User talk:TimWilsonMP/Draft

Observations and commentary on how the page could include more substance, less allegation

Apologies, I meant to do this a while ago. As have been raised previously, there has been a long-term effort to construct a Wikipedia page for myself that frames me in a negative light by my political opponents [1] and elevate my political opponents [2].

Considering the constant efforts to do so, I believe that my page should be locked so only credible editors can contribute that have editorial objectivity.

Currently my page is polluted where the trivial is elevated to substance, actual substance is either ignored, removed, or always coupled with the opinions of others to delegitimise, and claims are made with references that do not justify the claim.

A number of times credible editors have reviewed the page and removed malicious content, and some users have been banned as it has been exposed that they are maliciously editing my page and are explicitly connected to my political opponents.

I understand that the subject of a Wikipedia page should not seek to edit their entry, and I have little interest in it being anything other than straight. But as the guidelines outline, I am allowed to make observations. To that end, I offer some observations in sequential order:

My time as Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner does not mention what I did in the role at all, including:

Working on an inquiry to release children from detention that the previous Labor/Greens/Independent government locked up [3]
Completing a nationwide consultation on rights and responsibilities [4]
Completed Australia’s first report consolidating the State and Federal laws that discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity [5]
Held a national conference on the state of free speech in Australia and the need for reform [6]
Organising one of the largest gatherings of Australia’s indigenous leadership and driving a reform program to improve utilisation of land for economic development [7]. Following it indigenous leader, Noel Pearson, argued my appointment as a “masterstroke” [8]
Advancing the push for marriage equality on the basis of equality before the law. [9]

It is not correct to say that I was a “vocal critic” of the Commission. I criticised it once. The page claims I have called for the abolition of the Human Rights Commission. I have never called for the abolition of the Commission. There is a deliberate attempt to attribute the views of others to myself. Reference 10 does not have me saying so and is not a justified source to much such a claim. Every time this claim is deleted from my page by credible editors it is reinserted with another spurious reference.

While relevant information is not included, the section includes extensive paragraphs to a media report about incurring legitimate expenses to fulfil the role and a absurdly long paragraph about sending emails. Any reasonable observer would surely conclude that what I did in the role should take precedence over me incurring expenses and emails.

In the section on my parliamentary committee service it does not include reference to my membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in my second term, nor the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

The discussion around the 2022 election is bizarre. The page makes no acknowledgement that the 2022 election saw several Independents defeat Liberal MPs, of which I was merely one [10]. Nor does it make reference that Zoe Daniel spent $1.75 million to defeat me [11].

Instead, the discussion relates to a dispute around signage that was created because Bayside Council told all campaigns that they were not allowed to erect signage before a specific date, and where I respected the ruling others took it to a Court and challenged the Council decision. The idea of “Streisand effect” is pure opinion. As is reference 32. If you read the page you would think the election was fought on signage. It was not. It was fought on the performance of the government.

There is no recognition of what I did as an MP in the section about me being an MP. People will have their own views, but few would have described me as a passenger in my time in Parliament. Some obvious things that could be referenced include:

In my first year in Parliament I challenged my own Prime Minister with other MPs and stopped an extradition treaty with China [12].
I was part of the core group that forced the resolution of marriage equality and have been widely acknowledged as one of five who were central to its delivery [13]
A lot of coverage on the page is given to how people did not like my franking credits campaign, but it is largely given credit as a key factor for the return of the government at the 2019 election [14], [15], [16], so much so that in other debates people now say they need my efficacy [17]
That I fought within my own government to adopt a policy to support Australians to be able to use their superannuation to buy their own home – and was then credited when they adopted the policy [18], [19].

There is also no mention of what I did as a Minister, including:

Passing Australia’s first national legislation for offshore electricity infrastructure [20].
Approving the first zone for assessment for offshore wind in Commonwealth waters [21]

The post-Parliamentary career section does not cover what I have been doing since leaving Parliament – which is a PhD into financial products to promote decarbonisation. [22]

If my attendance at an ANZAC Day service deserves mention, then perhaps the whole hoopla being caused by Zoe Daniel trying to hide that she was at her beach house at the time also justifies a mention [23]

Under political positions:

Like with the false statement I called for the abolition of the Human Rights Commission, others argued for the abolition of the Climate Change Authority, the RET and ARENA. These views are held out as mine by association, but were not expressed by me. Reference 38 includes a correction at the bottom of the article saying they got initial claims they were views expressed by me as wrong.
It alludes that supporting someone’s free speech amounts to pseudo-sanctioning “climate denial”. It is common as an advocate for free speech that you defend people’s right to expression, even when you disagree with what they have to say.
The LGBTI section implies I have endorsed discrimination against LGBTI people. As Australia’s Human Right Commissioner I had to balance freedom of speech, association, property rights and equality before the law, as well as rights and freedoms of others, including for LGBTI people [24]. Attributing the praise of others as mechanism to make malicious claims is unreasonable.
The section on same-sex marriage completely ignores that I was one of the five MPs that were the driving force within my own government, forced a debate, a public vote and have been widely recognised as a driving force for delivery of change [25].
The section on freedom of speech and human rights is malicious. It is Parliamentary procedure for the duty Minister in the House of Representatives to introduce legislation and amendments on behalf of the government during their duty period. Only the Parliament can make amendments. The Amendment was a government amendment. Introducing an amendment or legislation is not the same as “made amendments”. The Amendment was not authored by myself. It had to be introduced for procedural reasons for consideration, it passed without debate or a vote. I was just on duty at the time. Giving this prominence is absurd. If it is to be included, it is therefore reasonable that other legislation outside my Ministerial responsibilities are mentioned which I introduced for procedural reasons which is extensive.
In the section around 18C, it specifically does not refer to the problems with the law that is makes it unlawful to engage in an act that is “reasonably likely, in all of the circumstances, to offend”. The law has since been reformed to stop this section being abused, as it has many times and led to prominent legal challenges. The version of the law I had concerns with is here [26]. Changes have since been made to stop the abuse of this section of the Act.
In reference to Charlie Hebdo, when the law defines something as unlawful for being “reasonably likely, in all of the circumstances, to offend” then there is justification for the argument, even if others disagree. I am not sure why my page is populated with other people's opinions on my opinions.
There is a consistent pattern of editing by malicious editors to include my view and then include the views of people who disagree with me. There is nothing specifically relevant about my opinion about Charlie Hebdo. It was simply a debate at the time in the context of a broader discussion about reforming law.
In the section on franking credits it is a complete perversion of history. A Parliamentary inquiry was held. The Inquiry was actually supported by the Opposition at the time, until they realised the public did not support their policy. Critics did not like the hearings because hundreds of Australians turned up and voiced their opinion [27]. This is why so many allegations were made to undermine it. It was effective.
The page implies I improperly used the Commonwealth logo and Liberal Party branding against use guidelines. This is false and was a deliberately misleading allegation. I used the Commonwealth coat of arms and a ‘Tim Wilson’ brand that made reference to me being the “Liberal MP for Goldstein”, and that is consistent with guidelines which states "Senators and Federal Members of Parliament may use the Arms in the course of their duties as Parliamentarians". [28] My taxpayer funded office was branded by the Department of Parliamentary Services along these lines as the photo on the page can attest.
In the section on “Franking credits”: the page implies I tolerated handing out information political party material at a public hearing. This is false and was a deliberately misleading allegation made. Material was handed outside the venue, which was public land of which I had no control. These are symptomatic of the problem on my page: Reports of political opponents making allegations, without evidence, attributed as though they are fact, or the positions of others are attributed to myself when I did not express them.
A Federal Member of Parliament can use the coat of arms in their professional duties, so implying there is something wrong is just false, and was part of a campaign to deceive about what was going on because it was so politically effective.
Again, a lot of discussion about this campaign is written from the perspective of my political opponents, but what is not reference is that it is given credit for being a key factor for the return of the government at the 2019 election [29], [30], [31], so much so that in other debates people now say they need my efficacy [32]
The section on superannuation starts with an allegation through my denial. Reference 74 does not even make this allegation nor include my denial. It says I want to “reshape superannuation”.
I have been a long-term critic of corruption in the superannuation system, that is not the same as being opposed to superannuation itself [33].
I have been a long-term advocate that home ownership should take precedence over superannuation because not owning your own home is the leading indicator of poverty in retirement. [34]
I am amazed that a tweet hoping women are not homeless in retirement appears on my Wikipedia page. It is certainly true I do not want women to be homeless in retirement. But I don’t really think that is a political position, but one of common sense.
It is absurd that my opinions are discounted because other people have a different view, especially when there is quote that I have an undefined conflict of interest in debate about superannuation, but strangely the chief executive of Industry Super Australia (Australia’s superannuation lobby group with around $1.3 trillion under management) does not.
The allegation I gave unlicensed financial advice because I said home ownership is more important than superannuation is absurd, and while it is up to editors its inclusion on my Wikipedia page seems odd.
In the section on Australian relations with China, I did not “join” the Wolverines, I was a founding member, and proudly so.
The criticism of poker machines was in the context of the individual the debate related to who was an anti-poker machine Senator who then provides legal support for Huawei, and it is odd that it is referenced.
It seems odd that my page says I supported anti-government protestors in Hong Kong, but does not acknowledge that I actually protested on the streets of Hong Kong with them [35].
If it did, it might highlight how ridiculous it is to include a quote from someone else that I am “all talk, no action” on the issue [36].

In the section on Personal life:

Without wanting to distance myself from him, David Morris is not my step father. He is my mother’s husband, but they were married after I was an adult. We therefore have no legal relationship. I have no issue with the obscure relationship being included, just that it be described accurately.
After Parliament I started a PhD into financial markets to promote decarbonisation at RMIT’s Blockchain Innovation Hub [37]
I have also completed a Graduate Studies in Energy and Carbon Studies at Murdoch University, as well as my Bachelor of Arts (Policy Studies) and Master of Diplomacy and Trade (International Trade) from Monash University.

Hopefully this information can help inform the development of my page, as well as highlight explicit and malicious editing. If there is a need for additional references I am happy to assist.

Pinging @BeReasonabl:, who suggested I make contributions to clarify my page.

TimWilsonMP (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]