CURTIS: Joining me now is Labor's Senate leader and former Finance Minister Penny Wong. Penny Wong welcome to Capital Hill.
WONG: Good to be back.
CURTIS: Under the Labor Government did you have plans to cut 14,500 public service jobs over 4 years?
WONG: Lyndal, let's understand what all the games played by the Government today have been about. They've been about one thing covering up the fact that this Abbott Government will have to sack either over 20,000 public servants or make deeper cuts to services to make their budget add up.
That's what today's games, the robotic slogans by Senator Cormann, the leaked advice, that's what this has all been about, covering up does the reality that their budget does not add up unless they sack more people or cut more services.
CURTIS: But did Labor have plans to cut 14,500 jobs all up: a little over 800 to go under plans for a flatter management structure, 4,800 under your extra efficiency dividend and 8,800 implied losses, was that the scale of the job losses there was going to be in the public service if Labor had been re-elected?
WONG: Let's be clear about our plans because Senator Cormann keeps saying our plans were secret plans. Our plans were fully disclosed, clearly disclosed in the Budget and the economic statement, fully disclosed to the Parliament, they had the opportunity to ask questions about them, to look at them and then of course the very important point, the pre-election Budget update known as the PEFO which is prepared, as you know, by the departments without any involvement from the then Government. So our plans were not secret. Our plans were fully disclosed. This is just a line from Senator Cormann to cover up the fact he's changing his election commitment.
CURTIS: Is that 14,500 figure wrong?
WONG: That is Senator Cormann's figure, it's not my figure. He should justify that figure. I can tell you what our budget said and it's fully disclosed and on the public record. What today has been about has been Senator Cormann running away from the fact that was really demonstrated in the piece of footage that you just showed, that the $5.2 billion savings measure he had on the books that we said would not work, we said he'd have cut harder, he said no, we stand by our costing, we stand by our costing. That measure will require, to get the $5.2 billion, will require far more job reductions, far more job cuts than the Coalition fessed up to before the election.
CURTIS: What if the 14,500 figure is not right, what is the correct figure?
WONG: Well, Senator Cormann put that figure out, not me.
CURTIS: Yes, but you say you know the figure, what is the figure?
WONG: We're not in Government, were not in Government. This is the Governments -
CURTIS: But there was an argument before the election where you criticised the Coalition uphill and down dale for its pledge to cut 12,000 jobs through natural attrition, you said it couldn't be done.
WONG: And today's confirmed that.
CURTIS: But it was pointed out by people like me that you had your own plans for job cuts too, just to make sure what we're talking about is correct, if 14,500 over four years is not the right figure, what is the right figure?
WONG: You are right. We took some difficult decisions to make efficiencies in the public service, all of which were laid out, the measures were described in the budget papers, in the economic statement and also in the pre-election outlook.
But I think there is a very important point of distinction between the approach Labor took and the approach the Coalition took before the last election and is apparently proposing to take. They target jobs first. We target savings first and we made it very clear that any reduction in jobs in particular, anything beyond voluntary reductions was a last resort. So they targeted jobs first and we said forced redundancies are a last resort and that was confirmed today.
CURTIS: Even David Tune, the departmental secretary, said it ended up, the split ended up being about 55% staff cuts 45% non-staff cuts. If I can ask you again, what was your estimate, what were the estimates contained in your figures of the likely job losses?
WONG: Well, that is a question that should be addressed to Senator Cormann, he's in Government. I can only tell you what's in the published budget documents. Now obviously, the assessment about numbers depends on what assumptions you put in, Mr Tune made clear, this analysis that the Government has provided to some members of the media was done by the Department much later, certainly after the election had commenced and only provided to the Minister after the election. I haven't seen this advice and nor have you.
I think the important point though is this: I think the evidence today makes it very clear that the Coalition's commitment to not engage in forced redundancies and to just get efficiencies through natural attrition is not capable of yielding the in excess of $5 billion of savings, so they're either going to have to cut harder through job cuts or they're going to have to cut harder through service cuts.
CURTIS: The Commonwealth Public Sector Union when you imposed your last efficiency dividend said it would cost 5,000 jobs if the figure announced today or that was used today, 4,800, they weren't wrong, were they?
WONG: Remember how an efficiency dividend works. We give - the Government gives a number to an agency and they have work out how to find the savings and they should look policy, under the former Government's policy, not under the current ones. They should look under the former Government's policy to non-staffing first, travel, procurement, all of those non-staffing efficiencies. So ultimately the decision about jobs is a decision in terms of efficiency dividend savings, is a decision made by heads of agencies. That's the way its been since an efficiency dividend I think was first put in place, certainly the way it worked under Mr Costello.
CURTIS: But it would have involved at some point some job losses?
WONG: I was up front. We never ruled out the possibility but what we said is we will work in good faith with the union, we will also, to reduce the likelihood of that, we also said we will put out a formal policy that's been in place since 2011, that is as I outlined to you, target non-staff savings first, target other efficiencies first and anything when it comes to forced redundancies is an absolute last resort. The difference, what does this government target? They target jobs first.
CURTIS: As you mentioned and as we heard in the grab at the start of the program the Finance Secretary said it wasn't possible for the Coalition to reach the $5.2 billion with the staff freeze alone, is there any other way through the Coalition could reach that through just natural attrition?
WONG: I think the evidence was clearly otherwise and this is actually the point we've made for some time. You can't get there, you can't get to the sort of saving in the way that Mathias Cormann said that you can. He's going to have to reduce numbers more drastically or he's going to have to find savings by cutting services harder.
CURTIS: Could he not take what the Government says was going to happen under you as part of what he will do now?
WONG: Well that's a matter for him. All I'm saying is I think the evidence today makes clear what we were saying was correct. They're going to have to sack more people to make will have their budget add up or they will have to cut services more. And interestingly today in Estimates one of the things that was clear is that health and education programs are still on the table when it comes to cuts despite what Tony Abbott said.
CURTIS: Penny Wong, thank you for your time.
WONG: Good to speak with you.
ENDS