FRAN KELLY: Australia will be forced into this conciliation process now in The Hague. Its not what Australia was arguing for. And the Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has noted since that the outcome wont be legally binding. So, do you think this is necessarily going to lead to a better deal for Timor?
SENATOR PENNY WONG, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE: Thats entirely up to the way in which the Australian Government chooses to handle this. And what I would say to them is this is an opportunity. Its an opportunity that the Permanent Court of Arbitration has provided for us to resolve a long-running, as you said in your introduction, a bitter and poisonous dispute, with one of our poorest neighbours. It isnt in Australias national interest to have this continue to be a running sore and I think there is an opportunity for the Government to get out from some of the legal technicalities that have really defined our position to date, and try to resolve this, and resolve the uncertainty.
KELLY: In your response to this ruling in The Hague you put out a release which says Labor calls on the Government to settle this dispute in fair and permanent terms. What would fair and permanent settlement look like?
WONG: That is a matter for the parties to come to. Im not going to sit here drawing lines on maps, but I think the point is weve had decades of dispute over this. Australia argued in The Hague that the Treaty, the sea maps treaty that says we dont want to resolve this, should be observed. The Arbitration Court said no, we will have a conciliation over this. And what I would say to the Government is this is an opportunity to resolve something that not only do I think many Australians feel concerned about, it has refracted through the region because we are seen to have not engaged in a way that has resolved this issue. And theres obviously been, as you said, quite a negative response for many years, understandably, from the East Timorese.
KELLY: For many years, understandably from the East Timorese. Labor has been in Government during that time. Why didnt Labor resolve this when you were in Government?
WONG: Thats a reasonable question. Obviously the Labor Government at the time took a different view. I do want to recognise the work of Tanya Plibersek, my predecessor, in this. She changed Labors position on this which obviously reflected in part the fact that this had not been resolved for some time. Before the last election she announced the policy which, really, I think, in many ways has been endorsed by what the Permanent Court has done over this last week.
KELLY: So what is Labors position on this because the dispute centres around about $40 billion worth, people suspect, or revenue from the Greater Sunrise oil and gas fields in the Timor Sea. Would Labor in Government be prepared to forsake a fair chunk of that revenue? Is that what Labor is offering? What exactly would Labor do?
WONG: What we committed to in February with Tanya as Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, is that we would reach a resolution. We said we will either do it through bilateral negotiation or through international arbitration. So rather than the position that the Government has been taking, which is we dont want to resolve these maritime boundaries, we want the existing treaties, which essentially go to the division of revenue, to continue. What we said is we recognise that the East Timorese are seeking that the maritime boundaries be resolved. We will go through a process of either conciliation, or, if necessary, more, to resolve that. And I think that is a reasonable position, and one that the Government ought to adopt.
KELLY: And so you are doing that out of good faith. Are you actually saying that the Government was wrong to challenge the legal basis of the court to hear this case? Because the Australian Government argued that the revenue sharing treaty struck in 2006 should be honoured. It was a valid treaty. Both sides agreed at that time to impose a 50 year moratorium on the negotiated permanent maritime boundaries, and they agreed on a sum of money, a $16 billion Sovereign Wealth Fund to be established for East Timor. Are you saying the Government was actually wrong in law, or just in principle, to argue that?
WONG: The decision itself says that argument that particular treaty removes our jurisdiction is incorrect and we are going to have a conciliation. But I think rather than you know who did what, and who got this or that wrong lets look forward. Weve got an opportunity here. This decision gives us an opportunity to resolve a dispute which has been long standing and ongoing. And I would argue has not benefited Australias reputation in the region.
KELLY: Australia has actually exempted itself from parts of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea which means we dont recognise the International Court of Justice on the UNs International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Youre saying you will recognise this finding of course, but would a Labor Government reverse that exemption?
WONG: Well look what we said in relation to Timor Leste is, we would either resolve this through bilateral negotiations or if necessary arbitration. I would hope youd never get to the second. I would hope that you could get to an agreement by having good faith negotiations and that this decision does enable the Government to do that, and Id encourage them to do so.
KELLY: Is Australia currently ripping off East Timor, is that what you think?
WONG: I think there is no doubt that the uncertainty is hampering this development.
There is no doubt also that the perception and the position of the East Timorese is that this is a project, this is a set of discussions which is critical to their economic development and I think in light of that if Australia doesnt seek to resolve this in good faith in light of this decision - it is not a good position for a regional power like Australia to be in.
KELLY: Can I ask you about the impasse on the Same Sex Marriage plebiscite? LNP MP George Christiansen is right isnt he? Labor has now scuttled marriage equality. As he said, the definition of marriage wont be changed for the foreseeable future. Thank you is what he tweeted after yesterday.
WONG: Well the only person who can scuttle marriage equality is Malcolm Turnbull. Hes got a decision to make. As someone who supports it he can do what he said he would do before he became leader, what he has always argued which is agree to a free vote in the Parliament and then we can have Marriage Equality very quickly.
KELLY: You say that is what he has always argued, its nothing close to what he argued during the election campaign.
WONG: No, because he wants to placate the hard right
KELLY: Well its what he took to the election campaign though.
WONG: Well he wants to placate the hard right, he is articulating a position contrary to his previous position which we all know he doesnt believe in, which he has had to cop, which I think is absolutely the wrong way to deal with this issue. I mean Im always interested to listen to George Brandis and others talk about what a dignified and good debate this will be. Weve already had pamphlets out there describing our children as the stolen generation. Weve already had pamphlets produced by an organisation including by members of the Liberal Party using Nelson Mandelas image and telling lies about what would happen to education in schools if marriage equality was made legal. We know that the people who are opposed to marriage equality will not engage in a dignified debate. Malcolm Turnbull should have the courage of his conviction and have a vote.
KELLY: We are where we are, a lot of Australians have been offered the right to have a say on this now and they say yes we want that and the Attorney General George Brandis said yesterday after this meeting , which actually had nothing said in it apparently, yesterday he came out and said the definition of marriage, this is his justification of why we should take this to the people. The definition of marriage is a unique issue. It is an issue about which the political class and members of parliament have no greater wisdom than any other member of the community, so it is uniquely the kind of issue on which one would have an active choice of involving the entire Australian people. We dont run away from seeking to resolve this by the most democratic possible means and thats a plebiscite.
WONG: Well I guess there is two responses. The first is why have a parliament? The second is this - there have been a great many issues, great many decisions that Federal Parliament has made where you can make precisely the same argument about that. The abolition of the White Australia policy; the treatment of women equal pay for women, the role of women in society; the introduction of the Native Title regime; the introduction of racial discrimination legislation and you could go on and on, not to mention Governments obviously commit Australia to armed conflict without recourse to the Parliament or to the people. So that argument I think is one which could apply to a great many issues. The reason George is applying it to this one is because it is the deal Malcolm Turnbull has done with people like George Christensen on this issue.
KELLY: Okay, but there we have it again. You mention the division within the Coalition. I mean there is a lot of commentary now that Labor is just saying no to a plebiscite which means we will end up with almost certainly nothing in this term of parliament in advancing same sex marriage
WONG: I dont agree with that.
KELLY: But just trying to capitalise on the division within the Coalition, make trouble for Malcolm Turnbull.
WONG: No I dont agree with that, and I will say this to you on your program. If this is about getting credit, you know if there is a moderate Liberal who wants to co-sponsor a bill to get this through than I can say to them you take all the credit. I wont even do media, if thats what you want when the marriage equality bill passes. I want to get this done, Labor wants to get this done. We dont agree with, we are not convinced about a plebiscite because for the reasons I have articulated.
KELLY: Senator Wong thank you for joining us on breakfast.
WONG: Good to speak with you