An Open Letter to Tim Wilson

Tim Wilson blushingDear Tim Wilson,

I’m sure you’re a huge fan of Open Letters, what with your passion for free speech. I am also a fan of free speech within the bounds of reasonable conduct, and so today I’m using my free speech to write you this letter.

I’m also a fan of getting to the point quickly so I’ll put it out there right up front. I think you’re a dickhead. Unlike lots of other people who also think you’re a dickhead, I haven’t come to this conclusion recently, or after the announcement that you’ve been parachuted into perhaps the most oxy-moronic position your buddies in the Abbott government could have handpicked for you. No, I noticed you a long time ago as the boy playing in a man’s world, as you did your best but failed not to blush from the neck up while yelling at climate scientists in a field of scientific endeavour you know nothing about. Although I did note many months ago that your profile on your then-employer’s website, that you are/were apparently undertaking a Graduate Diploma of Energy and the Environment (Climate Science and Global Warming) at Perth’s Murdoch University. What’s that about Tim? Did you complete this qualification, or were you laughed out of the classroom for your ‘opinions’ around weather, and how it’s always been windy so climate change doesn’t exist?


Just to recap, you’re more than welcome to use your free speech to deny climate change, and I also enjoy the right to tell you you’re a dangerous, irresponsible, obstructive fool who is contributing to the demise of the planet I live on. Since you are often used as the mainstream media’s poster-boy under the guise of ‘balance’ on the subject of climate change, since they can’t find a climate scientist to go into bat for the fossil fuel companies that no doubt help fund the IPA, you are the blushing face of denial for many Australians. So we’ll think of you, and we’ll be reminding you of your contribution to the problem, for as long as you continue your charade of self-interested denial for the benefit of your career.

But I guess that’s the part that’s most disappointing Tim. Your denial of climate change is just one small part of your public persona that I find personally offensive. What I also find really offensive about you is the apparent inconsistency of your position, which is really just a consistent suck-up to the Liberal Party, the people you need to give you jobs that you don’t deserve and are completely unqualified for. It doesn’t surprise me that you are an ex-student politician, because you don’t seem to have ever broken out of that immature mindset. So even though you paint yourself as a bastion of the IPAs agenda, encompassing small government and completely unregulated markets, when it comes to your devotion to this agenda, versus your devotion to Tony Abbott’s agenda, your priority in the pecking-order of your dedication is clearly Tony Abbott. Maybe if you were an actual academic, working for a real institute, you would have a more consistent position as the ‘classical liberal public policy analyst’ which you claim to be. Maybe if you weren’t just a Liberal hack, you would understand why it’s very perplexing that you haven’t already mounted a huge defence of the Carbon Price as a market-based mechanism used to reduce carbon emissions. And where is your outrage about Abbott’s Direct Action policy? You’re very quiet on this front Tim. I see that you diligently went along with Abbott in decrying funding to Holden, but what about fuel tax credits to mining companies? Where is your outrage about this intrusion into the free market you supposably cherish? And, of course as we’ve all seen, you’re now working at the Human Rights Commission, with the apparent goal of improving our rights to say and do whatever we like without risk of being sued for discrimination, however if people are saying or doing things you don’t like, you’re all for the police-state’s favourite silencer – the water cannon.


See what I mean about you being a child in a man’s world? It’s just embarrassing Tim. It’s embarrassing for you, for your Liberal mates and totally cringe worthy for all of us who have to hear about it.

A scan of your Twitter feed quickly reveals you to be far more interested in fighting what you very immaturely refer to as ‘Lefties’ (anyone who disagrees with you), than fighting for anyone’s right to free speech, let alone Andrew Bolt’s. And this morning I read that you’ve been bombarding the Department of Climate Change, a government organisation your ex-employer the IPA have lobbied to shut down, with hundreds of freedom-of-information requests, in fact 95% of all the requests they’ve had since April, no doubt with the overall goal of sabotaging their ability to concentrate on their important work of combating climate change, something you don’t believe in anyway. So you want to wreck them like a bully-boy kicking over a sandcastle. Just because you disagree with them. That’s pretty pathetic Tim, don’t you think?

From the behaviour you have exhibited throughout your career so far, I can see you are not just unqualified for the position you’ve been gifted at the Human Rights Commission. You’re also too immature to be representing any such organisation that does important work for the community. Whether you plan to get inside the commission and wreck it internally, or if you’re just interested in the substantial publically funded pay-cheque as a thank-you from your Liberal buddies for your blind support of their election campaign whilst at the IPA, you don’t deserve to be paid by the public to work in this position. Oh, and Tim, since we know you think public servants are a complete waste of space, I just wanted to remind you that you are one now. So I look forward to your gratitude towards the Community and Public Sector Union for your yearly pay-rise and the excellent entitlements that have been fought for and upheld through the unity of workers.

Yours sincerely
Victoria Rollison

UPDATE: I mistakenly thought this article was from 2013. It is in fact from 2011. Apologies.


  1. As always to the point & cuttingly so. Lose neither your spirit nor passion for writing the wrongs of our political ‘masters’.

  2. If you’re not a socialist at 20 you have no heart, If you’re still a socialist at 40 you have no brain. You can only live as a hypocrite so long. Its like Bill Clinton lecturing you on Sexual Morality, or Al Gore explaining why you shouldn’t fly in planes anymore, or Victoria Rollison lamenting why no one buys Aussie made Holden. The “do as I say not as I do” mantra only works with children. It must be hard to look in the mirror… or do you do it in ignorant bliss?

  3. great article Vic as I cannot stand the sight of this person nor do I like listening to his crap on the Jon Faine ABC morning whatever it is talk back radio and everything else I suppose. OK that is when Jon is not on holidays.

  4. I agree with George Brandis, Tim Wilson at least adds balance to the HRC. The rest seem to be eminently qualified, decent, hard working professionals trying earnestly to do a good job…the balance of an ideology-driven, ill-qualified one trick pony attempting to deliver a political outcome was sorely needed.

    And, as Victoria points out, the LNP seem to specialise in this type of smarmy, entitled, private school boy type who delights in playing dirty tricks, scoring points and pulling pigtails. Pyne is clearly another from this mould for whom all development ceased in about 3rd year high school (private naturally).

    • There are many discrimination commissioners. Why nobody ensuring that the human rights of liberty aren’t infringed? If that’s the balance that Tim is offering, you have to wonder why the other commissioners if they were so qualified and decent didn’t consider that liberty was a pretty important human right to keep an eye on.

      Tim is probably better described (along with the IPA) as more libertarian than conservative. Everyone is driven by ideology of some sort or another. At least Tim is honest enough to admit his.

      • You should have checked out the Human Rights Commission and seen what each Commissioner does i.e. their area. Your comment is total rubbish written in ignorance. Tim would of course be a selective libertarian – when it suits him and his agenda. He is actually a complete a-hole whose education so far has done nothing more than teach him how to read and write.

  5. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant — thank you Victoria. Just between you and me, I think I’ve identified Tim’s Achille’s heel: he tweeted that my plum puddings looked ‘yummy’, so I promised to send him one if he ever actually takes a stand against racial discrimination.

      • Obviously you live in a bubble. More proof that Liberals have a very selective idea or definition of whatever is to hand. It is do as I say and not as I do – always.

    • Bob in consideration of Mr Wilson who works for the IPA , ANDEV and an AstroTurf organisation in the states funded by pharmaceutical companies; I would think that would be apparent to anyone who is of free thought. Tom Wilson speech is neither free nor of factual accuracy,rather that of a paid lobbyist for neoconservative big business. A glaringly obvious fact should be his political appointment to an organisation that he called to be disbanded whist taking up a position of public service which he described as un necessary, supreme hypocrisy at best. This man is an instrument of a government that calls for the repeal of laws to stop propagandists of agenda hiding their defamatory racist opinion behind free speech,whilst they are being paid and syndicated.

      • So because he works as a lobbyist for a group you disagree with, you think his speech isn’t free? Might want to pop over to wikipedia and educate yourself on what free speech is and what it isn’t.

        As to his appointment being political, given that those who appointed him are in government of course it is. He may well believe that given the government wouldn’t dare completely dismantle the HRC, he might as well try to reform it from within. Were none of the appointments made by the labor party (including the current GG who thinks we should ditch the crown, hypocritcal given she took on a job representing the crown locally).

        His objection to 18C isn’t to give Bolt and others a free run at causing offence, but to provide clear rules as to what is permitted and what is not. Section 18C has subjective measures as to what constituted offence, chilling free speech in case offence could possibly be construed.

        “PETER LLOYD: Why does 18C need to be repealed?

        TIM WILSON: Because it basically puts subjective tests on speech which may be deemed to insult, offend, humiliate groups of people based on people’s comments. Now that can never be applied consistently and ultimately means that people are afraid to say things that they may otherwise feel.

        We should have a contest of ideas in public debate and bad ideas and opinions which are derogatory to others should be heard and mocked and ridiculed rather than shut down.”

  6. With all due respect I will pass on the Wiki definition. It definition is crystal clear to me as is the intent of the cowards wh seek to hijack it to be used for adgenda propaganda.See these cashup up lobby groups of which you speak are not proportionate representative
    voices for which free speech prevails, rather those who would seek to break down the social infrastructure that promotes free information and speech though economic stealth. The act is clear and unambiguous, frankly a legislation that should be at the core of common human decency. If you think this act was not used to protect Bolt (the context and assumption of his article was highly offensive, defamatory and unprovoked ) you are kidding yourself.

    Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
    (1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

    (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

    (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

    Free speech is the domain of people who have not the benefit of a voice in large media like Wilson and Bolt, who are nothing more than brand promoting lobbyists. 18c was not even on the table until Bolt lost. Essentially what you are arguing is a licence to say what you like with no consequence, a licence to hate speech not free speech. With the power of media comes great consequence and responsibility. That includes not picking on people for their ethnicity to make money. As far as lobbyists go, your assumption is ridiculous. In respect to the GG your rant ins irrelivant in relation to Wilson.

    • summary: free speech is a wax nose that you can make mean whatever you like. It doesn’t belong to those you disagree with.

      • I think you, and conservative propagandists hell bent on social engineering need to learn the difference between free speech and paid opinion . Anyone who calls themselves a libertarian is usually a puppet for fascists.

  7. Good day! I know this is kind of off topic but I was wondering which blog platform are you using
    for this website? I’m getting sick and tired of WordPress because
    I’ve had problems with hackers and I’m looking at alternatives for another platform.

    I would be awesome if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s