Changes to Queensland Stamp Duty Home Concessions from 1 August 2026

Changes to Queensland Stamp Duty Home Concessions from 1 August 2026

Home » Legal Alert

Changes to Queensland Stamp Duty Home Concessions from 1 August 2026

}

1 min read

1 Sep 2026

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • ࠂ
    From 1 August 2026, eligibility for Queensland home duty concessions has changed.
  • ࠂ
    Temporary residents will generally no longer qualify for these concessions.
  • ࠂ
    Affected buyers may face standard transfer duty plus 8% AFAD, where applicable.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

The Queensland Government has announced changes to who can claim stamp (transfer) duty home concessions.

From 1 August 2026, to be eligible for a home concession, first home concession, or vacant land concession, a buyer must generally be one of the following:

  • an Australian citizen;
  • a permanent resident; or
  • a specified foreign retiree.

This means that temporary residents will generally no longer be eligible for these concessions.

For temporary residents buying residential property in Queensland, this may mean paying transfer duty at the standard rate. They may also need to pay the additional 8% Additional Foreign Acquirer Duty, commonly known as AFAD, if it applies to their purchase.

There is an exception for certain self-funded foreign retirees who hold legacy subclass 405 or 410 visas. These visa holders are already exempt from AFAD and are not affected by the announced changes.

These changes may be important for buyers who are not Australian citizens or permanent residents, particularly where they are planning to enter into a contract from 1 August 2026 onwards. 

Please contact our office if you are unsure whether these changes may affect your purchase.

Areas of Expertise

Contractor or Employee? What a Recent Fair Work Decision Means for Businesses

Contractor or Employee? What a Recent Fair Work Decision Means for Businesses

Home » Legal Alert

Contractor or Employee? What a Recent Fair Work Decision Means for Businesses

Author: Robert Lamb, Anthea Sun

}

3 min read

11 Aug 2026

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • ࠂ
    Some direction or oversight of an independent contractor does not, by itself, make them an employee.
  • ࠂ
    When determining whether someone is a contractor or employee, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) will look at the whole relationship - including the terms of the contract and how the arrangement operates in practice.
  • ࠂ
    Businesses engaging contractors should ensure their agreements accurately reflect the intended relationship and, importantly, that the arrangement operates consistently with those terms in practice.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

Businesses engaging independent contractors will often need to provide some level of direction or oversight to ensure work meets their operational and professional requirements.

But when does that oversight become enough to suggest the contractor is actually an employee?

A recent Fair Work Commission decision involving a registered psychologist provides useful guidance for businesses, particularly professional and healthcare practices engaging independent contractors.

The Case

In Williams v Mind Matters Sydney Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1163, a registered psychologist engaged under an Independent Contractor Agreement claimed that, despite the terms of his agreement, the way he worked in practice meant he was actually an employee.

This distinction was important because he was seeking to pursue a general protections dismissal claim under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The psychologist argued that he was effectively an employee because:

  • he was subject to day-to-day supervision;
  • he received instructions about how to perform certain tasks;
  • he was required to complete administrative tasks;
  • he was required to meet Key Performance Indicators (KPIs);
  • he did not have complete freedom to select his clients; and
  • he was required to provide six weeks’ notice to suspend his room rental arrangement.

Mind Matters maintained that he had always been engaged as an independent contractor.

What Did the Fair Work Commission Consider?

The FWC looked at the overall relationship between the psychologist and the practice and found that the way the arrangement operated was consistent with the Independent Contractor Agreement.

Importantly, some of the factors the psychologist relied on did not necessarily point to an employment relationship.

For example, his supervision was a requirement of his professional registration. The administrative requirements and alleged KPIs were also consistent with obligations contained in his contractor agreement.

He retained control over his availability and therefore when he could accept clients.

The FWC also found that a business can place certain requirements on a contractor without automatically creating an employment relationship. Mind Matters could set requirements around when and where services were provided, documentation and professional standards, but it did not control how the psychologist delivered his professional services to clients.

Other practical factors also supported his status as an independent contractor. He worked at another psychology practice, operated as a sole trader, invoiced under his own ABN and charged GST.

The Decision

Looking at the relationship as a whole, the FWC found that the psychologist was an independent contractor, not an employee.

The Independent Contractor Agreement was found to be valid and enforceable, and the way the parties worked together was consistent with its terms. As a result, the psychologist could not pursue his claim on the basis that he had been dismissed as an employee.

What Does This Mean for Businesses?

This decision is a useful reminder that having an Independent Contractor Agreement is important - but the agreement also needs to accurately reflect the relationship in practice.

If your business or practice engages contractors:

  • make sure your contractor agreements clearly reflect the intended working relationship;
  • ensure the way you work with contractors is consistent with those agreements;
  • be mindful of the level and type of control you exercise over contractors; and
  • regularly review contractor arrangements as roles and working practices evolve.

Getting the arrangement right from the outset can help reduce uncertainty and the risk of costly disputes later.

If you engage independent contractors and are unsure whether your agreements or working arrangements appropriately reflect the relationship, our Employment & Industrial Relations team can help.

Contact Robert Lamb or Claudia Molachino on 07 3220 1144, or email our team at email@hillhouse.com.au to discuss your contractor arrangements.

Legal Alert: Employment Law Cost Changes Commencing 30 June and 1 July 2026

Legal Alert: Employment Law Cost Changes Commencing 30 June and 1 July 2026

Home » Legal Alert

Employment Law Cost Changes Commencing 30 June and 1 July 2026

}

3 min read

2 Jul 2026

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • ࠂ
    Employers need to prepare for several significant employment law changes taking effect from 30 June and 1 July 2026.
  • ࠂ
    Payroll systems, superannuation processes and employee pay rates should be reviewed to ensure they reflect the new legal requirements.
  • ࠂ
    Health and pharmacy employers face award-specific wage increases, while all employers need to comply with new superannuation and minimum wage obligations.
  • ࠂ
    Taking proactive steps now can help minimise the risk of underpayments, penalties and workplace disputes.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

A number of significant employment law cost changes commence from 30 June and 1 July 2026. These reforms affect employer obligations relating to superannuation, minimum wages, modern awards and Paid Parental Leave.

Now is the time to ensure your payroll systems, employment practices and workplace policies are up to date.

30 June 2026 

Wage increases to awards found subject to gender-based undervaluation

As part of the Fair Work Commission's gender undervaluation reforms, the following increases take effect from the first full pay period commencing on or after 30 June 2026:

  • The first of five staged wage increases under Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020
  • The second of three phases of wage increases under the Pharmacy Industry Award 2020
  • The first of three increases to minimum rates under the Children’s Services Award 2010

Employers should:

  • Review relevant award/s and identify confirm new rates. The Fair Work Ombudsman Pay and Conditions Tool can provide useful guidance: P.A.C.T Pay Calculator - Find your award
  • Review employee classifications and confirm employees are correctly classified
  • Update payroll systems with to reflect minimum award rates

1 July 2026

Payday Super Begins

Superannuation contributions must now be received by an employee's nominated super fund within seven business days of each payday. This replaces the current quarterly payment system.

Employers should:

  • Review payroll and superannuation processes
  • Consider any cashflow impacts of more frequent super payments
  • Ensure payroll systems can meet the new payment deadlines

New Super Calculation Rules

The Super Guarantee will now be calculated using qualifying earnings (QE) rather than ordinary time earnings (OTE).Qualifying earnings include OTE, commissions and certain salary sacrifice amounts.

Employers should:

  • Review payroll systems
  • Review current remuneration arrangements, particularly commission-based or complex arrangements
  • Confirm superannuation is being calculated correctly

Expanded Paid Parental Leave

Eligible families with children born or adopted on or after 1 July 2026 will be entitled to 26 weeks (130 days) of Government-funded Paid Parental Leave, an increase from the previous entitlement of 24 weeks.

Employers should ensure their parental leave policies and employee communications reflect the expanded scheme.

Superannuation on Paid Parental Leave

The Australian Taxation Office will make superannuation contributions of 12% to current and future recipients of government funded paid parental leave, and to those who received government funded paid parental leave in the 2025-26 financial year.

Minimum Wage Increases

From the first full pay period commencing on or after 1 July 2026:

  • The National Minimum Wage increases to $26.44 per hour ($1,004.90 per week)
  • Modern award minimum wages increase by 4.75% 

Employers should also review salary and annualised wage arrangements to ensure employees remain better off overall.

Employers should:

  • Review employee pay rates
  • Update payroll systems
  • Check annualised salary arrangements remain compliant

What Employers Should Do Now

With multiple changes taking effect within a short period, employers should take the opportunity to review their workplace compliance obligations.

Key actions include:

  • Review award classifications and employee pay rates
  • Update payroll systems for the new wage and superannuation requirements
  • Ensure compliance with the new Payday Super regime
  • Review employment contracts and remuneration arrangements where necessary
  • Update parental leave policies and employee communications

Failure to comply with workplace laws can expose employers to underpayment claims, financial penalties and costly workplace disputes.

If you are unsure how these changes affect your business, require assistance reviewing your employment practices or believe you may have failed to comply with one or more of your workplace law obligations, the Employment & Industrial Relations team at Hillhouse Legal Partners can assist.

Please contact Robert Lamb on (07) 3220 1144 or robert@hillhouse.com.au.

Federal Budget Proposal Signals Major Changes for Testamentary Trusts

Federal Budget Proposal Signals Major Changes for Testamentary Trusts

Home » Legal Alert

Federal Budget Proposal Signals Major Changes for Testamentary Trusts

}

3 min read

28 May 2026

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • ࠂ
    Discretionary Testamentary Trusts have long been recommended as a prudent estate planning strategy for asset protection and tax-effective distribution of assets to beneficiaries.
  • ࠂ
    The Government announced, in the latest Federal Budget, a proposal to impose a minimum 30% tax rate on income from discretionary testamentary trusts established from 1 July 2028, significantly changing their future taxation treatment, while fixed testamentary trusts remain unaffected.
  • ࠂ
    Testamentary trusts established under a Will do not take effect when the Will is signed, but typically arise only after the Will maker’s death and, in most cases, once Probate has been granted and the executor establishes the trusts, which may occur well after 1 July 2028.
  • ࠂ
    It is important to ensure your Estate Plan remains flexible and aligned with changing taxation and succession planning considerations.

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

Discretionary Testamentary Trusts have long formed an important part of many estate plans and we have recommended them to numerous clients over many years. They remain a prudent strategy for asset protection and tax effective distribution of assets to beneficiaries under the law as it has stood for many decades.

As part of the Federal Budget released this month, the Government announced a proposal to impose a minimum tax rate of 30% on the income of discretionary testamentary trusts established from 1 July 2028. This represents a significant change in the law on the future taxation treatment of discretionary testamentary trusts. The change does not apply to other forms of testamentary trusts, including fixed testamentary trusts.

At this stage, the legislation has not yet been finalised or passed by Parliament. Accordingly, the information in this update is subject to the final form of the legislation as passed by Parliament.

It is important to note that the testamentary trusts created under a Will do not actually come into existence when the Will is signed. Rather, testamentary trusts generally only come into existence upon the death of the Will maker at the earliest and, more commonly, shortly thereafter when the executor of the estate establishes the testamentary trusts after Probate is granted. Accordingly, testamentary trusts contemplated under a Will may not come into existence until well after 1 July 2028.

In most cases, our Wills include a provision allowing a beneficiary to direct the executor not to transfer some or all of their entitlement under the Will into a testamentary trust. This clause provides beneficiaries with flexibility to decide at the relevant time whether establishing the testamentary trust remains appropriate, taking into account the taxation and other implications applying at that time.

In some circumstances, clients have instructed us not to include this flexibility. This may occur, for example, where a beneficiary is considered too young or inexperienced to manage an inheritance independently, or where the client specifically wishes to ensure assets remain protected within a Testamentary Trust structure regardless of the beneficiary’s preference. Under the proposed changes, discretionary testamentary trusts of this nature established after 1 July 2028 may become subject to the proposed minimum 30% tax rate.

In light of this significant proposed change to the taxation treatment of discretionary testamentary trusts, now may be an opportune time to review your Wills and broader estate planning arrangements. We have reviewed many Wills that require assets to be transferred into a discretionary testamentary trust and therefore may not provide the same degree of flexibility under the proposed regime.

If you are uncertain whether your current arrangements may be affected, we would be pleased to review your Will and advise whether any changes should be considered. Once the proposed legislation is finalised, we will also be able to provide more specific recommendations as to whether amendments to your Estate Plan or Will may be desirable or necessary.

Key Takeaway

While the proposed changes are not yet law, they highlight the importance of ensuring your Estate Plan remains flexible and aligned with evolving taxation and succession planning considerations. Reviewing your arrangements now may help avoid unintended outcomes for beneficiaries in the future.

 

To arrange a confidential review or discuss your Estate Planning arrangements, please contact Anna Huang and our Wills & Estates team on (07) 3220 1144 or via email at email@hillhouse.com.au.

Areas of Expertise

ACCC v Coles: A Landmark Case in Consumer Protection

ACCC v Coles: A Landmark Case in Consumer Protection

Home » Legal Alert

ACCC v Coles: A Landmark Case in Consumer Protection

}

3 min read

19 May 2026

Share:

  • r
    Key Takeaways
  • ࠂ
    The Federal Court’s findings against Coles over its “Down Down” campaign show that retailers may breach consumer law when advertised discounts are based on prices that were only briefly increased beforehand
  • ࠂ
    The case highlights that even commercially justified price increases can still mislead consumers if “sale” pricing does not reflect a genuine and sustained previous price
  • ࠂ
    The decision sends a strong warning to supermarkets and retailers that discount advertising must accurately represent real consumer savings under Australian Consumer Law

Stay Up-To-Date

Subscribe to receive updates specific to your preferences

ACCC v Coles: A Landmark Case in Consumer Protection

On 14 May 2026, the Federal Court of Australia found that Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Coles) made false or misleading representations about the prices of products, in contravention of sections 18(1) and 29(1)(i) of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

Background

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced proceedings against Coles in September 2024, alleging that it made false or misleading representations about the prices of 245 products (affected products). Separately, a class action was also brought against Coles in relation to those products. The Federal Court previously ordered that liability in both proceedings be determined jointly.

The allegations concerned Coles’ ‘Down Down’ promotional pricing tickets, which advertised discounted prices against a ‘Was’ price. It was alleged that Coles temporarily increased the prices of the affected products by at least 15% for a relatively short period before including those products in its Down Down promotion at prices that were the same as, or higher than, the original prices. The ACCC argued that the discounted prices were not genuine and were therefore false or misleading.

Key issues

The Court considered a sample of 14 affected products and accepted that the Down Down tickets conveyed to ordinary consumers that Coles had discounted the price of those products from the ‘Was’ price and that the discount was genuine.

To determine whether consumers had been misled, Justice O’Bryan considered, in relation to the sampled products:

  1. the reason/s for the price increase prior to inclusion in the Down Down promotion
  2. the extent of the price increase
  3. the number of products sold at the ‘Was’ price
  4. how long the products were sold at the ‘Was’ price

His Honour concluded that:

  1. the price increases were due to increases in supplier costs and were commercially justifiable
  2. the increased prices were not ‘artificially high’
  3. products were sold at the ‘Was’ price in the ordinary course of business and in commercial volumes
  4. products were generally sold at the ‘Was’ price for four weeks, which, having regard to the matters below, was not a reasonable period

In determining what constituted a reasonable period, the Court considered several matters, including a previous internal policy requiring a product to be sold at a particular price for 12 weeks before that price could be advertised as a ‘Was’ price on a Down Down ticket. Notably, that policy had been relaxed due to perceived competitive pressure from Woolworths.

The Court considered that if an ordinary consumer were told a product had been sold at the ‘Was’ price for less than 12 weeks, they would not regard the discount as genuine.

Decision

The Court ultimately found that 13 of the 14 sampled Down Down tickets were misleading because the ‘Was’ prices displayed on the promotional tickets were not maintained for a reasonable period and did not accurately represent the previous prices of the products. As a result, the discounts represented were not genuine and were misleading.

The only sampled Down Down ticket found not to be misleading did not include a ‘Was’ price.

Penalties and other orders sought by the ACCC, as well as compensation sought separately in the class action, are yet to be determined by the Federal Court, although it is anticipated that the amounts involved will be substantial.

Impact for businesses

The judgment serves as an important reminder for businesses to maintain transparency and accuracy in their marketing practices. Businesses should review their promotional strategies and internal policies to ensure strict compliance with the ACL.

If you are unsure about your obligations, please contact us.

 

Areas of Expertise