Sunday 17 August 2025

E&OE

David Speers:

Tim Wilson, welcome to the program.

Tim Wilson:

Happy Sunday, David.

David Speers:

Happy Sunday. Well, a "warm meeting with a strong guy", says Donald Trump. Does it worry you the US President has now adopted the Russian President's position on this?

Tim Wilson:

Of course, we're very cautious about what's gone on over the past 24 hours and what's going to come on in the coming days. The reality is there needs to be any sort of arrangement needs to be deeply involved with Kyiv, and making sure they have genuine agreement in any decision-making going forward. We haven't got absolutely clear signals about what it is they're going to do, but we're cautious about it, we're watching it very closely. Because the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia is not something that we've ever been prepared to tolerate, and anything going forward needs the Ukrainians on board as part of a lasting resolution towards peace.

David Speers:

Yeah I mean Boris Johnson, the former British PM, has called this meeting in Alaska just about the most vomit inducing episode in the tawdry history of international diplomacy. I'm not sure if you're going to use language quite that strong, Tim Wilson but-

Tim Wilson:

Not on that subject.

David Speers:

Is there any concern for you about a US president adopting the position of Vladimir Putin here when it comes to the future of Ukraine?

Tim Wilson:

Well all I can say is I hope that the United States does what we would hope for our ally which is to make sure that it stands up for international peace and security and for the sovereignty of nations.

David Speers:

And do you think that this country is doing it?

Tim Wilson:

Well, this is where it comes down to our capacity to be able as a nation as Australia to leverage influence over the United States. Now after the events of this week that is less than it was at the start of the week. So it's really important that we maintain an active engagement with the United States because if we want to make sure the United States is putting its best foot forward and leveraging it to stand up for the best interests of existing borders and genuine issues.

David Speers:

But surely as a self-respecting sovereign country, we should be able to say we don't think Ukraine should be required to give away a chunk of its territory to Russia.

Tim Wilson:

But this is precisely why I've said we need genuine engagement with Ukraine and as part of this process. So that's the that's the engagement the opposition wants. But what part of that is we need to be as a country able to leverage our influence over the United States. And that's been weakened this week. And that's part of the price of what happens when we-

David Speers:

And I'll come to that, are you saying this means there should be no criticism of Donald Trump from Australia?

Tim Wilson:

I've never said that at all. I mean a government is well within its right to criticise another government if it disagrees. The most important thing is that we are in a position to be able to influence it successfully, sometimes publicly, sometimes privately. And-

David Speers:

So do we need to criticise Donald Trump for walking away from calls for a ceasefire.

Tim Wilson:

Well I want to make sure we get the best outcome in this situation. I don't think that's going to be resolved by providing a running commentary on the events so far. They haven't concluded yet but I can say with absolute clarity that if we don't have a genuine agreement with the participation of the Ukrainian government that that is not going to be a desirable solution from where we sit.

David Speers:

So on the Prime Minister's decision to recognise Palestinian statehood he argues that joining the UK, France, Canada and others on this will help progress a lasting peace in the Middle East. You obviously disagree with that. What do you think Australia should do then to progress a lasting peace?

Tim Wilson:

Well we've had taken a long term bipartisan position around a two state solution based on a series of preconditions that we would expect to be met like the lasting security for the state of Israel, like making sure Israeli hostages return, like making sure there isn't going to be Hamas running any government.

We set about preconditions, and we've been very public about that up until last Monday. That was also the position of the government. Now, what the government has done is essentially thrown that into turmoil by making that a commitment to recognise a Palestinian state but not being able to then say if those preconditions are going to be met, that they're going to back down.

There wasn't the engagement with the Opposition up until this point. I would have thought that actually having an engagement with the Opposition for a lasting policy position from the Australian government would be a sensible way forward. They've chosen not to take that path.

David Speers:

Okay, so coming back to the question, though, what does the Opposition then think should be done right now to move from where we are to a lasting peace in the Middle East?

Tim Wilson:

Well, again, we need the United States clearly to be part of any resolution because they're going to be part of the process with the United Nations. We obviously need Israel to also be a participant as part of that- e don't have I don't think we can do.

David Speers:

Is there anything Australia can do?

Tim Wilson:

Well, Australia's very limited in what it can do apart from exercise its voice internationally. But again at the end of the week we have less influence over some of our allies than we did at the start of the week, because we have made decisions without -

David Speers

[unclear]-United States is that the approach?

Tim Wilson:

That has not been the answer that I've provided. What we've sought to do is to take a position that works with countries like the United States, because they need to be part of the resolution, to a long lasting solution.

But instead, what we have is a government that has gone and made a series of commitments, and then when it's been put to them, well, if Hamas is a participant as your guest, just said, if Hamas is a participant in a future government, does that mean you're going to renege your support and they're not prepared to give that? So what they've done is written a blank cheque very clearly to those who are sponsoring terror. And in fact, what it's actually doing is providing incentive where Hamas as an organisation uses civilians as part of its propaganda efforts, and it's incentivising more of that conduct into the future. And it will be civilians that will pay the price for that.

David Speers:

Sussan Ley once said recognising a Palestinian state would give heart to the ordinary people of Gaza and the West Bank. Was she right?

Tim Wilson:

Well no one's contesting and I've said already that a long term peaceful solution involves a two state solution with preconditions being met. And that remains our view.

David Speers:

Do you I think it would give heart to the ordinary people.

Tim Wilson:

Well, the question is, if it's under Hamas, where you have a terrorist organisation that has never found a way where they can't put Israeli citizens at risk, Palestinian citizens at risk diverts aid away to deny their own, residents in Gaza in a position of harm or starvation. I don't believe that's got to be the case. That's why those preconditions are there.

David Speers:

So it wouldn't give them heart?

Tim Wilson:

Well when you have Hamas as a terrorist organisation denying people food that doesn't give people heart. That's why we have to make sure that any long term solution meets these preconditions. Instead, what we have is a government that has given a blank check without any expectation that they ultimately are going to be met David.

David Speers:

Okay. Let's turn to the reform roundtable this week in Canberra. Again Sussan Ley reckons it's all a stitch up that your colleague Ted O'Brien has accepted the invitation to attend. Does the Liberal Party have any ideas to bring to the table?

Tim Wilson:

Well, in fact one of the significant wins out of this round table, to the extent there are is that the government has caved to our position before the last election in the context of the National Construction Code which is designed to get more Australian houses being built. Before the last election the Labor Party said they opposed our position to that pause so that we could get on with building more houses and today we have an announcement from the Housing Minister that they're going to follow through on the Opposition's position. So do we have one? Yes. The government has gone on to deliver it. We absolutely believe we have other policy positions.

David Speers:

What are they?

Tim Wilson:

We absolutely believe that industrial relations should be on the agenda. But the government has specific-

David Speers:

So what would you like to see? Because at the election, the Coalition backed Labor on industrial relations largely. What do you what are you suggesting needs to happen on industrial relations now?

Tim Wilson:

Well, as a baseline, we want to have a conversation around simplicity of the system.

David Speers:

What does that mean?

Tim Wilson:

Well, right now we have the Labor Party actively seeking to introduce laws where they're undermining workers getting paid more so that they can increase the costs on small business and increase complexity. When I go around the country David and talk to the small businesses of this nation, what they tell me consistently is how hard it is to be able to not just employ people but to pay people. We even have a situation-

David Speers:

What needs to change there?

Tim Wilson:

We even have a situation where the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations can't interpret the laws it's responsible for. So what we want to have a conversation with employers about how we make the system simpler, more straightforward and introduce harmony into the workplace so people can get paid more and make it easier, because at the moment the Unions are actively running around and undermining people getting paid more.

David Speers:

Ok so a conversation you know on simplifying the laws. But you're not saying wind back multi-employer bargaining. Any changes in the gig economy work from home rights? You're not suggesting rolling back any of labor's changes are you?

Tim Wilson:

I'm talking specifically about simplification of laws because at the moment you've got the unions actively undermining workers getting paid less because it minimises their chance to be able to go on and clip the ticket and be able to gain advances from that. We literally have a case when the Fair Work Commission right now, where the retail industry wants to pay their workers 35% more and the Labor Party has introduced laws to kneecap that position because it would undermine the influence and power of unions at the expense of pay.

David Speers:

Do you think workers deserve a right a legal, a legally enshrined right to work from home?

Tim Wilson:

Well we've made it clear that we believe working from home works best when you have employers and employees working together. Now, there's already preexisting arrangements under federal legislation to give workers a pathway to do so. That's a very big difference from what's been proposed in the state of Victoria.

David Speers:

Do you oppose that in Victoria?

Tim Wilson:

Well we've made it clear that by doing going down this pathway, it has a number of impacts. Jacinta Allan has put forward a plan it excludes nurses, tradies, retail workers, so many different types of workers. She's now talking about excluding all of small business including people who are on probation because it was an ill thought out political stunt. Not one of substance.

David Speers:

So you oppose it?

Tim Wilson:

And that's why everybody's coming to realise how limited it is, of course.

David Speers:

So you oppose it?

Tim Wilson:

Well, as the federal government has said, has not gone on to commit themselves because it simply won't work in improving an outcome for Australian workers.

David Speers:

Sounds like you oppose it?

Tim Wilson:

Well, it's something that's in state legislation and there's been no proposal.

David Speers:

You can still whether you oppose it, Tim Wilson.

Tim Wilson:

Well, it hasn't been put forward in federal legislation. It's something in state legislation and the federal legislation already provides provisions to make sure that Australians can work from because we support work from home as part of workplace flexibility arrangements.

David Speers:

What about workers and employers negotiating four day working weeks at the workplace? Do you have a problem with that?

Tim Wilson:

Well, this is just an ambit claim from the trade union movement. And it is one of these cases. We know it's an ambit claim because only a few months ago, the union shut down a pathway where the retail industry again, actually applied to introduce a pathway for a four day working week. The unions were the one who shot this down. If Sally McManus really believed that this was such a good idea, she would introduce it across all the people who work for trade unions across the country. She hasn't done that.

David Speers:

Do you have a problem with it if it's done at the workplace level?

Tim Wilson:

Well, our position is that, of course, you know, the government has already ruled this out-

David Speers:

What's your position if it's done at the workplace level? What's wrong with that?

Tim Wilson:

Well, if work employees and employees want to come together and negotiate arrangements that suit, then that's a very different thing from what Sally McManus is proposing, where they're seeking to legislate these sorts of proposals, which they aren't even adopting themselves. That's what absolute flexibility means. It means coming together to get the best outcome for workers and employers to advance economic productivity, and improving standards of living for every Australian David.

David Speers:

On tax some young liberals want negative gearing limited to one investment property. Is that something you would ever consider?

Tim Wilson:

Well, I've haven't seen this proposal, but there will always be proposals thrown out there David. We took a different position to the last election and of course we've got policies that have been put forward but I've never been a believer that this is the fundamental problem around housing. The solution to housing is to get more housing.

David Speers:

Would you have a problem with limiting negative gearing to one investment property?

Tim Wilson:

Well, I don't think it's a solution to the problem.

David Speers:

So does that mean you'd oppose it or you're open to it?

Tim Wilson:

I'd like to see the case for it, because I didn't say the government's already ruled this stuff out. And I'm certainly we took a position in the last election against it because I don't see what the case for it is the problem around housing affordability and building more housing in this country right now is around the problem of supply, because-

David Speers:

If people like Ken Henry, talks about he calls the intergenerational bastards of the tax system younger workers having to pay carry a heavy burden of income tax, while predominantly all the wealthier Australians enjoy the majority of the tax benefits. Allegra Spender has put forward ideas to tackle this as well. Do you agree that's a problem? You know, an inter-generational problem in our tax system?

Tim Wilson:

Well, I think there are a number of challenges with our tax system, one of which is it discourages people going on and getting work because of the high burden on income tax. That's not a new proposition. I've said that many times before, but the way you address this is you got to have a proper conversation around tax reform. The government has already said out of this week's summit, they have ruled out tax reform as part of the conversation. So this is the problem with the approach the government is taking. They're not focused on industrial relations and not focused on what they need to do to grow the economic pie and to improve the economic conditions for every Australian. You can't find your courage sitting around a round table. You need to actually put proposals forward, debate them and take the Australians together.

David Speers:

Listening to you this morning, you're not putting forward any tax ideas. You're only industrial relations ideas-some simplification. It's not exactly going to fix the problems that we have in the economy.

Tim Wilson:

Well, I'm sorry, we've just come through an election and we're developing our policy positions. This is a government that's been through four years-

David Speers:

You've been in and out of public life for many years, you must have some ideas about how to fix the economy.

Tim Wilson:

I absolutely do, David, but I'm going with my colleagues to make sure that we drive them through as part of a policy package for the next election. I'm absolutely committed to making sure we have simplification to make it easier to employ more Australians and to raise standards of living and improve the number of Australians going on to get jobs and well-paid jobs. We've got big challenges coming ahead around challenges like artificial intelligence and making sure that we make workplaces more productive, but also building out the capacity for small businesses to be successful as part of a dynamic economy. So we're going to have these conversations in the coming weeks and months, David. But the most important thing is that when we make decisions, our focus is going to be on how we improve and grow the economic pie for the country David. It's not going to be focused on what we're going to design the laws to rule things in or out based on whether we're paying off and clipping the ticket for our union mates, which has been the basis that this Government has taken for its trade union mates.

David Speers:

Okay. Final one, you're also reviewing the position on net zero. The Coalition signed Australia up to the net zero target. I know you want lower energy prices and greater reliability of supply but the net zero target should it stay or should it go? What's your view?

Tim Wilson:

Well from 2015 when Tony Abbott signed Australia up to the Paris Agreement, it's been a consistent position of the coalition at four successive elections to support our net zero. The difference is, under the Albanese government they elevated net zero emissions above energy reliability, energy security, economic sovereignty and of course other considerations like national security.

David Speers:

For your part do you think net zero should stay or go?

Tim Wilson:

And so my position David, is we should make sure that we have net zero outages, net zero price increases and net zero emissions because you need to have things in a position of balance of policy to make sure that we can grow the future of the Australian economy, because that's also the basis of social license to cut emissions as well. If you don't have net zero outages and net zero price increases, public support for net zero emissions reduction is also going to fray.

David Speers:

All right Tim Wilson, thanks for joining us this morning.

Tim Wilson:

Thanks David

ENDS