All Episodes

October 9, 2025 • 33 mins

The member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson, is a guest on the podcast this week during a very interesting time for the Liberal Party. Last week, home affairs spokesman Andrew Hastie quit the front bench, followed by infighting and internal leaking.
Wilson talks about his relationship with Hastie and the former frontbencher's 'fraught' decision to step back, and where the party's soul-searching could possibly lead.

Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:04):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley. This week I'm
in Canberra, which is always exciting. And so Paul and
I are actually in the studio together for a change,
and we have a very special guest with us, the
member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson. We've entrapped Tim on a

(00:25):
very interesting week during a very interesting time for the
Liberal Party to go with the famous euphemism. Last week,
Home affairs spokesman Andrew Hastie quit the frontbench, and this
week there's been a lot of infighting and internal leaking
in the aftermath. So I want to welcome our chief
political correspondent, Paul Chuckle, as usual, and Tim Wilson, our
special guest star from Goldstein.

S2 (00:47):
Well, thank you very much. Thanks very much for having me.

S1 (00:49):
Tim. A very hearty welcome, and we're excited to have
you on. But in the interest of full disclosure, we
did actually have Andrew Hastie invited and booked to be
our guest this week. Um, he pulled out a few
days ago, saying that he sort of didn't want to
draw too much attention to himself with the long form interview.
I guess he wanted to keep a low profile after
having a very high profile for a few weeks there.

(01:11):
Just tell our listeners, what do you make of Hastie's
departure and the very evident conflict that's playing out within
the Liberal Party at the moment?

S2 (01:19):
So you're saying I'm the Steven Bradbury of this interview? Look, you.

S1 (01:23):
Were saying you're a very, very adequate and welcome substitute.

S2 (01:28):
Well, I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you. Uh, so. Well,
obviously what's happened in the past couple of weeks is
Andrews decided to step back from the frontbench. Most people
chomp at the bits to get on the frontbench when
they're in parliament. He's chosen to voluntarily take a step back. Uh,
you know, on his words, he said it's over an
issue around, um, his carriage over immigration as part of

(01:49):
the Home Affairs portfolio. Um, but really, I think it's
fair to say what Andrew has done is he's gone
out and said he has a bigger agenda that he
wants to prosecute and doesn't want to be bound by
shadow Cabinet solidarity, which is, you know, broadly, the principle
that if you're a member of the shadow cabinet, if
it makes a decision that you have to back that in,
that's the same on Liberal and Labour sides, because, um,

(02:12):
if you want people to support what you're going to do,
you have to support others and what they're going to do.
And he just wants to be unshackled by that and
go and say what he wants. So now we're all
waiting with patient breath to see what it is that
he wants to say.

S1 (02:23):
And how has that gone down internally within the party?
I mean, do you see that as a noble move,
that he's done the right thing by his colleagues because
he could have done it in a little sort of
quieter way or in a more gracious way, couldn't he?

S3 (02:34):
Mary Aldridge made that point in party room. Right. This
wasn't a thing that she respected in terms of the
way he went about it. Do you share that view?

S2 (02:41):
I think the the I think what's become evident to
me is that he probably shouldn't have joined shadow Cabinet
in the first place, because I think this has been
going on for longer than just the past couple of weeks.
And I don't say that as a as a criticism.
You know, when I got elected, um, on the 3rd
of June because the election was made. Three but I

(03:01):
wasn't actually declared till 3rd June. I didn't automatically jump
at the idea of going into the shadow Cabinet myself,
because you have to go through a process, particularly after
a feat like that, of what's your role and what
contribution do you have to make and what's the direction
of the party. And, you know, it took a while
for me to be convinced to go into the shadow cabinet,
and that was the best way to prosecute arguments. But

(03:23):
the truth is also at this time, the party needs everyone,
every hand on deck, I think, to sort of pick
itself up and give people a sense of hope for
the future. And that's the approach I've taken. So Andrew's
gone off and made his decision. Uh, the question now is,
what is he actually going to put forward, um, that
he wants to prosecute? Because really the approach is taken

(03:45):
is to say, well, I'm going to go outside of
the normal party processes. He's now going to develop something
which he's now going to try and essentially remake the
priorities of the entire party on. Um, that's a very
substantial move. Um, and, uh, you know, it's one that's
fraught with difficulty because there's the world you want. There's
the world that we live in. And I always start

(04:07):
with the world we live in. And how do we
then take that world towards a more liberal vision? Um,
rather than starting from the world I want and trying
to get reality to conform to it.

S3 (04:17):
Just on your Steven Bradbury point, even if you did
Steven Bradbury on our last two guests, as we said
just before the show, were the Prime Minister and the
opposition leader. So you're still an esteemed company. So thanks
for coming on.

S4 (04:28):
They're not nearly as funny as you, Tim. Yeah.

S3 (04:31):
Don't get too big.

S4 (04:32):
No.

S3 (04:33):
Just on that question. Um, you and him have an
interesting career trajectory and kind of. You relate to each
other in an interesting way. Came in in almost the
exact same time.

S2 (04:43):
He came out in 2015. In a by election.

S3 (04:45):
Year after.

S2 (04:46):
16.

S3 (04:46):
Yeah. Similar. Um, similarly big ambitions the two of you have.
I think it's fair to say without you going into that,
I don't need to address that. But, um, you've been
put forward in some by some commentators as a kind of, um,
person who is, um, embodies the vision on the moderate
side of the party. One path of the party. Him
on the other flank. He's also a bit of a

(05:08):
lone wolf. He's not from the East coast. He doesn't
have the same connections as someone like you who's been
institutionalized in the party for a long time. How do
you relate to him at a personal level? And also,
what do you make of him as a character in
the party? How do you locate him? What's he like?

S2 (05:22):
Well, so when I was first elected in 2016, Andrew
and I were sat next to each other in Parliament
and we made a conscious choice. And I don't want
to sort of break confidences, and I don't think I am,
but we made a very conscious choice that we were
likely to be in Parliament for a long time together. Obviously,
I had a three year walkabout, um, whereas he did not, uh, to,
you know, to make, to get along. And, and I

(05:43):
have very warm affection for him personally and I do. Uh,
and we have at different points traded books and challenged
our own ideas and, uh, and, uh, you know, I've
given his kids Christmas presents and those sorts of things.
So we've actually always had a very warm relationship and
he's a warm person, but he has, you know, a
very different background to what I do. He's very security

(06:04):
focused because of his background, obviously, in the SaaS. Um, he, uh,
are much more academic. Um, he's studied things like business
economics more recently. Uh, and so we come at issues
from different perspectives, but we actually have a lot of
common ground as well. We're both very focused on national unity,
what it is we need to build out for the
future of Australia. I'm probably a bit more retail than

(06:26):
my politics is, probably a bit more. Um, how would
you put it? Romantic. I think it'd be fair to
say so. I think we, um, we actually have a
really interesting complementarity between the two of us. We sometimes
end up in the same place with very different views.
But of course, there have been debates in the past
where we unintentionally led to a nationwide boycott of Coopers

(06:46):
beer because we talked about the issue of same sex
marriage over a beer where we both had diametrically opposite views.
And so I think we're an interesting pair in that sense,
because on a lot of issues, we genuinely do end
up in the same place. Um, but, you know, he's
talking about Reindustrialisation. If you go and look at my
campaign launch speech back on the 29th of March of

(07:08):
this year, I explicitly talk about reindustrializing the country. He
said it sort of subsequently, um, and that's not to
take ownership of it. We actually have very similar views
about what we need to do to build the strength
of this country. Why it matters how we're going to
do it. But again, how do we best prosecute that?

S1 (07:25):
So what you're describing there is basically a platonic ideal of,
you know, the conservative wing of the Liberal Party and
the moderate wing or whatever it is that you call
your sort of wing of the Liberal Party agreeing, disagreeing, respectfully,
having dialogue across the table. But that is not at
all the public front of the Liberal Party the last
few weeks in particular. What the public is seeing is

(07:47):
division infighting leaking. Jacinta Nampijinpa price, you know, this week
has called, um, your party, her party a clown show
or said it's resembled a clown show. I'm not saying
any of those things are true, but that is the
public perception. And I just would like you to sort
of explain to listeners what you guys are fighting about.
What is the existential war that's happening here? Because, you know,

(08:10):
the ostensible policy points are maybe net zero and immigration.
What is that? What it's really about, or is it
something deeper about the soul of the party?

S2 (08:19):
I actually think it's a much bigger conversation about the
soul of the country, actually.

S1 (08:23):
Wow.

S4 (08:23):
Okay.

S2 (08:24):
Um, and and that's why I want to emphasize the
points of commonality rather than the points of difference, because
I think what we've had is gone through a period
of 30 years where, um, of peace and prosperity, where
as a nation, we've taken a lot of comfort from
things like, um, you know, post-Cold War, um, global economic integration.

(08:45):
We've basically extracted our security dividend as a society. We've
lived in a period of incredible prosperity. And and in
many ways it's been, you know, of course, a period
where we've been able to focus on how do we
perfect our society, address historical disadvantage and injustices. We haven't
perfected everything, but now we're going back to a time
where we need to focus on the majority again, because
we need to kind of secure the nation. And and

(09:06):
that's partly, I think, what's motivating some of the things
that Andrew and others are doing. And so but the
challenge in politics is always, how do you take people
with you on that journey? Because the public, I think,
are looking at our times. They're anxious economically, I think
in a security sense. Um, and they're anxious, but they
want to be led through those times, but they want

(09:28):
a sense of hope and vision for the future. They
don't want to be led through fear. And I think
what we need to position towards is a vision that's
focused on hope, about how we can be the trusted
partner to walk alongside Australians.

S1 (09:42):
Is it just an issue of style, though, and messaging
as you're saying, or are there fundamental kind of policy
issues or ideological issues and fissures that just can't, can't
be mended?

S2 (09:52):
Uh, well, there absolutely are other issues. I'm not trying
to pretend otherwise, but I do think they can be mended.
I think that the risk is that we get caught
taking the bait of our opponents.

S1 (10:03):
Which.

S4 (10:03):
Is.

S2 (10:04):
Well, I think net zero is a classic example of this.
Labour wants us to be debating this issue. The Greens
want us to be debating this issue. The teals want
us to be debating this issue.

S1 (10:13):
Fulfilling their wishes nicely.

S4 (10:14):
Aren't you?

S2 (10:15):
Well, well, I can assure you I am not. But
others are.

S3 (10:18):
You want to keep net zero, right?

S2 (10:19):
Sorry.

S3 (10:20):
Well, in some way, shape or form.

S2 (10:21):
What I want is I want to have a debate
about how we keep net net zero price increases, net
zero outages. And also, of course, you know, the trade
off from that is yeah, I don't really mind if
we get net zero emissions as part of that. But
you've got to get the hierarchy right. The problem at
the moment is the government is put net zero emissions
above price considerations, national security, everything else. Now I'm not

(10:43):
trying to run lines that's actually structural.

S3 (10:45):
But keep the net zero commitment.

S2 (10:46):
But happily keep the.

S3 (10:47):
With greater emphasis on other, other priorities.

S2 (10:49):
So long as we keep it on a more even.

S4 (10:51):
Keel.

S1 (10:51):
Hang on. That's not really necessarily keeping the commitment as
a as a first order priority. You're saying that that's
the government's first order priority at the expense.

S4 (10:59):
Of.

S2 (10:59):
Of everything else? And what I'm saying is it should
be on an.

S4 (11:01):
Even.

S2 (11:02):
Keel with other issues and priorities, because when we're committed
to net 0 in 2021, emissions were on the same
level as price, reliability, national security, sovereignty. What labor did
was they legislated the target and put it above all
of those other considerations. And that's part of the reason
why there's a problem.

S4 (11:19):
But, Tim.

S1 (11:19):
You're an intelligent person and you've read a lot about
this stuff. I don't think anyone can credibly say that
a move to a net zero emissions policy is not
going to cost anyone any money, nor is the alternative
of not moving to net zero emissions not going to
cost anyone any money. It's going to cost us either way.

S2 (11:36):
There's definitely consequences either way. The idea that if you
just scrap net zero, we're suddenly going to have cheaper
prices when people email me.

S4 (11:42):
Yeah, I'm sorry.

S2 (11:44):
Because we deal with this every day where people email
and say scrap net zero and you get this very
abrupt email and I always reply back and say, what
do you think will happen if we do it? And
people's sort of say, well, prices will come down. And
I say, well, how? Because inevitably what they think is, well,
suddenly new coal fired power stations will pop up, the

(12:04):
price of energy will collapse, etc. and it's like, no,
that's not going to happen. And you step through why
that won't happen. Um, because this is a problem that's
been 20 years in the making. It's a problem about
multi-decade investment around baseload energy generation, which is where we're
now getting into a very dry topic. But it's it's
one that I'm very interested in. But but I'm aware
of how dry it is. And if it's multiple decades

(12:25):
in the making, it's going to take a while to
turn around. But you can still disagree with what the
government's doing. I think what the government's doing is reckless. Um,
and they're not sitting the country best up for the future,
which is one of the reasons I've always been very
supportive of nuclear. But that will take time, too. I'm
not arguing with that. So but what we need to
be doing is focused on what do we need to

(12:46):
do to get more energy into the grid to get
prices down? Because if you get prices down, public acceptance
and social licence around emissions reduction will actually improve. But
the more prices go up, the more support for emissions
reduction goes down. And that's actually why the government's got
their priorities wrong.

S1 (13:01):
That's actually a really good point.

S3 (13:03):
Um, I reckon you'll lose your seat if you drop
net zero entirely. If you went down the hasty route,
you couldn't win. Goldstein. Right.

S2 (13:09):
I don't agree with that, but I don't. Um, but equally,
I think that's a massive hypothetical. Um, because I don't
think we're going to I think we're we're going to
end up is we're going to end up with a
policy framework which is focused on back to where we were,
which is a much better sense of balance, which still
very much contrasts with with Labor's position. But, you know,

(13:30):
those are things that I'll have to deal with in
one sense, because Andrew's obviously one of the key persons
who stood up and made their case against it has
stepped out. He's free to say whatever he wants. And
then cabinets or shadow cabinets. Welcome to bind a policy position.

S1 (13:44):
Are you being a little bit sort of wilfully naive there, though,
to think that opposition to net zero is just going
to magically fall away if you guys get the arguments right?

S2 (13:52):
No, not at all. But I think if you everything's energy.
And I don't mean in the energy debate, I mean
in politics. People's energy. People want to fight for something.
They want to fight for the future of the country.
And we need to channel their energy and give them
pathways to do so. And that's in part what's building
up at the moment is people are very disappointed with

(14:12):
the election result. Fair enough, I am too. They want
a pathway forward where they can fight for people to
improve the country, and we need to provide the outlets
for them to do so. What's happening is there's a
whole bunch of people in the media saying, well, the
way to do that is to scrap net zero. So
they're going, okay, fine, we'll pile in behind that. We
need to find other channels and avenues to pursue that conversation.

S3 (14:34):
Just on the path forward and back to the the
avenue that Andrew Hastie's charting for you guys. It feels
like what you're saying is that both sides of the
party agree that the Howard consensus is over. You need
to find a new pathway forward to re-energise centre right politics.
You need something new. On the one hand, you have
Hastie and Jacinta Price and others looking overseas, understandably looking

(14:55):
at Trump and Farage and thinking, that looks exciting, that's
creating a buzz. There is energy there. I find it
understandable that someone would go down that path. On the
other side, you have people like Arthur Sinodinos, Amanda Vanstone
pushing back against that and saying we need to revert
back to our core ideas. But their arguments sometimes feel
hollow and beige and there's not. It's not clear what

(15:15):
their alternative vision is that provides hope and energy. How
do you make a compelling argument on the other side
to Hastie and Price and say, this is the path forward,
while still talking about ideas around culture, national identity, but
doing it in a way that's palatable?

S2 (15:31):
I think this is a critical question, actually, because people say, oh,
you know, you want the party to be more moderate
or you want the party to be more conservative. Um,
I don't think the party needs to be more moderate
nor conservative. I think it needs to be bigger liberal. Um,
and this is and I and I'll explain what that means,
because I did this in my campaign where, uh, you know,

(15:54):
we were proudly, assertively liberal in the sense of offering
a vision about where we wanted to go and why
we wanted to go there. And that includes being, um,
assertive about who we are, not just as a political movement,
but what we actually want for the country. That's the
point of of having a vision. And I think, uh,
that's what's frankly been missing for a long time, and

(16:16):
certainly in the last, last Parliament, because you get around
debates around things like migration and we get into this
debate about, well, now we're going to debate about numbers. Well, actually,
what liberals should want from new Australians is unity, integration
and loyalty. The numbers obviously do matter in a technical sense,
but the extent to which we can do things proportionately

(16:38):
should be based on can we successfully integrate people for
their interests and ours? I need to be clear, uh,
whether they're new, Australians are going to be loyal to
our country. And you go to any citizenship ceremony. And
it's very clear that that's what we expect of new Australians. Um,
and of course, they're going to become full participants in
the Australian way of life. And I said this in
my kind of second first speech to the Parliament, one,

(16:59):
I think one of the biggest challenges we have now
is we don't have a story for our country that
new Australians can integrate into. When I was growing up, um,
the way the history of our country was taught was
kind of from 1788 onwards and until kind of 1988,
which was, you know, make it great in 88. Uh,

(17:20):
and then you can kind of tell my age and pedigree.
But what seems now is we're kind of taught a
pre 1788 version. Then we kind of skipped to 1958
and missed the bit in between. That's a bit simplistic,
but that's kind of how it feels, at least to me.
Whereas actually, if you want a culturally confident nation and
I do a united nation and I do, um, it

(17:40):
doesn't much matter. And Menzies, by the way, the founder
of my party was very clear on this. You know,
bring yourselves bring out every part of your personality and
your history and your culture, your race, your ethnicity. It
doesn't matter, but make a meaningful contribution, because what people
want is people going to make an investment. And we
should be selling that story about people being massive contributors
to our country.

S4 (18:01):
So.

S1 (18:01):
You know, you talked before about the liberal energy and the,
you know, passionately selling liberal values. So this is this
is what you're talking about, sort of passionately, proactively making
this kind of a case in the context of, say,
a debate about immigration as opposed to talking about so-called
mass migration, which is a phrase I use very cautiously
because it's, you know, it's parroting certain, certain sort of
ideological agenda. Is this the way that you should be

(18:23):
talking about immigration? Should you also be selling the benefits
of immigration because particularly to the large constituency of migrants
or or, you know, people with non-English speaking backgrounds that
the Liberal Party has kind of lost?

S2 (18:38):
Well, I look at new Australians and I say, firstly, um,
we we keep saying we want to be a party
of aspiration. Yeah, right. So you can't be a party
of aspiration unless you're on the side of the aspiring.
So you're on the side of the young and new
Australians always. You want an open society so they can
get ahead. Anyone who has come to this country has

(18:59):
already said, I am going to chance my hand, to
risk my past, to throw myself into the great vortex
of a new, unknown world. And that is an energy
and enthusiasm for which it must be channeled. And then,
of course, you're naturally more likely to go on and
make a greater contribution. So, you know, I'm somebody who

(19:19):
looks at new Australians, go, yep, I'm not keen on
people giving easy pathways to welfare pathways. I am very
keen on giving pathways to get people to channel that energy,
to build small businesses, to be economic contributors, to be
successful participants in our society. And absolutely, that is what
we should be seeking to aspire to, because that is
the lived reality of what it means, I believe, to

(19:40):
be a liberalist, that spark of aspiration which you've already
demonstrated by taking that great risk of coming here just quickly.

S1 (19:48):
You're a bit of a unicorn in Parliament because and
in the Liberal Party, because you won back a teal
seat and all the others are kind of gone, and
they don't look like they're coming back anytime soon. What
is your advice or what is your sort of, you know,
the guiding principle? If the Liberal Party wants to win
back those inner metropolitan seats that have just abandoned them.

S2 (20:05):
Hope.

S4 (20:06):
Yeah.

S2 (20:07):
It sounds trite, but it's.

S4 (20:09):
It does sound what what what more.

S1 (20:11):
Specifically do you need to focus more on the economy?
Do you need to talk about immigration? Do you need to,
you know, make a strong commitment to net zero? What
is it that those voters want that you gave them?

S2 (20:21):
So what what I think voters want is they want, um,
they want someone who they can trust.

S4 (20:26):
Yeah.

S2 (20:26):
Um, who's obviously invested in the community, but that they
can trust because I think what the teals do more
than anything else is they trade on trust, and I
think they've abused that trust. But we'll they'll obviously disagree
with me on that. But when you get elected on
a platform of doing things like saying, you know, you're
going to scrap fossil fuel subsidies and climate change is
the most important thing to you, then you vote for
$3 billion of new ones. I think, you know, it's

(20:48):
absurd that you can then say trust is your central thesis.
But I think, yes, they want us to focus on
the economy. But I think what I think, what those
sort of tearless communities want is I actually think they
want us to be bigger liberals. I don't think.

S4 (21:03):
Big.

S1 (21:04):
Liberal energy.

S2 (21:04):
Big liberal energy, because they're by their nature, they're aspirational communities.
They're um, they're people who have often done well. But
what they actually want is they want a better future
for their kids, and they also want a better future
for the rest of the country. They actually feel a
greater sense of responsibility for the rest of the country.
I always talk about Goldstein when I say the rest

(21:26):
of the country was more like Goldstein. We'd be a
better nation now. Yes, of course, I'm obviously very fond
of the community that elected me to Parliament.

S4 (21:32):
Controversial, but I actually believe.

S2 (21:34):
It because it's a community of people who care for
each other, who take responsibility. There is not just big
liberal energy, but there is big small business and aspiration energy. Uh,
and the more we instill that across the rest of
the country, the more you have people who stand on
their own two feet. And not just that they turn
around to others and help them stand on their own

(21:55):
two feet too. And if if liberalism has, liberalism has
many dimensions to it. But if anything it is it
is about that sort of mutual dependency and support that
we give to each other, because that's the strength of
our country. It doesn't come from kind of Canberra down.
It comes from families, communities supporting each other and fellow citizens.

S3 (22:15):
I'm really interested in your comments there on new Australians,
because you could easily have been substituted, Tony Abbott into
your seat making similar arguments. It reminded me of his line,
you know, Team Australia, not Hotel Australia without using terms
like that. But to me, you are not someone who
would share the view that some of your colleagues, like
Andrew Bragg and others repeatedly say, which is we can't

(22:38):
engage in culture wars. You're interested in those same questions
of culture. You believe in the one flag argument that
Andrew Hastie believes in. You're very keen on integration, which
is a contentious topic among some on the left and
probably some in your party. Why have you Why have moderates?
I know you don't like to call yourself a moderate,
but you're in the. You're on the left of the party.
Why have you guys seemingly ceded ground on all of

(23:00):
these questions around culture and national identity to the right
of your party? Why are you not engaged in the
fight publicly on these matters? Not not just you, but
the moderates in your party? Why are you seen to
be scared to talk about these issues? How do you
win back that argument?

S2 (23:16):
Well, I'm not sure that I'm afraid of these arguments
at all. I've kind of come on to your podcast and.

S3 (23:22):
But that's the that's the perception. Moderates don't fight.

S4 (23:24):
Paul and I were talking.

S1 (23:25):
About was, was this, you know, the the right wingers
are able to take up so much space and so
much public attention with this stuff. And they get a
lot of they get a lot of oxygen. But we
we don't always hear moderates or, you know, left wingers
such as yourself come out.

S4 (23:41):
This is where you tell us how.

S1 (23:42):
Do you identify.

S2 (23:43):
I think there'd be a lot of people.

S4 (23:44):
Who would find.

S2 (23:45):
It very challenging, not just me to call me, call
me a left wing.

S3 (23:48):
Left of the.

S4 (23:49):
Party. But you don't like being called a moderate. Tell us.
Tell us what you like being called.

S2 (23:53):
Well, no, because this is, this is. And I made
this point before is that I don't believe the party
should be more moderate or conservative. I'm. If anything, call
me a liberal.

S4 (24:00):
I'm okay with that moniker. Big liberal. Okay. Big liberal.

S1 (24:04):
The big liberals within the party are not don't.

S4 (24:06):
Seem.

S1 (24:06):
To be so good at taking the fight up to
the conservatives and articulating their arguments forcefully in public and
creating attention the way that, you know, Andrew Hastings, Jacinta
Price have recently.

S2 (24:17):
Well, I think one of the challenges of a big
liberal is that there's so many different, um, battle lines
that are drawn. I want to fight on and stand
up for and fight for Australians on the economy, on
social inclusion, because sitting behind issues of culture is social inclusion. Um,
you know, I believe very strongly in a socially liberal
society and respectful society and sitting behind that, you actually

(24:39):
have to have a culturally inclusive and respectful society as well. So, um,
I think I don't know why others may not choose
to prosecute these arguments, but I don't think I've ever
been afraid to. Even some of the debates this is.
I don't know how some of my colleagues perceive me, but, um,
you know, I don't think most of them would say
that I'm afraid of a fight. Uh, I think most

(25:01):
of them would say that I'm quite happy to. But
you've always got to pick your battles.

S1 (25:05):
Yeah. On a more personal note, Tim, um, as you
mentioned before, you set out the last term of Parliament.

S4 (25:12):
I'm not sure that was voluntary, but not voluntarily.

S1 (25:15):
What did you learn in that time? Was it a
time of reflection for you? Was it a humbling time?
What did you sort of glean in terms of observations
sitting on the outside looking in?

S2 (25:27):
So it would be it would be wrong to say
it wasn't a humbling time. It has to be, um,
because I made a very conscious decision. My husband gave
me very good advice, and then I chose to take it,
which is you've got to look at this as a gift. Um, now,
he probably saw it more as a gift, as an
opportunity to move on from politics. And instead he spent
three years in purgatory, as I insatiably Calculated my way

(25:51):
back in. Um, but but it was a gift because
you got to reflect on the government, uh, the party,
you know, yourself, the community, where it was at, what
led to their decision, their behavior. But there was also
a lot of other more mundane and prosaic things like
campaign and campaign structure. And so I'm the first to

(26:13):
say that I'm a better politician for it. I'm not
saying I'm perfect, but I spent a lot of time
thinking about those things and ruminating. But I think actually
one of the things that I really came back with
was a sense of perspective, which is you have great
privilege for three years, and it's very much a three
year time frame, and you go for contract renewal and
whatever it is, so be it, and that you've just

(26:35):
got to be yourself. Um, and I don't think I
was ever not myself, but I'm not going to always
say that I was my best self.

S4 (26:41):
Right.

S2 (26:41):
And or that you were sometimes thinking about moves and
steps ahead rather than actually saying, actually, I've got a
job to do. Um, I'm very proud of the community
that I represented, and I really I'm extremely proud. I'm
incredibly privileged to have had their trust again, but that
I'm in this to do great things for our community
and our country. How chips will land, so be it. Um,

(27:04):
and I don't spend waking hours thinking about or overcomplicating
or overthinking things now because, um, I just look at
it and think, what an enormous privilege it is that
I've had.

S3 (27:15):
We spoke when you decided to run again in Goldstein.
After a period of.

S2 (27:19):
You can break, you can break the trust if you want.

S3 (27:22):
It was on the record.

S2 (27:23):
No, I know.

S3 (27:24):
But yeah, it was a good chat we had. But
on the record, you said at the time that, you know,
you acknowledged that there was a perception of you as
someone who was sometimes arrogant, sometimes went about things in
a way that was polarizing and annoyed people. How have
you changed your have you changed interpersonally in the way
you deal with colleagues, or the way you deal with
your electorate? Since then, do you feel like a different
kind of character?

S2 (27:45):
No, I think people I think actually it's slightly different,
which is I think I don't think people know me,
and I think because I've sort of spent most of
my adult life in public life, which is a bit odd, actually,
when you think about.

S4 (27:59):
It's a strange way to live.

S2 (28:00):
It is a strange way to live. But, you know,
all the way back to when I was president of
the student union, you know, many, many years ago. Now,
I'm expecting everyone to remember that or observe that. But
sort of since about 25, I've actually been in different
capacities in modest ways in public life. And people build
up caricatures of who you are. And I don't think
most people kind of knew who I was. And so

(28:23):
I think they built these characters. I don't think all
of them were always flattering. And then some people also,
I think, took advantage of that. And so, um, what
I've tried to be obviously had a chance to reintroduce myself,
but I'm trying to be much more very clearly tell
my story, um, through as much as possible about who

(28:44):
I am from, whether it's, you know, thanks for giving
me the chance to do it, Paul. Talking about, um,
all the way since having a job since age 11. Um,
and that, uh, you know, I have worked very hard
for everything I've got. And, you know, I think there
are a lot of people who enjoyed watching me be, um,
slapped down in 2022 and, uh, gave a lot of
people a lot of satisfaction.

S3 (29:04):
Why do you think this is? So your view is
that there's a misconception of you as someone who's highly privileged.

S2 (29:10):
Yeah, I do think there is that because and I'm
not trying to I didn't I don't have a log
cabin story either. I'm not pretending that. But I think
people misunderstand. You know, my dad mowed lawns. My mum, um, worked.

S4 (29:22):
For a living. Yeah. Um.

S3 (29:24):
And my own pubs.

S2 (29:26):
My mum worked in pubs, and they, they managed pubs
when I was younger and, uh, and, you know, I
started my first paper route at age 11. I was,
you know, a waiter through most of my teenage years. Uh,
and so I'm not suggesting in any way, shape or
form that I had a hard life. But at the
same time, you know, my the second part of my
childhood was a complete disaster over crisis of confidence about

(29:48):
my sexuality. I go into a lot more detail, but it's, uh,
you know, like, all I've done is I've just seized
life and gone partly because of that crux at the age.
Second part of my childhood over the crisis of confidence
in my sexuality. I've always had this. I don't know
how you put it, but almost kind of fear that
I'm only ever moments away from, um, perhaps not life,

(30:10):
not going the way I want to. And so you
just throw yourself in it with the level of confidence
it probably throws people. Um, um, but it's just naturally
who I am, and I'm just not kind of afraid.
But I think people find that pretty off putting. So, um,
I guess I'm just now, I think people enjoyed watching
me be slapped down, but I think equally, most people thought, well,

(30:32):
he's a from his background, what they assumed he's never
going to get up from that. And then and it's
been interesting watching some Labour members of Parliament where I
think they oddly have this strange kind of regard for
people who pull themselves back up because they know a
lot of people in that situation, and I've noticed even
their dynamic change towards me as a person because they've

(30:54):
watched and they've gone like, Jeepers, you're actually not what
we thought.

S1 (30:58):
You've earned a little bit of respect there.

S2 (31:00):
Well, amongst some people, I'm not saying everybody.

S3 (31:02):
The counter to that would be in terms of people.
You're saying that people like to see you lose if Zoe,
Daniel or one of her supporters were sitting here, I
know that they would say that they view you as
incredibly hostile to your opponents and also enjoying in their
misfortune to have kind of almost pathological level. They would
say about you. What would you say to that?

S2 (31:23):
Well, actually, I've said this on the record many times,
and I'll keep saying it, which is actually I'm incredibly
empathetic to my predecessor. Um, and I know how hard
it is because I've lived it. And losing public office
is actually one of the hardest things. Now, I'm not
going to try and pretend that I get along with
my predecessor, and she wouldn't pretend otherwise. Uh, and a

(31:43):
lot of her supporters don't like me. And, you know,
I'm not exactly besties with.

S3 (31:47):
Its particularly vicious.

S2 (31:48):
It's very hard for me to then just be peachy
and chummy, because I do actually operate within a parameter
of of, um. I'm interested in politics for the contest
of ideas.

S4 (31:59):
Mhm.

S1 (32:00):
Tim, we've so enjoyed having you and I'm particularly excited
that you are a fellow. You also had a paper
round at age 11 because I had one too.

S4 (32:07):
Did you.

S1 (32:08):
And I apologize to anyone who never got their copy
of the.

S4 (32:11):
North Shore Times though. Oh my God, it's my mother.

S1 (32:14):
It was terrible. Like I was the worst, worst paper
deliverer girl. My bike wasn't big enough. The you know,
the North Shore times really should never have.

S4 (32:24):
Employed me for.

S1 (32:25):
2 to $2 a week or whatever.

S4 (32:28):
It.

S1 (32:28):
Was. I got, um, $2.

S2 (32:30):
That's expensive for.

S4 (32:31):
That.

S1 (32:31):
No, that was what I was getting paid.

S4 (32:32):
Oh, yeah.

S1 (32:33):
Or thereabouts.

S4 (32:34):
Yeah, it was slave labor or something. Yeah. Okay. I don't.

S2 (32:37):
Think I was.

S4 (32:37):
Getting penalties. We should have unionized. Tim. Well.

S3 (32:41):
He would have busted the union.

S4 (32:43):
That's right. No, no, I would.

S2 (32:44):
Have ended up leading the.

S4 (32:45):
Union. That's right.

S2 (32:46):
Fundamentally misunderstand.

S4 (32:47):
Me. Could have.

S1 (32:48):
Gone so differently.

S4 (32:49):
For you. Well, I was.

S2 (32:50):
A union leader at.

S4 (32:51):
University.

S1 (32:51):
There you go. There you go. Tim, we've loved getting
to know you a little bit more on this podcast.
We'd love to have you on again. Again with your
big liberal energy. Thank you Tim.

S5 (33:01):
Thank you.

S1 (33:07):
Today's episode was produced by Josh Towers and Kai Wong
with technical assistance from Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer is
Tammy Mills, and Tom McKendrick is our head of audio.
To listen to our episodes as soon as they drop,
follow Inside Politics on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you
listen to your podcasts. And to stay up to date
with all the politics, news and exclusives, visit The Age

(33:29):
and The Sydney Morning Herald website. To support our journalism,
subscribe to us by visiting The Age or smh.com.au. I'm
Jacqueline Maley. Thank you for listening.
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.

24/7 News: The Latest

24/7 News: The Latest

The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.

Dateline NBC

Dateline NBC

Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.