Thursday, 9 October 2025

 

Jacqueline Maley Tim, a very hearty welcome, and we're excited to have you on. But in the interest of full disclosure, we did actually have Andrew Hastie invited and booked to be our guest this week. He pulled out a few days ago saying that he sort of didn't want to draw too much attention to himself with a long-form interview, I guess. He wanted to keep low profile after having a very high profile for a few weeks there. Just tell our listeners, what do you make of Hastie's departure and the very evident conflict that's playing out within the Liberal Party at the minute.

 

Tim Wilson So you're saying I'm the Steven Bradbury of this interview.

 

Jacqueline Maley Look, we're saying you're a very, very adequate and welcome substitute.

 

Tim Wilson I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you. Well, obviously what's happened in the past couple of weeks is Andrew's decided to step back from the frontbench. Most people chomp at the bits to get on the frontbench when they're in Parliament. He's chosen to voluntarily take a step back. On his words, he said it's over an issue around his carriage over immigration as part of the Home Affairs portfolio. But really, I think it's fair to say what Andrew's done is, he's gone out and said he has a bigger agenda that he wants to prosecute and doesn't wanna be bound by Shadow Cabinet solidarity, which is broadly the principle that if you're a member of the Shadow Cabinet, if it makes the decision that you have to back that in, that's the same on Liberal and Labor sides because if you want people to support what you're going to do, you have to support others in what they're going to do and he just wants to be unshackled by that and go and say what he wants. So now we're all waiting with patient breath to see what it is that he wants to say.

 

Jacqueline Maley And how's that gone down internally within the party? I mean, do you see that as a noble move that he's done the right thing by his colleagues? Because he could have done it in a little sort of quieter way or in a more gracious way, couldn't he?

 

Paul Sakkal Mary Aldred made that point in party room, right? This wasn't a thing that she respected in terms of the way he went about it. Do you share that view?

 

Tim Wilson I think what's become evident to me is that he probably shouldn't have joined Shadow Cabinet in the first place because I think this has been going on for longer than just the past couple of weeks. And I don't say that as a criticism. When I got elected on the 3rd of June because the election was May 3 but I wasn't actually declared until 3 June, I didn't automatically jump at the idea of going into the Shadow Cabinet myself because you have to go through a process, particularly after a feat like that of what's your role and what contribution do you have to make and what's the direction of the party. And, you know, it took a while for me to be convinced to go into the Shadow Cabinet and that, that was the best way to prosecute arguments. But the truth is also, at this time, the Party needs everyone, every hand on deck, I think, to sort of pick itself up and give people a sense of hope for the future. And that's the approach I've taken. So Andrew's gone off and made his decision. The question now is, what is he actually going to put forward that he wants to prosecute. Because really, the approach he's taken is to say, well, I'm going to go outside of the normal party processes. He's now going to develop something which he's now going to try and essentially remake the priorities of the entire Party on. That's a very substantial move, and it's one that's fraught with difficulty because there's the world you want, there's the world that we live in. And I always start with the world we live in and how do we then take that world towards a more liberal vision rather than starting from the world I want and trying to get reality to conform to it.

 

Paul Sakkal Just on your Steven Bradbury point, even if you did Steven Bradbury on, our last two guests, as we said just before the show, were the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader, so you're still in esteemed company, so thanks for coming on.

 

Jacqueline Maley And they were not nearly as fun as you Tim.

 

Paul Sakkal Yeah, don't get too big a head. You and him have an interesting career trajectory and kind of you relate to each other in an interesting way. Came in at almost the exact same time.

 

Tim Wilson He came out in 2015 at a by-election, I came in, in 2016, yeah.

 

Paul Sakkal Similar, similarly big ambitions the two of you have, I think it's fair to say without you going into that, I don't need to address that, but you've been put forward in some, but by some commentators as a kind of person who embodies the vision on the moderate side of the party. One path for the party, him on the other flank. He's also a bit of a lone wolf, he's not from the east coast, doesn't have the same connections as someone like you who's been institutionalised in the party for a long time. How do you relate to him at a personal level and also what do you make of him as a character in the party? How do you locate him? What's he like?

 

Tim Wilson So when I was first elected in 2016, Andrew and I sat next to each other in Parliament and we made a conscious choice, and I don't want to break confidences and I don't think I am, but we made a very conscious choice that we were likely to be in Parliament for a long time together. Obviously, I had a three-year walkabout, whereas he did not, to get along. And I have very warm affection for him personally and I do. And we've, at different points, traded books and challenged our own ideas. And, you know, I've given his kids Christmas presents and those sorts of things. So we've actually always had a very warm relationship, and he's a warm person. But he has, you now, a very different background to what I do. He's very security focused because of his background, obviously, in the SAS. I'm much more academic. He's studied things like business economics more recently. And so we come at issues from different perspectives, but we actually have a lot of common ground as well. We're both very focused on national unity, what it is we need to build out for the future of Australia. I'm probably a bit more retail in my politics, he is probably a bit more romantic, I think it would be fair to say. So I think we actually have a really interesting complementarity between the two of us. We sometimes end up in the same place with very different views but of course there have been debates in the past where we unintentionally led to a nationwide boycott of Coopers beer because we talked about the issue of same-sex marriage over a beer where we both had diametrically opposite views. And so I think we're an interesting pair in that sense because on a lot of issues we genuinely do end up in the same place, but, you know, he's talking about re-industrialisation. If you go and look at my campaign launch speech back on the 29th of March of this year, I explicitly talk about re-industrialising the country. He said it sort of subsequently, and that's not to take ownership of it. We actually have very similar views about what we need to do to build the strength of this country, why it matters, how we're going to do it, but again, how do we best prosecute that.

 

Jacqueline Maley So what you're describing there is basically a platonic ideal of the conservative wing of the Liberal Party and the moderate wing or whatever it is that you call your sort of wing of the Liberal Party, disagreeing respectfully, having dialogue across the table. But that is not at all the public front of the Liberal Party the last few weeks in particular. What the public is seeing is division, infighting, leaking Jacinta Nampijinpa Price this week has called your party, her party, a clown show or said it's resembled a clown show. I'm not saying any of those things are true, but that is the public perception. And I just would like you to sort of explain to listeners what you guys are fighting about. What is the existential war that's happening here? Because you know, the sensible policy points are maybe net zero and immigration. Is that what it's really about, or is it something deeper about the soul of the party?

 

Tim Wilson I actually think it's a much bigger conversation about the soul of the country, actually.

 

Jacqueline Maley Wow, okay.

 

Tim Wilson And that's why I want to emphasise the points of commonality rather than the points of difference, because I think what we've had is we've gone through a period of 30 years of peace and prosperity, where as a nation we've taken a lot of comfort from things like post-Cold War global economic integration. We've basically extracted our security dividend as a society. We've lived in a period of incredible prosperity and in many ways, there's been, of course, a period where we've been able to focus on how do we perfect our society, address historical disadvantage and injustices. We haven't perfected everything. But now we're going back to a time where we need to focus on the majority again, because we need to kind of secure the nation. And that's partly, I think, what's motivating some of the things that Andrew and others are doing. And so, the challenge in politics, though, is how do you take people with you on that journey. Because the public, I think, are looking at our times, they're anxious, economically, I think in a security sense, and they're anxious, but they want to be led through those times, but they want a sense of hope and vision for the future. They don't want to be led through fear. And I think what we need to position towards is a vision that's focused on hope about how we can be the trusted partner to walk alongside Australians.

 

Jacqueline Maley Is it just an issue of style, though, and messaging, as you're saying, or are there fundamental kind of policy issues or ideological issues and fissures that just can't be mended?

 

Tim Wilson Well, there absolutely are other issues. I'm not trying to pretend otherwise. But I do think they can be mended. I think the risk is that we get caught taking the bait of our opponents.

 

Jacqueline Maley Which is?

 

Tim Wilson Well, I think net zero is a classic example of this. Labor wants us to be debating this issue. The Greens want us to be debating this issue, the Teals want us to be debating this issue...

 

Jacqueline Maley Well, you're fulfilling their wishes nicely, aren't you?

 

Tim Wilson Well, I can assure you I am not, but others are.

 

Paul Sakkal You want to keep net zero, right? In some way, shape or form?

 

Tim Wilson What I want is I want to have a debate about how we get net zero price increases, net zero outages, and also, of course, the trade-off from that is, yeah, I don't really mind if we get net zero emissions as part of that, but you've got to get the hierarchy right. The problem at the moment is the government. Is put net zero emissions above price considerations, national security, everything else. Now, I'm not trying to run lines. That's actually structurally a problem.

 

Paul Sakkal But keep the net zero commitment.

 

Tim Wilson Happily keep the commitment.

 

Paul Sakkal With greater emphasis on other priorities.

 

Tim Wilson So long as we keep it on a more even keel.

 

Jacqueline Maley Well, hang on, that's not really necessarily keeping the commitment as a first order priority. You're saying that that's the government's first order of priority at the expense of...

 

Tim Wilson Of everything else. And what I'm saying is it should be on an even keel with other issues and priorities because when we committed to net zero in 2021, emissions were on the same level as price, reliability, national security, sovereignty. What Labor did was they legislated a target and put it above all of those other considerations. And that's part of the reason why there's a problem.

 

Jacqueline Maley But Tim, you're an intelligent person and you've read a lot about this stuff. I don't think anyone can credibly say that a move to a net zero emissions policy is not going to cost anyone any money, nor is the alternative of not moving to net zero emissions not going to cost any money. It's going to cost us either way.

 

Tim Wilson There's definitely consequences either way. The idea that if you just scrap net zero, we're suddenly going to have cheaper prices. When people email me because we deal with this every day, where people email and say, scrap net zero. And get this very abrupt email and I always reply back and say what do you think will happen if we do it? And people sort of say, well, prices will come down. And I say, well, how? Because inevitably, what they think is, well suddenly, new coal firepower stations will pop up, the price of energy will collapse, etc. And it's like, no, that's not going to happen. And you step through why that won't happen. Because this is a problem that's been 20 years in the making. It's a problem about multi-decade investment around baseload energy generation, which is where we're now getting into a very dry topic, but it's one that I'm very interested in, but I'm aware of how dry it is. And if it's multi-decades in the making, it's going to take a while to turn around. But you can still disagree with what the government's doing. I think what the governments doing is reckless, and they're not setting the country best up for the future, which is one of the reasons I've always been very supportive of nuclear, but that will take time too, I'm not arguing with that. So what we need to be doing is focused on what do we need do to get more energy into the grid, to get prices down, because if you get prices down, public acceptance and social licence around emissions reduction will actually improve, but the more prices go up, the more support for emissions reduction goes down and that's actually why the Government's got the priorities wrong.

 

Jacqueline Maley That's actually a really good point.

 

Paul Sakkal Do you reckon you'll lose your seat if you drop net zero entirely? If you went down the Hastie route, you couldn't win Goldstein, right?

 

Tim Wilson I don't agree with that but equally I think that's a massive hypothetical because I don't think we're going to. I think where we're going to end up is with a policy framework which is focused on back to where we were, which is a much better sense of balance, which still very much contrasts with Labor's position but those are things that I'll have to deal with in one sense because Andrew's obviously one of the key persons who stood up and made their case against it has stepped out. He's free to say whatever he wants and then Shadow Cabinets call him to bind a policy position.

 

Jacqueline Maley Are you being a little bit sort of wilfully naive there though to think that opposition to net zero is just going to magically fall away if you guys get the arguments right?

 

Tim Wilson No, not at all, but I think if you, everything's energy, and I don't mean in the energy debate, I mean in politics, people's energy. People want to fight for something, they want to fight for the future of the country. And we need to channel their energy and give them pathways to do so. And that's in part what's building up at the moment is people are very disappointed with the election result. Fair enough, I am too. They want a pathway forward where they can fight for people, to improve the country and we need to provide the outlets for them to do so. What's happening is there's a whole bunch of people in the media saying well, the way to do that is to scrap net zero, so they're going, okay, fine, we'll pile in behind that. We need to find other channels and avenues to pursue that conversation.

 

Paul Sakkal Just on the path forward and back to the avenue that Andrew Hastie is charting for you guys. It feels like what you're saying is that both sides of the party agree that the Howard consensus is over. You need to find a new pathway forward to reenergise centre-right politics. You need something new. On the one hand, you have Hastie and Jacinta Price and others looking overseas, understandably looking at Trump and Farage and thinking that looks exciting, that's creating a buzz. There is energy there. I find it understandable that some want to go down that path. On the other side, you have people like Arthur Sinodinos, Amanda Vanstone pushing back against that and saying, we need to revert back to our core ideas. But their arguments sometimes feel hollow and beige and there's not, it's not clear what their alternative vision is that provides hope and energy. How do you make a compelling argument on the other side to Hastie and Price and say, this is the path forward while still talking about ideas around culture, national identity, but doing it in a way that's palatable.

 

Tim Wilson I think this is a critical question, actually, because people say, you know, you want the Party to be more moderate, or you want to Party to more conservative. I don't think the party needs to be, more moderate nor conservative, I think it needs to be bigger Liberal. And this is, and I'll explain what that means, because I did this in my campaign where, you know, we were proudly, assertively Liberal in the sense of offering a vision about where we wanted to go and why we wanted go there, and that includes being assertive about who we are, not just a political movement, but what we actually want for the country. That's the point of having a vision. And I think that's what's frankly been missing for a long time, and certainly in the last Parliament. Because you get around debates around things like migration. And we get in this debate about, well, now we're going to get debate about numbers. Well, actually, what Liberals should want from new Australians is unity, integration and loyalty. The numbers obviously do matter in a technical sense. But, the extent to which we can do things proportionally should be based on can we successfully integrate people for their interests and ours, I need to be clear. Whether new Australians are going to be loyal to our country and you go to any citizenship ceremony and it's very clear that that's what we expect of new Australians. And of course, that they're going to become full participants in the Australian way of life. And I said this in my kind of second first speech to the Parliament. One, I think one of the biggest challenges we have now is we don't have a story for our country that new Australians can integrate into.

 

When I was growing up, the way the history of our country was taught was kind of from 1788 onwards and until kind of 1988, which was, you know, make it great in 88. And then you can kind of tell my age and pedigree. But what seems now is we've kind of taught a pre-1788 version, then we kind of skipped to 1958 and missed the bit in between. That's a bit simplistic, but that's kind of how it feels at least to me. Whereas actually... If you want a culturally confident nation, and I do, a united nation and I do, it doesn't much matter. And Menzies, by the way, the founder of my party, was very clear on this. You know, bring yourselves, bring out every part of your personality and your history and your culture, your race, your ethnicity. It doesn't matter, but make a meaningful contribution because what people want is people are going to make an investment and we should be selling that story about people being massive contributors to our country.

 

Jacqueline Maley No, you talked before about the Liberal energy and the, you know passionately selling Liberal values. This is what you're talking about, sort of passionately, proactively making this kind of a case in the context of, say, a debate about immigration, as opposed to talking about so-called mass migration, which is a phrase I use very cautiously because it's parroting a certain sort of ideological agenda. Is this the way that you should be talking about immigration? Should you also be selling the benefits of immigration, because particularly to the large constituency of migrants or people with non-English speaking backgrounds that the Liberal Party has kind of lost.

 

Tim Wilson Well, I look at new Australians and I say, firstly, we keep saying we want to be a Party of aspiration.

 

Jacqueline Maley Yeah.

 

Tim Wilson Right. So you can't be a party of aspiration unless you're on the side of the aspiring. So you're on the side of the young and new Australians always. You want an open society so they can get ahead. Anyone who has come to this country has already said, I'm going to chance my hand to risk my past, to throw myself into the great vortex of a new unknown world. And that is an energy and enthusiasm for which it must be channelled. And then of course, you're naturally more likely to go on and make a greater contribution. So, you know, I'm somebody who looks at New Australians and go, yep, I am not keen on people giving easy pathways to welfare pathways. I am very keen on giving pathways to get people to channel that energy, to build small businesses, to be economic contributors, to be successful participants in our society. And absolutely, that is what we should be seeing to aspire to because that is the lived reality of what it means, I believe, to be a Liberal. It's that spark of aspiration, which you've already demonstrated by taking that great risk of coming here.

 

Jacqueline Maley Just quickly, you're a bit of a unicorn in Parliament because, and in the Liberal Party, because you won back a Teal seat and all the others are kind of gone and they don't look like they're coming back anytime soon. What is your advice or what is your sort of, you know, the guiding principle if the Liberal Party wants to win back those inner-metropolitan seats that have just abandoned them?

 

Tim Wilson Hope. It sounds trite, but it's...

 

Paul Sakkal It does sound a little trite.

 

Tim Wilson No no it is.

 

Jacqueline Maley More specifically, do you need to focus more on the economy? Do you need talk about immigration? Do you need to, you know, make a strong commitment to net zero? What is it that those voters want that you gave them?

 

Tim Wilson So what I think voters want, is they want someone who they can trust, who's obviously invested in the community, but they can trust because I think what the Teals do more than anything else is they trade on trust and I think they've abused that trust, but they'll obviously disagree with me on that. But when you get elected on a platform of doing things like saying you're going to scrap fossil fuel subsidies and climate change is the most important thing to you, then you vote for $3 billion of new ones. I think it's absurd that you can then say trust is your central thesis. But I think, yes, they want us to focus on the economy, but I think what those sort of Teal-ish communities want is, I actually think they want us to be bigger Liberals. I don't think they...

 

Jacqueline Maley Big Liberal energy.

 

Tim Wilson Big Liberal energy because they're by their nature, they're aspirational communities. They're people who have often done well, but what they actually want is they want a better future for their kids and they also want a better future, for the rest of the country. They actually feel a greater sense of responsibility, for the rest of the country. I always talk about Goldstein when I say if the rest of the country was more like Goldstein, we'd be a better nation. Now, yes, of course, I'm obviously very fond of the community that elected me to Parliament.

 

Jacqueline Maley Controversial.

 

Tim Wilson But I actually believe it because it's a community of people who care for each other, who take responsibility. There is not just big Liberal energy, but there is big small business and aspiration energy. And the more we instil that across the rest of the country, the more, you have people who stand on their own two feet, and not just that, they turn around to others and help them stand on to their own two feet too. Liberalism has many dimensions to it, but if anything it is about that sort of mutual dependency and support that we give to each other, because that's the strength of our country. It doesn't come from kind of Canberra down. It comes from families, communities, supporting each other and fellow citizens.

 

Paul Sakkal I'm really interested in your comments there on new Australians, because you could easily have been substituted Tony Abbott into your seat making similar arguments. It reminded me of his line, you know, Team Australia, not Hotel Australia, without using terms like that. But to me, you are not someone who would share the view that some of your colleagues like Andrew Bragg and others repeatedly say, which is, we can't engage in culture wars. You're interested in those same questions of culture. You believe in the one flag argument that Andrew Hastie believes in. You're very keen on integration, which is a contentious topic among some on the left and probably some in your Party. Why have moderates, I know you don't like to call yourself a moderate, but you're on the left of the Party. Why have you guys seemingly seeded ground on all of these questions around culture and national identity to the right of your Party, why are you not engaged in the fight publicly on these matters? Not, not just you, but the moderates in your Party. Why are you seen to be scared to talk about these issues? How do you win back that argument?

 

Tim Wilson Well, I'm not sure that I'm afraid of these arguments at all, I've come onto your podcast and...

 

Paul Sakkal But that's the perception. Moderates don't fight.

 

Jacqueline Maley What Paul and I were talking about was this, you know, the right-wingers are able to take up so much space and so much public attention with this stuff, and they get a lot of oxygen, but we don't always hear moderates or, you know, left-wingers such as yourself come out.

 

Tim Wilson Can I just...

 

Jacqueline Maley You tell us, how do you identify?

 

Tim Wilson I think there'd be a lot of people who would find it very challenging not just me, to call me a left-winger.

 

Paul Sakkal Left of the party.

 

Tim Wilson No no I wouldn't even accept that.

 

Jacqueline Maley You don't like being called a moderate, tell us what you like being called.

 

Tim Wilson Well no, because this is, and I made this point before, is that I don't believe the Party should be more moderate or conservative. If anything, call me a big Liberal. I'm not going to take that to moniker.

 

Jacqueline Maley Big Liberal, okay. The big Liberals within the party are not, don't seem to be so good at taking the fight up to the conservatives and articulating their arguments forcefully in public and creating attention the way that, you know, Andrew Hastie and Jacinta Price have recently.

 

Tim Wilson Well, I think one of the challenges of a big Liberal is that there's so many different battle lines that are drawn. I want to fight on and stand up for and fight for Australians on the economy, on social inclusion, because sitting behind issues of culture is social inclusion. I mean, I believe very strongly in a socially Liberal society and respectful society, and sitting behind that you actually have to have a culturally inclusive and respectful society as well. So, I don't know why others may not choose to prosecute these arguments, but I don't think I've ever been afraid to. Even some of the debates, this is, I don't know how some of my colleagues perceive me, but I don't think most of them would say that I'm afraid of a fight. I think most would say that I'm quite happy to but you always got to pick your battles.

 

Jacqueline Maley On a more personal note, Tim, as you mentioned before, you sat out the last term of Parliament.

 

Tim Wilson I'm not sure that was voluntary, but anyway.

 

Jacqueline Maley Not voluntarily. What did you learn in that time? Was it a time of reflection for you? Was it a humbling time? What did you sort of glean in terms of observations sitting on the outside looking in?

 

Tim Wilson So it would be wrong to say it wasn't a humbling time. It has to be because I made a very conscious decision. My husband gave me very good advice and then I chose to take it, which is you've got to look at this as a gift. Now he probably saw it more as a gift as an opportunity to move on from politics. And instead we spent three years in purgatory as I insatiably calculated my way back in. But it was a gift because you got to reflect on the Government, the Party, you know, yourself, the community, where it was at, what led to their decision, their behaviour. But there was also a lot of other more mundane and prosaic things like campaign and campaign structure. And so I'm the first to say that I'm a better politician for it. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I spent a lot of time thinking about those things and ruminating.

 

But I think, actually, one of the things that I really came back with was a sense of perspective, which is you have great privilege for three years, and it's very much a three-year time frame, and you go for contract renewal, and whatever it is, so be it. And that you've just got to be yourself. And I don't think I was ever not myself, but I'm not going to always say that I was my best self. Or that you were sometimes thinking about moves and steps ahead rather than actually saying, actually I've got a job to do. I'm very proud of the community that I represented and I really, obviously, I'm extremely proud and I'm incredibly privileged to have had their trust again. But that I'm in this to do great things for our community and our country, how chips will land so be it. And I don't spend waking hours thinking about or over-complicating or over-thinking things now because I just look at it and think what an enormous privilege it is that I've had.

 

Paul Sakkal We spoke when you decided to run again in Goldstein after a period of soul-searching.

 

Tim Wilson You can break, you can break the trust if you want.

 

Paul Sakkal It was on the record.

 

Tim Wilson No, I know.

 

Paul Sakkal It was a good chat we had, but on the record, you said at the time that, you know, you acknowledged that there was a perception of you as someone who was sometimes arrogant, sometimes went about things in a way that was polarising and annoyed people. How have you changed your, have you changed into personally in the way you deal with colleagues or the way deal with your electorate since then? Do you feel like a different kind of character?

 

Tim Wilson No, I think people, I think actually it's slightly different, which is, I think, I don't think people know me. And I think because I've sort of spent most of my adult life in public life, which is a bit odd actually, when you think about it.

 

Jacqueline Maley It's a strange way to live.

 

Tim Wilson It is a strange way to live, but all the way back to when I was President of the Student Union many, many years ago now, and I'm not expecting everyone to remember that or observe that. But sort of since about 25, I've actually been in different capacities in modest ways in public life, and people build up caricatures of who you are. And I don't think most people kind of knew who I was, and so I think they built these caricatures. I don't think all of them were always flattering, and then some people also, I think, took advantage of that. And so what I've tried to be, I've obviously had a chance to reintroduce myself, but I'm trying to be, much more very clearly, tell my story through as much as possible, about who I am from, whether it's, you know, thanks for giving me the chance to do it, Paul! Talking about all the ways since having a job since age 11, and that, you now, I have worked very hard for everything I've got and, you know, I think there are a lot of people who enjoyed watching me be slapped down in 2022 and it gave a lot of people a lot of satisfaction.

 

Paul Sakkal Why do you think this is? So your view is that there's a misconception of you as someone who is highly privileged?

 

Tim Wilson Yeah, I do think there is that because, and I'm not trying to, I don't have a log cabin story either. I’m not pretending that. But I think people misunderstand, you know, my Dad mowed lawns, my Mum worked in pubs.

 

Jacqueline Maley For a living?

 

Tim Wilson Yeah.

 

Paul Sakkal Your Mum owned pubs?

 

Tim Wilson Well my mum worked in pubs and they managed pubs when I was younger. And you know I started my first paper route at age 11. I was a waiter through most of my teenage years. And so I'm not suggesting any way, shape or form that I've had a hard life, but at the same time, you know the second part of my childhood was a complete disaster over crisis of confidence about my sexuality. I'd go into a lot more detail, but it's, you know, all I've done is I've just seized life and gone partly because of that crux at the age, second part of my childhood, over the crisis of confidence of my sexuality. I've always had this, I don't know how you put it, but almost kind of fear that, I'm only ever moments away from perhaps not life not going the way I want to and so you just throw yourself in it with the level of confidence that probably throws people, but it's just naturally who I am. And I'm just not kind of afraid, but I think people find that pretty off-putting.

 

So I guess I’m just now, I think people enjoyed watching me be slapped down, but I think equally most people thought, well, he's a hip from his background, what they assumed he's never going to get up from that. And then, and it's been interesting watching some Labor members of Parliament, where I think they oddly have this strange kind of regard for people who pull themselves back up because they know a lot of people in that situation. And I've noticed even their dynamic change towards me as a person, because they've watched and they've gone like, jeepers, you're actually not what we thought.

 

Jacqueline Maley So you've earned a little bit of respect then.

 

Tim Wilson Well, among some people, I'm not saying everybody.

 

Jacqueline Maley Tim, we've so enjoyed having you, and I'm particularly excited that you are a fellow you also had a paper around at age 11, because I had one too.

 

Tim Wilson Did you?

 

Jacqueline Maley And I apologise to anyone who never got their copy of the North Shore Times.

 

Tim Wilson How many could you carry though? That's the thing. It's terrifying.

 

Jacqueline Maley It was terrible. Like, I was the worst, worst paper deliverer girl. My bike wasn't big enough, you know, the North Shore Times really should never have employed me for $2 a week or whatever else I got.

 

Tim Wilson $2? That's expensive for that!

 

Jacqueline Maley No, that was what I was getting paid.

 

Tim Wilson Oh, that's what you were getting paid.

 

Jacqueline Maley Or thereabouts... yeah it was slave labour.

 

Tim Wilson I think I was about $4 or something, I don't think I was getting penalty rates or super...

 

Jacqueline Maley We should have unionised Tim.

 

Paul Sakkal He would have busted the union.

 

Tim Wilson No, no, I would have ended up leading the union, you know, you fundamentally misunderstand me.

 

Jacqueline Maley Could have gone so differently for you.

 

Tim Wilson Well, I was a union leader, at university.

 

Jacqueline Maley There you go, there you go. Tim, we've loved getting to know you a little bit more on this podcast. We'd love to have you on again, again with your big Liberal energy. Thank you, Tim.