CANNANE: Senator Wong, thanks for coming on 'The Drum'.
WONG: Good to be with you.
CANNANE: Why do these laws need to change?
WONG: Currently, we've got five different pieces of legislation, all of which have a different genesis, different tests, and really are not a very clear and simple system for complainants to navigate. It also means inconsistent protection, so, if you're claiming both discrimination on the basis of race and gender you have to make a choice under which legislation you're going to take that action. So, we are proposing to bring them all together, have much clearer simpler tests that make it clearer for complainants but also make the obligations incumbent upon all of us, but particularly for employers for example, far more easy to understand.
CANNANE: So, why do you want to shift the burden of proof to make the accused prove that there's been no discrimination, when previously the burden of proof was on the accuser?
WONG: I don't know that I want to use the accused / accuser language these are civil claims obviously. It isn't a reverse onus what it is is saying, look, we want a system where complaints with merit are more able to be taken through, but complaints without merit are dismissed earlier; don't clog up the system and respondents don't have to continue to defend them.
So, what we're saying is if youre a complainant, you have show a prima facie case. For example, if youve been dismissed and you say it's because you're Asian, for example (laughs), that you have to show prima facie that that is the case. And then the burden of proof would shift to the respondent. But if you don't establish a prima facie case then the complaint can be dismissed at that point which obviously is a benefit to the respondent and I think is a much fairer system.
CANNANE: Senator George Brandis has raised concerns about this. He says by shifting the burden of proof it's violating one of the key principles of our legal system; that those who make the allegations have an obligation to prove them.
WONG: Well, Senator Brandis is a pretty big fan of all things English and this is in fact the system that's been operating in the United Kingdom and also in Canada, and it appears to have worked quite sensibly there.
I think that the principle that a complaint with merit should be easier to take, and a complaint without merit should be easier to dismiss; that's a sound one. And that's why we've constructed this test in this way in the legislation, which is out, as you said, for consultation
CANNANE: Another one of George Brandis' concerns is that consolidating five laws into one may shift the focus away from those most vulnerable to discrimination in the way he sees it in the areas of race and disability. What's your response to that?
WONG: Well, I think all discrimination that is unjustified needs to be countered. I'm not quite sure what he means by more vulnerable ... I don't understand the suggestion that some forms of discrimination and prejudice are worse than others.
CANNANE: Okay, moving on to other issues; Rob Oakeshott, the Independent MP, met with Treasury officials today to find out what kind of revenue was being raised by the mineral resource rent tax. He says if it's not going to raise any money he wants it fixed. Does the MRRT need to be fixed?
WONG: The MRRT is a profits-based tax, so how much revenue you get is going to go up and down quite considerably, depending on what profit mining companies make. And, as you probably know, commodity prices have come off a fair bit since the since the Budget so thats going to affect the MRRT take. We wrote down how much revenue we'll receive from it at the most recent budget update, but the nature of a profits-based tax is it's going to be pretty volatile.
CANNANE: Would it have been less volatile if you'd stuck to Kevin Rudd's original tax? Because the Parliamentary Budget Office recently estimated that over the next four years you would pull in an extra $26 billion if you could reverse just a handful of the changes made that original super profits tax.
WONG: ... but a tax isn't a tax until it's legislated, and this is the tax that was able to be legislated and it was the tax that was the subject of discussions with industry. The reality is, it is the right approach for Australia to put in place a profit-based tax on resources. It's a much more, I hate to say it, economically efficient way of taxing.
CANNANE: When you were selling the mining tax to Australians before it passed the Parliament, were you saying it was going to be a volatile tax?
WONG: I think we were very clear that this is a profits-based tax. So ...
CANNANE: I just remember you arguing that it was going to help fund other policies like superannuation and potentially tax cuts. I don't remember you saying it's going to be a volatile tax and it's going to be hard to raise money at some points in certain economic cycles.
WONG: I think we were very clear that it's a profits-based tax and
CANNANE: ... But I don't remember you saying it was a volatile tax.
WONG: I think everybody knows ... Profit is a different thing to volume. And I think we were pretty clear about it being a profits-based tax. But, I dont know Steve, if you were one of the people that predicted what's happened to commodity prices between the Budget and September, you'd be a very rare person because I don't think very many people predicted the sort of shift that we saw. We've had a similar tax the PRRT which has been in place for years and the revenue from that has shifted as the price of petroleum has shifted. So, you know, that's the nature of the design.
In terms of what we're funding out of it it, remember all of that is factored into the budget. We're very clear that those important policies, such as the superannuation reforms, need to be delivered.
CANNANE: So if it is a volatile tax, would you be better off finding something less volatile like, say, a GST that's increased or broadened out?
WONG: Id make two points around that. You've got to look at equity as well when you design taxes, and we don't think it's reasonable to have tax reform on the back of more expensive food and groceries and health care. And we've made very clear as a Government both in the last term and this one that both the base and the rate of the GST is not on the table for the Government.
CANNANE: And is that for equity reasons? That you're concerned it would be a regressive tax and this would hit the poor more?
WONG: All other things being equal, that is the case, and we've made that very clear for some time.
CANNANE: Okay. Marius?
BENSON: Senator, you were making the point to Steve that he couldn't predict commodity prices any more than anyone else can ...
WONG: Don't tell me you have! (laughs)
BENSON: (laughs) No, but I was told by the Treasurer that hypotheses in the Budget are certain. But given those ...
WONG: Oh ... certain. Oh, I don't know about certain. (Panel laughs)
BENSON: Id have to look back at the transcript but I know I was impressed by the level of sureness that the Treasurer had. But, given the volatility of commodity prices and the uncertainty of revenue, how can you forecast a surplus down to the decimal point?
WONG: Of course, Marius, as you know, these are the best estimates that Treasury, considering all of the data, can arrive at. And that's estimates across a whole range of fronts, not just commodity prices, but obviously unemployment, the dollar, those sorts of things
BENSON: But youve got a $400 billion budget.
WONG: ... And Treasury also draw on data sets from discussions with the private sector, discussions with other institutions. So, it's not done in a vacuum. But it is the best assessment that the people who are best placed to make this assessment can make.
BENSON: But you can't make it down to $1.1 billion dollars in a $400 billion budget, surely?
WONG: ... But that proposition suggests that we shouldn't bother printing a Budget and thats just not reasonable, Marius ... (laughs)
BENSON: No, it suggests that it's a wish rather than an expectation.
WONG: Well, Marius, we've made a lot of savings, as you would know, to ensure that we bring the budget back to surplus and continue to grow those surpluses. We've printed this update and delivered this assessment in the face of declining revenues. And I think we've demonstrated our fiscal discipline. In terms of discretionary spend, we've offset all spending since around mid-2009. The reason we're having to make those decisions is because revenue has been much less than was anticipated across a lot of heads.
CANNANE: Rohan?
DEAN: Hi Penny. Just very quickly, Senator, we've seen recently from someone close to you how easy it is to point the finger at someone you don't like and accuse them of discrimination. You can call them sexist, misogynist, whatever you like ...
WONG: Trying to work out who was close to me. (Panel laughs)
DEAN: (laughs) Not sure, not sure ... someone in your own party. Is it now not much easier to point the finger at people you don't particularly like and say I'm discriminated against, you're sexist, you're misogynist, whatever it might be. Isn't this new law making it much harder for employers and much easier for employees, who get dismissed for not being particularly good, to suddenly cry discrimination?
WONG: I disagree with so many of the points you just made in that question, I don't know even where to start. (Panel laughs) My experience of a lot of people who are the subject of discrimination is that they actually bite their tongues far more than possibly they should. And that people often will withstand or endure things being said to them which probably in a truly fair society they should not have to endure.
In terms of this law, what we are proposing is a very simple proposition that discrimination unjustified discrimination has no place in a civilised modern Australia and I think most Australians would agree with that. If you agree with that, the question then is how do you best construct the laws to fairly balance those interests against the interests of respondents and the interests of society, and not having overregulation in this or any other area of their lives.
Now, we've consulted with business in the course of developing this and we will consult with business again in the course of the exposure draft being out there, but let's have informed discussion about these changes.
CANNANE: Senator Wong, great to you have on the show. Thanks very much.
WONG: And you. Good to be with you.
ENDS