EMMA ALBERICI: Penny Wong, thanks for joining us.
SENATOR PENNY WONG, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE: Good to be with you, Emma.
ALBERICI: The mining tax helped bring down Kevin Rudd. It became a noose around the neck of Labor in government. Are you glad to finally see it go?
WONG: I am not glad to see what happened in the Parliament today. I mean, what happened in the Parliament today was another broken promise from Tony Abbott, a broken promise that over 8 million Australians will pay for with lower superannuation because their superannuation guarantee will be frozen for seven years.
So I don't think any of us are glad and I suspect the people watching this program and Australians who rely on superannuation for their retirement savings certainly won't be glad.
ALBERICI: We'll talk about the superannuation implications in a moment. But earlier today you called the arrangement with the crossbench to get rid of the mining tax a "dirty deal". How is it any more of a dirty deal than the one you did with the Greens to introduce the carbon tax?
WONG: There was a long process, a transparent process of dialogue before that legislation came into the Parliament. What we had today was the Government ramming a bill through the Senate - not even the same bill they put through the House of Representatives, a bill with new provisions to reflect the deal.
They bought it into the Senate, moved a procedural motion at 12:30 to gag and guillotine it and voted on it by 2:00. And as part of that deal, over 8 million Australians will have their superannuation guarantee frozen and have lower superannuation savings as a result.
You might say, Emma, what we saw today is Tony Abbott's 8 million forgotten Australians.
ALBERICI: But in the end, what was the point of a mining tax that was costing almost as much to comply with and administer and collect as it raised?
WONG: Of course there was always going to be fluctuation in the revenue earned from the mining tax but the principle is a sound one. Australians should have a fair share of the wealth generated by the resources that Australians own. That's a good principle.
And what happened today is we saw the Prime Minister's values at play. We saw a tax cut for some mining companies, we saw a hit on low-income Australians through the range of things which are going to be, which will end: the School Kids' Bonus, the Income Support Bonus, the Low Income Super Contribution. And of course we've got this new added deal, another broken promise which is what happened to the superannuation of over 8 million Australians.
ALBERICI: When the mining tax was introduced, Wayne Swan said it would raise $3 billion in 2012-13 but it raised only $200 million. It was supposed to raise $4 billion in 2013-14 but instead the Government collected just $100 million. It was hardly the success it was promised it would be?
WONG: And the Government want to talk about that. And we've said clearly, you know, the principle was the right one and if you look back you might say we would have approached it a different way. But the principle that Australians get a fair share of resources, the value of the resources we own is a good one. But the Government...
ALBERICI: Pardon the interruption. The problem was we weren't getting a fair share, we were hardly getting anything at all?
WONG: But the Government want to use that as cover for hacking into the wages or the superannuation of working people. They want to use that as cover for taking away the School Kids' Bonus - 1.3 million families in Australia who look to that to help fund things like books, uniforms and so forth for their kids. They want to use that as cover to take away the Income Support Bonus, which helps some of the most vulnerable Australians.
I mean, what is on display here is this Prime Minister's values and his priorities. And what is clear is this: when he said to Australians before the election, "No adverse changes to superannuation," well, that was another lie and we've seen another broken promise.
ALBERICI: The bottom line is the Government is saving $50 billion by getting rid of spending measures that Labor attached to the mining tax but which the mining tax never raised enough to pay for?
WONG: If Tony Abbott wants to save the budget a bit of money, rather than hacking into the superannuation savings of hard-working Australians, why doesn't he get rid of his paid parental leave scheme? He described it earlier on the ABC as being an outstanding policy. Well I don't think Australians agree. He also described the GP co-payment, the tax, as a modest contribution. Well, I don't think pensioners think it's a modest contribution.
This Prime Minister is making very clear who he stands for and who he's forgotten. And who he's forgotten are the 8 million Australians whose super will be hit as a result of what happened with his dirty deal with Clive Palmer.
ALBERICI: Let's look at those eight million Australians, because the Prime Minister has hailed the Government's decision to delay the rises in compulsory superannuation as a win for families, because he said it keeps more money in workers' pockets rather than being put away in superannuation?
WONG: This is actually the argument the Liberals used when they first opposed the introduction of compulsory superannuation.
I'd ask you and your viewers this question: do you think because your superannuation now won't increase, your superannuation guarantee now won't increase from 9.5 per cent until July 2021, do you reckon you're going to get higher wage increases through the next six or seven years? I don't think so. I mean, this is just a line from the Prime Minister to try and deflect attention from what he's done. And he's turned his...
ALBERICI: But it's not just the Prime Minister. Clive Palmer also says this is a big win for workers, that they will be able to argue for more money in their pockets rather than in their superannuation accounts?
WONG: I think what today shows, Emma, is this: I think people should judge the Palmer United Party not by what they say, but by what they do. And what they did today, despite some of the things I've seen said publicly, is very simple.
They voted to cut the income support bonus when they said they would protect it. They voted to cut the School Kids' Bonus when they said they would protect it. They voted to cut the low income super tax break when they said they would protect it. And they also voted to ensure that Australians' superannuation guarantee won't rise, that people will lose out on superannuation.
I mean, ASFA, one of the industry bodies, put out these figures: that an average income earner aged 25 today, this delay will cost them around $100,000 in their retirement income. So this is a real hit on working people. I don't know how Mr Palmer can say he's standing up for ordinary Australians.
ALBERICI: Do you expect Mr Palmer to change his mind on some of the other issues he's been adamant about up until now, like the Medicare co-payment?
WONG: He's certainly demonstrated that he's willing to negotiate with Tony Abbott and, you know, he has that right. Unfortunately, the consequences are pretty bad for a lot of working people, a lot of families in this country.
ALBERICI: Is Labor bracing itself for Clive Palmer to do an about-face on some of these other issues? There's the under 30 year olds having to wait six months, there's the higher education reforms, there's Medicare co-payment?
WONG: As I said, we judge Mr Palmer as Australians will - and his Senators: perhaps less on what they say and more on what they do. What counts is not whether you talk about fairness but whether you vote to deliver fairness. And I think today the Coalition and Palmer United voted for a more unfair Australia.
ALBERICI: Joe Hockey today said Labor had become irrelevant and had dealt itself out of the game. He's right, isn't he? I mean, so far in the budget negotiations you've given Clive Palmer free rein to call all the shots?
WONG: The Government is letting Clive Palmer call all the shots. He clearly seems to have more influence about what happens in the Parliament than Tony Abbott. But, you know, if relevance as defined by Joe Hockey is giving a green light to the broken promises from this Prime Minister and this Government, broken promises which hurt Australians, well, you know, I'm happy to accept his criticism.
We have to be consistent and we have been. We're standing up for what's right. We're also standing up against, as I said, a whole range of broken promises from Tony Abbott. He said before the election: no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no changes to the pension - all lies and all broken promises. He said before the election: no adverse changes to superannuation. Today he showed that was another broken promise and another lie for which Australians will pay.
ALBERICI: What's the point of standing up for, in your words, what's right when you don't have the numbers and you don't have any influence?
WONG: We have to stand by our values. And we have been prepared to compromise on some aspects of the budget. As you know, we passed the Appropriations Bills, we've passed a number of savings measures. But you and your colleagues and the people who voted for us would be rightly critical if we just rolled over and said, "Oh, look, Tony, I know you said you wouldn't cut health and education but we'll just let you dismantle Medicare and dismantle access - prevent access to higher education for tens of thousands of Australians." It wouldn't be the right thing to do.
ALBERICI: But by not negotiating you're still, by default, letting him do all those things?
WONG: No. The person who is doing those things is the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott. The person who is doing those things is Tony Abbott and he's been aided and abetted by Clive Palmer on this occasion.
ALBERICI: If you accept that the country can't go on spending more than it collects in taxes, why is Labor denying $5 billion of its own savings that you as finance minister and Wayne Swan identified when you were in government?
WONG: Well, a couple of points about that. The first is: we attached... we took savings measures which were attached to important spending priorities. What the Government wants us to do is accept that they will junk their commitment to the Gonski reforms, to the increase in school funding, but we should still pass savings measures which were there to fund that.
What the Government wants us to do is to accept a whole range of broken promises. We're not going to do that. Now, we have been constructive in areas where we thought were appropriate. We've said we're going to be constructive in terms of the family tax benefit, means testing. We've passed, as you know, the levy on higher income earners. But we are not going to be part of the Government breaking its promises to Australians.
ALBERICI: On the issue of the $2.4 billion of higher education savings that you had identified in Government, Christopher Pyne says that the Gonski reforms will be funded, certainly in the forward estimates, so isn't that money attached to that?
WONG: Oh, come on. Everybody knows Christopher Pyne walked away from Gonski and that was after he stood up in the election campaign telling everybody that - in fact, I think Tony Abbott told everybody - that there wasn't a cigarette's paper of difference between Labor and Liberal when it came to schools. Well, we know that's not true.
I mean, this is the problem with this Government. Not only did they lie and not only have they broken their promises, which is hurting Australians, they actually are telling Australians, "Oh, well, this is actually not a broken promise." So they're putting in place a co-payment on GP visits. They're changing the pensions but they're somehow thinking we're so stupid, all of us, that we're not going to believe it's a broken promise.
It does say something about their values and the contempt with which they hold Australians.
ALBERICI: But do you accept that $5 billion of the money you're now rejecting in savings are savings you had identified in government?
WONG: I'm saying we identified a range of savings in government which were put to good use for proper investments in programs which were good for Australians.
ALBERICI: Isn't it a proper investment to pay down the debt?
WONG: Well, I'll tell you, you want ideas about paying down the debt? Let's start with the $20 billion-plus paid parental leave scheme. Why don't we start with that? How is that good policy? It's virtually friendless yet the Prime Minister still describes it as outstanding. Why don't we do that for a start?
ALBERICI: We have to leave it there. Penny Wong, thank you very much.
WONG: Good to speak with you.
 
ENDS