EMMA ALBERICI: In a 30-minute statement to the Senate today, Attorney-General George Brandis sought to distance himself from claims of a secret deal with Western Australia to recoup $300 million from the failed Bell Group at the expense of the Commonwealth taxpayer. Senator Brandis tabled letters exchanged between Joe Hockey and his Western Australia counterpart, Mike Nahan, claiming they provided no evidence of a deal.
BRANDIS: Hockey's letter provides no basis for the claim that an agreement or understanding had been arrived at between the Commonwealth and West Australian governments. Although it is clear that some ministers of the West Australian Government had a different view.
ALBERICI: Penny Wong is Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and she joins me now from Canberra. Penny Wong thank you for your time.
SENATOR PENNY WONG, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE: Good to be with you.
ALBERICI: The Attorney-General has explained his position in relation to the Bell Group litigation. He accepted the Solicitor-General's advice at the time he says. Is Labor satisfied and prepared to accept that?
WONG: Absolutely not and I don't think the Australian people are anyway. Look, there are many problems with the statement the Attorney-General gave to the parliament today but let's start with the primary problem. It is this. Things that George Brandis said to the Senate today, statements and undertakings given to the Senate today are inconsistent with statements made by the Western Australian Treasurer, to the Western Australian Parliament. So either George Brandis isn't telling the truth in this parliament, or Dr Nahan is not telling the truth in the Western Australian Parliament. Because both sets of statements in respect of three key facts cannot be true. And the three key differences are: was there any agreement? Second, the involvement of Christian Porter; and thirdly, the involvement of Kelly O'Dwyer. Completely inconsistent statements made to two parliaments. Who is telling the truth?
ALBERICI: If there was an understanding between the Western Australia Government and the Commonwealth, isn't it entirely possible that it may well have been the result of representations by the Treasurer without the knowledge of Senator Brandis?
WONG: Well, you know, it's always good to look at what Senator Brandis doesn't say in his very carefully worded, carefully parsed statements as well as what he does say. I again remind you and all of the fact that Dr Nahan has said, the Treasurer of Western Australia has said, very clearly to the Australian Parliament they had a deal. "We had a deal." That's inconsistent with what Senator Brandis said today.
But there is another key point here. Neither in the statement, nor in his answers to questions today, nor frankly did the Prime Minister respond to this key point and it is this - at any point was a direction given to the Solicitor-General not to put certain constitutional arguments to the High Court. Neither of them were willing to answer that question. Because that of course is how this deal was going to be affected. Because the deal is we're going to give $300 million of taxpayers' money in a special deal to our political mates in a Liberal State Government. And we're going to do it by not running particular arguments even though they're correct before the High Court.
Now at no stage has Mr Turnbull nor Mr Brandis been prepared to answer the question about that, whether at any point there was an influence on Mr Gleeson about what arguments he was to run
ALBERICI: Where is the evidence Labor has to support Bill Shorten's accusations against Senator Brandis that he is, "At best morally bankrupt and at worst corrupt"?
WONG: Well, I think if you're the first law officer of the country and you are seeking to deliver $300 million of taxpayers' money to...
ALBERICI: Where is the evidence?
WONG: I think it is clear that Dr Nahan believed there was a deal.
ALBERICI: With Senator Brandis?
WONG: With the Commonwealth Government.
ALBERICI: But specifically Bill Shorten, with respect Bill Shorten has singled out Senator Brandis saying, "At best morally bankrupt, and at worst corrupt." I'm asking where is the evidence to support that accusation?
WONG: I think you just need to look at his statement and what he doesn't say. Because we know this deal was in place. We know what was being proposed and he himself says he was of the mind to go down this path until Justice Gleeson convinced him otherwise.
And can I say this, Mr Gleeson is an honourable man. The fact that George Brandis was dissuaded form what was a dishonourable path by an honourable man does not absolve Senator Brandis of responsibility. This is the Solicitor-General who he hounded and criticised publicly until Mr Gleeson had to resign.
ALBERICI: Lets move on to another topic.Bill Shorten says he wants changes to the 457 visa scheme that will put local workers first. Is that an admission that under Labor too many foreigners were given local jobs?
WONG: Not at all. What this recognises is the policy change which was made by the current government. For example, in the context of the China and Korean free-trade agreements, where they sought to remove labour market testing. That is a safeguard which requires employers to show that an Australian couldn't do that job. We were critical of it at the time. I was critical of that policy change at the time. And the policy that we announced in the election which Bill is continuing to advocate is one which reinserts or brings back in its totality the safeguard which I think is reasonable.
457 temporary workers, overseas workers, have been a part of our labour market for a long time. The key policy question that I think most Australians want to ensure is that those jobs are available first to Australians who are willing and able to do them.
ALBERICI: Labor gave 285 foreign workers jobs at McDonald's in Australia, 74 at Hungry Jack's and 88 at KFC. Were there no Australians that could do those jobs when Labor was in Government?
WONG: I'm responding to the direct policy point which is we had an approach which required labour market testing, that is the safeguard.
ALBERICI: These happened under your, when you were in government.
WONG: I'm not able to tell you what happened in respect of every single one of those workers.
ALBERICI: Bill Shorten was Employment Minister at the time.
WONG: The reality is there was a safeguard which existed under the Labor government. The government sought to remove that under trade agreements. I and others raised concerns about that because we think it's legitimate and a fair safeguard. At the time, I recall being criticised, as Labor was, by the Government about that fact.
ALBERICI: But if there were these safeguards under Labor, how do you explain the fact foreign workers were allowed to come in here under 457 visas to work at fast food outlets?
WONG: What I would say to you is the Labor approach is if there are skill shortages or if there are jobs that Australians are not able to do, then it is appropriate to ensure we enable overseas workers, we allow overseas workers to be employed in those areas. The key principle is the one I've outlined.
ALBERICI: On the issue of the ABCC legislation, the Government obviously is very keen to get up this week, is it appropriate do you think that they should be trading water allocations for South Australia in return for support for this bill?
WONG: Well, they were prepared to trade-off a ban on the importation of a gun for a vote. So I'm unsurprised by any deal that the Government does.
I mean, I am clear about our position on water. As a South Australian, as a former Water Minister, and as a member of the Labor Shadow Cabinet. The problem here is of the Government's own making where Barnaby Joyce has sought, despite what the Prime Minister says, to effectively tear up the Murray-Darling Basin agreement. That's a problem of Mr Turnbull's making. He gave Mr Joyce the portfolio as part of the post-election deal.
ALBERICI: Just very quickly on the issue of the backpacker tax, the Government has been prepared to compromise from a starting point of 32.5% to 15%. What's the public to make of the fact that Labor still won't come to the party on that?
WONG: Well, the public, I think, is rightly concerned about the fact this is the third position the Government's had. The Government had in its previous Budget a 32.5% tax rate. They then changed to 19%. And now they're at 15%. And they're having a go at us for not wanting to change our position. Everyone can see who has made the mess of this.
ALBERICI: Very quickly, it is the art of compromise isnt it? When you saw the Ipsos poll showing support for the major parties at a record low, isn't the public right to say they're sick of politicking and a compromise should be reached?
WONG: We made a compromise and the Government wasn't prepared to go for it. They put it in their Budget. I don't think saying Scott Morrison is somehow a genius because he has enough votes in the Senate to get up a 15% rate, recall sufficiently he put it in his Budget. It was their Budget. That's why we're in the position we're in, where nobody knows what the rate is going to be and where they're having to rush through urgent legislation in the dying days of this parliament.
ALBERICI: We're out of time. Penny Wong, thank you very much.
WONG: Good to be with you.