DAVID SPEERS, HOST: Penny Wong, welcome to the program.
SENATOR PENNY WONG, SHADOW MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: It is good to be with you, David.
SPEERS: So as the Treasurer points out, this will mean less debt, it also means fewer people are needing JobKeeper than we thought were on it. Is that good news?
WONG: Well, let's remember this is the Government that doubled the debt before the bushfires and the coronavirus hit Australia.
But let's understand this. This is a $60 billion black hole in the economic credibility of the Morrison Government. $60 billion of reasons why we can't trust anything Scott Morrison or Josh Frydenberg say about the economy or the budget.
And perhaps worse David, is there has been the failure to front up and take responsibility. Scott Morrison, just like in the bushfires, has been in hiding. Josh Frydenberg hasn't fronted up and taken responsibility. He should do that and we will give him the opportunity.
The Senate Committee, the chair of the Senate Committee into the COVID-19 response of the Government, Senator Gallagher, will invite, will call Josh Frydenberg to give evidence at that committee.
And what I would say to Josh is this is your opportunity to front up and explain this $60 billion blunder to the Parliament and to the Australian people.
SPEERS: So youre going to call the Treasurer to appear before this Senate Committee. Do you have the power to compel him to appear?
WONG: Well ultimately it is whether he has the courage...
SPEERS: It is up to him.
WONG: And the responsibility. It is ultimately up to him.
I would make this point though; Scott Morrison did. Scott Morrison previously, when he was a Minister, did appear before a Senate Committee.
We'd say to Josh, when you've got a budget blunder of this size, I reckon it is about time you fronted up and explained it.
SPEERS: Can you just clear up for me, we know Labor has raised concern about the people who missed out on JobKeeper, the casuals and the temporary visa holders and so on, are you saying they should get JobKeeper?
WONG: Well, ultimately these are decisions the Government has to make. We have previously called for casuals to be included and our position hasn't changed.
We have previously called for workers such as those at Dnata to be included and our position hasnt changed.
And this is the key point; 600,000 Australians lost their job in April. How many fewer would have lost their jobs if Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg hadn't made this blunder?
SPEERS: So you do think these payments should be extended to roughly a million more casuals, others who work for Government-owned entities?
WONG: As I've said, we've previously called for those casual workers to be included and our position hasn't changed.
Ultimately, it is up to the Government to bring forward what it wants to do with the $60 billion. It should come forward with the costings. It should come forward with the explanation.
It should come forward with the explanation that Annabel, I think, referenced which is why is that we have some workers excluded and some workers included, when really, when you have got a situation where a long-term, somebody who has been a casual, worked for 11 months is excluded, someone who is a part-time worker is getting many times more than their ordinary time earnings. These are anomalies which we have been pointing out.
SPEERS: Let's turn to the relationship with China. I want to play the comments of your colleague, Joel Fitzgibbon, to Patricia Karvelas, the other day:
JOEL FITZGIBBON: We were always going to have an inquiry, PK. So we didn't need to be out there in front, offending the Chinese and if we hadn't done that, we might not be having some of the diplomatic relationship troubles were having at the moment. We might not be dealing with barley. Barley might have fixed itself, the barley export ban and we might not have four meat processors prevented from exporting to China and we might not have started our conversation today about what might or might not happen with iron ore.
SPEERS: Do you agree with Joel Fitzgibbon?
WONG: Look, I've spoken to Joel about those comments and what I'd say is this: Joel is a passionate advocate for regional Australia, hes a passionate advocate for Australian farmers and what he was expressing in that interview was what is being said to him.
As Simon Birmingham, I think, said this week, you can understand why people are making those connections.
What I think is the inquiry is in Australia's national interest. I would make the point: it is an inquiry that ultimately China and the US supported.
I've also made the point, which I think even Greg Sheridan said was reasonable, that it was a little odd that Senator Payne chose to announce it on your program without having locked in some support. It is for the Government to explain why they thought that was the right thing to do.
But our focus now really should be on how do we try and resolve the trade dispute which is affecting Australian barley growers particularly, and also our beef exporters.
SPEERS: But the point you made there, it was a little odd for Australia to announce, call for this inquiry before building an international coalition. This really gets to the nub of the difficulty in our relationship. Are you saying that Australia should have held back until there were more voices calling for an inquiry?
WONG: I think it is a matter for the Government to explain why it thought it was better to announce it...
SPEERS: What's your view here, Senator?
WONG: If I were the Foreign Minister of Australia, I would certainly front up and explain to you why. And if I were the Foreign Minister I probably would have tried to get some support before I announced it. I think that would have been sensible.
But let's go to the issue of the dispute. There are many people out there who are making many comments about why we have this dispute with China. Whatever the reasons, we do need to try and resolve it.
I would also make this point, David. One of the things which has not been discussed much in the context of this trade dispute is the effect of the US-China trade agreement...
SPEERS: I want to come to that. I want to come to that, sorry, if we can just pick up on a point you said there. You do think Australia should have got more support for the inquiry before announcing it. Why?
WONG: I think would be the usual diplomatic practise, and...
SPEERS: Because, because why?
WONG: Well
SPEERS: Because it might offend China? I'm just trying to tease this out.
WONG: If I might finish...
SPEERS: Im just trying to tease this out.
WONG: If I could finish my answer
SPEERS: Please.
WONG: It would be the usual diplomatic practise to do that. The Government may have reasons for that, and I think that's for the Government to explain.
But we have been very clear about the inquiry. We have said, as Anthony Albanese and I have said many, many times; it is an unremarkable proposition. We have had many people around the world die. We have got the worst pandemic in a century.
Of course, the international community should work together on both the origins and how we better respond.
SPEERS: There are a lot of points of tension in the relationship, whether it is China's treatment of the Uighur people, whether its actions in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South China Sea and so on. Are you saying that we should only speak up when we have others by our side? How do we balance that?
WONG: That's never been something Ive said.
What Ive said about the relationship with China is this: I think we have to approach that relationship with consistency and discipline and with a long-term lens. So a 30 year perspective, not a 3 year and certainly not a 24 hour media cycle.
Ive said we should always be prosecuting, promoting, protecting our national interests and our values and of course, our sovereignty.
But I do think we should remember that we do that, protect and promote our interest and values by what we do, not by what we say.
And there has been a tendency in recent days, you, I think, had a clip of George Christensen in last week's Insiders program. There has been a tendency for some in the Coalition to think that talking tough is the same as being tough.
Now, the escalation of anti-China rhetoric and potentially anti-Chinese sentiment, I don't think does, isn't good for the Australian community. And I don't think it, you know, does well for our standing in the world.
SPEERS: I just want to be clear about this. You're saying when it comes to the call for an inquiry we should have held back and waited for an international...
WONG: ...Hang on. Ive said it would be usual diplomatic practise, for something like that, for you to ensure you had some support before announcing it. The Government may have reasons for that. It is up to the Government to explain it.
I think it is a matter of historical record that the announcement was made before we made diplomatic overtures to other countries. That's what the Prime Minister said.
SPEERS: You said this morning, you don't think that is the way it should have happened. We should have built that international coalition...
WONG: ...It is not just this morning that I said that David. I have said that on a number of occasions.
SPEERS: You are not saying we should pull our punches in any way. When we believe in something, we shouldn't worry about offending China. So how do we strike that balance?
WONG: The point I'd make is, I said last year, we are in a new phase in the relationship. We have a much more assertive China and we are going to have to think through and work through as a country how we manage difference.
In doing that, we have to be very clear about our interests and our values, and no, we need to hold to them regardless of the reaction. But that's a proposition that applies in relation to our relationship with all people, with all nations.
I would make this point though; I am a little concerned that we have such a focus on the bilateral relationship with China that it is diverting our attention from a range of other very important foreign policy issues including the big question which is how do we navigate the world that has changed so much as a consequence of the pandemic?
COVID-19 is fracturing the global economy. It is unravelling the rules based order. It is hardening strategic competition between the US and China. And our region is more contested.
This big picture is much more than the relationship with China and that is what the Government needs to focus on. That's what we need a plan for. I don't see anything from Scott Morrison.
SPEERS: You referenced the US-China trade agreement under which China is buying more, a lot more agricultural goods from the US, including barley. The Government has said, including on this program, that hasn't been a factor in their decision to put tariffs on Australian barley. What do you think?
WONG: Well, the Government hasn't wanted to talk about this much actually.
And I would just make this point; we've got $40 billion worth of agriculture being sold from the US to China for each year for two years under phase one of the agreement.
When I asked questions about this, the Department did concede there was a possibility of trade displacement which is code for Australian farmers, Australian exporters being affected.
What I'd say is this: Scott Morrison is always very keen to tell us when he has spoken to President Trump. Well, I this think it is time for him to pick up the phone and speak to him now and ensure that the US-China trade deal does not come at the expense of Australian exporters and Australian jobs.
SPEERS: So, you're calling on the Prime Minister to phone Donald Trump directly about this....
WONG: I am being very clear. I do not accept that the Government can simply ignore the effect of the US-China trade deal.
We know that $40 billion for two years, each year, is a lot of agricultural and seafood product.
We need to ensure that our interests are not affected, are not undermined by that deal between President Trump and President Xi.
SPEERS: Finally, Senator, can we turn to the Government's energy technology road map released during the week. As a former Climate Change Minister, you have a long memory, of course, of a lot of the ideas that were put forward in this latest paper. Look, I guess the big picture question here involves no market mechanism to or any sort of price signal when it comes to steering investors towards technologies. Is that the right approach? Can the Government pick winners or do we need some sort of market mechanism?
WONG: A few points Id make; the first is, we have had a decade of the climate wars and the cost of that decade, that lost decade, is paid by Australians every time they switch on their lights. Second; we need bipartisanship and consensus in this area and Mark Butler has opened the door for that. Hes been clear, we're willing, as we were in the last term, to try and help the Government construct a coherent policy and every time we get a bit close to it, there is another almighty barney inside the Coalition partyroom, which has resulted over the decade in leaders being undermined or removed.
I have to say, you know, the technology road map, for example, one of the things they want to talk about is CCS, carbon capture and storage. And I thought to myself when I looked at that, this is the same party, in Government, that actually abolished the funding for research into CCS when they first came to Government and here, seven years later, they want to put it back on the table.
Well, you know, all we're seeing is continuation of the climate wars and people paying more for electricity as a consequence.
SPEERS: Just on that, you were the Minister that put a lot of money into research, carbon capture and storage. Do you think it is really still worth pursuing?
WONG: I have to say it really is for the Government to show it can stack up.
From where I sit, I put a lot of resources into both renewables and into CCS and of course, increased the Renewable Energy Target which drove investment.
Where I sit now and if you look back to where we were, renewables have become much more efficient, much more capable than we might have anticipated in 2009 and CCS really hasn't progressed in the way that many people hoped at the time, but it is for the Government to explain how it
SPEERS: Again your colleague Joel Fitzgibbon has a different view. He says we have to turn to carbon capture and storage, it can make a very, very significant difference.
WONG: Joel and I express ourselves in different ways. I don't think that's new.
SPEERS: Coming back to the question, do we need a market mechanism when it comes to this problem?
WONG: Look, I think Mark has made very clear, we're willing to, we've opened the door to work with the Government on a coherent framework.
At the moment what they have got is what they call a technology road map, which I think is their 19th policy.
I think the question really is, Scott Morrison at the Press Club on Tuesday, is he willing to end the climate wars? Is he willing to actually do something about ensuring we have a coherent, clear energy plan so that we actually get investment back into this sector.
I mean, a lot of our electricity infrastructure is ageing and needs to be replaced. Investors need certainty.
SPEERS: Senator Wong, thanks for joining us.
WONG: Good to speak with you.
Authorised by Paul Erickson, ALP, Canberra.