SENATOR THE HON PENNY WONG
LABOR SENATOR FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA
TRANSCRIPT
17 November 2013
MEET THE PRESS WITH KATHRYN ROBINSON
ROBINSON: The Australian Senate will soon become a battlefield – the Prime Minister and his Government going to war to get two major pieces of legislation passed by a hostile Labor and Greens coalition, which holds the balance of power until July next year. The Abbott Government wants to lift the debt ceiling to $500 billion, and repeal the carbon tax – and it wants to do both before the end of the year. One of the figures standing in the way is our guest this morning – Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Penny Wong. And our panel – business editor for the ‘Daily Telegraph’, Phil Jacob, and News Corp’s opinion editor, Tory Maguire. Good morning to you all.
MAGUIRE: Good morning, Kath.
JACOB: Morning.
ROBINSON: Senator, I’ll begin with you. Joe Hockey this week warned that if he didn’t get an increase to the debt ceiling of $500 trillion, it could force a shutdown like we saw in the United States. Would you stand in his way and let this happen?
WONG: Well, the only person threatening a shutdown is Joe Hockey. He’s being a bully boy, and he ought to start behaving like a responsible Treasurer. The reality is, we are quite willing to increase the debt cap. In fact, Joe Hockey could have had a $400 billion debt cap on Thursday. But he chose, instead, to go down a path of making a political point, of making threats, and bullying the Parliament. Well, I don’t think that’s good enough.
ROBINSON: But by your own admissions, $400 billion isn’t enough. $370 billion, with a buffer of $40 billion-$60 billion is what’s need – which is in excess of $400 billion.
WONG: Well, let’s remember a couple of things. First is Tony Abbott said before the election, in relation to a debt cap increase that the then Labor Government put on the table. He said the Government should specifically justify this. Well, we want Tony Abbott to be good to his word. We want him to be the Prime Minister he said he’d be, and show Australians why it is they need such a massive increase in the debt cap. I mean, this is an extraordinary amount to increase the debt cap by, sight unseen. Now, it might be justified. It might be that since they came to Government, things have happened which have made this required. But if that’s the case, why won’t they let Australians in on the secret?
JACOB: But Senator Wong, you were saying that it’s an extraordinary amount to raise the debt ceiling by. But in four years of Government – the last four years – I believe the Opposition approved the debt ceiling to be raised by around $250 billion for you.
WONG: And Phil, what did we do every time we sought to do that? We put before the Parliament our economic plans. We put before the Parliament Budget updates, which explained very clearly why this was required. And you might recall that under our Government, despite what this Government says, we had a AAA credit rating from all three credit rating agencies. The issue here is Joe Hockey doesn’t want to tell anybody what his true numbers are. He wants this kind of increase – a $200 billion increase – sight unseen.
And just remember where we started – so the secretaries of Treasury and Finance before the election said – put out a document, a Budget update, that said that the debt ceiling, essentially, will be $370 billion in 2016/2017. Joe Hockey in 2013 now wants a massively greater increase than what was required projected to be required in a few years’ time, withoutproviding any information. Well, Tony Abbott said that he’d restore accountability and improve transparency. It’s a pretty funny way to show that.
MAGUIRE: Senator, why do we even need a debt ceiling? I mean, it was introduced in 2008, under very different economic circumstances – we’d survived perfectly well without one before. It’s now created this highly-charged political and economic bottleneck – shouldn’t we just get rid of it?
WONG: Well, I think the point here is governments should be true to their word. And you know, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey said that they were – they would be a Government that would reduce debt and deficit, and some of their first acts, since coming to Government, have been to blow out the deficit, and to seek to increase the debt ceiling. Now, it’s a pretty clear game plan – they’re going to do that, they’re going to say that the situation’s really bad, it’s all because of Labor, then they’re going to impose massive cuts on Australian families next year. It’s a very obvious game plan. I think the point is this is not the Government they said they’d be.
JACOB: Senator Wong, if we can move to the carbon tax – will you provide a trigger for eventual double dissolution in the Government in the next three to six months?
WONG: What we will do is to continue to respond to the science. Climate change is real, and Australia does need an effective response to climate change. Now look, this is a difficult issue. I’m not pretending it isn’t. But I think if you sit down and read what scientists tell us, if you understand the implications for Australia today, and for our children and our grandchildren, then it is the responsibility of this generation of politicians and Australians to act. I’ll be going after this to one of the rallies that will be held around the country, and I’ll be saying the same thing. You know, we can’t walk away from this responsibility.
MAGUIRE: But Senator, doesn’t Tony Abbott have a mandate? I mean, the result in – he was very clear in the Federal Election about getting rid of the carbon tax. He won the election. How can you ignore that?
WONG: Well, I’d make a couple of points. No-one elected me, or any Labor Senator, or any Labor member, to do anything other than to hold to our position on climate change, which is that Australia needs an effective limit on the carbon pollution we put into the atmosphere. Otherwise there’s not a response to climate change. I mean, Tony Abbott wants to rush this bill through. I see – it’s quite interesting, actually – even some businesses are reported in the papers on Friday and Saturday as raising concerns about the speed of repeal, and the lack of scrutiny. And most importantly, he wants to replace the current arrangements with direct action. Well, that’s a slogan. That’s a slogan that could potentially cost taxpayers much more. I think it’s time we did focus on that, and Mr Abbott’s Government was held to account for their policy – which they’ve not been prepared to disclose in detail to Australians.
MAGUIRE: Changing the subject, Senator – documents released under FOI have shown that the Remuneration Tribunal has looked at what they describe as the possibility of ex-prime ministers ending up in dire financial circumstances, and that perhaps a safety net needs to be considered, to make sure that we don’t end up with an ex-prime minister living on the breadline. How would that possibly be a situation, with modern prime ministerships being the way they are?
WONG: Well Tory, to be honest I haven’t seen those documents. I think you said it was the Remuneration Tribunal that was expressing these concerns –I mean, the Remuneration Tribunal is independent, they need to consider all matters around the remuneration of parliamentarians independently.
JACOB: And do you think it’s realistic, though, that ex-prime ministers, I mean, with the very large pension that they receive, might find themselves in financial strife over the next 10 years?
WONG: Well, I’m not going to be drawn on hypotheticals, about what might or might not happen. I mean, it’s a matter for the Remuneration Tribunal. I would make the point that one of the things that has occurred, as you might recall, is that politicians entering the Parliament after 2004 do not receive a pension such as people prior to that. So, you know, it’s a different set of circumstances, much more in accord with community standards, and I think that that’s appropriate.
ROBINSON: Welcome back to Meet the Press. . More now with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong. Senator, there are reports this morning that the Australian Government is donating two patrol boats to the Sri Lankan Navy, to help effectively stop the boats. Is this an initiative – a Tony Abbott initiative that you’d support?
WONG: Well, can I first say this is Government Abbott-style, isn’t it? You can’t tell the Parliament or the Australian people what’s happening when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers, but you can drop a story about operational matters to the papers on Sunday so you get a run. I mean, it’s – this is a Government that, you know, just doles out the information that it wants to dole out to a few individuals, a few people – but refuses to front up to the Parliament and tell Australians what’s occurring. I mean, you know, cooperation with our neighbours, cooperation with Sri Lanka, is something Labor has said is a priority for a long time. I’m glad that the Government, after being so negative about, for example, the arrangement with Malaysia, has now come to the view that regional arrangements are important.
JACOB: And would you agree with Tony Abbott’s assertion that he’s closed the floodgates, in regards to recent boat arrivals?
WONG: Well, I think if you look at the tracking of arrivals, the significant reduction occurred in the period after then-prime minister Rudd announced the arrangement with Papua New Guinea. I mean, that’s really been what’s reduced arrivals. I think it’s been a real pity, since this Government was elected, that we’ve seen such secrecy.
I think – I haven’t seen – I mean, I haven’t seen a minister in the House of Representatives get up and say “Because I’m going to tell you on Friday, I’m not telling you now” – which is effectively what Scott Morrison has been saying all week. Well, I don’t think Australians should be getting their information about what their Government is doing from the ‘Jakarta Post’. I think they should be getting it from their Government.
MAGUIRE: Senator, on that – you’ve made efforts in the Senate to compel Scott Morrison to inform the Parliament what’s happening. Can you explain to us what sort of sanctions could be imposed, or how you would make that happen?
WONG: Well ultimately, that’s a matter for the Senate. And the obligation is actually imposed on Senator Cash, who is Mr Morrison’s representative in the Chamber, and she is obliged to table, under the order, a range of documents. If she doesn’t do so, the Senate can determine how it wishes to proceed in response to that. And ultimately, you know, there are a number of options which can occur. I think in the past, for example, people have refused to deal with legislation in the portfolio until the portfolio minister has complied with the order. You can have a censure of the ministers. You can ultimately refer the matter to the Privileges Committee to consider further action.
So, you know, we will methodically go through this, not because we want to make a political point, but because I think there is no justification for the level of secrecy that this Government is demonstrating. The culture of secrecy is really quite pervasive, and we have to stand up to it. This is a democracy, after all.
ROBINSON: Do you think that all these measures that you’ve got up your sleeve will lead to greater transparency?
WONG: Well, that’s ultimately a matter for the Government. I do think they – I think two things. First, as I said – they’re really very addicted to secrecy, at a very early stage in their period of Government. But I think that the other point is they’re treating the Senate as if it were the House of Representatives. And the Senate, as you know – no government – John Howard very briefly had a majority in the Senate, and that led to WorkChoices, and I think that helped bring him down. But generally, governments don’t have a majority in the Senate. You have to manage your interaction with the Chamber respectfully – sometimes robustly – but what you see instead is this Government treating that Chamber with real contempt, and I don’t think Senators are going to take too kindly to it.
ROBINSON: Senator, if we can move on to childcare now – there are reports – oh, well obviously there is a Productivity Commission into childcare that’s going on. There is suggestions that the 50% rebate will be means tested – would that be a good idea?
WONG: Well look, you know, we didn’t take that step in government, and the reason was that increasing the participation of women remains a national economic priority. And the primary benefit for the childcare rebate is second income earners, the great majority of whom are women. So you’d have to be very careful, if you were the Abbott Government, going down this path – that you didn’t in fact set up a set of disincentives for women to participate in the workforce.
You also have to get your priorities right. I don’t understand why the Abbott Government would have a rolled-gold paid parental leave scheme, that’s funded by retrospectively taxing Australians and double-taxing shareholders, but at the same time trying to limit access to the childcare rebate. It’s a very strange set of priorities, and not a set of priorities that I think most Australians would agree with.
JACOB: Senator, there have been suggestions that perhaps money would be better spent on improved childcare, and perhaps nanny facilities. What are your thoughts about that?
WONG: Well, you know, I think that Tony Abbott didn’t go to the election saying that he was going to cut childcare. And if he does that, I think it would be a very clear breach of the sort of Government he said he’d be. I think we’re going to see a fair bit of that. We’re going to see a fair bit of this Government doing something they didn’t ‘fess up to Australians before an election.
MAGUIRE: Senator, you’re a working mother – what do you – what’s your assessment of what would be the most productive thing? What would working Australian mothers like to see most?
WONG: Well, I don’t like to, you know, pretend to be the expert, because my partner – who’s probably watching this with our daughter – was very keen to come with me today, but I told her it probably wasn’t a good idea. She is – you know, Sophie, my partner, is the primary career. But my observation would be, trying to have work arrangements which enable both parents to more share in the care of the child is probably the key. And we haven’t done as well on that, as a country, as we should.
Parliamentarians have done even more poorly. Some private sector firms have done much better. But I think, as a nation, whether it’s for fathers or mothers, I think more parents would like the opportunity to balance work and family, and we have to keep improving our work structures, to enable that to happen.
MAGUIRE: Obviously one of the big dilemmas in the provision of childcare is the cost of labour, and the pay for childcare workers, and I’m sure everyone agrees that childcare workers deserve more pay, but how do we pay for it? On the minimum wage – earlier this week Maurice Newman gave a speech where he said that Australia’s comparatively high minimum wage, of about US$33,500 a year, is actually holding back the Australian economy – because we’re so much further ahead than our competitors – and argued that it should be dropped. What’s your position on that?
WONG: I don’t agree with that at all. Labor Party doesn’t agree with an approach to the Australian community and economy which is all about cutting wages and reducing the minimum wage. I mean, it’s one of the things that makes this country a decent society, is that we don’t have the levels of working poor that you see in too many other economies. You started your question with childcare – I think it’s very disappointing for parents and for childcare educators that one of the first acts of the Government was to renege on arrangements that we had put in place to help fund part of the sector to lift wages, to reflect better qualifications.
I mean, that’s what this was about. This was about improving the quality of care for our children, and lifting qualifications, and therefore making sure that people were paid appropriately. But on the minimum wage, I mean, this is a really 19th century view – that you want to reduce wages in order to compete. We’re never going to compete on wages, and we shouldn’t try. We should be competing on our innovation, on our capacity, on the high levels of skills in our community, on the innovation and entrepreneurship of our business sector. We should never be competing on trying to drive down wages.
JACOB: And Senator, if we can talk about the NBN – you were the Finance Minister when Lazard put out their report in 2010, talking about perhaps how financially unviable the NBN was. I mean, why wasn’t that advice heeded?
WONG: Well, I think it’s really telling that this Government seeks to selectively leak advice. Let me tell you – when we went through various decisions around the NBN, including in relation to the deal with Telstra, we went through an exhaustive process of considering advice – including advice from departments, advice from my department, as it then was, given I was the minister –the Department of Finance.
We took advice, that was considered very carefully by Cabinet. We also had other consultants look at this, and ultimately the government came to the view, in fact, that the agreement with Telstra actually reduced the risk in the project – was a significant de-risking strategy, as I recall being advised.
I want to make the point, on the National Broadband Network, this is – there’s a lot of politics being played by this Government, trying to destroy what occurred, trying to portray what occurred as being inappropriate. I make this point – you can build a cheaper NBN, if you’re prepared to say to Australians you don’t want everyone to have access to high-speed broadband. That’s what this Government is saying. They want to try and build a cheaper NBN. I suspect it won’t be cheaper in the long run. But what they’re actually saying is we’re not going to give it to everybody, and people are going to have to pay to it get it. It’s a very different project, and that’s what’s important.
ROBINSON: Senator Wong, briefly, just before we go – Kevin Rudd’s resignation. What does it mean for the ALP?
WONG: Well, I think this is the end of an era – an era of Government, and an era of some division and conflict, regrettably. And I think – I said on election night that the election was a time to draw a line for Labor, and for this generation of Labor leaders, and Labor frontbenchers, and the entire Labor Caucus – to move beyond the division that really, I think, let us down, and let Australians down, over these last years.
So we’ve got a job to do as an Opposition – to hold this Government to account, a Government that isn’t the Government they said they would be. And to do that properly, we have to remain united. I do think, though, we have to honour our past prime ministers, and on this occasion, I do honour Kevin, and the work he did, his many achievements – and from a personal level, as I’ve said, you know, he led us to government, he put me in the cabinet, I got the opportunity to be a cabinet minister in a reforming government. That’s an enormous privilege, and I owe him great thanks for that.
ROBINSON: Senator Wong, we thank you for your time on Meet the Press this morning.
WONG: Good to be with you.
ENDS
No comments:
Post a Comment