Tim Wilson MP

Shadow Treasurer

Interview on ABC Afternoon Briefing with Patricia Kervelas

Topics: Shadow Treasury, Taxation

E&OE

Patricia Karvelas: Let's turn to the opposition now. Tim Wilson is the new shadow treasurer and had his first full day in the job. And I spoke to him a short time ago. Tim Wilson, welcome to the programme and congratulations.

 

Tim Wilson MP: Thank you, Patricia.

 

Patricia Karvelas: New wages data out today. The treasurers says we need to look at the nominal rate and the nominal rate does show that wages have actually grown in the last few years. Clearly inflation is still the issue. Everyone acknowledges that. Do you accept that premise?

 

Tim Wilson MP: Well I think the response from the Treasurer is cute. Australians are living the consequences of the Albanese inflation agenda and the reality is all the numbers have done today is confirm what Australians have lived through. Which is that wages annualised, are not keeping up with inflation. Inflation is outstripping and people are seeing not just inflation that's undermining their standard of living and their wages, they are also seeing it in the price spike of things like health insurance, which have grown faster than inflation, so wages are down and prices are up.

 

Patricia Karvelas: If you drill down into the data, and the ACTU has been making this point, that workers on collective agreements are getting ahead more, wage growth averaging 4.1%, but people on individual contracts are just 3%. They say that shows the case for unions, does it?

 

Tim Wilson MP: What it shows is that, more and more, those that are getting a pay rise are those who are working for the public sector and it's being paid for by those who create wealth in the private sector. That's why our economy is out of kilter and out of wack.

 

Patricia Karvelas: But they're also on collective agreements, right? That's a fact, so you're getting better wages if you're on collective agreements.

 

Tim Wilson MP: Well, most of the collective agreements that operate in the economy sit into one of two areas, either in the public sector specifically or in areas where people are being paid wages that are being financed by the taxpayers. So that's why we have eight out of ten jobs Australia wide have been created by direct and indirect expenditure from taxpayers, two out of ten by the private sector. We have an employment crisis and that is leading to a poorer future for every Australian because we're not growing the economy, and that's what's so fundamentally wrong with the economic model that is governing Australia right now, and why we need change.

 

Patricia Karvelas: Everyone agrees that productivity is a big problem for Australia. The government acknowledges it as well. What would you do immediately to lift productivity?

 

Tim Wilson MP: I think the key to productivity is driving an agenda hard, that empowers small and family businesses and the self-employed to be back at the centre of the economy. What you need is an economic system that actually encourages and incentivises work and then for Australians to back themselves and to be part of a dynamic economy. Rather than anaesthetising the economy as Jim Chalmers has done in the hope that somehow something's dramatically going to improve. We should want to empower Australians to be their own CEOs, not simply allow people to survive on the safety of a salary.

 

Patricia Karvelas: Okay, but that sounds like a good motherhood statement, but specifically, how does what you just say change anything about productivity?

 

Tim Wilson MP: Well because people become masters of their own destiny and they actually see the reward from their effort because hard work pays off. The challenge at the moment is there is too much in the economy where you can work for a large corporate or for a public sector agency and it doesn't matter what level of input you make, there's no significant improvement in output. That's what productivity is. It's actually about how we get people to back themselves, how we can get people to focus on growing the economy, not just for themselves, but for, their small businesses, but also for every Australian, because interest in our alignment to how people get ahead and hard work pays off.

 

Patricia Karvelas: So you're the new shadow Treasurer. It's a significant job for any opposition. So let's cross off some maybe economic sacred cows to see where you stand. Capital gains tax. Are you a, wait, wait wait wait, the question's coming. Are you are hard no on changing capital gains tax and the discount?

 

Tim Wilson MP: What I'm a hard no on is thinking that if you increase taxes on something you want to encourage, being more homes built, it's going to deliver a better outcome for Australians. So what I want to see is incentives in alignment in the economy where if you do something it's rewarded if it's not just going to contribute to your own benefit but to the whole of the community. And putting high taxes on housing only does one thing, which is slow. And we see this in Victoria right now, where you have increased land tax, vacant property taxes. Now, in theory, for some people, that might sound good. What has it done? It's stopped new constructions in Victoria. There are less houses. And as a consequence, people will pay more in rents. And they'll pay more for the price of buying for their first home.

 

Patricia Karvelas: So you're against any changes to these property taxes, negative gearing, capital gains tax?

 

Tim Wilson MP: Well, absolutely, until there's a compelling case about how adding more taxes is somehow going to improve, housing.

 

Patricia Karvelas: I don't think it has to be, so I think that's a really narrow way of seeing it. You can change something and actually give back perhaps the taxation in another way, in a different targeted way. You know this, it's called a sort of broader tax reform package.

 

Tim Wilson MP: Well, that's a much bigger conversation than the question you just asked me about, Patricia.

 

Patricia Karvelas: So I'm wondering, not on its own, in isolation, within a broader package, do you think there's a case for changing those taxes? Because you've focused before on intergenerational fairness.

 

Tim Wilson MP: I love how everybody's quoting my book back to me, the new social contract renewing the liberal vision for Australia. 

 

Patricia Karvelas: You're quoting your own book to me, too, in the most, you know, post-modern interview I've done, but just take me to the substance, on a broader level, do you think we need tax reforms which deals with some of these taxes? That doesn't mean you take it all and that's it, perhaps redistributing it in a different way to the groups that you think need to get ahead.

 

Tim Wilson MP: Well, I absolutely believe that we need broader tax reform. I've said this consistently for years, but there's different ways you can approach tax reform, one can be redistributive, which you've just outlined. I don't think that's the best way to pursue tax reform. I think tax reform should be focused on how we incentivise the type of behaviour that we want to grow the economy, to incentivise people to work and for hard work to pay off and more importantly to broaden the constituency of Australians. Who fundamentally believe that their best interests are aligned with starting up a small business, a family business, or becoming self-employed. I have a very different vision for how it is we should achieve tax reform, rather than the labor model, which is focused either on increasing revenue or trying to change society or change the economy so that it empowers government or big capital interests or big corporates.

 

Patricia Karvelas: Do you agree with your colleague Andrew Bragg who thinks that the idea of having super being able to be used for housing is the wrong solution now?

 

Tim Wilson MP: Well, I don't think he said that at all.

 

Patricia Karvelas: Yes, he has. No, he absolutely has. To me, absolutely. He says that that is essentially it's inflationary to housing.

 

Tim Wilson MP: Well, I'm afraid I can't agree with that. What is inflationary to housing is broad, consistent measures introduced by government. And we've seen this consistently in the data, whereas empowering people to use their own money to be able to buy an asset, it doesn't have the same effect because there isn't the same level of revealed information, or consistent information. So it's misdiagnosed. I know it's put out there a lot by superannuation funds because they like to control your money. They don't want you to control money. The most important thing is to have a policy package that incentivises young Australians to be able to buy their own home, and of course the earlier people buy it, the cheaper they buy it. I think it's, you know, barmy that we have this situation where young Australians get money taken off them at 16 to 18 to be about to save for their retirement in more than 40 years, 50 years into the future. When they're buying homes later, at higher prices, and of course increasingly they're getting to retirement and they may not even have paid off the home they need to live in in their retirement.

 

Patricia Karvelas: So you still support the idea? You still support the idea, it's policy you've taken to the last couple of elections, of having superannuation being used towards first homes.

 

Tim Wilson MP: Well, there's different ways that you can drive the policy proposal. The original one put up two election cycles I thought was too timid. I thought the one we took the last election was too timid, but that doesn't lock me into saying that the only way to deal with this challenge is to expand the existing one. I'm simply about priorities. If you had have said in 1992 when superannuation systems went from voluntary to compulsory, that it was more important to have, to prioritise superannuation ahead of homeownership, people would have said you were mad. Paul Keating himself acknowledged that the compulsory system undermined homeownership and actually made the case about why there should be change to put housing first or homeownership first and super second. In that sense, I agree with him because the benefits of homeownership exists during your working life and your retirement. Particularly, we need to make that a lot of women who can't afford to buy the first home.And go into retirement renting, who then therefore are more at risk of poverty, have a pathway for security in retirement. This is the right, the broad front policy prioritisation is in the best interests of every Australian.

 

Patricia Karvelas: Just on the kind of other portfolios, Andrew Hastie has been given this role of Minister for Industry and Sovereign Capability. Do you share his views on the car industry leaving Australia, for instance, he's blamed Liberals as well, Liberal governments, for allowing that to happen?

 

Tim Wilson MP: Well, I look at the broader geopolitical environment that we operate in, and there has been a change in global supply chains. You see this in critical minerals. It was exposed during COVID. So there is a need to address some of the issues of resilience at the heart of our economy. That to me is not in question really by anybody. The question is how you do it. I simply look at where our competitive advantages lie and making sure we're adding value on top of those. We obviously have that in traditional sectors like mining and food and agriculture. But there are flow on industries that do succeed in Australia that are part of manufacturing like mining manufacturers. We see this with heavy industry, particularly in parts of southeast of Melbourne for things like trucks. I think that we've we've sold ourselves a pup about the Australian economy, which is that it's just a quarry and a farm. Yes, that's part of the Australian Economy, but there's a lot more to it. We need to be taking advantage of those.

 

Patricia Karvelas: More subsidies then for more critical industries given the geopolitical environment?

 

Tim Wilson MP: I think that's simplistic reasoning. The objective has to be what we're incentivising to build industries, to value add on our competitive advantage but also against global supply chains. You know, this often sounds convoluted but it's true. There are some sectors that we as a nation will not succeed in. There are others that we will and that we survive and export to the world. The key thing is we've got to be competitive because you can build up an industry, if there isn't a buyer for it then you're just spending a lot of good money after bad and you're not going to be able to survive in isolation.

 

Patricia Karvelas: Pauline Hanson's comments have been very contentious in relation to Muslims. Do you think she's fit to lead a political party?

 

Tim Wilson MP: I certainly don't and never have believed she's fit to lead a political party because I mean what she said is clearly just designed to draw attention to herself and that's politics, it's been her way for a very long period of time, so I don't see any fundamental change. I think she's becoming desperate and revealing her true personality and character and I think it's disappointing. We should actually want to bring this country together. We should have a nation built on respect where we have a sense of common purpose and unity. And it's simply absurd to suggest what she has gone on to suggest.

 

Patricia Karvelas: Yeah, so does that mean that, you know, when it comes to preference deals and so forth with One Nation, given the extreme comments she's made, that the Liberal Party should be quite extreme back and say no deals with One Nation?

 

Tim Wilson MP: Well, the challenge we have these days with a lot of political parties on the fringes like the Greens, like One Nation, even some of the Teals, is they say increasingly inflammatory things to draw attention to themselves. We've had rampant anti-Semitism, we've had other outrageous behaviour, including from Senator Hanson recently, and this is a problem. We should be wanting to have a strong political centre focused on how we enhance the country. Bring people together around a nation of respect, and that's why, you know, they all swim towards the bottom of the ballot paper. The question is, when you get to it, trying to pick which one should be.

ENDS