MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Im joined now by the Federal Oppositions Senate leader, Penny Wong. Penny Wong, good morning.
SENATOR PENNY WONG, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE: Good morning. Good to be with you.
BRISSENDEN: Lets just clear this up first, do you believe this case warrants a referral to the High Court and will Labor support that?
WONG: Yes, we do. We think, and obviously we haven't been provided with the legal advice, on the face of it, it appears there is a case for Bob Day to answer about what sort of interest he had at the time he was elected or the time he nominated.
As yet, I haven't been provided with the proposal from George Brandis about the way in which the referral will be worded.We certainly would like to see that before Monday, but it seems in the circumstances that's the appropriate way for the Senate to deal with this.
BRISSENDEN: And how long have you known about this question mark over the validity of his election?
WONG: Well, I understand questions about Senator Day's lease have been in the press previously.The Senate President did, on a confidential basis, brief party leaders in the last few days but obviously there are questions about the extent to which this has been something people have been concerned about for some time given the facts which have been reported in the papers today.
BRISSENDEN: So, a couple of days you said. But the Government, it seems, has known about this since August. Should this have been dealt with sooner?
WONG: Well, I think the best thing that George Brandis could do as leader of the Government in the Senate is stand up and be completely transparent about the timetable.I mean, this goes to the functioning of our democracy, this goes to the integrity of the Senate, and the Government really needs to be fully transparent about what it knew when.Instead of running around backgrounding journos late and yesterday and providing a short statement, it really is incumbent on the Government to demonstrate the timetable here, what it knew when, when these concerns were first raised. I note that rent wasn't paid in relation to this lease in question. I presume that is because there were concerns which preceded the election.And the Government has to understand, this is in the context of a gentleman who voted with the Government nine out of 10 times.And so they really need to demonstrate to the Australian people that they are handling this appropriately and that they have handled this appropriately and the way to do that is for George to stand up.
  BRISSENDEN: So if they did know about it, you would question whether that was appropriate, would you?
WONG: Well, I think it is a question the Australian people would want to know. If the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Leader of the Government in the Senate knew there were concerns about the validity of a Senator's election, surely he should have done something about it. And what did he do?
Now it may be Senator Brandis has legitimate answers to all of those questions but I think so far what the public have been given, what is on the public record, is insufficient to deal with the concerns that are being raised.
BRISSENDEN: What are the implications of what you have just said and if the Government did know about it?
WONG: Well, I think Australians wouldn't look too kindly on a government that sat on information or didn't deal with concerns because they wanted someone's vote.I'm not saying that's necessarily happened here but I think to avert that impression, the Leader of the Government in the Senate really should stand up and set out the timetable.
We see in the paper today this appears to have been hanging around for some time. There appear to have been issues around this since prior to the election.I think it is the Government's obligation to explain to Australians what they knew and what they did.
BRISSENDEN: And how will Labor play this in the Senate because obviously this could take some weeks, even months to sort out?
WONG: Well, we're very concerned to make sure that we continue to have a Parliament and a Senate that operates appropriately and that the principles of democracy are not undermined.So there certainly will be a referral on these issues and I think the Government and the Opposition obviously need to have a conversation about how various controversial matters may or may not be dealt with in the Senate in the next few weeks.
BRISSENDEN: This could be problematic for the Government looking to pass its industrial relations bills in particular.Do you see this as an opportunity then to frustrate the Government's agenda?
WONG: Well, we oppose the bills on principle.
BRISSENDEN: Sure, but the numbers have changed now, haven't they?
WONG: Certainly Senator Day was a very reliable vote for the Government. In excess of nine out of 10 times he would vote with the Government. But we oppose those bills on principle and we'll continue to oppose them for that reason.
BRISSENDEN: And do you think this will make it more difficult for the Government?
WONG: Well, the Government has a crossbench that's very large. Despite the rationale for the last election in part being Mr Turnbull wanting to have a better Senate for him I think he ended up with a more difficult Senate and I suspect it's just got more difficult.
But, look, my primary concern is simply to make sure the proper process is followed here. We should have a sensible motion put through the Senate, I hope with the support of all senators, to refer this matter to the Court of Disputed Returns.
BRISSENDEN: Okay, if there is a recount in South Australia, what do you think is going to happen with that? Do you expect Labor could win another Senate position?
WONG: Well, look, I've been watching the Internet and a lot of people have been postulating a lot of outcomes.
I mean we've got three things we've got to deal with.First the High Court has got to decide, in fact, Senator Day was ineligible.Second the court has to decide what is the remedy, which, on the basis of precedent, one would assume is a recount. And then third you'd have to do a full recount on the basis of assuming Senator Day's lack of eligibility.
Now a lot of people can postulate what the outcome would be. I'm not willing to do that at this point.
BRISSENDEN: Okay well Antony Green, the ABC's election analyst, is one who is.He says the High Court will most likely treat a vote for Day as a vote for the Family First ticket and then award the seat to Family First.But he does also say there is an arguable case under the new voting rules
WONG: Correct.
BRISSENDEN: to take an alternative approach that would almost certainly deliver Day's seat to the fourth Labor candidate.You would presumably, I've got no doubt, be pushing for the latter case?
WONG: Well, I'm sure that in any matter before the High Court we will be pressing for an outcome which reflects the will of the voters.And I think it is the case that the Senate reform or the Senate voting legislation which was passed did change the way in which voters' preferences were treated and I assume that that will be a matter before the court.
BRISSENDEN: Right, and your assumption is the latter then; that it would fall to a Labor, to the Labor candidate?
WONG: No, I think I'm not going to make any assumptions about the way in which the recount would go because, as I said, there's a lot of legal and factual issues which have to be resolved before that result would be arrived at.
BRISSENDEN: Okay, Penny Wong, thanks for joining us.
WONG: Good to speak with you.
BRISSENDEN: Opposition Senate Leader, Penny Wong.