Tuesday, 5 May 2026

Transcript – Interview with Sarah Ferguson, ABC 7.30 Report

Topics: Federal Budget, Inflation, Debt, Cost of Living

E&OE ......

Sarah Ferguson: Tim Wilson, welcome to 7.30.

Tim Wilson: Thank you for having me.

Sarah Ferguson: In announcing the rates decision today, the Reserve Bank Governor said that any further cost-of-living relief will make it harder to control inflation in Australia. But she also said that current conditions are hurting poorest households the most. In these conditions, and conditions that are likely to get worse during the course of this year, do you accept that the government has some responsibility to protect those people?

Tim Wilson: Well, I accept that the government is responsible for the cause of the inflation that we’re currently experiencing, which is punishing people on low incomes. The challenge now for the government—because they wouldn’t take inflation seriously up until this point—is they’re left exposed with very few choices available to them. They can either hand out more public money and engage in spending, which risks stoking inflation as the Reserve Bank Governor outlined very clearly in her press conference today, but it will only continue to give with one hand and take with the other. That’s why it was important to take inflation seriously last year, but unfortunately the Treasurer turned a blind eye, made the outrageous boast that we’d turned the inflation and interest rate corner, and it was misinformation then, and Australians are living with the consequences now.

Sarah Ferguson: But what would you do in this current scenario? Would you refuse, point-blank, any cost-of-living relief for the lowest income households in Australia, no matter how bad this crisis gets in the Middle East?

Tim Wilson: Well, we started this crisis by saying that we would provide a cut to the fuel excise on the condition there was inflation offsets. The government has gone on and cut fuel excise but not provided inflation offsets, so we’ll be looking very closely at the inflation offsets the government offers, but not ones they say—ones they deliver. The Federal Treasurer, for instance, likes to point to the $114 billion he claims he’s created in savings, but in the next breath he’s actually gone on to spend an additional $223 billion over life of this government. What we need is actual cuts to spending to stop pouring debt petrol on the inflation fire, to ease the inflation pressure that Australians are living right now.

Sarah Ferguson: Let’s go to one of the specifics. There are reports, at least—this is not a specific in the budget yet—but there are reports today that the government will introduce a cost-of-living measure in the form of a $200 to $300, as far as we know, what’s called an earned income offset for wage earners. Do you support that?

Tim Wilson: Well, I—it’s a leak that’s come out of the government’s budget bunker at this point, whether it was deliberate or malicious, we don’t know. I’ll wait and see what’s confirmed before we decide whether we’re going to support or oppose it. I’m mindful, of course, like everybody else, of the impact this inflation is going to have on Australian households, but unfortunately, when the government hasn’t taken inflation seriously, we’ve ended up in this situation. And the risk is that if you keep handing out money to households, what you’ll actually do is fuel inflation further: you’ll give with one hand but then you’ll take with the other, not just through the debt that’s being incurred, but then of course the interest rates and the inflation pressure itself.

Sarah Ferguson: Let’s have a discussion about anticipated changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. Will you take to the next election plans to reverse any changes the government makes to capital gains and negative gearing?

Tim Wilson: I mean, Sarah, the government hasn’t even announced that they’re going to introduce taxes, and you’re asking whether I’m going to repeal them. Let’s be serious.

Sarah Ferguson: Well, you would have to—excuse me—you would have to accept at this point that we do anticipate something coming on negative gearing and capital gains tax. It is true that we don’t have the detail. I just want to be clear: on those two taxes, will the Liberal Party put together a policy to reverse those changes before the next election? Seems like a fair question to me.

Tim Wilson: Well, until we actually have the proposals that the government’s putting forward, I don’t think it’s a fair question to ask whether we’re going to repeal them. What we do know is in the lead-up to the last election, the Prime Minister consistently ruled out these family savings taxes on homes, on rental properties, and of course on trusts. And we’ve heard the Treasurer say only yesterday that we, you know, we have to break trust to build trust, so that they can target trusts. I think we need to be realistic. We’ll wait and see what the proposals are and then we’ll consider the pathway forward. But my intention going to the next election is not to develop a policy program in response to Labor; my intention in lead-up to the next election is to develop an economic program that builds the future prosperity, growth, and opportunity for the next generation of Australians. Labor’s plan around intergenerational issues is to feed resentment and redistribution; ours will be focused on growth and opportunity.

Sarah Ferguson: Well, the government has been circulating some quotes of yours—of course we don’t rely on their circulated notes, but let me just put this quote to you from 2018. I’m not relying on it, I’m asking you to comment on it. You said, they say, “The tax system is screwing young Australians.” Do you still think that the tax system is screwing young Australians, much in the way that the Grattan Institute does, by putting too much of a burden on taxpayers and not enough of a burden on asset holders?

Tim Wilson: Well, so far the biggest tax that young Australians, who have their physical and intellectual labor to sell, is income taxes. And so the government at this point has not flagged in any way, shape, or form any pathway to reduce income taxes in this budget. Of course I believe in reducing income taxes; I’ve always believed in that and will always work towards doing that.

Sarah Ferguson: Yes, but Tim Wilson, that quote—as you understand, that quote that I read out to you was you talking about the way tax operates in Australia. Do you still believe, as you said in 2018, that the system is screwing young Australians? Yes or no? That’s a yes or no.

Tim Wilson: I just said, yes, I believe that income—I’ve always believed that income taxes are too high at 47% at the top marginal tax rate.

Sarah Ferguson: No, that’s not—I’m just going to join you there, because what you were talking about at that time, it was a discussion about the relationship between income tax, the rate of income tax, and the way tax is levied on assets. And you said Australians need to demand a fairer tax system. I just want to know yes or no whether or not you think that the tax treatment of capital gains and negative gearing should change.

Tim Wilson: Well, I will only consider tax changes as part of a mix and whether it actually advances the best pathway to grow the Australian economy. At the moment, the only pathway that’s being put forward by this government is how they increase taxes and try and discourage people to work, people to invest in the future of Australia, and it won’t—as the chief economist at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia acknowledged—won’t do anything for productivity, won’t do anything for increasing the volume of homes. According to Jim Chalmers in an interview a couple years ago with this very program, said exactly the same thing. So he’s had a change of heart, just like the Prime Minister has broken his word to the Australian community, where he’s gone into fits of rage when people have asked him questions before the last election about whether he was going to change taxes on homes, taxes on rentals, and taxes on trusts, and denied it flat and outright, and that’s simply come up short.

Sarah Ferguson: Let me just ask you a quick question about the by-election coming up this weekend in Farrer. It looks like the Liberal Party is going to lose to the One Nation candidate, who previously tried to be a Labor candidate. Go figure. Is this the absolute nadir for the Liberal Party to lose to someone with that track record?

Tim Wilson: I don’t think so. I mean, I think there’s clearly frustration—

Sarah Ferguson: You think there’s a bigger nadir to come?

Tim Wilson: Well, that’s cute. But I think there is a frustration with Canberra right now. There’s no pretending otherwise, when people are living with the pressure of inflation from this government, they’re looking at it and saying, “This government isn’t advancing my interests.” And of course the Prime Minister didn’t even have the courage to send a candidate and show up. And so, yes, we do have an orange candidate who donated to the teals, who wanted to be a Labor candidate, I think applied to be a Labor Party member—it’s not really clear what he is or what he stands for. He wanted high migration, then by the end of this week he wanted lower migration. It’s clear that there’s a lot of message in this by-election, but I won’t prejudge its result.

Sarah Ferguson: And yet that guy you just described is the one that’s going to beat your candidate. Anyway, we’ll wait and see what happens—that’s what the polls are saying. But in the meantime, on this important day with a new decision, Tim Wilson, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

Tim Wilson: Thank you.

[ENDS]