Wednesday, 20 May 2026

Transcript - Q&A National Press Club Address, Canberra

E&OE...

Host (Tom Connell): Thank you Shadow Treasurer. So obviously you've made it pretty clear what you think of Labor's solution. I wonder what you think of the problem they've put up, and I'll frame it in this way, so $100,000, if it's wages you pay $23,000 in tax, family trust $13,000, capital gains $6,500, superannuation $0. I know you have bracket creep, but that essentially makes the problem not get any worse. Do you see that current breakdown as imbalanced?

Tim Wilson: Well, the government likes to spin lines on all of their different numbers to present the, their particular narrative, and I fully respect the right to be able to do so. But at the end of the day, the focus has to be: how are we going to back people to work and to put people, labor and capital to work? That's how you grow the economy. It is not by seeking to punish different sections of the community and try and punish the pathways for them to get ahead. So they see it as a pathway where they think they're able to tinker and correct the balance rather than actually what's going to mobilize people and get them to move forward. So I reject the promotion and the approach that they're taking. You know, I wrote, I think this is quite amusing actually Tom. Um, I once spoke at the National Press Club in 2014 when I was Human Rights Commissioner. I actually asked to come and speak at the press club when I was last in office and was denied. And I was told the reason was because the topic was intergenerational fairness and housing and home ownership. And I was told nobody was interested in that topic. Because the pathway for young Australians to get ahead is not punitive, it is focused on how we create opportunity for the future. We know that income taxes are a direct punishment. The only answer the government then has is to turn around and say, well we'll increase taxes on everything else. How about they look at how they reward Australians of whatever age and whatever stage of their life so that they might actually put more effort in and get ahead? Instead their only answer is to punish that, it does not solve the problem, it just seeks to create a political narrative to justify why Canberra should be empowered against Australians.

Host (Tom Connell): I'll have to see that line where you were told nobody was interested, because I'd be surprised if that were it. Um, anyway, I'm going to stick to my one question and be disciplined and see if my colleagues can follow suit. Jacob Shteyman from AAP.

Jacob Shteyman (AAP): Thanks Mr. Wilson. Um, so you've promised to repeal Labor's tax changes, which are forecast to um, bring in an extra $77 billion in revenue over the decade. On top of that, you've got another $35 billion in foregone revenue over four years with indexing bracket creep. Um, you've promised more defense spending. Um, can you identify which spending areas you'll find the savings in to bring the budget back to balance, and can you guarantee if you do form government next election that you will bring the budget back to balance before 34/35 which is the current estimate?

Tim Wilson: Well what I said in my speech is that we there is going to be one hell of a cleanup job after this government. Um, we don't have very much confidence in their current uh spending and in their current budget. Uh, there seems to be taxes that they haven't disclosed. The Prime Minister is even flagging additional um increases in income tax that weren't within this budget. So it's impossible to say with any confidence about where we're going to be in two years' time. But I can tell you that our focus will always be on how we make sure that we get the budget um to a sustainable position, and particularly because our long-term objective is to make sure that we pay off debt. Because we cannot continue to hand to future generations uh the burden of the responsibility for today. Uh we need to be mindful of the fact that young Australians need to be able to get ahead.

Host (Tom Connell): Next question Phil Coorey from the AFR.

Phil Coorey (AFR): Thanks Tom, thanks Mr. Wilson. Um, just quick quick question. Um, should should you be the Treasurer after the next election or whenever, would you reinstitute the tax-to-GDP ratio, the 23.9 I think it was that the Coalition had previously?

Tim Wilson: We haven't made that announcement Phil, but we have made a commitment towards a Charter of Budget Honesty because we understand that going to the point of the question that I was just asked before, we're faced with a situation where the budget seems to be crumbling. This budget seems to be crumbling before the eyes of the Australian people, but in addition to that, um we don't know what's going to be potentially in the next two budgets ahead. What we need is clarity and to understand the state of the finances because we know from what's been in the, what I call the shadow budget but essentially off-budget measures, uh they're growing at a rapid rate as well. So we are absolutely going to be focused on what it is we need to do. We are constrained by what it is we are going to inherit, but the clearest way to do that is through transparency and honesty because that will be the basis at least you can make informed policy decisions. That is not what we have currently.

Phil Coorey (AFR): Thanks.

Host (Tom Connell): So that would make sense but it's how quickly you could bring it back down, is that what you're alluding to?

Tim Wilson: Well it's it's it's understanding the state of the finances where they are. We set, you know, a test around making sure that there was honest government at the core of this budget. We have had a consistent problem where that has not been revealed. Uh, we don't even know what they're actually going to end up being legislated. It's clear from when looking through the budget papers, the government didn't even understand the implications CGT uh uh on capital gains for um for uh for the venture capital sector. They added a footnote at the last minute they were going to go through a consultation process. We just don't have the clarity that we would like. Um, it's not to avoid it, it's because those are the budget papers that we have in front of us now.

Host (Tom Connell): Dana Daniel from the Canberra Times.

Dana Daniel (Canberra Times): Thank you for your speech. Dana Daniel from the Canberra Times. Uh, there are definitely more public servants than lemonade stands in Canberra. Uh, you've said that Labor's growth sector is public sector jobs and that red tape reductions will mean fewer bureaucrats, but you haven't said how many APS jobs the Coalition would cut. The budget papers show that Labor has added almost 45,000 public servants since winning power, uh bringing the average staffing level to 217,000. So would you cut 45,000 roles, if not how many, and are you avoiding talking about this because the Liberal Party's election review found that it was damaging?

Tim Wilson: I haven't avoided talking about it. We, again, we'll wait and see where we're going to be in two years' time. The government has made a series of announcements in the lead-up to this budget claiming that they're going to have voluntary redundancies in the public sector, but when we've looked at the budget papers it's turned around and said that uh all of their measures around deregulation involve employing more public servants.

Dana Daniel (Canberra Times): A lot of those roles are in defense though, and there are redundancies. So Labor says the public service is about the right size. Uh, your leader says that he doesn't want it to grow too much. So is it just that you don't want it to grow anymore or does it need to be smaller?

Tim Wilson: I want a public service that meets the needs of the Australian people and to make sure that government does what is appropriate within its and its responsibilities.

Dana Daniel (Canberra Times): But is it currently too big?

Tim Wilson: If we get down into a single number, uh then we'll debate that individual number. The reality is we need government that's focused on how it's orientated because I've talked specifically about some of the challenges with technology that is coming and where that might enable the public sector to be more productive. I absolutely believe in having an efficient government that makes sure it uses taxpayers' money appropriately and minimizes the spend so that we can either reallocate spending to maximize the services Australians need or of course to minimize the financial pressure on Australians. But how we balance that out constantly changes based on the changing need and the times. As you rightly outlined, there was only a few years ago that the focus on defense was not such a prominent feature in the national conversation. The fact that we now live in the most dangerous times since the Second World War need means that we need to rebalance that part of it. Um, we need a government that meets the needs of the Australian people at the time at which we are in a position to form government.

Host (Tom Connell): David Speers from the ABC.

David Speers (ABC): Thanks Tom. Thanks Tim Wilson for your address. The government says there's a whole lot of misinformation around its capital gains tax changes. I wonder if I uh could ask you to explain the example you just used in your speech. You talked about Sienna who started Twinnie Skin five years ago, done well, business has grown. You said uh half of her profits will be taken by the silent shareholder of thePrime Minister. Can you just explain how that would happen? The government says existing exemptions for small business would remain. So how exactly would Sienna lose half her profit?

Tim Wilson: Well it depends on when Sienna chooses to um opt out of her business uh and sell it and for what price. I mean, she started from her bedroom and her cost structure was zero. So of course she's going to have a maximum uplift associated with her business as a lot of the people who are setting up businesses are. The Treasurer's out there today spinning a message as often he does, um highlighting existing exemptions for CGT. Most of those are focused at the back end of people's lives particularly as they head towards retirement and also based on whether they uh uh the the price at which they sell. I can't tell you what Sienna's going to sell but I can tell you that she is very concerned about, as many Australians are, that their hard work, saving and sacrifice and everything they have put into it could, depending on the exit strategy and price, ultimately face up to 47...

David Speers (ABC): But is it possible she could pay no capital gains tax as well?

Tim Wilson: Well, I I can't give you we're dealing with hypotheticals, I'm telling you what her story is. It depends on when she decides to exit, it depends on what she sells for, it depends on what stage of life she's at based on the current application of the law. But there are a lot of small business owners all around the country that are looking at the proposals put in this budget and not just do they think it comes and a tax them, they are looking at it and saying we worked, we sacrificed, we saved, we were there at 2 AM on a Sunday morning when nobody else was there, and all of a sudden the government, which traditionally takes some of the capital gain, no one's disputing that, is essentially working towards doubling that, and in some cases it would be that much.

Host (Tom Connell): Matthew Cranston from the Australian.

Matthew Cranston (The Australian): Um, last year I asked Angus Taylor how many people in Western Sydney uh know what bracket creep is. I'm going to ask you today how many One Nation voters do you think know what bracket creep is? And uh it was quite noticeable in your 20-something minute speech, you barely mentioned it. Uh, this is meant to be like the main policy for the Libs, indexing thresholds. Why hardly any mention? Don't you have to sell that a bit better? Because uh Labor's WOTO is politically very savvy in the sense that they can announce like a tax cut almost every year. But with indexation, it's one and done. So you really and there's all these questions about the cost of it as well, like how do you make the cost of it more flexible? Big big questions around all that. Sorry for so many of them.

Tim Wilson: That's fine Matt, I don't mind your questions at all. The uh I mean I talked specifically about how inflation was the silent tax on Australians' um incomes, and uh whether people know the term bracket creep or not they feel it in their hip pocket. Uh Australians when they go to the supermarket right now know that they're getting less in their red basket than they got previously. When they look at what's happening with their mortgage repayments they know it's going up um in comparison to what they have done in the past. 15 interest rate rises over the life of this government is having a really serious impact and the stress that uh Australians are living and I used that number of $32,000 reduced in purchasing power power parity. Uh and one of the challenges is bracket creep as well, where um people are being pushed even if they do get a wage increase they're facing a situation where they don't feel the benefits of it. So we will absolutely continue to sell this policy all the way through to the next election. Because we see it as very important um and to also educate the public along the way of what the government is doing. But you can't have a conversation about bracket creep without having a conversation and framing the scale of the problem of inflation and particularly what the government is doing to stoke it. And the government likes to turn around left right and center and blame international events and international conflict for Australia's inflation crisis. It's simply not backed up by the hard data. The interest rate rise that happened earlier this year, not the most recent one, came off the back of the second half of last year and that continues to be a persistent problem. And if we removed the Iran conflict tomorrow, Australia would still have an inflation problem. The government is at the heart of the problem Australians are experiencing. And until we understand that and address that we will not fix the problem either of bracket creep or whether Australians get greater purchasing power for themselves.

Matthew Cranston (The Australian): Tom I know this against the rules but just really quickly. You've got an investment trust as well. Do you know how much more tax you'll be paying?

Tim Wilson: I haven't bothered to calculate that. Um, it's not really my primary focus.

Host (Tom Connell): So you mentioned the best thing for Australians would be no debt, which is a long way off even the the initial target of Aus balancing the budget. Is that many years away even if it were an Angus Taylor/Tim Wilson government given the pledge as well on bracket creep?

Tim Wilson: Well, I'll go back to the point I make before. Firstly firstly I don't think the bracket creep uh measures um need be the reason um for any adjustment. I think the bigger challenge is going to be how we're going to grow the economy. At the moment the whole conversation around the budget is uh how we're going to redistribute the resources of our country. But that's not a very hopeful optimistic vision for the country that is built on something that Australian young Australians are going to work towards. We actually need to talk about the point of rebalancing. We need a rebalancing back towards a growth trajectory which actually improves the living standards and prosperity of every Australian.

Host (Tom Connell): Growth rather than big spending cuts?

Tim Wilson: Well it needs to be both. I mean you need to cut spending, you need to make sure that you are also growing the economy, but the government has basically given up on growth. They are not interested, it's not their priority, and most of the budget measures they've introduced have been focused explicitly on redistribution. Australians will live a poorer standard of living if we do not do that particularly and drive an agenda towards growth particularly in the context uh that we continue to overshoot the government's own migration expectations. Uh, we have choices as a nation. Do we want to manage decline? That is the Labor vision. Or do we want to grow the economy, empower Australians, uh back small businesses to get ahead and particularly for the self-starters to lean into the future because yes the world is uncertain and none of us are under any illusion about that. Technological change and I spoke about it in my speech may be one of the most disruptive forces that we have. None of us know. But do we empower people and create the legal structures and the tax structures to back them in, to back Australians who are enterprising, confident and look to the future with horizon? I can tell you that's where my focus is going to be.

Host (Tom Connell): Paul Sakkal from the SMH and the Age.

Paul Sakkal (SMH & Age): Thanks Tom. Shadow Treasurer just a question on migration, which was another key theme of the opposition leader's budget reply last week. He and others in the party have started to use the term "mass migration." You don't use the term, even when asked. Some of your other colleagues here like Senator Bragg and others also don't use it. I wonder why you don't use that term given Australia's pace of demographic change has been among the highest in the OECD for decades and the highest on some measures. And just on the broader politics of migration, how do you think the party should balance its rhetoric given it needs to reflect the concerns of a chunk of the community who have problems with the pace of demographic change along with the need to win back a bunch of seats that have high Indian and Chinese speaking populations?

Tim Wilson: Well, I fundamentally believe that we should have a migration program that works for Australia. That's that's the purpose of a migration program. It's not to suit the interests in particular of the migrants, it's how do we enrich and and advance our national interest for all of us. And it needs therefore to be sustainable. It needs to be sustainable in a way based on the pathways for people to economically integrate, socially integrate, and that we can house new Australians. You're not going to do that uh if the number of people outpaces the capacity for us to absorb them and to house them. People have legitimate concerns about our country and whether we are able to continue to absorb the number of people who are coming here. We know uh the need to make sure that it's based on what advances our national interest and skills, uh particularly to do things including partly the challenges around the skills we need to build new housing. So I think it's about getting the balance back into what advances our national interest, and we know that the government is overshooting even their own expectations around that. So I don't really see that it's that controversial a proposition. When it comes to the political balance, um, not every not every political party makes decisions so calculated as the Labor government does, where they're prepared to eat into the equity of our country to advance their political interests. You know, at the end of the day I think this is one of the most immoral governments in Australian history. And one of the reasons I think that is because I think they've made a series of shrewd political decisions that advance their interests to the extent of the whole nation. And I don't think that's moral, I don't think that's right. And that's why I believe it should go.

Paul Sakkal (SMH & Age): Do you reject the term "mass migration"?

Tim Wilson: Well, it's a term I've said before that I use, but the focus is on, I've always looked at migration as how do we ensure that new Australians or migrants find a pathway to become new Australians so they come, they commit and they contribute. Because that is in their interests, and it is in our interests too. And I can't imagine that any other Australian would think otherwise.

Host (Tom Connell): Next question Andrew Greene from the West Australian.

Andrew Greene (The West Australian): Tim, uh I'll address this question as not only the Shadow Treasurer but probably the nominal leader of the moderate faction now in your party. And to follow up from Paul's question on migration, you are someone who managed to defeat a Teal, um but your leader's comments have upset diaspora communities and on migration. As someone who has defeated a Teal, what's your advice to your party when talking about this this issue of migration and how can you win back some of those seats that were lost at the last election on on migrants?

Tim Wilson: I think you're drawing a uh how would I put it? I think you're drawing this sort of comparison which isn't justified. I said at the end of the question to Paul that I think the overwhelming majority and I've yet to meet anybody really, uh who doesn't believe that Australia's migration program shouldn't advance our national interest. I've I genuinely have never met anybody. That it should be based on what is sustainable, which provides pathways for people to economically, socially integrate, culturally integrate, and that includes their pathway for housing. Australians believe that, and I cannot believe that new Australians would want anything otherwise. Uh because I don't see how you advance somebody's personal interest to achieve their dream to live out the promise of this country if they can't then go on and do things like secure a home. So I think the of course always when you're talking about people and their lives, you should do it with respect and I'm not suggesting in any way shape or form that hasn't been done. We just need to be realistic about the fact that Australians have a concern about where we are, our future trajectory, and again going off by the government's own budget numbers, they say they're going to overshoot their targets. That doesn't fill Australians with confidence that the government understands how to manage Australia's migration program nor that they always believe that it's working in our national interest. Sustainability involves multiple factors, and that includes migrant Australians looking at how they make sure they can realize their potential in this country too.

Andrew Greene (The West Australian): Had a quick other one. Tony Abbott, would you welcome him back to federal politics, particularly in a Victorian seat?

Tim Wilson: Well that's up to the voters of whichever seat that is uh and whether they decide to do it, but I always want good candidates to be standing forward and putting themselves forward for success. But I don't seek to predetermine the will of voters or pre-selectors.

Host (Tom Connell): Charles Croucher from the Nine Network.

Charles Croucher (Nine): Thank you Tom. Thank you Tim. Um, the fundamental argument here seems to be a discussion of taxation of investment and risk versus taxation of labor. With the average tax rate of a nurse is between 20 and 25 percent, same with teachers, coal miner or iron ore miner is probably double that. Are you fundamentally okay with someone selling an investment property or a business or shares or crypto and being taxed at a lower rate than a nurse or a teacher and half the rate of a coal miner?

Tim Wilson: Well firstly, uh it depends on when they've purchased the asset etcetera etcetera. And remember, people buy assets with post-tax income. Like this seems to be completely forgotten in a lot of the conversation. So, uh inflation and with the current government's active inflation agenda is actively outstripping value um not just for for people who earn incomes, but potentially with what they're going to do the value of assets as well. So uh I absolutely want and I've said this to Tom before and I've said it uh in other fora, I believe that it is better to have lower income taxes because I think that's a pathway forward. If the answer to every single question is, well this person's got this tax rate so the conclusion therefore is we have to increase the tax rate on everything else, what you're saying is that the government uh has a natural right to people's wealth and what they've earned and what it is they've justly put their effort to. I'm sorry, that just is not my world view. I fundamentally believe that we should encourage and incentivize people to work. I fundamentally believe that we should want people to invest for the future. I fundamentally believe we should want the self-starters of this country to back themselves, show energy, spirit and enterprise so they can get ahead. I fundamentally believe in a better future where we're working cooperatively together to build out the promise of this country. Not simply to turn around and as the government likes to do make good honest decent people who are seeking to put their effort to work, whether it's capital or labor, as the villain so that they can raid their tax their income and their tax.

Host (Tom Connell): Ruben Spargo from Sky News.

Ruben Spargo (Sky News): Thank you. Mr. Wilson, according to the Sky News Pulse poll today, voters are backing Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce over you and Angus Taylor.

Tim Wilson: It's personally about me is it?

Ruben Spargo (Sky News): I'm cheeky. One Nation, it's understood is set to announce a policy on gas tomorrow while you've been building a website. Are you doing enough to secure conservative votes here?

Tim Wilson: Um I think it's a little bit trivial to say hey we're going to engage the entire small business community of the country and not provide a pathway for them to do so. So I'll take the opportunity thank you for uh if anybody wants to engage in how to back the self-starters of the country and build uh a pathway one to fight against Labor's new taxes you should go to notthetax.com.au. And of course if you want to be part of our consultation about how we're going to build a better future this country to go through standwithsmall.org. Because actually one of the things the government has done right now, and not by my words but by the Prime Minister's words, is he has betrayed the trust of the Australian community after before the election he said 50 times over he wouldn't introduce the taxes that he did in the budget. I couldn't say that. He has said that. And one of the problems with when you do that is you corrode the trust in the political system so much so that the very thick walls in the building a few hundred meters up the road feel slightly more hollow. Certainly to a lot of Australian people, the Australian people who feel that they now lack a certain level of integrity. I think one of the big challenges for all of us in the 21st century is building a political system that engages with people where they have a pathway to have a conversation and to be a participant in it. Because that's the pathway not just that you can then get people's input and views, but in addition to that you can then go on and develop policy that actually works for them. The government has a very different view. Their view is to tear down the trust that they had that they were gifted to them by the Australian people and to abuse that trust. And the consequence of that is of course now manifest in the problems that they have with their policy. I've said many times before, many times before including I think it was on David Speers' program relatively recently and probably Tom's too, that we have a big job to do. But the pathway to make sure we rebuild a confident Australia where people want to back a Liberal vision is that they feel empowered and that they feel and are living that we are fighting for them enough that because they believe that what we are offering forward is going to fight for them. And so I believe uh whatever the Orange Paddock of Despair wants to do is up to them because I don't believe they have a vision or a purpose for this country. Uh, but yes we absolutely have more work to do and we're proudly keep doing it.

Host (Tom Connell): Mark Riley from the Seven Network.

Mark Riley (Seven Network): Thank you Tom. Mr. Wilson, just on your observation there about a betrayal of trust and and the breach of promise. Uh Matt Canavan, the leader of your Coalition partner, has said today that the tax changes are so profound that people were misled in such a large way that it should be put back to the people. He's calling for an election on this issue. I'm just wondering whether the Coalition's polling at historical lows, whether you share your Coalition partner's political death wish?

Tim Wilson: Cute. Well, pretty accurate. Well I've been in plenty of elections uh where where they've started they've finished in a different place. I think you've been in a few too as well Mark and you've witnessed a few um along the way. So I don't believe anything is predetermined. I believe that going to the next election we need to be the, again I'll go back I've said this many times before, the most bold confident Liberals with the clearest vision about where we want to take the country and more importantly to clarify for Australians not just what we are fighting for but who we are fighting for. And I've outlined today very clearly that we are here to back the self-starters of this country to get ahead. So Matt's right. The Prime Minister has utterly betrayed the Australian community. The policies he took to the last election are not the ones he is seeking to implement now. If he had any guts or courage he would do so. But he won't. The question is the fate of the Treasurer because he has now become the albatross that's hanging around the Prime Minister's neck.

Host (Tom Connell): Election would be good? No? So a yes to an election?

Tim Wilson: I haven't called for an election but I have made the point that there is a very clear breach of trust. I have never been afraid of elections, um but I am not suggesting that that's the case. Uh Matt has made those statements. But I'm focused on making sure that we hold the government to account, that we stop the changes in the taxes they've put forward which breach the trust of the Australian people and uh more importantly if necessary will repeal them.

Host (Tom Connell): Jessica Wang from Daily Telegraph.

Jessica Wang (Daily Telegraph): Thanks Mr. Wilson. Um given that you've repeatedly criticized the government for its inflationary spending, how do you as the Shadow Treasurer justify committing to both the WOTO and um the index tax brackets as Angus Taylor has? Um and on budget discipline will the Coalition go into the next election with a spending cap measured by government spending to GDP?

Tim Wilson: So on the first question, uh the reason we can justify it is because it's inflationary is ultimately about aggregate spending. As I always say to people um in the media, um I could save $15 billion by making sure we get back the money that's been stolen by the CFMEU Labor cartel through to organized crime. By making sure we cut down and crack down on the corruption fraud uh that exists in the NDIS. The government has created honeypots that have been raided of honest Australian taxpayers' money that is now being used and it is just as inflationary as any other dollar out there in the economy. And we will absolutely have more offsets in the lead-up to the election um because at the end of the day our view about where money should go is in empowering and the hip pockets of Australians because that's where we believe it best to be, not by borrowing from the future to feed inflation today as the current government insists on doing, and in addition to that uh their uh their willingness to allow public money to go to dishonest ends.

Jessica Wang (Daily Telegraph): Can I just follow up on that? You said you'd have more offsets in the lead-up to the election. Do you is that a confirmation of more tax offsets?

Tim Wilson: No I'm talking about more spending offsets. Um but

Host (Tom Connell): Cuts? Spending cuts?

Tim Wilson: Well they will be offsets meaning there will be yes cuts because there will be different parts of program of programs that the government is wasting money on. As I've said, the government is trying desperately to cut their own budget right now um in different parts because they have created these honeypots particularly in public programs uh that are going to fraud, waste and corruption. They've been dragged there kicking and screaming to make sure that public money is used to appropriate purposes. We want to rebalance the budget back in favor of Australians away from fraud and organized crime.

Host (Tom Connell): Patrick Commins from the Guardian.

Patrick Commins (The Guardian): Uh thanks very much Tim. Um my question is around the CGT and the negative gearing changes in the budget. I think I think you're making the argument that there's a perverse effect here and it's actually going to make it harder for young Australians to to get into the housing market because they won't have access to those benefits. And if and if that's right, do you then think that the status quo that's existed for the last 25 years or so around the CGT discount and around negative gearing has actually helped young Australians get into the housing market?

Tim Wilson: Well the housing market predominantly is one that's reflected on the challenges of supply and demand. We know that. Um, but absolutely as people need flexibility, uh we're seeing huge numbers of people pursuing things like rent-vesting if they can't secure what they want where they want, uh and they're looking at different options to be able to do so. The key thing we need to actually do is keep encouraging housing stock to be built. As Angus Taylor correctly outlines, uh if you tax something you tend to get less of it. Um except in one example of course, uh which is the volume of tax we've applied to tobacco which has led to uh organized crime profiteering and the government simply refuses to swallow its pride and have a proper conversation about that. So um we need to make sure that young Australians can get ahead and they're doing it right now. The number of young Australians who've contacted me in the past week who have invested their home deposit and never forget this, the technology has changed around how people save and invest their money in a way that simply did not exist when I was growing up. When I was growing up, shares were the domain of the rich, you needed to go through a broker, it was expensive to do transactions, and of course the available information in the public domain was also very scarce. By comparison now, information is transparent, it is cheap to be able to do transactions, and of course you can use different platforms to buy shares, ETFs, crypto and that is what young Australians are doing. And they are just as much going to be hit by these CGT changes as anybody else and as a consequence their first home deposit is being pushed backwards.

Host (Tom Connell): Tobacco tax is sort of perfect isn't it? Because we've got a lot less legal tobacco after it went up. Um Melissa Coade from the Mandarin.

Tim Wilson: Well legal as well as we've now have uh we've essentially abolished plain packaging through the process of what the government has done and of course it has led to distribution systems of organized crime profiteering um across the board. Um it's just the most maddening situation.

Host (Tom Connell): A lot of a lot of increases under the Coalition. I didn't mean to jump in though, so...

Tim Wilson: That's right.

Melissa Coade (The Mandarin): Hi Mr. Wilson. Thank you for your talk. When I listen to the discourse particularly among sort of average pundits about what the budget means for them and how it affects them, there is a strong sentiment on either side or extremes that the status quo is broken and that everyone's working their guts out and not seeing the benefit of that, not seeing their standard of living improve in the way that they did generations past. But when I listen to your speech and I want to put this question because it's what I hear and I'm sure it's not what you mean, I hear you talking about getting ahead and self-starters and that these people are the engine of the national economy and they are the beacon of hope for growth. There's a real sort of us and them divide wherever you look when people talk about the budget. So my question is in your mind who in Australia is entitled to aspiration and hope? Is it just the self-starters or is it also the workers? And is the Coalition making a pitch for all of Australia or just that discrete section of the community?

Tim Wilson: It absolutely includes every single Australian and we should be setting our eyes to the horizon about saying Australians should be a self-starter nation. And I say that point very clearly because one of the things, and again going talking to young Australians as we have over the past uh week specifically post the budget. What a lot of them have said to us is: my staff now have side hustles. They have a salary but they also have something else. They might be having investments through sweat equity uh in in shared equity schemes for other activities they're up to. So there is no us and them, it is all about empowerment and how we lift people up and encourage them to look to the horizon with hope. The biggest problem is this government simply does not understand how Australians are working today, how they're investing today, how they're shifting the practice of their economic activity, changing and adapting to the technological change uh and the needs to meet the market. So it's not an us or them, it's quite the reverse. It's about empowerment of every single Australian.

Melissa Coade (The Mandarin): But your message is fundamentally that's the new normal. Earning...

Tim Wilson: That's what people are living and I respect how people live their lives. I don't want I'd like to stop Jim Chalmers' active inflation agenda. I'd like to see the government continue stop um borrowing from tomorrow to feed today uh and the problems around inflation um and how that's corroding people's wealth uh and income. I'd like to see lots of things change. But even if that doesn't change, and even if it does, I still believe that this country's best future is when Australians are backing themselves, when they're looking at different pathways because that gives people flexibility, it gives them sense of agency and control over their own lives. It um puts them in a position best where they can grow their wealth. Um in years past, the world was a different place. I'm the first to acknowledge that. Um I'm looking at the type of economy we should want to build that empowers Australians. Thanks.

Host (Tom Connell): Naveen Razik from SBS.

Naveen Razik (SBS): Uh thanks Mr. Wilson. You spoke in your speech about the importance of the fair go in Australia. What's fair for new permanent migrants or permanent residents coming to Australia who pay the same level of tax being denied access to government services like the NDIS and parental leave pay?

Tim Wilson: Well the welfare system isn't solely there to make sure that it provides anybody who's here um benefits. Not everybody ultimately pays taxes in the way that we might like but that's not to marginalize any section of the community, it's just to acknowledge that that's what happens. Uh the objective of the Australian project and Australian public services primarily to benefit Australian citizens. Uh we of course have included grandfathering measures in our proposals, we've excluded things like health and education. But let's be clear about this. If you want a nation of a fair go, I don't believe that we are setting new Australians up for success if we're saying the solution to your problems or your challenges is to become welfare dependent. I believe that new Australians are best served when they are encouraged to work and I absolutely believe they want to, that they seek to take control of their own lives and contribute and they want to, because the expectation for them and for us should be to come, to commit and to contribute to better future for yourselves, to a better future for the rest of us, and a better shared journey for all Australians.

Naveen Razik (SBS): But what happens if someone gets a disability out of unforeseen circumstances or, you know, with parental leave has to carry a child and may not have that covered by the government?

Tim Wilson: Well we as you know we have different arrangements, different insurance schemes that exist already in the private market, there are different types of state-based schemes as well, um depending on the specific condition. So uh we need to make sure the system is working for Australians to maintain confidence in it. Because you know Milton Friedman, um some of us like the uh still like Milton Friedman, uh always made the point that one of the things that will undermine a migration system is a welfare system that's seen to be deemed to be too generous and that over time it will corrode the confidence that people have. Thanks Mr. Wilson.

Host (Tom Connell): Given you missed out on address in your last term in office, happy to squeeze in a couple more for us?

Tim Wilson: Are we still going with live broadcast? I don't know whether we're still on.

Host (Tom Connell): I believe we are. All right. It'll be in a newspaper if not. Fin McHugh from the Capital Brief.

Fin McHugh (Capital Brief): Hey Tim. You tried to get it in before but I just want you to expand on the tobacco excise. It's not just a health issue, it's a crime issue and a major economic one now. Do you think we're repeating the mistakes of the prohibition American era and um how would the Coalition address it?

Tim Wilson: So the short answer is: over summer I actually read a book on the history of prohibition. Um and spoiler alert, we are. Uh and there are multiple dimensions to why it is to with structure of government and the consequences associated with it. Uh the truth is I the system is now so bad, and it is bad, I mean we basically have marginal amount of legal product sold, we have uh huge loss of tax revenue which is just but one component of it, um I would be shocked and amazed if it's not having a bigger impact on the overall consumption of the product. And as I said before, it fundamentally turns lawful citizens into engaging unlawful product um and unlawful behavior. Uh but the challenge for me is I don't know what tax rate you'd have to now reduce it to to actually change the system. The distribution networks are set up. We're now seeing them replicated uh in illicit alcohol. And the big question for everybody is: what would you need to cut excise and whether there's a political will to do it to actually get people to prop up and uh pack up sorry to say and uh and move out. Um I've heard numbers like 30 percent, my personal view is I remain skeptical that that's enough uh and so this needs a multi-pronged approach. I have heard from some retailers who've come and seen me recently about different strategies about how you could address with particularly around the bonds and obligations around landlords. Um but I think we're going to have to be very creative to unpack a problem that was created by government uh and has led to turning as I said honest citizens into engaging in dishonest activity.

Host (Tom Connell): We are still live I'm assured. We'll end things with John Kehoe from the AFR.

John Kehoe (AFR): Afternoon Shadow Treasurer. Uh you've committed to income tax indexation which will cost the budget um revenue in the tune of more than $200 billion over a decade. Um the Coalition wants to increase defense spending from 2 percent to 3 percent of GDP, that's about $30 billion a year, and you've committed to wind back Labor's tax increases on trust capital gains and negative gearing which the Treasurer tells us are worth more than $80 billion over a decade. Uh are we now in a situation as Michael Brennan the former Productivity Commissioner chairman suggests where the Liberals are like the Republicans in the United States where they want to cut taxes but they won't cut spending and so we still have big budget deficits and debt, and Labor is uh what the Democrats where they spend and don't balance the budget either? I mean realistically on those numbers I've presented you've no chance of uh balancing the budget reducing debt or deficits are you?

Tim Wilson: Well first I don't agree with your analysis at all. Uh though I always respect Michael Brennan and his contributions as well, and to you John as well. Uh but no I don't agree with it because we absolutely need to make sure that we have a sustainable budget. And there is certainly one of the cheap party tricks of the Labor Party is to say in parliament well what is it you would cut, and then I go through the fraud, the corruption and the misuse of public money and happily say yes we will get rid of the fraud and corruption that exists. The big challenge we have is I do not know the situation we are going to inherit at the end of this term. But it's absolutely my objective uh to make sure that we have a sustainable budget that is focused very clearly on uh constraining public spending and looking at how we reprioritize spending to make sure that we get maximum value for buck for the Australian taxpayer. I spoke before about how we could reprioritize public money in um the context of technology and AI. This is coming, it's going to be in the private sector, it's going to be in the public sector too, uh and the world we're going to inherit will probably be quite different from where we are now. But I'm afraid some of us still believe that before we turn around to the Australian people and pull their belt in, we should pull our belt in too.

Host (Tom Connell): Now we're only two years from an election, maybe sooner if Matt Canavan gets his way. So never too soon to ask, you come back here at the Press Club and debate Jim Chalmers before the next election?

Tim Wilson: Well I so far I understand that every time there's been a conversation about whether we debate or not he has declined the invitations. So...

Host (Host Connell): You can be out there going "I'm ready, where's Jim?"

Tim Wilson: Like I think I've kind of done that today.

Host (Host Connell): All right. Tim Wilson, we appreciate your time ladies and gentlemen. Please thank the Shadow Treasurer.

[ENDS]