KING: Minister Penny Wong, stepping In for Dr Craig Emerson. Senator, good morning.
WONG: Good morning to you.
KING: And of course regular Liberal Senator George Brandis from the Opposition. Senator Brandis, good morning to you too.
BRANDIS: Good morning Madonna, good morning Penny.
WONG: Youll be pleased to know Madonna, were sitting very close together.
KING: (laughs) And there hasnt been a fight yet?
WONG: No, no. Could be nicer, or it could be grouchier.
KING: Well see how it goes. And Ill start with you George Brandis this morning. I see youve taken to print in the Sydney Morning Herald to describe those targeting Muslims as akin to the bullies you witnessed beating up Italian children when you were at school in the 1960s. Why the need to do that?
BRANDIS: Well I did write an opinion piece in this mornings Sydney Morning Herald because I think its very important that the Liberal Party restate emphatically as Tony Abbott and others have done in recent days its very strong commitment to a multicultural Australia.
Our attitude on this is shaped by three principles. First of all, we believe that Australia is arguably the most successful immigrant society in the world, and thats something we ought to be very proud of. Secondly, that we are entirely committed to and are largely the architects of the multicultural Australia that we all enjoy today. And thirdly, that we would never countenance a discriminatory migration policy. Now theres been some commentary by the commentators challenging that. So I think we on the Opposition front bench are very conscious of the need to state it and to be proud of it.
KING: And does your Immigration spokesman Scott Morrison agree with those three points?
BRANDIS: Absolutely.
KING: This is an issue in your party though, isnt it? The fact that Tony Abbott had to confirm the partys policies were non-discriminatory; that you did support multiculturalism.
BRANDIS: Well I think there were a couple of commentators seized upon remarks that perhaps could have been better expressed or expressed at a different time last week.
KING: You mean Scott Morrison criticising the Government for paying for the funerals?
BRANDIS: Well Im not going to be having a go at anyone.
KING: No I dont want you to have a go at anyone. But I want you to be clear in what youre saying. You were speaking as much to your own party as anyone else in
BRANDIS: No, I wasnt. I was speaking to the people who read the article, or hear about it. Because all of us in the Opposition are very concerned to affirm our steadfast and unreserved support for multicultural Australia which we on our side of politics, have at least as much credit as the Labor Party for being the architects of.
KING: Penny Wong, do you accept that is what drove George Brandis?
WONG: First, I want to congratulate George for speaking out. I think this is precisely the sort of bipartisanship multiculturalism should have.
Unfortunately, thats not where we are now. And notwithstanding Georges very valiant attempt to bridge the gap between what he said and what Mr Abbott has said, the reality is we know that weve seen Mr Morrison make some very inappropriate comments, regrettable comments. Weve seen reports out of shadow cabinet that Mr Morrison is suggesting that the Liberal Party should exploit concerns about Muslims. And weve also seen Senator Cory Bernardi actually come out and say Islam is the problem.
Now these are not comments consistent with what George said today. Theyre not comments consistent with the bipartisan position that has previously been the case under past Liberal governments. And really, I congratulate George, but the issue is not Georges view in the paper today, the issue is what Mr Abbott is doing and not saying.
KING: Can you clear this up
BRANDIS: In fairness to me, yes I can and let me
KING: No, let me ask you the question before you answer it.
BRANDIS: Well I am entitled to correct a misstatement of fact. What has been attributed to Mr Morrison by an anonymous leak is at variance from his views. So those reports were effectively false.
KING: Well let me ask you the question because I was going to ask you can you say unequivocally that Scott Morrison didnt advocate to shadow cabinet that the Opposition capitalise on community unrest over Muslims? BRANDIS: Well I have a very strict rule about not revealing what is said in shadow cabinet just as Penny would have in relation to Cabinet. But I can merely point to Mr Morrisons public statement that what was attributed to him does not represent his views. And I know that to be true.
KING: Just back to you Penny Wong. Just on this issue of how we feel or what kind of unrest there is in the community. I see there is a survey out today that says half of Australians harbour anti-Muslim sentiments and a quarter are anti-Semitic. This is the biggest survey ever done in our country, a survey of 12,500 people. Do you think it is that significant a problem?
WONG: Im someone who was born overseas, I came to this country in 1977. So I know first hand there are always some issues in a community when you have different waves of migrants. This isnt new. If you go back through Australian history in the post-war period, weve had different waves of migrants from different parts of the world Italians, Greeks in the post-war period. Weve had Vietnamese people from other parts of South-East Asia and more recently obviously that has shifted, depending on where migration is coming from.
The issue is here, how do you deal with it as political leaders and as public leaders. And there are times in politics where you really need to look to the national interest and put aside any prospect of partisanship because the issue is too big.
KING: Can I ask you George Brandis, do you agree with that; that this is one of those things that there should be a bipartisan approach on our multiculturalism policy?
BRANDIS: Well I think there is.
WONG: That is just not true.
BRANDIS: Thats the very point I made in the article I published this morning. That Australian multicultural policy has been the product of both the Liberal and Labor side of politics since Harold Holt began to repeal the White Australia policy in the 1960s. And if there is an intellectual architect of Australian multiculturalism, its probably Petro Georgiouwho as Malcolm Frasers adviser in the late 1970s and early 1980s, really was the architect of that policy. Now
WONG: But George you cant justify current wrongs by looking at past goods, and thats what youre trying to do. I accept the history, I accept there has been bipartisanship, but lets look at now. You have a shadow immigration minister seeking to exploit issues of people going to funerals. You have a Senator who is Tony Abbotts parliamentary secretary saying Islam is the problem. You have your party adopting at least two policy issues which were included in emails that One Nation put around. Now
BRANDIS: Oh no, come on Penny
WONG: No, its true.
BRANDIS: Penny, that is just not true.
WONG: Well it is true. There were calls from One Nation around the Muslim schools in Indonesia which you cut funding to. There were calls through the internet around the issue of asylum seekers being flown to funerals which you then responded to through the comments of Scott Morrison.
BRANDIS: Do you know, Penny , do you know Penny
WONG: Now George, I do think your views on this are probably not dissimilar to mine. And I agree with you that in the past, we have seen a Liberal Party prepared to look to the bigger national interest. What Im saying to you now is this leader, Mr Abbott, and this shadow minister Mr Morrison, and this leaders parliamentary secretary, Senator Bernardi, are not in that tradition.
BRANDIS: Penny, you are completely wrong. The views Ive expressed are the very views that Tony Abbott has consistently articulated throughout his career. If you read his book, if you look at his public speeches, and as recently as the shadow cabinet on Monday, and the parliamentary party meeting yesterday, the words I recited in response to Madonnas question, are the very words as Tony Abbott expressed them. So there is not an iota of difference between my position and Tony Abbotts position.
KING: Alright. OK
BRANDIS: And as for this slur, that the Coalition is influenced by One Nation. You know Penny, the One Nation party believes that we should have a navy, the Labor Government believes we should have a navy
WONG: Oh come on
BRANDIS: Does that mean your policy is dictated by One Nation?
KING: Alright, Im going to leave that conversation there because there are several other issues I want to get onto. And you at home may have a view on that, if you do on either partys policies, make sure you give me a buzz after ten.
But just coming to something closer to home, while Christchurch continues to go through its own emergency, people in Queensland are desperately trying to restart their lives. And weve been talking about this for the last half hour. This flood levy from Canberra. Penny Wong, where is it at?
WONG: Well the levy legislation, I understand, is still being debated in the House of Representatives. Ive been, like George, weve been in Senate Estimates, that rather strange committee process the Senate has for very long hours. So I havent been following the debate. But I have
KING: Alright. But do you have the support to pass it? And when will it be passed?
WONG: We believe that the independents and cross benches have heard very clearly the Governments position which is simply this: weve got get this package through to give your state, the people in it, the certainty they need to rebuild their communities and their homes. Thats what were trying to do.
KING: We understand the argument but what we are trying to work out is Nick Xenophon across the line, will it become law?
WONG: Look, Nick Xenophon were still in discussions with Nick. I think hes made his view clear. We have to get one chamber at a time to vote for this so were trying to get it through the House of Representatives. I think the discussions there have been very positive and obviously well continue the discussions with Senator Xenophon. We think theres a lot of merit here and we hope that commonsense will prevail.
KING: One of his conditions is that Queensland take out this insurance policy against the state. Do either of you know whether that is feasible? Certainly from the state point of view, state government ministers are arguing that given our road network, like Western Australia, it might be impossible to find an insurer.
WONG: I think what Nick is saying and I dont want to, you know, sort of speak for him but what Nick is saying is the state should do it if it is feasible, if its commercially reasonable to do so.
KING: Ive interviewed him and he thinks that, you know, that Queensland can do it.
WONG: And thats his view. But I can tell you that my view would be you need to look at what is reasonable for the state. I think the position Senator Xenophon has put is that he thinks people should look at that and whether its reasonable to take out insurance and not expect, simply expect the Commonwealth to pick up the tab.
Now obviously weve got to work through that with him in the interest of getting this package up which is a $5.6 billion package.
KING: George Brandis, I dont want to go over the politics of the flood levy, but do you have a view on whether Queensland can actually insure itself?
BRANDIS: Well Im not a state politician and I adopt and support what Tim Nicholls has said in relation to this matter. But I think its very interesting that the Under Treasurer, Gerard Bradley who is of course a senior public servant, not a politician, but spoke on behalf of the Queensland Government at a House of Representatives committee in Canberra last week. And as I understood his evidence, he was saying that one of the reasons the Queensland Government decided not to reinsure was because under the Natural Disaster Plan, 75 per cent of the cost of recovery, costs of a natural disaster, would be worn by the Commonwealth. And if thats the reason, and thats the principle reason, then it doesnt seem to be a very good reason.
KING: On this issue more broadly, the importance of Nick Xenophons vote reminds everyone just how precarious the numbers in Parliament are. While still with you George Brandis, do you think the independents are being independent?
BRANDIS: Well certainly Mr Oakeshott isnt being. I read in this mornings paper the reports that hes decided that because he was criticised by the Opposition about something, hes not going to going to deal with the Opposition anymore. Now an independent who only will deal with one side of Parliament, not the other side of Parliament, is no longer an independent.
KING: I read the same article I think. Didnt he say he wouldnt attend any more weekly meetings with your leader because of the Coalitions personal attacks?
BRANDIS: Well whatever he may have said, an independent who only deals with one side of the chamber is an independent in name only.
KING: Do you go to those meetings or is it just Tony Abbott and the independents in the meetings at this stage?
BRANDIS: I dont attend those meetings. I think its Mr Abbott and perhaps a couple of his senior staff or senior House of Representatives shadows.
KING: Penny Wong, how would you describe the power of the independents? Do you think they are wielding it fairly and independently, I guess?
WONG: Well the first thing Id say just on that issue about Rob Oakeshott I think its a little unfair of the Coalition to have a go at him for saying, look if youre not going to treat me at least with some respect and appropriately, you know, Im not going to keep engaging with you. I think most people will think thats a pretty reasonable call. Its not about his independence. Its about how he views the way in which theyve approached this.
On the independents we are a government that has to deal with the independents in great part because we have an Opposition that simply says no. Lets remember if things were agreed, if things were agreed between the Opposition and the Labor Party, then the Government would not be in a position of having to negotiate with the independents. And on some issues, one would have thought Mr Abbott could have done a little more than simply say no to everything.
I have to say, Ive dealt with Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor particularly. Also the Greens. Obviously not as often as some others. But I found them to be very reasonable people to deal with. I think Mr Windsor, you know, he calls it as he sees it.
BRANDIS: Penny, we have a Government and an Opposition two sides because the Oppositions role is not to agree with the Government.
WONG: Its not always to say no.
BRANDIS: The Oppositions role
WONG: There are times an Opposition should actually sit down and negotiate.
BRANDIS: Let me finish please. Its the role of an Opposition to put an alternative point of view and to hold the Government to account. And when you have a Government that is as notorious as this one for wasting tens of billions of dollars of public money, I think the public should be very grateful that the Opposition doesnt give a blank cheque to your Government.
WONG: Were not asking for a blank cheque.
BRANDIS: Yes you are.
WONG: No Im not.
BRANDIS: Yes you are.
WONG: Well I listened to you George after being admonished so maybe you could do the same. Im not asking for a blank cheque. But I think on something like the Queensland floods, I would have thought you could have actually sat down and worked out how to do this in a way that could help Queensland.
KING: Alright. I want to move on from here too because I want to address the issue with you, Penny Wong, about Kevin Rudd. Because he wants Labors post election review to be made public. And Im wondering if you think he deserves that given he was dumped internally over his performance.
WONG: (laughs) Im sorry, we were still arguing so I didnt hear the first part of your question, Madonna. But I think I get it.
KING: No, no, let me ask you so that you do get it. Penny, Kevin Rudd wants Labors post election review to be made public. Doesnt he deserve that given he was dumped internally over his performance?
WONG: Look, I think the election review goes to a whole range of issues. My view about this as a Cabinet Minister is, I have to honest, less focused on chewing over as the Prime Minister has said whats happened in the past and more focused on what weve got to do now.
KING: But of course youre going to say that, arent you?
WONG: (laughs) Well it happens to be true. I mean, I think there are people in the party who rightly have to deal with this. The national executive has been given the review. Theres obviously a range of organisational issues that need to be resolved. I have to say from my perspective
KING: Have you read it?
WONG: No, Ive read the public document. From my perspective, Ive been much more focused on how we deal with the floods, also Cyclone Yasi which has also unfortunately been something Queenslanders have lived through, and working out how we assist people there.
KING: Alright. Kevin Rudd said that the Labor Party is at its best when the factions are at their least. Do you agree with that statement of his?
WONG: I think the party is at its best when it looks to the future and to what they think is in the best interests of the nation. I dont think thats an issue of personnel per se. I think its an issue of your attitude. I can say as a member of the Cabinet, thats what we look to. You may not agree with the calls we make. You make not like some things that weve done. But I think genuinely people try and work through what they think is in the best interests of Australia, and when a policy issue comes across our desk, what we think is the right decision.
KING: George Brandis?
BRANDIS: Well I think that we saw the factions under the Labor Party when we saw Mr Bill Ludwig on the TV last week at the AWU conference beating up on Labor Cabinet Ministers for not toeing the union line. But the fact with my friend Craig Emerson, who he called a dishonourable rat. One thing that we should be aware of about this review of the Labor Partys performance is that one of the recommendations that has been made public is that 20 per cent of the votes in every Labor party preselection, as a guaranteed minimum, will be wielded by trade union officials. Now anybody who has been through preselection on either the Liberal party or the Labor party knows that if you start with 20 per cent of the votes already in your pocket, you are highly likely to win. So what this review, far from being a reform, means is that union thugs like Bill Ludwig will still have the final say into who goes into Parliament.
KING: Alright. Penny Wong, Penny Wong, a very quick right of reply before I touch on the last topic.
WONG: Well I think calling people thugs all the time is a pretty ordinary way to approach public debate. Theres obviously always different groupings inside parties. George in the first part of our discussion talked about that inside the Liberal party. And I think the important thing is
BRANDIS: The Liberal Party is united behind the point of view I expressed.
WONG: The important point is, you have got to try and make the call that you think is right, in the best interests of the country.
KING: OK. So lets go on to the last topic. And just very briefly, Penny Wong, federal Treasury documents show the Governments plan to ban mortgage exit fees could push up interest rates on home loans and hurt first home buyers. I thought it was meant to increase competition and make home loans more affordable?
WONG: Madonna, I think lets have a look at the real economy. Lets have a look at whats happening since we made those announcements. And we have seen more competition between different financial institutions and thats a good thing for consumers.
What we have said is, look we dont think exit fees are a sensible thing. You know, just think about it, common sense: if youve got a mortgage and it costs you thousands of dollars to shift to a cheaper product, obviously thats a disincentive.
Now what weve done is weve given the corporate regulator the power to crack down on banks that try and recover their exit fee costs in other ways that are unfair so they dont have that capacity. And I think youve seen some of the benefits of the approach that the Governments taken from the competition weve seen. We think competition is the best way to give consumers the best deal.
KING: And the final say this morning goes to George Brandis. What would the Opposition do instead to reduce the pressure on rates?
BRANDIS: Well what we would do is we would cut wasteful government spending. I mean the biggest reason for the upward pressure on interest rates in Australia today is the fact that this government is continuing to borrow $100 million a day, competing with private banks who are seeking to raise money on the capital markets, forcing interest rates up.
WONG: Well the Reserve Bank Governor doesnt agree with you here.
BRANDIS: We know interest rates
KING: Penny Wong, youve had your say.
BRANDIS: We know interest rates are going to go up several times in the latter part of this year. And if the Government hadnt got us more deeply into debt than any peace time government in Australian history, the interest rates would not be going up the way they are.
KING: Alright. We need to leave it there. All serious topics this morning. Perhaps they can be a bit lighter next week. Senator Penny Wong, thank you for filling in this morning.
WONG: Its been good fun.
KING: (laughs) George Brandis, did you have good fun too?
BRANDIS: I always enjoy talking to you and talking to my friend Penny.
KING: (laughs) Thank you. Thats Senator George Brandis and Senator Penny Wong in Inside Canberra this morning.
-ends-