Friday, 31 October 2025

E&OE

Patricia Karvelas:

Tim Wilson welcome to the program.

Tim Wilson MP:

Thank you for having me.

Patricia Karvelas:

On your energy policy, big meeting today, three hours long, net zero by 2050. Is it dead?

Tim Wilson MP: 

I don't think that's a fair interpretation. There's simply a discussion about the difference of opinions from members of parliament about what the views of their communities are across the country as part of a process to come to a formal policy. What's clear from everybody is that they believe in lower emissions. They want to see lower prices on households through electricity bills. And they want reliability with energy. Under Labor, they promised us lower emissions, lower prices and greater reliability in electricity grid. Instead we've got higher prices, higher emissions as well as a less reliable energy grid.

Patricia Karvelas:

I've spoken to people who say that the consensus in today's meeting was clearly that you would abandon that iron-clad, legislated net zero by 2050, that that was the consensus. Isn't that what it was?

Tim Wilson MP:

Well, there are different approaches to getting Australia to a lower emissions pathway. When we were last in government, we actually took the first commitment for governments to get to net zero by 2050. Then what Labor did was they elevated emissions reduction above considerations around price and reliability by legislating a target on emissions but ignoring price and reliability. So what have we had?

Patricia Karvelas: 

I get all that, but that doesn't answer my question. My question is about whether today there was a consensus not to have a legislated net zero by 2050, that timeframe. Is it true that the Coalition today, the consensus was not to have that timeframe for net zero?

Tim Wilson MP:

Well, nothing was agreed today, Patricia. People just simply voiced their opinions and concerns about the current trajectory of the current government's policy and where it was taking Australia, which was a pathway to deindustrialisation and higher costs and not even lower emissions. And how is it that we come up with a pathway which addresses people's genuine and deeply held concerns about making sure we get household and industrial electricity prices down, how we make sure we have a reliable and secure energy grid and support other industries to be successful while also cutting emissions, but what we don't want to do is go down the reckless path of Labor's net zero plan, which is not delivering lower costs or better reliability or lower emissions.

Patricia Karvelas: 

I wonder why some of your colleagues think that the moving away from net zero by 2050 has now been largely decided, but you don't think it has.

Tim Wilson MP:

Well, I think you're conflating a number of things. As I said, in 2021, we committed to a net zero target, but we didn't legislate it, because we understood that emissions reduction was just as important as keeping energy prices as low as possible, making sure we had reliability concerns addressed. We protected our national interest and our national sovereignty. Then what Labor did was say, all those things don't matter. Emissions reduction is the only thing that matters. And they legislated a target in the process. What happened? Emissions went up, electricity prices went up and of course we've had less reliable electricity grid and we've have industries increasingly closing. That is not a logical pathway for Australia unless we want deindustrialisation. A lot of members of parliament, including myself, simply want emissions reduction to part of the mix but not dictate Australia's electricity policy.

Patricia Karvelas: 

And how about the time frame? Is it your view, I'll ask you specifically, that the 2050 deadline should be retained?

Tim Wilson MP:

I've said many times that's what I was elected on the platform of and so I'm waiting to see what policy proposals are put forward because I think it's really important that we give obviously confidence to the market that we're achieving long-term emissions reduction but in addition to that we have to be doing in a way which means there's the investment to get prices down for Australian consumers because the social licence for emissions reduction is absolutely contingent on making sure that Australians can afford it. All the research shows this, we're in sync with Australians, the current government are the one who is turning around and saying we don't care what Australians think or what Australians pay so long as they can achieve their objective and they're failing at that as well.

Patricia Karvelas: 

This language of net zero, let's not even talk about time frame, but just net zero. I know some in your party room want you to dump that. There's a division on that. What's your view about retaining the language of net zero?

Tim Wilson MP:

Well I've said consistently I support net zero price increases, I support net zero outages and of course I want to achieve emissions reduction as well but I understand that if you don't get the issue of price and reliability right public support for reducing emissions will decline. That's why it's so important to get the order and the hierarchy as it were right and that's what the current government is getting wrong.

Patricia Karvelas: 

Okay, so I just want to go back to why so many of your colleagues think that moving away from net zero by 2050 is now dead and buried. I'm not sure if it's cremated, if I can use the old Tony Abbott language, but certainly dead and buried. You still think that there's the possibility of keeping this alive?

Tim Wilson MP:

Well, I think what's possible is we can get to a policy position that takes the country forward, that cuts emissions, that also builds Australia's industrial growth. Now, I don't know who you're talking to. You're throwing out a number of comments. I think a lot of people are doing is conflating a lot themes up to a target, when the real problem is the Labor Government's plan off the back of their target, which is a thing that's leading to higher costs and ironically higher emissions, and making it harder for Australia to be competitive. That's why it's so important we get the plan right so that whatever target we set, however we seek to achieve emissions reduction, we're also lowering prices for households, making sure Australian industry is competitive. It is so important because it's off the back of electricity investments and a reliable electricity supply that investors decide whether they invest a couple hundred million dollars new manufacturing plant or not and that's what we need and that isn't what's happening right now. Instead they're closing down.

Patricia Karvelas: 

In a seat like yours where you know there was a sort of independent that took you out I know you're back now but on the basis of issues around climate change and campaigning around issues of emission is it really possible for you to go to the next election if your party determines that it won't go for net zero by 2050 doesn't that put you in a difficult position trying to win that seat back

Tim Wilson MP:

I'm very relaxed about it, because at the end of it, I've had a consistent track record of actually reducing emissions when I have been in office and responsible for climate policy in Australia, as I was last time when I was defeated in 2022. Emissions went up under my predecessor. They then went on to vote for billions of dollars of new fossil fuel subsidies when they were in office, something I never did. So I think it's very important that we're clear-eyed. We're focused on policy that is going to advance Australia's national interest while reducing emissions, while reducing electricity prices, because that's actually how we take the community with us. If we're only talking about these issues through a very narrow lens, as some people want to do, then they're actually missing the bigger picture. They're also not focused on how we're going to build out Australia's clean industrial future, which is just as much a part of my focus.

Patricia Karvelas:

I want to move on to another issue which is very much in your portfolio. The CFMEU boss, Zach Smith, has quit the Labor Party's top national executive committee. He's been sending a proxy, hasn't actually been attending the last couple of weeks it seems. Does that deal with some of your concerns?

Tim Wilson MP:

Well, it only deals with part of our concerns. For many weeks we've been asking about Mr Smith and why he still is a member of the National Executive ALP and putting pressure on the government to explain why the Prime Minister can rely on his votes around the National Executive Committee table. But he has self-nominated out and said, this is now too much of a taint to the National Executive of the Labor Party, but Amanda Rishworth, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, is keeping him on as a key advisor the National Construction and Industry Forum. We asked her about it yesterday in question time and she refused to answer whether he was still a member and whether he was going to be attending and advising her at the next meeting. I think it's extraordinary that you've even got people from the union themselves saying we're no longer capable of doing this and keeping above the fray, but Minister Rishworth is saying he can continue to be a key advisor to him.

Patricia Karvelas:

And so where do you go next with this? Where do you plan to take it next week? Because it was part of your question time strategy. What else do you want from the government?

Tim Wilson MP:

Well, I think we want answers because we have sent to Minister Rishworth over two weeks ago, nearly three weeks ago a list of about 20 questions about what she's known, when she knew them, she refused to answer. We've asked her questions in question time and all she has basically offered is bluster. We want to know when Mr smith, or why Mr Smith should continue to be a member of the National Construction Industry Forum considering the cloud that now surrounds him and the CFMEU, but more importantly, she oversees the CFMEU Administration. Whistleblowers are saying the corruption in the CFMU has got worse under their administration, so what action is she taking and what issues is she raising with the Administrator to stamp out this corruption that every Australian is paying for through higher costs on public projects and higher costs of new apartment bills and house bills because of the costs of cartel kickbacks that are going to fund CFMU corruption.

Patricia Karvelas:

Many thanks for joining us, Tim Wilson.