SENATOR THE HON PENNY WONG
LABOR SENATOR FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA
TRANSCRIPT
2 February 2014
AUSTRALIAN AGENDA WITH PETER VAN ONSELEN AND PAUL KELLY
E&OE - PROOF ONLY
PETER VAN ONSELEN: We are joined now live out of Adelaide by the Leader of the Labor Party in the Senate, Senator Penny Wong. Thanks very much for being there.
SENAOTR PENNY WONG: Good morning, good to be with you.
VAN ONSELEN: Can I start by asking about SPC, notwithstanding I guess an inconsistency between the Abbott Government’s decision there and Cadbury and possibly an election commitment that has been adjusted. Most commentators including Paul Kelly just then think it is a good decision, what they’ve done, that there needed to be a handbrake in terms of this kind of assistance. The Labor Party doesn’t agree with that though. Why is that?
WONG: Well, because there are a lot of jobs at stake, not just in the near term but in the long term. Look, I think that the general principle is that you don’t have Governments as a matter of course simply propping up businesses, that’s true.
But there are occasions where it is important for Governments to work in partnership with particular firms. Particularly as the economy is restructuring and changing and we are going through a lot of change in our economy and lets understand that what was being asked here was much less than what was being put on the table by the parent company in terms of investment. So there was, I think some $160 million of investment that the $25 million tax payer assistance would have leveraged and that would’ve set the company up for the longer term and I think that would have been in the interests of the regional economy as well as the workers directly affected.
I think what you’re seeing here is a Treasurer who is running a hard line in part he has to because I think he was so roundly criticised for the GrainCorp decision where he clearly was browbeaten by Barnaby Joyce and Warren Truss.
VAN ONSELEN: But on the SPC issue, I mean, it’s a difficult one for Labor to say that the Government should be giving money here isn’t it? Because the parent company Coca-Cola Amatil is highly profitable, it has got some of the highest paid executives in the country, why should taxpayers prop one arm of it business that may not be doing so well right now when it’s a multi hundred million dollar profit making enterprise.
WONG: Well, it wasn’t just us who said that this was a reasonable deal. I think there were a great many other individuals and in respect to business people who looked very closely at the assessment of this proposal and said that this was value for money for taxpayers and as I said that there was a much greater level of investment put on the table by the private sector, by the company than what was being sought from the Government.
I think Dr. Sharman Stone who is the local member has been very clear about her position on this and she saw it as a good expenditure of taxpayer’s money.
VAN ONSELEN: You’d expect that. That’s just Nimbyism, isn’t it?
WONG: Well, I don’t think that it’s Nimbyism, this is not an area that has got a lot of other employment opportunities. We do want to ensure that we can continue to diversify our economy. We need to be able to be sure that we have got firms such as SPC that can continue not only to compete with imports but export into world markets.
If the assessment of the proposal that this would generate that kind of business activity I think it would have been good value for money for taxpayers. That’s why we had agreed to fund it in Government and made that announcement during the election campaign. I think it’s a very disappointing decision for these families by the Abbott Government.
PAUL KELLY: Senator, what’s your response to the paper by the Productivity Commission at the end of the week. Pointing out that the billions and billions of dollars of assistance and subsidies given to the car industry over a very long period of time has not prevented the decline of the industry. Doesn’t this cast a very grave doubt on the value of such subsidies?
WONG: Well, I’ll make the point in terms of the auto sector that I don’t think that there’s an auto industry around the world that doesn’t have Government assistance as part of maintaining the industry.
As you know Paul, I think the soundest argument for maintaining the industry in Australia is not only that you want these jobs in Australia, just as you want jobs in Australia with SPC, but also that you do want sufficient level, sufficient skills base here in Australia that the car industry provides.
If we are serious about continuing to diversify our economy and to improve our advanced manufacturing capacity, what the car industry does provide is a sufficient scale for those skills to be nurtured and developed. And as I said, around the world, I think you’ll look and see that almost every car around the world is built with some form of Government investment included in it.
So you make a decision you either want a car industry for broader economic reasons or you don’t. I think what’s clear and certainly what our people here in South Australia know is Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott have made the decision that they don’t want the car industry here and not only that they went about it in an extraordinary way.
They said – asked the Productivity Commission that they wanted their review and then back grounded against Holden, back grounded against a company and demanded they make a decision before the review reported. I mean it was political gamesmanship, it wasn’t good economic policy.
KELLY: I don’t think you’ve answered my question though. The question I’m asking you is do subsidies work and it seems to me that the economic evidence is that they don’t.
WONG: I think there are times when it is sensible, economically sensible for a government to invest in a partnership with industry. Not as a matter of course, that is correct Paul, but you have to make an assessment of the particular industry and what returns to the economy are made.
I think that there is a benefit, an investment in the auto sector, regrettably that is not the path that the Coalition Government has taken and I think you’re going to see a very substantial impact here in South Australia because of that decision.
VAN ONSELEN: Can I ask you about the trade union discussion about the possibility of a Royal Commission? It seems to me what Tony Abbott and the Coalition are effectively doing is saying to Labor you can either look back and have a Royal Commission which is probably going to be painful for everybody or you can look forward and support us in terms of bring back the ABCC which they certainly want in terms of the building industry. Isn’t it in Labor’s interests to look forward and not back because of the potential damage looking back can cause?
WONG: Let’s understand what Tony Abbott is doing, he’s conflating a number of issues here. The first thing is, the allegations that we saw earlier this week are of criminal conduct and they are completely unacceptable and they should be fully investigated but when you are talking about the ABCC that was not set up to investigate criminal conduct. Criminal conduct is properly investigated by the Police and where appropriate bodies such as the Australian Crime Commission.
Let’s be very clear criminal conduct, unacceptable and should be fully investigated and I understand that the Secretary of the union has made that clear. In terms of the broader issue which Tony Abbott is prosecuting he’s made no secret of the fact that he doesn’t like the trade union movement, he doesn’t like what it stands for, doesn’t like the fact that it opposes many of his policies, his attack on universal Medicare and his longstanding view about industrial relations which he’s been regularly been on the record about.
I think what you are seeing is an attempt by the Prime Minister to attack and smear the entire labour movement with the allegations of criminal conduct of some rotten apples who need to be fully investigated to the fullest extent of the law.
KELLY: So clearly you’re telling us that the Labor party would oppose any judicial inquiry or Royal Commission?
WONG: Well I’m not going to respond to an idea about an inquiry which has not at all been outlined to the Australian people – what would be included, what would the terms of reference be? What I’m talking about is intentions here.
I would suggest given the – what’s been said by the Prime Minister and by Senator Abetz, the Minister that there’s an intention that’s entirely political around much of what they’re saying. I am absolutely in agreement with them when it comes to corruption whether it’s inside the union or elsewhere in the building industry and that absolutely needs to be investigated by the authorities fully. That is not an argument for example for the Australian Building and Construction Commission.
KELLY: But surely-
WONG: They were there to police industrial laws not criminal laws.
KELLY: But surely it’s an argument for a judicial inquiry or Royal Commission. I don’t understand your argument that only the Police can look at that, that’s not the case at all. If we have widespread corruption in a particular industry, surely it’s quite appropriate for a government to appoint a judicial investigation?
WONG: Well I’d like to see what is proposed, what I am saying to you is I think everybody knows the politics of Tony Abbott’s-
KELLY: Can we focus on the issue not the politics?
WONG: No, because Paul, my point to you is, that this is entirely bound up with the political agenda of the Government, that’s my only point. It’s a bit like when the way in which the ABC review of efficiency has been undertaken the day after the Prime Minister has a go at the ABC for being un-Australian. I mean lets- we all understand what’s occurring here.
If the Prime Minister has a genuine proposal he should put it out there and he should be very clear about what that proposal is and what the terms of reference are and what it’s focused on. What I’m saying to you is that these allegations of corruption have been used for various purposes including for example and Peter asked me in his first question about the reintroduction of the Building and Construction Commission – the point that I was making, is that was never there to investigate criminal conduct.
KELLY: Seeing we are discussing politics and not the issue, what are the politics in this for the Labor Party? What are the politics in this for the Labor Party being seen to defend the union movement this way, surely this works very much against Labor?
WONG: Well, none of us will defend corruption or criminal activity full stop.
KELLY: But will you do about it Minister? Saying that only the Police can look at this doesn’t pass the laugh test?
WONG: Well, no, what I was saying was that the Police and other bodies such as the Crime Commission do have the capacity to investigate and they should. Why is that, I don’t understand how you would suggest that that doesn’t pass the laugh test? To suggest that law enforcement authorities should investigate these allegations to the fullest extent?
KELLY: Well I would have thought, given the importance of the building and construction sector, given the extent of the allegations stretching back over a long period of time there would be a very substantial argument for a judicial inquiry or Royal Commission into that. It would seem to me that there is a very strong case for that.
WONG: Well, if the Prime Minister has a proposition he should put that on the table and people can make an assessment about it. I think there are a number of issues here. You’re right about there being allegations which need to be investigated and I have said to you very clearly today, as have other Labor people. They should be investigated to the fullest extent of the law and that’s point one.
Second point we did establish in Government, as you know, a building inspectorate under Fair Work Australia and I think that was appropriate because I think having a focused industrial team looking at policing workplace laws for the building sector was an appropriate thing to do.
These allegations have been used by the Government to prosecute a number of other political agendas and I think it’s very important that we step back and say what is the problem here. If the problem is criminal behaviour well then law enforcement authorities, the Police, the Crime Commission should fully investigate.
VAN ONSELEN: Senator, just one last more question on this before we move on to other topics. Whilst the ABCC doesn’t have a direct role in law enforcement it does have a pretty significant role in what it can uncover that can lead to Police investigations that might follow.
I guess my question is really about the change in circumstances since the last election or indeed since the election of the Labor leader. During that election campaign, Bill Shorten courted CFMEU support quite significantly having read through the details of speeches he gave and promises he made to the CFMEU and yet here we are in changed circumstances because of what happened his week in relation to these allegations at the start of the week.
Isn’t Bill Shorten wedged between his support and promise on the campaign trail versus what these allegations lead to in terms of the kind of robust change of policy, I guess you could say that the Australian people could probably expect.
WONG: Well, I am absolutely sure that nothing Bill Shorten said and nothing any of the Federal Labor Party is saying would condone this sort of criminal activity. We’ve all been at one in not only condemning it because if you support the labour movement the last thing you want is to see this sort of behaviour.
So we’ve been at one condemning it and at one in saying that it should be fully, fully investigated by the police. In terms of what Bill has said I’m sure anything he’s said is entirely consistent with what I’ve just said.
VAN ONSELEN: If we can move on to the ABC that you’ve raised earlier, this efficiency drive that Malcolm Turnbull announced during the week. Is it your view that efficiencies can be found in the ABC?
The article that I wrote this week actually came directly from one of your first questions in Senate Estimates from opposition in relation to there hasn’t been adherence to efficiency dividend within the ABC since 1996.
WONG: Look, I can tell you that the agenda of the review was made clear by the Prime Minister’s statement on radio the day before. What the Prime Minister, what Tony Abbott is doing is attacking an organisation that he perceives, I think wrongly, perceives as being, criticising the Government and I think what the ABC does is robustly interview both sides of politics, they certainly robustly interviewed me when I was a Minister and they are doing what they should as the national broadcaster which is scrutinising what the Government does.
KELLY: But the question is -
WONG: I’ll come to that. I can tell you as former Finance Minister the ABC and the SBS just like every other agency and organisation within Government always wanted more money than we were prepared to give it.
I think the ABC has done a very good job in increasing output for the amount of money that it’s been given but I don’t think the issue here is whether its efficient. I think the agenda for the review is to seek to find a reason to reduce funding to the ABC because the Government doesn’t like what the ABC does and says and you only have to look at what Eric Abetz has said, what other senior members of the Coalition have said, what the Prime Minister has said. This is all about a Government that doesn’t like scrutiny and will attack all and anybody it regards a criticising it.
KELLY: Just on that point Senator, given that the Governments indicated that there has to be a pretty comprehensive review of outlays across the board are you saying the ABC should be exempt?
WONG: I am saying that the Prime Minister of this country, Tony Abbott, said before the election no cuts to health and education, that was a lie. He said there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS; well I think that will turn out to be a lie.
KELLY: Look, look Senator -
WONG: There’s no reason way -
KELLY: Senator I’m trying to get, I’m trying to get a straight answer from you. I’d like to get a straight answer on the issue if we can. Do you think the ABC should be exempt from cuts? I mean I know what Tony Abbott said, I’m asking you what you think.
WONG: I think that if a Government says before an election there will be no cuts to an organisation then yes they should be exempt because that was the commitment made to the Australian people -
KELLY: Do you think, what do you think, I mean do you think there are no efficiencies to be gained here?
WONG: What we think is what we did in Government which is to continue to seek that the ABC become more efficient but continue to fund it appropriately as the national broadcaster.
But Paul, surely you, as someone who’s a senior political journalist, would understand that if the leader of party makes a commitment before the election that there’d be no cuts to an organisation then walking away from that is a breach of an election commitment.
KELLY: I understand those things, I understand those things, I’m just trying to identify the Labor Party’s position and I think you’ve indicated, I think you’ve indicated that you reject this efficiency review.
WONG: Absolutely.
VAN ONSELEN: What about, what about changing circumstances though Senator, I mean you know the old John Maynard Keynes quote that “when the facts change I change my mind, what do you do?” and you can apply that on both sides of politics, you can apply it to some of the, if you like to call it, broken election commitments, from the Abbott Government the same way you could apply it to some of the broken election commitments from 2010 by the Gillard Government. No quarter seems to be given by either side of politics from opposition, yet that’s not necessarily about good governance is it?
WONG: What are the changing circumstances Peter? I mean the budget emergency that Joe Hockey -
VAN ONSELEN: Your very revealing question in Senate estimates.
WONG: That has been on the public record Peter for, what, nearly a decade so it’s hardly a change in circumstance and Tony Abbott knew that when he made the commitment. I mean let’s understand the only changing circumstances are this Government trying to create circumstances that justify them breaking promises.
That’s what this is about and that’s what we’ll see I anticipate when the budget is handed down. That’s exactly what the Commission of Audit will do, they will say ‘oh there’s all these changed circumstances’ and so Tony Abbott will now be in a position where he’ll say to the Australian people I told you no cuts to health, I told you no cuts to education, but guess what we’re going to introduce a GP tax, guess what, we’re going to cut these things, we’re not going to fund Gonski, the Gonski reforms, the Better Schools plan.
I mean the only changing circumstances are the changing, are Tony Abbott’s change of mind and the fact that he’s prepared to walk away from his pre-election commitments.
KELLY: What’s the Labor Party’s attitude towards the foreshadowed abolition of the Australian overseas television network?
WONG: Well my view about that is, that is an important part of our soft diplomacy and our presence in the region and as you’d know I’ve got family overseas and certainly, when I go back to see them people will talk about it to me about what they’d seen on the Australia Network and I think that people shouldn’t underestimate the importance of our engagement.
KELLY: So you’ll oppose the abolition?
WONG: That is, I do and I think that if there are issues with it, that they should be properly looked at. If there is a performance issue, if there is an efficiency issue, you know, I’d be prepared to have a discussion about that but I think a simple abolition really fails to -
KELLY: Don’t you think, I mean surely that comment is a bit rich given the corrupt tender process which the previous Government presided over?
WONG: Well, I don’t think it’s a bit rich to suggest that it’s a good thing to have a presence in our region, we can traverse that again if you’d like Paul but we’re not in Government.
This is a question about what the Abbott Government will do and I think the abolition of our presence in the region in that way is not a sensible move from Australia’s perspective in terms of our foreign policy or our relationships with our region, I don’t think it’s a sensible proposition.
If there are specific issues that need to be dealt with they should be dealt with and they can be considered transparently for Australians to see but I don’t think simply abolishing it is a good idea.
VAN ONSELEN: Penny Wong before we let you go a topic I’m sure you’ve been dying to get to. Don Farrell over there in South Australia, his I guess aborted announcement that he was going to have a crack at pre-selection ahead of the state election, Jay Weatherill the Premier obviously came out on radio and made it quite clear that he didn’t agree and Don Farrell ultimately withdrew his candidacy.
There’s a bit of history here of course because Don Farrell lost his spot at the Senate when he dropped to number two, the position that you previously held, he made way for you to move up as the more senior person within the then Government to number one and in an unprecedented situation the number two slot was lost at the last election. I just say all of that as background to ask you in your view; in your opinion did Don Farrell do the wrong thing to put his hand up in the first place when he must have known that Jay Weatherill had little interest in him moving into state politics?
WONG: Well I’ll leave the commentary to you Peter. I’d say a couple of things, I think this demonstrated first that Jay is a strong leader and a leader whose resolute when it comes to doing what he thinks is in the best interest of the party, the Government and the state.
I’d also say about Don as I think your column today indicates, he’s a man who always sought to act in the best interests of the party. You’ve outlined, when he’s previously done that. He’s been an extraordinary contributor to the Labour movement. It’s a great tragedy he wasn’t elected, as you said it’s unprecedented that we didn’t win the number two position and, he should have the respect and he does have the respect I think across the movement for his contribution.
VAN ONSELEN: Alright Penny Wong we appreciate you joining us on Australian Agenda, thanks very much for your company.
WONG: Good to be with you.
ENDS
PETER VAN ONSELEN: We are joined now live out of Adelaide by the Leader of the Labor Party in the Senate, Senator Penny Wong. Thanks very much for being there.
SENAOTR PENNY WONG: Good morning, good to be with you.
VAN ONSELEN: Can I start by asking about SPC, notwithstanding I guess an inconsistency between the Abbott Government’s decision there and Cadbury and possibly an election commitment that has been adjusted. Most commentators including Paul Kelly just then think it is a good decision, what they’ve done, that there needed to be a handbrake in terms of this kind of assistance. The Labor Party doesn’t agree with that though. Why is that?
WONG: Well, because there are a lot of jobs at stake, not just in the near term but in the long term. Look, I think that the general principle is that you don’t have Governments as a matter of course simply propping up businesses, that’s true.
But there are occasions where it is important for Governments to work in partnership with particular firms. Particularly as the economy is restructuring and changing and we are going through a lot of change in our economy and lets understand that what was being asked here was much less than what was being put on the table by the parent company in terms of investment. So there was, I think some $160 million of investment that the $25 million tax payer assistance would have leveraged and that would’ve set the company up for the longer term and I think that would have been in the interests of the regional economy as well as the workers directly affected.
I think what you’re seeing here is a Treasurer who is running a hard line in part he has to because I think he was so roundly criticised for the GrainCorp decision where he clearly was browbeaten by Barnaby Joyce and Warren Truss.
VAN ONSELEN: But on the SPC issue, I mean, it’s a difficult one for Labor to say that the Government should be giving money here isn’t it? Because the parent company Coca-Cola Amatil is highly profitable, it has got some of the highest paid executives in the country, why should taxpayers prop one arm of it business that may not be doing so well right now when it’s a multi hundred million dollar profit making enterprise.
WONG: Well, it wasn’t just us who said that this was a reasonable deal. I think there were a great many other individuals and in respect to business people who looked very closely at the assessment of this proposal and said that this was value for money for taxpayers and as I said that there was a much greater level of investment put on the table by the private sector, by the company than what was being sought from the Government.
I think Dr. Sharman Stone who is the local member has been very clear about her position on this and she saw it as a good expenditure of taxpayer’s money.
VAN ONSELEN: You’d expect that. That’s just Nimbyism, isn’t it?
WONG: Well, I don’t think that it’s Nimbyism, this is not an area that has got a lot of other employment opportunities. We do want to ensure that we can continue to diversify our economy. We need to be able to be sure that we have got firms such as SPC that can continue not only to compete with imports but export into world markets.
If the assessment of the proposal that this would generate that kind of business activity I think it would have been good value for money for taxpayers. That’s why we had agreed to fund it in Government and made that announcement during the election campaign. I think it’s a very disappointing decision for these families by the Abbott Government.
PAUL KELLY: Senator, what’s your response to the paper by the Productivity Commission at the end of the week. Pointing out that the billions and billions of dollars of assistance and subsidies given to the car industry over a very long period of time has not prevented the decline of the industry. Doesn’t this cast a very grave doubt on the value of such subsidies?
WONG: Well, I’ll make the point in terms of the auto sector that I don’t think that there’s an auto industry around the world that doesn’t have Government assistance as part of maintaining the industry.
As you know Paul, I think the soundest argument for maintaining the industry in Australia is not only that you want these jobs in Australia, just as you want jobs in Australia with SPC, but also that you do want sufficient level, sufficient skills base here in Australia that the car industry provides.
If we are serious about continuing to diversify our economy and to improve our advanced manufacturing capacity, what the car industry does provide is a sufficient scale for those skills to be nurtured and developed. And as I said, around the world, I think you’ll look and see that almost every car around the world is built with some form of Government investment included in it.
So you make a decision you either want a car industry for broader economic reasons or you don’t. I think what’s clear and certainly what our people here in South Australia know is Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott have made the decision that they don’t want the car industry here and not only that they went about it in an extraordinary way.
They said – asked the Productivity Commission that they wanted their review and then back grounded against Holden, back grounded against a company and demanded they make a decision before the review reported. I mean it was political gamesmanship, it wasn’t good economic policy.
KELLY: I don’t think you’ve answered my question though. The question I’m asking you is do subsidies work and it seems to me that the economic evidence is that they don’t.
WONG: I think there are times when it is sensible, economically sensible for a government to invest in a partnership with industry. Not as a matter of course, that is correct Paul, but you have to make an assessment of the particular industry and what returns to the economy are made.
I think that there is a benefit, an investment in the auto sector, regrettably that is not the path that the Coalition Government has taken and I think you’re going to see a very substantial impact here in South Australia because of that decision.
VAN ONSELEN: Can I ask you about the trade union discussion about the possibility of a Royal Commission? It seems to me what Tony Abbott and the Coalition are effectively doing is saying to Labor you can either look back and have a Royal Commission which is probably going to be painful for everybody or you can look forward and support us in terms of bring back the ABCC which they certainly want in terms of the building industry. Isn’t it in Labor’s interests to look forward and not back because of the potential damage looking back can cause?
WONG: Let’s understand what Tony Abbott is doing, he’s conflating a number of issues here. The first thing is, the allegations that we saw earlier this week are of criminal conduct and they are completely unacceptable and they should be fully investigated but when you are talking about the ABCC that was not set up to investigate criminal conduct. Criminal conduct is properly investigated by the Police and where appropriate bodies such as the Australian Crime Commission.
Let’s be very clear criminal conduct, unacceptable and should be fully investigated and I understand that the Secretary of the union has made that clear. In terms of the broader issue which Tony Abbott is prosecuting he’s made no secret of the fact that he doesn’t like the trade union movement, he doesn’t like what it stands for, doesn’t like the fact that it opposes many of his policies, his attack on universal Medicare and his longstanding view about industrial relations which he’s been regularly been on the record about.
I think what you are seeing is an attempt by the Prime Minister to attack and smear the entire labour movement with the allegations of criminal conduct of some rotten apples who need to be fully investigated to the fullest extent of the law.
KELLY: So clearly you’re telling us that the Labor party would oppose any judicial inquiry or Royal Commission?
WONG: Well I’m not going to respond to an idea about an inquiry which has not at all been outlined to the Australian people – what would be included, what would the terms of reference be? What I’m talking about is intentions here.
I would suggest given the – what’s been said by the Prime Minister and by Senator Abetz, the Minister that there’s an intention that’s entirely political around much of what they’re saying. I am absolutely in agreement with them when it comes to corruption whether it’s inside the union or elsewhere in the building industry and that absolutely needs to be investigated by the authorities fully. That is not an argument for example for the Australian Building and Construction Commission.
KELLY: But surely-
WONG: They were there to police industrial laws not criminal laws.
KELLY: But surely it’s an argument for a judicial inquiry or Royal Commission. I don’t understand your argument that only the Police can look at that, that’s not the case at all. If we have widespread corruption in a particular industry, surely it’s quite appropriate for a government to appoint a judicial investigation?
WONG: Well I’d like to see what is proposed, what I am saying to you is I think everybody knows the politics of Tony Abbott’s-
KELLY: Can we focus on the issue not the politics?
WONG: No, because Paul, my point to you is, that this is entirely bound up with the political agenda of the Government, that’s my only point. It’s a bit like when the way in which the ABC review of efficiency has been undertaken the day after the Prime Minister has a go at the ABC for being un-Australian. I mean lets- we all understand what’s occurring here.
If the Prime Minister has a genuine proposal he should put it out there and he should be very clear about what that proposal is and what the terms of reference are and what it’s focused on. What I’m saying to you is that these allegations of corruption have been used for various purposes including for example and Peter asked me in his first question about the reintroduction of the Building and Construction Commission – the point that I was making, is that was never there to investigate criminal conduct.
KELLY: Seeing we are discussing politics and not the issue, what are the politics in this for the Labor Party? What are the politics in this for the Labor Party being seen to defend the union movement this way, surely this works very much against Labor?
WONG: Well, none of us will defend corruption or criminal activity full stop.
KELLY: But will you do about it Minister? Saying that only the Police can look at this doesn’t pass the laugh test?
WONG: Well, no, what I was saying was that the Police and other bodies such as the Crime Commission do have the capacity to investigate and they should. Why is that, I don’t understand how you would suggest that that doesn’t pass the laugh test? To suggest that law enforcement authorities should investigate these allegations to the fullest extent?
KELLY: Well I would have thought, given the importance of the building and construction sector, given the extent of the allegations stretching back over a long period of time there would be a very substantial argument for a judicial inquiry or Royal Commission into that. It would seem to me that there is a very strong case for that.
WONG: Well, if the Prime Minister has a proposition he should put that on the table and people can make an assessment about it. I think there are a number of issues here. You’re right about there being allegations which need to be investigated and I have said to you very clearly today, as have other Labor people. They should be investigated to the fullest extent of the law and that’s point one.
Second point we did establish in Government, as you know, a building inspectorate under Fair Work Australia and I think that was appropriate because I think having a focused industrial team looking at policing workplace laws for the building sector was an appropriate thing to do.
These allegations have been used by the Government to prosecute a number of other political agendas and I think it’s very important that we step back and say what is the problem here. If the problem is criminal behaviour well then law enforcement authorities, the Police, the Crime Commission should fully investigate.
VAN ONSELEN: Senator, just one last more question on this before we move on to other topics. Whilst the ABCC doesn’t have a direct role in law enforcement it does have a pretty significant role in what it can uncover that can lead to Police investigations that might follow.
I guess my question is really about the change in circumstances since the last election or indeed since the election of the Labor leader. During that election campaign, Bill Shorten courted CFMEU support quite significantly having read through the details of speeches he gave and promises he made to the CFMEU and yet here we are in changed circumstances because of what happened his week in relation to these allegations at the start of the week.
Isn’t Bill Shorten wedged between his support and promise on the campaign trail versus what these allegations lead to in terms of the kind of robust change of policy, I guess you could say that the Australian people could probably expect.
WONG: Well, I am absolutely sure that nothing Bill Shorten said and nothing any of the Federal Labor Party is saying would condone this sort of criminal activity. We’ve all been at one in not only condemning it because if you support the labour movement the last thing you want is to see this sort of behaviour.
So we’ve been at one condemning it and at one in saying that it should be fully, fully investigated by the police. In terms of what Bill has said I’m sure anything he’s said is entirely consistent with what I’ve just said.
VAN ONSELEN: If we can move on to the ABC that you’ve raised earlier, this efficiency drive that Malcolm Turnbull announced during the week. Is it your view that efficiencies can be found in the ABC?
The article that I wrote this week actually came directly from one of your first questions in Senate Estimates from opposition in relation to there hasn’t been adherence to efficiency dividend within the ABC since 1996.
WONG: Look, I can tell you that the agenda of the review was made clear by the Prime Minister’s statement on radio the day before. What the Prime Minister, what Tony Abbott is doing is attacking an organisation that he perceives, I think wrongly, perceives as being, criticising the Government and I think what the ABC does is robustly interview both sides of politics, they certainly robustly interviewed me when I was a Minister and they are doing what they should as the national broadcaster which is scrutinising what the Government does.
KELLY: But the question is -
WONG: I’ll come to that. I can tell you as former Finance Minister the ABC and the SBS just like every other agency and organisation within Government always wanted more money than we were prepared to give it.
I think the ABC has done a very good job in increasing output for the amount of money that it’s been given but I don’t think the issue here is whether its efficient. I think the agenda for the review is to seek to find a reason to reduce funding to the ABC because the Government doesn’t like what the ABC does and says and you only have to look at what Eric Abetz has said, what other senior members of the Coalition have said, what the Prime Minister has said. This is all about a Government that doesn’t like scrutiny and will attack all and anybody it regards a criticising it.
KELLY: Just on that point Senator, given that the Governments indicated that there has to be a pretty comprehensive review of outlays across the board are you saying the ABC should be exempt?
WONG: I am saying that the Prime Minister of this country, Tony Abbott, said before the election no cuts to health and education, that was a lie. He said there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS; well I think that will turn out to be a lie.
KELLY: Look, look Senator -
WONG: There’s no reason way -
KELLY: Senator I’m trying to get, I’m trying to get a straight answer from you. I’d like to get a straight answer on the issue if we can. Do you think the ABC should be exempt from cuts? I mean I know what Tony Abbott said, I’m asking you what you think.
WONG: I think that if a Government says before an election there will be no cuts to an organisation then yes they should be exempt because that was the commitment made to the Australian people -
KELLY: Do you think, what do you think, I mean do you think there are no efficiencies to be gained here?
WONG: What we think is what we did in Government which is to continue to seek that the ABC become more efficient but continue to fund it appropriately as the national broadcaster.
But Paul, surely you, as someone who’s a senior political journalist, would understand that if the leader of party makes a commitment before the election that there’d be no cuts to an organisation then walking away from that is a breach of an election commitment.
KELLY: I understand those things, I understand those things, I’m just trying to identify the Labor Party’s position and I think you’ve indicated, I think you’ve indicated that you reject this efficiency review.
WONG: Absolutely.
VAN ONSELEN: What about, what about changing circumstances though Senator, I mean you know the old John Maynard Keynes quote that “when the facts change I change my mind, what do you do?” and you can apply that on both sides of politics, you can apply it to some of the, if you like to call it, broken election commitments, from the Abbott Government the same way you could apply it to some of the broken election commitments from 2010 by the Gillard Government. No quarter seems to be given by either side of politics from opposition, yet that’s not necessarily about good governance is it?
WONG: What are the changing circumstances Peter? I mean the budget emergency that Joe Hockey -
VAN ONSELEN: Your very revealing question in Senate estimates.
WONG: That has been on the public record Peter for, what, nearly a decade so it’s hardly a change in circumstance and Tony Abbott knew that when he made the commitment. I mean let’s understand the only changing circumstances are this Government trying to create circumstances that justify them breaking promises.
That’s what this is about and that’s what we’ll see I anticipate when the budget is handed down. That’s exactly what the Commission of Audit will do, they will say ‘oh there’s all these changed circumstances’ and so Tony Abbott will now be in a position where he’ll say to the Australian people I told you no cuts to health, I told you no cuts to education, but guess what we’re going to introduce a GP tax, guess what, we’re going to cut these things, we’re not going to fund Gonski, the Gonski reforms, the Better Schools plan.
I mean the only changing circumstances are the changing, are Tony Abbott’s change of mind and the fact that he’s prepared to walk away from his pre-election commitments.
KELLY: What’s the Labor Party’s attitude towards the foreshadowed abolition of the Australian overseas television network?
WONG: Well my view about that is, that is an important part of our soft diplomacy and our presence in the region and as you’d know I’ve got family overseas and certainly, when I go back to see them people will talk about it to me about what they’d seen on the Australia Network and I think that people shouldn’t underestimate the importance of our engagement.
KELLY: So you’ll oppose the abolition?
WONG: That is, I do and I think that if there are issues with it, that they should be properly looked at. If there is a performance issue, if there is an efficiency issue, you know, I’d be prepared to have a discussion about that but I think a simple abolition really fails to -
KELLY: Don’t you think, I mean surely that comment is a bit rich given the corrupt tender process which the previous Government presided over?
WONG: Well, I don’t think it’s a bit rich to suggest that it’s a good thing to have a presence in our region, we can traverse that again if you’d like Paul but we’re not in Government.
This is a question about what the Abbott Government will do and I think the abolition of our presence in the region in that way is not a sensible move from Australia’s perspective in terms of our foreign policy or our relationships with our region, I don’t think it’s a sensible proposition.
If there are specific issues that need to be dealt with they should be dealt with and they can be considered transparently for Australians to see but I don’t think simply abolishing it is a good idea.
VAN ONSELEN: Penny Wong before we let you go a topic I’m sure you’ve been dying to get to. Don Farrell over there in South Australia, his I guess aborted announcement that he was going to have a crack at pre-selection ahead of the state election, Jay Weatherill the Premier obviously came out on radio and made it quite clear that he didn’t agree and Don Farrell ultimately withdrew his candidacy.
There’s a bit of history here of course because Don Farrell lost his spot at the Senate when he dropped to number two, the position that you previously held, he made way for you to move up as the more senior person within the then Government to number one and in an unprecedented situation the number two slot was lost at the last election. I just say all of that as background to ask you in your view; in your opinion did Don Farrell do the wrong thing to put his hand up in the first place when he must have known that Jay Weatherill had little interest in him moving into state politics?
WONG: Well I’ll leave the commentary to you Peter. I’d say a couple of things, I think this demonstrated first that Jay is a strong leader and a leader whose resolute when it comes to doing what he thinks is in the best interest of the party, the Government and the state.
I’d also say about Don as I think your column today indicates, he’s a man who always sought to act in the best interests of the party. You’ve outlined, when he’s previously done that. He’s been an extraordinary contributor to the Labour movement. It’s a great tragedy he wasn’t elected, as you said it’s unprecedented that we didn’t win the number two position and, he should have the respect and he does have the respect I think across the movement for his contribution.
VAN ONSELEN: Alright Penny Wong we appreciate you joining us on Australian Agenda, thanks very much for your company.
WONG: Good to be with you.
ENDS
No comments:
Post a Comment