Wednesday, 27 May 2026

Transcript: Interview with ABC News, Afternoon Briefing

Topics: 

E&OE...Federal Budget, Question Time, Inflation, Fuel excise, Capital Gains Tax, Negative gearing

Patricia Karvelas: Tim Wilson, welcome to the program.

Tim Wilson: Thank you for having me, Patricia.

Patricia Karvelas: You were kicked out of Question Time. The speaker, Milton Dick, has made a statement to the House. He says he will ask you to apologise to the House because you’ve gone on social media and reflected, he says, on the Speaker, and that’s not appropriate. Will you apologise?

Tim Wilson: I’d need to know the details of why it is and what he’s making the case for.

Patricia Karvelas: You have posted on Twitter, I just checked.

Tim Wilson: I most certainly have posted.

Patricia Karvelas: Is that appropriate?

Tim Wilson: What I’ve made the point is the incentives under the Albanese government are to mislead the public, break promises, deceive the Australian community, go to an election, and then once they’re elected, turn around and change their behaviour and do the exact opposite by their own admission.

Patricia Karvelas: Sure, that’s a political point, though, and, you know, you’re entitled to make it on shows like this. But the Speaker runs Question Time and that’s what he wants you to apologise for, reflecting.

Tim Wilson: And I will speak to the Speaker and I’ll establish exactly what the case he is putting forward because the incentives under the Albanese government are to lie to the Australian community, break promises, promise 50 times over in a fit of red-hot rage that they aren't going to introduce new taxes, they’ve now done so.

Patricia Karvelas: Okay, I’m getting not-apologetic vibes from you.

Tim Wilson: No, I just want to understand the context because the incentives under the Albanese government are to lie to the public, go to an election, then after the election break those promises that they’ve made to the Australian community. I mean, this is well-established.

Patricia Karvelas: Isn't it an objection about the way that you went to social media after his judgment that you leave Question Time because of, you know –

Tim Wilson: What – calling out the lies?

Patricia Karvelas: No, the Standing Orders and he’s the… you agree that he is the authority in Question Time.

Tim Wilson: Of course I do.

Patricia Karvelas: So if he asks you to apologise then you’ll have to, right?

Tim Wilson: As I said, I will go and have a conversation with him and establish what the details of that claim is because the incentives under the Albanese government are to deceive the public.

Patricia Karvelas: All right, don’t say it again. Don’t say it again. Because I’ve got your point. Okay, you’re going to have a conversation with him but, you know, he’s going to ask you to apologise, you’re going to have to, right?

Tim Wilson: I understand.

Patricia Karvelas: Okay. That’s the process, right?

Tim Wilson: I understand.

Patricia Karvelas: Okay, I want to talk about things that matter to a lot of Australians. Whether you turn up to Question Time probably is less important to them than inflation.

Tim Wilson: I turned up to Question Time. In fact, I asked two questions to the Prime Minister during Question Time.

Patricia Karvelas: I watched you. Let me go to this: Housing was the largest contributor to annual inflation in April, it’s a rise of 6.3%. Isn't the housing market broken?

Tim Wilson: Well, there are different parts of the housing market including rents. The challenges that we have is that the government keeps propping up the CFMEU through public projects which pushes those costs onto private development, private housing development. So, yes, Australians are paying more because of the decisions of the government and their cartel kickback circle of life. What we actually need is to get costs down, supply up, to reduce the cost for Australians, but because the government has an active inflation agenda which pushes up the price of building materials, Australians are falling further behind.

Patricia Karvelas: The fuel excise contributed to the drop in headline inflation. Do you think it should be extended? The Treasurer has, you know, hosed that idea down but does it look like the case looks like it’s being made?

Tim Wilson: Well, it was cut because the Coalition called for it and made recommendations of inflation offsets. And of course, it’s all based on international events. Those international events are still ongoing. We will wait and see where they are because we shouldn't be creating these temporary measures deliberately when they’re not needed, so we just need to be cautious about that.

Patricia Karvelas: Okay, so, you know, hold and wait on that. But…

Tim Wilson: Well, what I would like to see is inflation offsets because whatever the government likes to say, Australia’s inflation problem preceded the Iran crisis. The Iran crisis is compounding it, I won’t contest that.

Patricia Karvelas: Both reasons for the inflation crisis.

Tim Wilson: Correct, but it was above the band or the target band of 2-3% before the crisis. Interest rate increases started in its current cycle off data off the back of last year. We’re now getting this year’s data and of course because of the Iran crisis, it’s compounding the problem. If you removed Iran, Australia would still have an inflation problem.

Patricia Karvelas: I want to talk about some other issues too. Jim Chalmers was today quoting Paul Keating’s comments in The Guardian saying that it was important that the CGT changes don't create another distortion in the economy by exempting other assets, particularly commercial ones. It would create a new loophole, wouldn't it, to carve out some things and not others?

Tim Wilson: Well, the Treasurer likes to quote Paul Keating because it gets part of his own vanity project. The reality is Australians need a pathway to get ahead. Under the budget, what does it show? It says rents will increase. It says that there will be a significant increase on small businesses, on households, but there’ll be fewer houses built. If we want to house the nation and we want to build a pathway of growth where young Australians can get ahead, and I mean at all stages of life—renting, buying homes, setting up small businesses, securing their own future—we need a pathway that’s oriented towards that. The answer from the government, just as households are falling behind, real wages have fallen by 3% under this government, is to whack them harder with higher taxes. It’s not going to solve the problem.

Patricia Karvelas: Okay. But do you believe that there should be a consistent tax treatment, or would it worry you to see a carve-out?

Tim Wilson: Well, we’re…

Patricia Karvelas: You’re against the whole change, right?

Tim Wilson: Of course I’m against the whole change because it was based on deceit, that’s the incentives under the Albanese government as we’ve discussed. But I mean what we want to do is we want to see the detail for starters. The government doesn't know its own plan. There was a footnote in the budget that was introduced at the last minute that started to create a carve-out for tech billionaires. Well, good for the tech billionaires, but what about the people who’ve run small businesses for years and are not going to get those carve-outs? They’ve developed them, worked hard, just because they’re not in technology or in areas of financial innovation doesn't mean they should somehow be excluded. But obviously the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were worried about the impact of their changes and the pushback so they’re going to go after the billionaires but not for the punters on the street.

Patricia Karvelas: Okay. One Nation today has announced that they also believe that negative gearing should be limited on properties. They don't back the government’s proposal but they do believe it should be limited on how many properties you have. You’re not wanting to touch any of it, though, still?

Tim Wilson: Well, what we’ve got at the moment is One Nation agreeing with the Greens on gas policy, then they’ve agreed with the Labor Party on property policy. I mean, this is a political party that doesn't really stand or believe in anything and so they’re running around making cases about what obviously is in their mind at any given time. We have a much more simple view, which is if you’re going to change a tax system perhaps you should take it to the Australian people and make the case for it and convince the public and get them to vote on it so that when changes come in, the Australian people look at it and say, “Well, we voted for it, that’s the way the country’s going,” because it’s actually about how we take us all forward together, not simply about how government raises revenue.

Patricia Karvelas: Do you really think you should be horse-trading on NDIS for a tax review? I mean, why would you do that?

Tim Wilson: The Australian people haven't had a say on the taxes that the government has put forward and have introduced in their budget. Yes, we believe the Australian people should have their say.

Patricia Karvelas: I get all of that. I get why you want an inquiry. I think, you know, it makes sense to people to have an inquiry but the idea of horse-trading when you said you’d support the NDIS changes, when you say that spending should be pulled back, that’s what the changes do. Why delay it?

Tim Wilson: Well, let’s wait and see. The government has done very little to target the issues of corruption, fraud in the NDIS. And what we actually want to do is make sure that there’s maximum leverage where the Australian people can have their say about the deceit and dishonesty of the Prime Minister in this debate and of course the Treasurer and for them to have a say in the tax changes so that their railroading project that they’ve got going on right now, which runs through the savings and financial security of millions of Australians, of course hundreds of thousands of small businesses, that they might actually have a say that they were denied at the ballot box.

Patricia Karvelas: You mentioned small business. Some of the exemptions that would cover 90% of small businesses to avoid the changes to Capital Gains Tax. The government’s outlined them over and over again including this turnover of $2 million. Do you think there’s a case to change—it hasn't been changed for a long time—what we define as a small business?

Tim Wilson: Well, I mean I do. We’ve proposed a Small Business Act for consultation which includes getting small businesses’ input and you can go to standwithsmall.org to have your input into that.

Patricia Karvelas: That’s a process, but do you think there is a case?

Tim Wilson: Well, we’ve obviously flagged a discussion around it precisely to have input to look at whether we can create one universal or consistent standard about what a small business is. That can include raising the definition around how it’s structured.

Patricia Karvelas: Because it seems that turnover, does it seem to you a bit low for what should be regarded as a small business as times have changed?

Tim Wilson: Well, when the government engages in active inflation agenda like this government has, the turnover thresholds are actually quite modest in comparison to the size of a lot of businesses unless of course your objective is to see small business stay small business, not grow, not be successful. And unfortunately a lot of the political rhetoric coming out of the government seems to be they want small businesses to fail, not to succeed.

Patricia Karvelas: Look, just on a couple of other things that are circulating at the moment. Your side of politics wants to change the Sex Discrimination Act which would enshrine a definition of biological women as being women. This would have huge implications, as you know, for transgender women. Do you agree with that policy? Did it go through a proper process?

Tim Wilson: Well, some people have introduced Private Members’ Bills but do I believe that women are entitled to safe spaces? Yes.

Patricia Karvelas: But do you believe in changing the Sex Discrimination Act to redefine what a woman is?

Tim Wilson: I am quite happy to have a definition in the Sex Discrimination Act around what a biological woman is. I don’t see that that should be controversial. That doesn't mean that we should do anything to disrespect transgender Australians. I want Australia built on respect which understands that different circumstances need different conditions, different environments based on what’s already provided for in the Sex Discrimination Act. It just blurs sex and gender when I think actually we need to have a clearer distinction because of course there are some times where transgender Australians should be well within their rights to form organisations or communities that are only including transgender Australians. And I believe the same should be for people of biological sex.

Patricia Karvelas: But wouldn't the consequence there be that transgender women would be able to be excluded from certain spaces? That would be the consequence of changing the law?

Tim Wilson: There’d be consequences that transgender Australians can have things that exclude people based on their biological sex if they don’t identify as transgender.

Patricia Karvelas: I don’t think they’ve asked for that. That’s not…

Tim Wilson: Well, there’s organisations that exist for transgender people and I fully respect their right to form their community.

Patricia Karvelas: So just to be clear: You think you should be changing the definition in the law.

Tim Wilson: I think we should be clarifying the law to make sure that it reflects community sentiment, allows people to be treated based on their biological sex where that’s appropriate and to make sure that there’s appropriate space for safety for everybody within the community. I believe that women should be able to form communities that are advancing the interests of women that exclude men. I also believe that that can include situations where that can be about transgender people excluding people of biological sex.

Patricia Karvelas: Okay, so just to be clear, okay, if there’s a girls’ school and under your new definition that means they can exclude a transgender girl?

Tim Wilson: Well, I think it’s about how we provide… minors are very different from adults and we need to understand that in anti-discrimination law and that’s definitely the case now and will continue to be the case. I think when you’re talking about school environments, my starting position is: What’s our responsibility to the child to be able to achieve their educational advancement, their health and welfare? And that is often very unique depending on the circumstances.

Patricia Karvelas: Okay. How about public toilets, then?

Tim Wilson: Sorry?

Patricia Karvelas: Toilets.

Tim Wilson: Well, we already have unisex toilets.

Patricia Karvelas: I know, but what would the impact be? I mean, these are all the things that your side is talking about this week.

Tim Wilson: Well, no, actually I’m talking about tax. But once you start having these conversations, that’s why you have inquiries to actually get public input and to understand how to design and test the law.

Patricia Karvelas: That is not what Angus Taylor has said. He said he just wants to go and change the law. So, you’re saying there should be an inquiry to look at the unintended consequences.

Tim Wilson: Well, at the moment we’ve had a decision from the Federal Court which has significant consequences associated with it for people, both transgender Australians and biological women. And I don’t think it’s irrational to have a process that says: How do we clarify the law that understands and respects the consequences? If you look at most legislation when it goes through the Parliament, the Senate will have some form of inquiry, whether it’s a select inquiry, whether it’s a legislative inquiry, so that Australians can have their input. I don’t have a problem with that.

Patricia Karvelas: Did this go through the Shadow Cabinet?

Tim Wilson: Well, it’s not… it’s actually technically at the moment a Private Member’s Bill before the Parliament.

Patricia Karvelas: From Angus Taylor.

Tim Wilson: No, there’s a Private Member’s Bill before the Parliament, doesn't need to go to… that was informed by the party room.

Patricia Karvelas: So the party room decided.

Tim Wilson: No, the party room has been informed. The party room doesn't have to decide on Private Members’ Bills.

Patricia Karvelas: So is it official Liberal Party policy?

Tim Wilson: It’s absolutely policy that we should have a process to recognise that biological sex should be properly respected in anti-discrimination law to make sure we protect the rights and freedoms of all Australians. I don’t see that as very controversial.

Patricia Karvelas: Some people do, clearly, so that’s why it’s an issue. Thank you for coming on, though.

Tim Wilson: Thank you.

[ENDS]