SENATOR THE HON PENNY WONG
LABOR SENATOR FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA
TRANSCRIPT
24 March 2014
INSIDERS WITH BARRIE CASSIDY, ABC
E&OE - PROOF ONLY
BARRIE CASSIDY: We’ll go straight to Adelaide and the Shadow Minister for Trade and Investment, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate,
Senator Penny Wong. Good morning. Welcome.
SENATOR PENNY WONG, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE AND SHADOW MINISTER FOR TRADE AND INVESTMENT: Good morning, good to be with you.
CASSIDY: I go to those issues in Papua New Guinea first of all. What’s Labor’s position? Do you think this human rights inquiry initiated by a PNG judge should go ahead?
WONG: Look, we do think that the tragic incidents on Manus Island do need to be properly investigated. That’s what we called for immediately after these events. The Government took some time to respond to that. That’s the Australian Government. It now has an inquiry on foot. We’ve called for details of that to be released. And we’ve also sought, and obtained, a Senate inquiry into these events. That’s as an Opposition should. We are appropriately pressing the Government for some transparency on these matters.
CASSIDY: This human rights inquiry is quite separate to the ones you mentioned so it does – getting answers to what happened on Manus Island doesn’t hinge on the outcome of the human rights inquiry?
WONG: And ultimately what we can do is deal with the Australian Government and the Australian Parliament. Obviously, these are ultimately matters for Papua New Guinea to resolve. But our attitude to transparency around these events I think is demonstrated by what we have done in the Australian Parliament.
CASSIDY: On that second issue of where the asylum seekers deemed to be refugees should finish up; do you think there is a responsibility for other Pacific Island countries to take some of these people?
WONG: It sounds like the Prime Minister is lecturing everybody else yet again, just as he lectures people here in Australia about what they should do. We put in place a resettlement arrangement as a disincentive for people smuggling, and to prevent the loss of life that had been very apparent to everybody involved and watching these matters for some time. But ultimately you have to negotiate with countries. That’s what we sought to do with Papua New Guinea. I think it is regrettable that the Australian Government doesn’t appear to have progressed that as far as it should or as –
CASSIDY: – But there’s part of the problem, you say you are putting in place a resettlement arrangement, but you didn’t. You didn’t get watertight guarantees from Papua New Guinea they would take these people and neither, it seems, did you talk to other Pacific Island countries?
WONG: Well look, we haven’t been in Government for some time now Barrie, and let’s understand –
CASSIDY: – I am talking about the period you were in government.
WONG: We made very clear what our approach was. The reason we wanted a regional approach is for the reasons that have been outlined. You want to try and not have the incentive for secondary movement. You want to try and not have the incentive for people to purchase a passage on a boat that may risk their life. And, remember, we accompanied the policy with something that this Government has overturned, and that was an increase in our humanitarian refugee intake. What we’ve seen since the election is a different approach. We have also, I think, the hallmark of the Government so far we have seen, is secrecy when it comes to asylum seeker policy as in many other areas of policy.
CASSIDY: Let’s talk about Arthur Sinodinos now. He has stepped aside. ICAC will get on and do its job. Is it fair to say anything else is politics?
WONG: Look, I think today’s revelations in the papers that Senator Bill Heffernan quizzed Senator Sinodinos about these matters as far back as 2011 does require some response by the Prime Minister. I mean, Senator Heffernan was the Prime Minister’s representative on that pre-selection vetting committee. And it really goes to this very simple point – what did the Prime Minister know and when?
What did he know when he appointed Senator Sinodinos to the Ministry? Did he know, for example, that Senator Sinodinos’s conduct would be the subject of two Independent Commission Against Corruption investigations? What decisions did he make? Either the Prime Minister isn’t being up-front with Australians about what he knew or he didn’t engage in due diligence? As I think one Liberal front bencher said in the articles today, it just beggars belief that this information wouldn’t have been passed on to the Prime Minister’s office or the Prime Minister.
CASSIDY: It is not even clear though Senator Heffernan was talking about the matters before ICAC now?
WONG: I’m not sure that’s correct. I think Senator Heffernan was certainly pursuing, at the time – I don’t know what he said specifically in the vetting committee, obviously that’s something Senator Heffernan and Senator Sinodinos could talk about – but he was certainly pursuing the activities of Australian Water Holdings at the time, and recalled that Senator Sinodinos was either a director or the chairman of Australian Water Holdings for the time in relation to which there are allegations made.
Now I think the point here is that the Prime Minister should be up-front with Australians about what he knows, what he knew. At the time he appointed Senator Sinodinos to the Ministry he told Australians “There is no cloud hanging over Arthur Sinodinos.” Well if that’s the case, did he make inquiries? And what inquiries did he make? And what did he know?
CASSIDY: Given your experience as finance minister, how much more difficult will the process be without the Assistant Treasurer in the run-up to the budget?
WONG: Extraordinarily difficult I think. I mean, the budget process, is a pretty intensive process, and the Expenditure Review Committee works very closely, it’s a very heavily worked committee at this time. You do rely on the Assistant Treasurer for a lot of detail, particularly on revenue matters. Of course, with all due respect to the people in the room, obviously Senator Sinodinos is probably the most experienced of the Ministers on that Expenditure Review Committee, with the exception of the Prime Minister who wouldn’t generally be involved in the day-to-day discussions. It’s obviously a great loss for the Government at a time they are putting together the budget.
I think the other matter on the budget, I would make this point, we saw in the papers today the head of the Commission of Audit saying he will in fact finish his report to Government prior to the Western Australian Senate election. Really, I think it is incumbent upon Tony Abbott to be up-front with Western Australians about what part of the Commission of Audit he’s ruling out. Is he ruling out changes to Medicare? Is he ruling out changes to the family tax benefit? They’re some of the things that have been raised publicly by Tony Shepherd. I think it is time the Government was up-front with West Australians.
CASSIDY: And just back on Arthur Sinodinos, though, surely you accept he could be exonerated in this, and it is quite feasible that he will return to the Ministry?
WONG: These are matters for the Independent Commission Against Corruption. What we said is there had been a number of issues raised by evidence to the Independent Commission Against Corruption concerning conduct of persons involved with Australian Water Holdings at a time that Senator Sinodinos was either a director or a chairperson.
We sought to ask questions in the Senate, those were blocked or ruled out of order, and Senator Sinodinos chose not to answer those questions. We also asked Senator Sinodinos questions about what he said in his statement and subsequent evidence that was given at the Independent Commission Against Corruption. He declined to respond to those. And we also sought that he come to the Chamber and make a full statement. He declined to do that.
Now I think, given the ministerial standards that Prime Minister Abbott has touted as being something that demonstrates a transparent and accountable government, given what is on the public record, I think Senator Sinodinos should have done that. He chose not to. He chose to stand aside. They’re matters for him, and obviously this matter will be pursued or considered before the commission against corruption.
CASSIDY: From where you sit in Adelaide, how do you read Bob Such’s illness, the impact it will have on the situation there, and is there any prospect that a fresh election might be needed?
WONG: The first thing to say is to wish Bob a speedy recovery. I hope he is doing okay. I’d make a couple of comments about the election, though. I think it’s important to remember the reason we have the election result we have is that the case for change was not made. The case for change from the Liberal Party’s perspective was not made. People chose instead, in important seats, to prefer the current Premier Jay Weatherill. I think most reasonable observers would say he was the person who came through that campaign looking much more competent, much stronger, and people – certainly I think out -campaigned Steven Marshall. Now ultimately this is a matter that will be resolved by the South Australian Parliament and by Mr Brock. But I think it is pretty clear the case for change across South Australia wasn’t made.
CASSIDY: And just finally, as a former Finance Minister are you embarrassed the Government this week got rid of so many inefficient regulations?
WONG: I was losing a bit of sound there but I think you are talking about regulation. I make a couple of points. Some of what is in repeal days, in fact, I think this third tranche, this third step of what we started which was a housekeeping of Commonwealth legislation, where we removed redundant legislation from the statute books. We had done this a couple of times before, but also included in this repeal day a range of matters which really are more about people’s rights. As someone said, it’s more about removing the guide rail than removing the red tape.
We see today in the papers, again, part of what’s been repealed is wage protections, employment protections for cleaners under Commonwealth contracts. Some of the lowest-paid people in Australia are people who work in the cleaning industry. They’ve been attacked through the repeal day. And of course we see the really regressive changes to the financial advice reforms that Labor put in place, all in the name of red tape but this is about removing protections from consumers.
CASSIDY: But even if you accept you started the process, the Government’s claiming $720 million year-on-year savings from their evidence?
WONG: I’d like to see how that’s actually arrived at. I think that’s yet another one of these Abbott Government figures that are plucked out of the air. I’d like to see how that’s arrived at. I simply don’t accept the numbers this Government puts forward. If you look at their mid-year budget update, I think that was more political fiction than economic update in the way they approached that. I suspect the approach to this will be the same.
CASSIDY: Penny Wong, thanks for your time this morning.
WONG: Good to speak with you.
ENDS
BARRIE CASSIDY: We’ll go straight to Adelaide and the Shadow Minister for Trade and Investment, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate,
Senator Penny Wong. Good morning. Welcome.
SENATOR PENNY WONG, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE AND SHADOW MINISTER FOR TRADE AND INVESTMENT: Good morning, good to be with you.
CASSIDY: I go to those issues in Papua New Guinea first of all. What’s Labor’s position? Do you think this human rights inquiry initiated by a PNG judge should go ahead?
WONG: Look, we do think that the tragic incidents on Manus Island do need to be properly investigated. That’s what we called for immediately after these events. The Government took some time to respond to that. That’s the Australian Government. It now has an inquiry on foot. We’ve called for details of that to be released. And we’ve also sought, and obtained, a Senate inquiry into these events. That’s as an Opposition should. We are appropriately pressing the Government for some transparency on these matters.
CASSIDY: This human rights inquiry is quite separate to the ones you mentioned so it does – getting answers to what happened on Manus Island doesn’t hinge on the outcome of the human rights inquiry?
WONG: And ultimately what we can do is deal with the Australian Government and the Australian Parliament. Obviously, these are ultimately matters for Papua New Guinea to resolve. But our attitude to transparency around these events I think is demonstrated by what we have done in the Australian Parliament.
CASSIDY: On that second issue of where the asylum seekers deemed to be refugees should finish up; do you think there is a responsibility for other Pacific Island countries to take some of these people?
WONG: It sounds like the Prime Minister is lecturing everybody else yet again, just as he lectures people here in Australia about what they should do. We put in place a resettlement arrangement as a disincentive for people smuggling, and to prevent the loss of life that had been very apparent to everybody involved and watching these matters for some time. But ultimately you have to negotiate with countries. That’s what we sought to do with Papua New Guinea. I think it is regrettable that the Australian Government doesn’t appear to have progressed that as far as it should or as –
CASSIDY: – But there’s part of the problem, you say you are putting in place a resettlement arrangement, but you didn’t. You didn’t get watertight guarantees from Papua New Guinea they would take these people and neither, it seems, did you talk to other Pacific Island countries?
WONG: Well look, we haven’t been in Government for some time now Barrie, and let’s understand –
CASSIDY: – I am talking about the period you were in government.
WONG: We made very clear what our approach was. The reason we wanted a regional approach is for the reasons that have been outlined. You want to try and not have the incentive for secondary movement. You want to try and not have the incentive for people to purchase a passage on a boat that may risk their life. And, remember, we accompanied the policy with something that this Government has overturned, and that was an increase in our humanitarian refugee intake. What we’ve seen since the election is a different approach. We have also, I think, the hallmark of the Government so far we have seen, is secrecy when it comes to asylum seeker policy as in many other areas of policy.
CASSIDY: Let’s talk about Arthur Sinodinos now. He has stepped aside. ICAC will get on and do its job. Is it fair to say anything else is politics?
WONG: Look, I think today’s revelations in the papers that Senator Bill Heffernan quizzed Senator Sinodinos about these matters as far back as 2011 does require some response by the Prime Minister. I mean, Senator Heffernan was the Prime Minister’s representative on that pre-selection vetting committee. And it really goes to this very simple point – what did the Prime Minister know and when?
What did he know when he appointed Senator Sinodinos to the Ministry? Did he know, for example, that Senator Sinodinos’s conduct would be the subject of two Independent Commission Against Corruption investigations? What decisions did he make? Either the Prime Minister isn’t being up-front with Australians about what he knew or he didn’t engage in due diligence? As I think one Liberal front bencher said in the articles today, it just beggars belief that this information wouldn’t have been passed on to the Prime Minister’s office or the Prime Minister.
CASSIDY: It is not even clear though Senator Heffernan was talking about the matters before ICAC now?
WONG: I’m not sure that’s correct. I think Senator Heffernan was certainly pursuing, at the time – I don’t know what he said specifically in the vetting committee, obviously that’s something Senator Heffernan and Senator Sinodinos could talk about – but he was certainly pursuing the activities of Australian Water Holdings at the time, and recalled that Senator Sinodinos was either a director or the chairman of Australian Water Holdings for the time in relation to which there are allegations made.
Now I think the point here is that the Prime Minister should be up-front with Australians about what he knows, what he knew. At the time he appointed Senator Sinodinos to the Ministry he told Australians “There is no cloud hanging over Arthur Sinodinos.” Well if that’s the case, did he make inquiries? And what inquiries did he make? And what did he know?
CASSIDY: Given your experience as finance minister, how much more difficult will the process be without the Assistant Treasurer in the run-up to the budget?
WONG: Extraordinarily difficult I think. I mean, the budget process, is a pretty intensive process, and the Expenditure Review Committee works very closely, it’s a very heavily worked committee at this time. You do rely on the Assistant Treasurer for a lot of detail, particularly on revenue matters. Of course, with all due respect to the people in the room, obviously Senator Sinodinos is probably the most experienced of the Ministers on that Expenditure Review Committee, with the exception of the Prime Minister who wouldn’t generally be involved in the day-to-day discussions. It’s obviously a great loss for the Government at a time they are putting together the budget.
I think the other matter on the budget, I would make this point, we saw in the papers today the head of the Commission of Audit saying he will in fact finish his report to Government prior to the Western Australian Senate election. Really, I think it is incumbent upon Tony Abbott to be up-front with Western Australians about what part of the Commission of Audit he’s ruling out. Is he ruling out changes to Medicare? Is he ruling out changes to the family tax benefit? They’re some of the things that have been raised publicly by Tony Shepherd. I think it is time the Government was up-front with West Australians.
CASSIDY: And just back on Arthur Sinodinos, though, surely you accept he could be exonerated in this, and it is quite feasible that he will return to the Ministry?
WONG: These are matters for the Independent Commission Against Corruption. What we said is there had been a number of issues raised by evidence to the Independent Commission Against Corruption concerning conduct of persons involved with Australian Water Holdings at a time that Senator Sinodinos was either a director or a chairperson.
We sought to ask questions in the Senate, those were blocked or ruled out of order, and Senator Sinodinos chose not to answer those questions. We also asked Senator Sinodinos questions about what he said in his statement and subsequent evidence that was given at the Independent Commission Against Corruption. He declined to respond to those. And we also sought that he come to the Chamber and make a full statement. He declined to do that.
Now I think, given the ministerial standards that Prime Minister Abbott has touted as being something that demonstrates a transparent and accountable government, given what is on the public record, I think Senator Sinodinos should have done that. He chose not to. He chose to stand aside. They’re matters for him, and obviously this matter will be pursued or considered before the commission against corruption.
CASSIDY: From where you sit in Adelaide, how do you read Bob Such’s illness, the impact it will have on the situation there, and is there any prospect that a fresh election might be needed?
WONG: The first thing to say is to wish Bob a speedy recovery. I hope he is doing okay. I’d make a couple of comments about the election, though. I think it’s important to remember the reason we have the election result we have is that the case for change was not made. The case for change from the Liberal Party’s perspective was not made. People chose instead, in important seats, to prefer the current Premier Jay Weatherill. I think most reasonable observers would say he was the person who came through that campaign looking much more competent, much stronger, and people – certainly I think out -campaigned Steven Marshall. Now ultimately this is a matter that will be resolved by the South Australian Parliament and by Mr Brock. But I think it is pretty clear the case for change across South Australia wasn’t made.
CASSIDY: And just finally, as a former Finance Minister are you embarrassed the Government this week got rid of so many inefficient regulations?
WONG: I was losing a bit of sound there but I think you are talking about regulation. I make a couple of points. Some of what is in repeal days, in fact, I think this third tranche, this third step of what we started which was a housekeeping of Commonwealth legislation, where we removed redundant legislation from the statute books. We had done this a couple of times before, but also included in this repeal day a range of matters which really are more about people’s rights. As someone said, it’s more about removing the guide rail than removing the red tape.
We see today in the papers, again, part of what’s been repealed is wage protections, employment protections for cleaners under Commonwealth contracts. Some of the lowest-paid people in Australia are people who work in the cleaning industry. They’ve been attacked through the repeal day. And of course we see the really regressive changes to the financial advice reforms that Labor put in place, all in the name of red tape but this is about removing protections from consumers.
CASSIDY: But even if you accept you started the process, the Government’s claiming $720 million year-on-year savings from their evidence?
WONG: I’d like to see how that’s actually arrived at. I think that’s yet another one of these Abbott Government figures that are plucked out of the air. I’d like to see how that’s arrived at. I simply don’t accept the numbers this Government puts forward. If you look at their mid-year budget update, I think that was more political fiction than economic update in the way they approached that. I suspect the approach to this will be the same.
CASSIDY: Penny Wong, thanks for your time this morning.
WONG: Good to speak with you.
ENDS
No comments:
Post a Comment