Wednesday 13 August 2025

E&OE

Patricia Karvelas:

For the Opposition's take earlier, as I mentioned there, I spoke to Minister Rishworth's Shadow counterpart, Tim Wilson. Tim Wilson, welcome to the program.

Tim Wilson:

Thank you for having me, Patricia.

Patricia Karvelas:

Wage growth over the past year has surpassed the RBA's expectations. It's also higher than the CPI. This is the seventh consecutive wage growth that we've seen. That's positive, isn't it?

Tim Wilson:

What we've seen from this wage growth is that the government has been borrowing from future generations to provide particularly public sector wage growth and as a consequence we've seen higher wage growth. So while it might be seemingly something the government can boast about in practice, it's coming from future generations to pay for today. And that isn't the boast of something that anyone should be looking with a sense of rosy optimism about, it's essentially the boast of a thief.

The reality is, the only sustainable way to achieve long-term positive wage growth and improvements in standards of living is if you actually get the economy moving and that isn't what this government is doing. That's why they've called a roundtable next week, precisely because they haven't fixed the root causes of the problems, they're just borrowing from the future.

Patricia Karvelas:

We'll get to that because I think it could be easily contested that they're not doing that because they are having an economic roundtable and they're looking at ideas specifically on productivity. But back to the point you made. Public sector wage growth in the June quarter was 1 per cent, that is slightly higher than the 0.8 per cent in the private sector but 0.8 per cent in the private sector's, notable, isn't it?

Tim Wilson:

Well, only if you look at where the wages-the jobs growth has been occurring. The jobs growth, if you looked at, has almost exclusively been occurring either in things that explicitly have occurred in the public sector or also in jobs that have been driven from public expenditure, not from private sector jobs growth. So this is the problem with this government. They are spending more either directly on public sector jobs or they're building out a private economy dependent on public expenditure, not on a long-term, sustainable, private sector-led economy that creates wealth and expands the economic pie, that grows in the interests of all Australians. Essentially, it's an economy feeding on itself.

Patricia Karvelas:

But a lot of the public sector employment is necessary employment... props up the country that we live in. I mean, we look at childcare wages, you're talking about wages in the public sector that are in the caring economy. Would you want those workers not to have achieved these wage gains?

Tim Wilson:

We're not arguing about that, we're talking about what the ratio is. In the past we of course have seen a significant share of the economy as being private sector growth which is actually improving the overall size of the economic pie. Making Australia a richer nation. So when you see wage growth, it's because the economy is growing, so Australians are getting richer. Instead what we're seeing is more and more people fighting over a diminishing share of a stagnant pie. And this is the challenge when you've got it being driven by public expenditure. We're not seeing Australians getting richer, we're not seeing Australians getting wealthier, we are just seeing more demand being driven by public expenditure, which is why it isn't actually a necessary boost to the Australian economy.

Patricia Karvelas:

Okay, wages growth was absolutely in the doldrums under the Coalition. You can see that Australian workers would be happier with the kind of results that we're seeing at the moment.

Tim Wilson:

People will always be happy, but if you're just doing it from borrowing from the future, you're borrowing from your children.

Patricia Karvelas:

Not all of these wage rises have been achieved from borrowing, I mean I don't think that's factually correct.

Tim Wilson:

Well, if you're borrowing from the future and you're seeing a situation where the government is only driving the creation of jobs and wage growth, driven by borrowing from the future, you're not actually delivering sustainable economic growth that is actually making the Australian economy more productive, more economically effective, more competitive and creating economic opportunities for future generations.

Patricia Karvelas:

So let me get in here, because on that premise, I think everyone agrees that's why a lot of people are going to the economic roundtable, including your side of politics, through Ted O'Brien next week. There is a productivity challenge. I don't know anyone who could possibly dispute that. So doesn't that put the onus on the opposition to be really active in being part of the solution next week rather than negativity, particularly when it comes to the Prime Minister's described it as low-hanging fruit, that could be achieved next week, what sort of low-hanging fruit do you think could be signed off on next week?

Tim Wilson:

What we're waiting for is what the government is going to put forward. The Opposition has come along and said we're happy to be constructive where we can be but of course critical where we must be as appropriate. The Shadow Treasurer is attending the forum in good faith to wait and see what is being put forward by the government. They're the ones who are going to have to lead the conversation. So of course we want to see improvements in standards of living. That's the basis in which we're engaging. But the government must lead this. This is the basis in which they've brought the roundtable forward. But at this point, it's jumped around. Initially, it was a productivity summit, then it was tax hike summit, then it was back to being a productivity summit, it seems to be a fight between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer about what its agenda is going to be. It's very hard to figure out what the agenda of this roundtable is. Until we get clarity on that, it's very hard for us to be able to say what we're gonna thumbs up or thumbs down. We want to know what the government's plan is.

Patricia Karvelas:

Okay, so the government's not telling us any plan, they've invited ideas and then it's about landing on some ideas that might be agreeable to people to increase productivity. One idea that the trade union movement has is this idea of a four-day working week. Are you opposed to the idea of a four-day working week?

Tim Wilson:

To me it seems like the ACTU has put this plan out there to gaslight workers, frankly. We see this every time the government has a roundtable. You get the unions going out and putting out an ambit claim so that the Treasurer can come out afterwards and say, we didn't give the unions everything they wanted, we didn't give business everything they want, we're steering this middle course to bring everybody together.

Patricia Karvelas:

Yeah because the government has said this isn't their plan, so you're saying, I don't get you here, you think this is a deliberate theatre that the ACTU has cooked up with the Government to put up a proposal knowing it's going to get knocked back?

Tim Wilson:

Resolutely, yes.

Patricia Karvelas:

Really? What is your evidence for that?

Tim Wilson:

No, it's a standard practice that always goes on in the lead up to these processes and you've just outlined it yourself. The ACTU has already floated it, the Government has already ruled it out. This is the reality of where these conversations go to create the pathway so the Government can say we're being moderate and measured but by the way here are all these new taxes that you didn't vote for, this is how we're being measured and balanced. I absolutely believe that the Government always navigates these things with-

Patricia Karvelas:

Do you think that the ACTU floated this, knowing the Government would reject it and they were part of this?

Tim Wilson:

Do you really believe Patricia...

Patricia Karvelas:

I'm asking you a question, I'm not going to be asked a question.

Tim Wilson:

I'm happy to answer your question but do you really think the ACTU and the Government doesn't have conversations about strategy when the Labor Party is literally the political arm of the ACTU?

Patricia Karvelas:

I have no idea. What I do know though is that the ACTU seems pretty committed to this idea.

Tim Wilson:

Sure, and you don't think that when the ACTU literally has votes inside the Labor Party and is part of making the policy process of the Labor Party that they may not have been aware of this. It's a pretty reasonable expectation to highlight there's an explicit and direct connection between the two. And every time we have one of these roundtables, we have one of these processes. And I think it's fair to point on the media that perhaps when the unions go out and float these ideas as they do, that perhaps it's part of the theatres of the Labor government, can turn around and say we're charting the middle course while we impose new taxes that nobody voted for, because we're steering the middle-course. I'm just calling it out.

Patricia Karvelas:

Okay, well we don't have evidence for it and I also wouldn't question whether the ACTU believes in the proposal, they clearly do.

Tim Wilson:

That's up to them, I mean they'll believe on anything which reduces the burden of course, on their membership, and of course cost taxpayers more or it's not doing anything of course, if you're going into a roundtable which is supposed to boost growing the economic pie of the country, it seems like a very strange proposal.

Patricia Karvelas:

Alright, today the Commonwealth Bank has reported its full year profit rose by 7% to... get ready for it, I'm sure you're across it, but for our viewers who haven't seen it, $10.13 billion. That is a lot of money. Are you comfortable with that level of super profit?

Tim Wilson:

Well, in the end, that's up for the CBA to report to their shareholders and make justifications.

Patricia Karvelas:

How did it land on you though? It really outstrips the other banks. Do you celebrate it as a good thing?

Tim Wilson:

Well, I look at and say that prudential regulation, which is how much the banks have to hold in terms of capital, is very stringent, which makes banking a very low-risk environment in Australia. Then, of course, they have a guarantee for their deposits. It's very hard [for] banks not to make super profits because they're regulated into that environment at the moment. So I think this is essentially an outcome guaranteed by Government policy. Should Government policy change? Well, I believe that we need to find a better balance of risk, around making sure that banks are part of fuelling investment in the future of the economy, but I've made those arguments many times before.

Patricia Karvelas:

Okay, should there be any look at the tax that big banks like that pay on the basis of these super profits?

Tim Wilson:

But tax is not really the answer to the problem because...

Patricia Karvelas:

I'm asking the question.

Tim Wilson:

I know, but the answer to the problem is how do we get banks to invest in growing small businesses because, banks making profits in itself is not a problem, what we actually want is banks to be fuelling the growth of other businesses because that's their purpose. And to be lending so young Australians can buy their own first home. That's the base and we build out the economic future of this country and we need healthy banks to be doing that. Of course we need profitable banks to able to do that and that's what I want to see and that's what I don't think they're doing because they're literally regulated into not taking risk.

Patricia Karvelas:

I just want to go to this question of Palestinian statehood. The Hamas co-founder Hassan Yousef reportedly has told nine newspapers the move by Australia and other Western nations was an important step towards achieving justice. Now, this was put to the Albanese government. A spokesperson has said Hamas always tries to manipulate facts for their own propaganda. That's right, isn't it?

Tim Wilson:

Absolutely.

Patricia Karvelas:

That's what Hamas does.

Tim Wilson:

Hamas always tries to manipulate facts and or evidence to advance their cause. They've done that every point in Gaza to try and manipulate heartstrings in the West up until this point. The Albanese government has largely fallen for that and of course this is now, they're continuing through this. But, the reality is on October 7 this is exactly the outcome that Hamas wanted, which was a recognition of a Palestinian state. The Albanese government has of course now fallen for this and now of course Hamas has gone on and taken credit for it.

Patricia Karvelas:

But just because they take credit for it, that doesn't mean we allow them to take credit for it, does it?

Tim Wilson:

Well, even before the Albanese government sought to recognise a Palestinian state, Hamas was already saying those countries that are now pushing towards this trajectory is evidence of the success of October 7. So they said it before, they've said it now and they're going to continue to say it.

Patricia Karvelas:

I just want to get you on this. So because they say it, that means that government's should steer clear because they've claimed something.

Tim Wilson:

Well, I think what it means is we should be making a decision, considered, and making sure that we're doing basic things, like protecting the rights and freedoms of Israel's right to exist.

Patricia Karvelas:

Don't we have to be cautious of allowing a terror organisation to dictate our responses and policies?

Tim Wilson:

Absolutely, which is why I don't believe that what the Albanese government has done is right.

Patricia Karvelas:

But it's Palestinian people who also want statehood. To attribute that entirely as if it's Hamas's entire political project is pretty unfair, isn't it, to people oppressed under Hamas?

Tim Wilson:

But our position, well, firstly, Hamas was elected. And you know that. Secondly...

Patricia Karvelas:

A long time ago there have not been elections there for a long time.

Tim Wilson:

Correct but our position has been consistent, which is we support a two-state solution on a series of conditions. One is the right of Israel to exist of course in addition to that, that its security is protected. Importantly, that the 50 Israeli hostages that have now been held in more than 650 odd days are returned. We need to make sure that those standards are met. The Albanese government has gone on and effectively given the commitment of Palestinian statehood, without any of those conditions being met beyond them being said verbally, and if they are not met, they have not given any commitment that will be reversed. They've essentially given a blank cheque and I think that is wrong.

Patricia Karvelas:

Do you agree though on the premise that Hamas shouldn't dictate our debates here, that them claiming something should not therefore define any decision making, especially when the government has explicitly said that Hamas should never be part of any future government in Gaza?

Tim Wilson:

But the problem is they've then gone on and said that without making any conditions, that if Hamas does end up getting elected that they won't reverse their position. So they're effectively given a permission pathway to do so.

Patricia Karvelas:

Okay. Thank you for coming in.

Tim Wilson:

Thank you having me.

ENDS