the Australian people.

The way we learn

One of the most profound shifts in our country in the last 30 years has been in the way we educate our children.

These are major demographic changes that have altered the shape of our country.

It is a privilege to be standing in the Robert Menzies Institute at the University of Melbourne just days after being given responsibility for the education portfolio.

Menzies was a believer in education.

In 1966, on these very grounds, Menzies was heckled by an angry student who wanted him to put more into education. Menzies shot back:

No Government has ever promoted education like I have. After listening to you, I can understand what vast amounts will still have to be spent.

Menzies, whose own life had been transformed through scholarships and educational opportunities, promoted a liberal education through the universities as a public good that benefited the whole of Australian society.

Two years ago, Professor Michael Wesley told this Institute about:

…the catalytic role Menzies played in taking a marginalised and in many ways moribund university system in Australia and breathing into it a grand vision and ambition…

He spoke about how Menzies’ vision for the universities laid the foundations for the world-class education sector we see today.

Menzies understood the transformative power of learning.

And if we are to understand the Australian population today, we too need to appreciate how higher education has transformed our society.

In 1996, the year John Howard was elected Prime Minister, 42% of the population aged 15 years and over had at least one post-school qualification.

By 2024, the proportion of Australians aged between 15 and 74 with a post-school qualification had jumped to 63%.

In 1996, 10.8% of men and 10.1% of women held a bachelor’s degree or higher.

In 2024, that number had more than tripled, with 33% of Australians holding a bachelor’s degree or above.

And beneath that massive change is another social story – about women’s education.

In 1996, similar proportions of men and women had degrees, with slightly more men than women.

By last year, 37% of women between the ages of 15 and 74 had a degree at bachelor’s level or higher, compared with 30% of men in the same bracket.

If you drill down into the 25-34 age bracket, 41% of men but 54% of women have a bachelor’s degree or higher.

It is fair to say now that not only are Australians better educated in general, but that women are better educated than men.

But that is not the end of the story.

The fitness for purpose of our education system is not only in what it teaches.

It is in how well it prepares the next generation for the years to come.

I am a strong believer that students need to have deep foundational knowledge to set them up for success and help them to understand the world around them.

The basics of a strong education—reading, writing, maths, science and a proper understanding of our history—are non-negotiable.

Without that foundation, we are failing to equip our children with tools they need to build successful and productive careers.

We should expect our education system to set high standards and drive excellence in these fields.

We do not want to fall into the trap of low expectations. We owe it to our children to deliver explicit teaching, and to combat classroom disruption.

These are the foundations of learning. It is only when these foundations are right that we can properly prepare our children for the future.

But school education is just the start of the journey

Foundations are meant to be built upon.

What is clear is that Australians need to be lifelong learners.

There is a phrase that is often attributed to the American thinker Alvin Toffler:

The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and re-learn.

Ironically, it appears the quote may be inaccurate or misattributed—but it’s a good line and it makes a clear point.

We are moving into a world where the ability to adapt will be definitive of success, and there is a growing unease that our education system is not quite there.

The way we work

These types of changes to our education system flow through to the jobs market.

I will give just three examples: about manufacturing, primary industries, and female participation in the workforce.

Three decades ago, Manufacturing was the largest employing industry in Australia, accounting for 13.6% of total employment. By April last year, it had slipped to seventh, accounting for 6.4% of total employment.

In February 1994, 5.0% of the workforce was employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing; compared with 2.2% in February 2024.

The movement of Australian workers away from agriculture and manufacturing has been sharp, and there has been a corresponding movement towards services industries that prioritise knowledge and cognitive ability.

The Grattan Institute wrote in June this year that:

…four out of five Australian workers work in services, reflecting the welcome move from manual and routine work to non-routine and so-called “cognitive” work”.

The 1996 Australian Social Trends report shows a female participation rate had risen to more than 53%. Last month, the female participation rate hit a record high of 63.5%.

These are titanic shifts, in less than 30 years.

In 2021, the National Skills Commission released a report on the state of Australia’s skills, now and into the future.

It is a report that talks about the big picture trends that are shaping the way Australians work now, and the way they will work into the future.

It spoke about the ageing population, the incorporation of computing into every aspect of our lives, the rise of automation and of course AI, among other things.

And it distilled these big-picture trends down to what it called the “four Cs” of the most in-demand skills that are shaping our workplaces now and will shape them into the future:

·       care

·       computing

·       cognitive ability; and

·       communications.

My sense is that, even if they’ve never heard of the Nationals Skills Commission—or Jobs and Skills Australia as it is now known—Australians know their workplaces are changing, and that the skills they will need today aren’t necessarily the same ones they needed 5 years ago, or the ones they will need in another 5 years’ time.

It links back to my earlier point about the way we learn—success in the workplaces of the 21st century will be driven by adaptability rather than skillset – which is unnerving enough in its own right.

There is an entrenched shift away from physical labour and manufacturing and towards cognitive work that is underway.

Whether we are equipped to cope will determine our prosperity in the years to come.

The quality and substance of what we teach in our schools, universities, TAFEs will flow into our workplaces and become the story of national productivity.

And as I said earlier, there is that nagging disquiet that the education system may not be quite there.

But the overarching point is this: these broader forces are reshaping our workplaces, and they are the concerns that are occupying Australian families.

It is a step change from the world of Robert Menzies, John Howard and even Tony Abbott.

And like Australian workers themselves, our liberal philosophy must adapt.

Because it is a different market into which to communicate political ideas.

The way we live

The third major change I want to talk about is the change in our population distribution and density, and what it means for our politics.

Because over that same period from 1996 to today, our capital cities have grown.

The growth is not only in terms of raw numbers but also in terms of the proportion of population.

In 1996, there were 11.8 million people living in our capital cities. By 2021 that number had shot up to 17.2 million.

Compared that with the rest of the country: in 1996, there were 6.4 million Australians living outside the capitals. By 2021 that number had increased to 8.4 million.

In proportionate terms, it shows that our population growth has been uneven: 64.7% of Australians lived in the capital cities in 1996; by 2021 that number had increased to 67.2%.

Reading those numbers aloud doesn’t do justice to the scale of the change. On their own, the numbers are arid.

But when you dive into them, they say something profound about the way Australians now live.

Because it’s not just that there are more people in our capital cities, or that population growth has been uneven.

When you bring an extra 5½ million people into the same 8 capitals, it changes something fundamental about the way we live.

It means that more Australians will be living in apartments and raising their families in them.

It means that for an increasing number of Australians, cricket doesn’t happen in the backyard but the local park, and gardening happens on the balcony or in a common area.

But my sense is that the change we have seen to date is just the first step, and that the scale of apartment-based living is going to ramp up significantly over the years to come.

It is incumbent on Liberals to understand the needs of people living and raising families in apartments.

If you go to a well-designed complex around dinner time, as the sun sets, you will sometimes feel the sense of community that can be built when these things are done well, with common areas that foster community.

Even in my own electorate, in places like Epping and Hornsby, I have seen and felt it.

When your physical home is smaller, the common communal amenities of our suburbs like parks, sporting, recreation and cultural spaces become more important.

About 80 years ago Churchill made an observation about buildings.

During a debate about what form the rebuilding of the House of Commons would take, after it had been bombed by the Germans, he said “we shape our buildings and afterwards they shape us”. There’s a truth in this.

And it’s the same with our communities.

Our cities and suburbs must be designed in ways that draw out from us and our children the best—a sense of openness, a sense of community, a sense of belonging and safety, and for there to be spaces to interact with our neighbours and for kids to play.

To allow our children to be shaped positively by home and community spaces, as my generation was.

I believe that this challenge—amplifying the best aspects of the way we live—will be all the more pressing in years to come.

But that is not the only challenge.

Because there are also changes in whether or not we own that property we call home, and how much we pay for it.

In 1996, the private rental market provided housing for approximately 20% of the Australian population; by 2019-20, ABS figures showed that number had climbed to more than 26%.

Over the same period, the pressure of servicing a loan has gone up. In 1996, around a third of mortgage holders were spending more than 30% of their disposable income on housing.

By last year, that number had increased to 44.5%—almost half.

More of our homes are rented, not owned. And for those who do make the leap and to home ownership, they are spending more of their money to pay for it.

The way we consume information

The fourth major change I want to talk about is the way we consume information.

When I look at the social division on our streets today—particularly here in Victoria, which has borne the brunt of an unrelenting protest movement—I see a country that is in danger of losing its shared story.

When I look at the public square, I worry we are creating a society with fewer and fewer agreed facts that form the foundation on which to build a cohesive national culture.

I believe that this is reflective of a fractured and contested media landscape in which strong, trustworthy voices are no longer a mainstay.

Growing up in my home we had two newspapers delivered each morning: one Fairfax and one News Limited paper.

The radio station would have an hourly news bulletin and in the evening, we would watch a commercial news program followed by the ABC—after which we would turn off the TV and have a family discussion.

This pattern of news consumption was not uncommon among Australian families. It meant that people had a shared set of facts and stories which helped to bolster the life in common.

All of that has changed and it has had a serious effect on the Australian nation.

In February 2024, the Australian Communications and Media Authority released a report showing that 79% of Australians accessed news through online sources, compared to 58% for television, 42% for audio and just 18% for newspapers.

This differed by age: more than half of Australians aged 75 or older had read a print newspaper in the previous week, compared with just 7% of 18–24-year-olds.

But it is the story of social media that is critical here.

The ACMA report showed that for 38% of 25- to 34-year-olds, the main source of news was not a traditional media outlet or even an online news website, but a social media website or app.

For those aged 18 to 24, the number was 46%.

Increasingly, the news that comes from these social media platforms does not come from professionally produced news media outlets or official and reputable sources, but online special interest groups—which made up 38% of the market.

Among younger Australians, 31% turned to celebrities and social media influencers for their news media content.

And I dare say those numbers have grown in the last 18 months.

Effectively, fewer people are paying attention to any form of hard news than ever before.

Their sources of information are determined by algorithms which have no interest in or understanding of our national story.

They drive people to echo chambers where they won’t hear the competing viewpoints that you would see through traditional media.

What are the conclusions to be drawn by the Liberal party?

In 1949, Menzies pioneered the use of radio to sell his message to the Australian people, with staggeringly effective results.

These days, the idea that you could solely try to get your message through traditional media outlets, and trust that people would receive that message is… well quite frankly it’s dead.

But the point isn’t simply that we must communicate more on social media.

In a fractured media landscape, if we want to articulate a consistent national story—a vision that binds us together as a nation—that story needs to be able to reach through every medium.

And it needs to be able to cut through especially in a country with compulsory voting but with a communications environment fraught with noise and competing narratives where fewer and fewer people are paying any attention at all.

The point is actually about the quality and cut through of ideas.

In part, our success as a party will be driven by the ability to distil a clear and cohesive suite of ideas that bring people together regardless of how they are communicated.

My own approach

I want to say a few words about the approach I intend to take, in my new capacity as Shadow Minister for Education.

Because adapting our Liberal values and philosophy to the portfolio starts with an understanding of the landscape.

Again, the data and the figures tell a story about our institutions and how we are being educated as a nation.

There are around 3.95 million school students in Australia. Around 63% of them are in government schools. Catholic and independent schools make up the remainder, with around 20% and 17% respectively.

The non-government education sector is by far the fastest growing: Independent schools grew by more than 18% in the 5 years to 2024; Catholic schools by more than 6%.
In higher education, we had more than 1.6 million students enrolled in our tertiary institutions in 2024. Of those, almost 1.1 million were domestic students, with 589,000 international students. Student numbers are recovering from the pandemic, but males are less likely to commence higher education than 10 years ago.

In the 2023-24 financial year, international education was worth $51 billion to the Australian economy, with $30.2 billion paid in GST and $20.6 billion paid in tuition fees. It is a major export industry.
In 2024, there were more than 341,000 4- and 5-year-olds enrolled in a preschool program.

Of course, there are significant overlaps with the broader early childhood education and care sector.

The June quarter report from this year showed that there are more than one million Australian families using a childcare service – with a total of more than 1.4 million children attending around 15,000 different approved childcare services.
That is just under half of all Australian children aged 5 and under; or just over a third of children aged 12 or under.
For those who use care, the majority attended Centre-based day care, but around 40% were in outside school hours care and just under 5% in Family Day Care.
What do these numbers mean for us as Australians, and what do they mean for us as Liberals?

Because, again, there are stories in these figures.

Take, for example, the extraordinary growth in Independent and Catholic schools over the last 5 years.

To me, that data shows that in our society parents want choice, and will make sacrifices to choose the option that is right for them.

It’s not my job to tell parents what’s best for their children.

They know what’s best for their children.

It’s my job to make sure parents have a range of options so that they can choose what’s right for their family.

The education system should be set up to allow parents to make that choice.

My role is to ensure that whatever choice they make is a good choice, whether it is a Catholic, independent or government school.

I only need to look in my own electorate, where we have outstanding government, Catholic and independent schools.

As Shadow Education Minister, you will never hear me attack our teachers.

Australians love their schools. They know their teachers work hard, that they care about their students deeply.

They know that schools bring communities together.

In Parliament last week I spoke about an event in my own electorate in Berowra—the Cherrybrook Public School’s Passion Project evening, which showcased the hard work, research skills and dedication of year 5 and year 6 students.

It was a demonstration of the best that can come out of our education system, but perhaps even more importantly, was a wonderful community event.

The data also show how Australian families are working differently.

The fact that more than 34% of children under 12 attend some kind of care highlights the size of the mismatch schooling hours and the hours worked by Australian parents.

If we want to make things easier for our families, we need policy settings that promote choice and instil faith in the quality and affordability of care which plays such a crucial role in allowing parents to work. This, too, is a productivity story.

And in the university sector, there is a story about the decline of male education—both in raw numbers and proportionate terms.

In 2015, 168,000 young men started their higher education journey.

By 2024, that number had dropped to 158,000.

Our national population had increased by almost 3.4 million over the same period.

These are trends we need to understand. What are the parts of our system that are not working?

Because I want to be the Shadow Education Minister who is for parents and educators, and against a system that is not working.

The new forgotten people

Fittingly for an address at the Robert Menzies Institute, I started these remarks by harking back to Menzies’ vision for Australia.

Famously, Menzies’s success was built on his appeal to the forgotten people.

The middle class—those people who are constantly in danger of being ground between the upper and the nether millstones of the false [class] war; the middle class who, properly regarded, represent the backbone of this country.

There is a new forgotten people in Australian politics.

A new forgotten people who are working hard – who are proud of their jobs and giving it their all – but who are just not being rewarded.

They are the ones whose aspirations are not being realised; who are being left behind by the changes I outlined earlier. They are good people doing good work, but wondering how they will get ahead.

It is the IT professionals and lawyers and accountants and sales assistants and aged care workers.

Pharmacists and pathology workers and independent contractors and consultants.

People working and living in our cities and trying to secure a better lifestyle amidst myriad financial and social pressures.

But there are others, too.

Public servants working in every electorate in our country—teachers, police officers and nurses from Maranoa to Wentworth—who are motivated by a commitment to service that warrants our respect.

People running small businesses—from plumbers to café owners to security system installers—whose long-term fortunes rely on strong and stable economic management.

Quiet and pragmatic people.

Families who worry that their streets aren’t safe or that the education system isn’t up to scratch, or that their children’s wellbeing is at risk online.

Our policy development process is intended to tap into these things.

In her address to the Press Club earlier this year, Sussan Ley spoke about dealing with tech giants who peddle addictive technology and commoditise our kids.

She spoke about the safety of women and children and dealing with family violence and coercive control.

And she has spoken repeatedly about the burden of national debt that will impact on our children and grandchildren and ultimately cost them in terms of opportunities and quality of life.

These are issues that don’t discriminate based on postcode or socio-economic status.

Unlike the Government, which since the election has prioritised the bizarre and ultimately irrelevant diplomatic folly of Palestinian recognition, or has tried to reduce transparency through changes to the FOI regime, or has delayed the rollout of home care packages—these are issues which need to be understood and addressed for the benefit of all Australians.

Because our role between now and the next election is not just to hold the government to account, but also to demonstrate to the Australian people that we understand where they are coming from and are providing a real alternative based on our values.

The option the Australian public wants on the ballot paper

The reason these policy proposals—grounded in Liberal values—are so important is because elections are about a choice between alternatives.

It’s never just about how bad the Government is. It’s also about the alternative.

And I believe there are millions of Australian women and men who want someone better to vote for.

They want to be able to vote for someone who is not a trade unionist or a professional activist.

They want to be able to vote for a party of government, so that their vote influences the policy direction our nation takes.

They want to avoid the volatility that comes with populist or reactionary movements, and movements driven by protest or false class struggles.

They want to know there is a party that understands where they live, how they work and study, and the challenges they face.

And they want to be able to have the confidence that their voices are being heard by the alternative government of Australia.

Australians want that option on their ballot paper.

And it is a gap that only the Coalition can fill.