RAFAEL EPSTEIN: To talk media and the global challenges Australia faces, we are joined by Penny Wong. She is Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Welcome to RN Drive.
SENATOR PENNY WONG, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE: Good to be with you.
EPSTEIN: Every media company in the country supports these changes. Why doesnt Labor?
WONG: The question here is diversity of voices and the government has never explained why removing the two out of three rule and allowing the same entity to own radio, print media and TV in the same market is good for diversity. And that is what has happened just a few minutes ago, about 15 minutes before I came up to the studio, the government has succeeded, as you said, in getting that legislation through and we think that is disappointing for Australians.
We think diversity of voices is an important principle and this legislation has removed a rule which has been important to diversity of voices in the nation for a long time.
EPSTEIN: Look, diversity is clearly important, but survival is as well. For example, the Fairfax CEO Greg Hywood, he says scale, they need scale, to compete with Google and Facebook. Hed know wouldnt he?
WONG: Look, I understand that argument and Ive seen Greg and others putting that argument. Certainly the media landscape has changed substantially. We do have more platforms. We do have people consuming their news in different ways and those were issues the government should engage on. But I think the proposition that the answer to that is to remove a rule which is intended to, and has preserved different voices through different platforms in the same market, to my way of thinking and to the Labor Partys way of thinking, and I believe to, the majority of Australians judging by public feedback, has been wrong headed.
EPSTEIN: Youve lost that argument.
WONG: We havent got the numbers and the government has done the deals with One Nation and Nick Xenophon.
EPSTEIN: So lets talk about the Xenophon deal. He says it is a world first inquiry to try to find ways to reduce the influence of Google and Facebook. I know you dont like the ownership changes. Can that inquiry achieve something do you think?
WONG: The inquiry is not necessarily part of the deal. Whats occurred here is that Nick has done a deal for some money. Hes done a deal for more cadetships which is kind of ironic when what we need in journalism is more jobs, not more people trying to get a fewer number of jobs.
EPSTEIN: But its resources isnt it? Its training like cadetships, it is a resource?
WONG: I have to say have a look at what the MEAA and others in the industry have said. They say we want jobs, we dont need more cadetships.
But I think the worst thing about what Nick has done, and the most dishonest thing that he and the government have done, is to try to pretend that his support for this hasnt facilitated also One Nations attack on the ABC. And to prove that you really only need to look at the contributions by One Nation Senators to the debate. They made very clear they were signing up to this legislation because of the attack on the ABC that was being delivered. Nick had an opportunity to prevent that, but he didnt. He allowed the government to cobble together this deal.
EPSTEIN: Is that fair? To accuse Nick Xenophon of being responsible for the conditions that another part of the crossbench secured?
WONG: If you know that your votes could prevent an attack on the ABC, then you should use your votes to do so. He refused to do so. What he did was he sought to turn a blind eye and say well, because not all of it is in the legislation I dont need to worry about it.
You just had to sit in the chamber and listen to One Nation Senators. Nick could have stopped an attack on the ABC with this legislation and he chose not to. I think a lot of South Australian who voted for Nick and are supporters of the ABC will be very disappointed he turned a blind eye, sought to wash his hands of a deal he knows because he has been sitting in the chamber he has been part of the negotiations he knows enabled the government to get this legislation through.
EPSTEIN: I do want to get on to your portfolio, but One Nation want whats called a Competitive Neutrality review of the ABC. So that might look at the ABC right now we pay Google as a corporation to give our news pages priority in search results. The Inquiry looking into it, thinking about it, cant happen without Parliament its likely none of the changes can is there any harm in that inquiry?
WONG: I dont think you need do anything other than listen to what Pauline Hanson says about the ABC to understand what the purpose of that inquiry is. You just need to look at what she says. She wants to attack the ABC, she claims they have been mean to her, gone after her, been unfair, she wants reduced funding. One of her colleagues has said the price of their support on a range of bills was a substantial reduction in the funding of the ABC.
The fundamental proposition is this: One Nation does not support public broadcasting. They dont support the ABC and they dont support SBS. Thats their position and the government is playing footsies with them in order to get their votes on this and other legislation and anybody who is listening who supports the ABC should be very concerned about the way in which this Communications Minister has been prepared to open this door for an attack on the ABC for ideological reasons.
EPSTEIN: Just two texts to round off the domestic stuff Raff the media laws are just the Coalition paying the piper and someone else saying ABC Radio needs to be privatised or a subscription paid to listen because it is taxpayer-funded.
Lets turn to your portfolio Burma, or Myanmar first. The UN Secretary-General says the militarys treatment of the Rohingya is the equivalent of ethnic cleansing. The Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, she hasnt directly accused the military there; she has said we urge all sides to exercise restraint. What is the correct response?
WONG: I think the correct response is for all of us to speak with one voice and say we are deeply concerned at the reports of human rights abuses in Myanmar, the reports of violence, of killings. We should speak as one voice as a nation - and I think we are in urging the government of Myanmar to do all it can, all it must, in its power to protect all of its citizens, including the persecuted minorities in Rakhine State, including the Rohingya.
EPSTEIN: The Foreign Minister is not really picking sides there. Is the military more responsible?
WONG: I would simply say this, we see very distressing reports, we hear very distressing reports, we have the United Nations, including the UN Commissioner for Human Rights making very clear statements.
I think there are credible and widespread reports of violence, killings and attacks. We must as the international community and as Australia speak with one voice to urge the government of Myanmar to ensure that this situation is resolved, that the human rights of all are respected, and that the violence ends.
EPSTEIN: Would you agree with the UN Secretary General who says it's the equivalent of ethnic cleansing?
WONG: I can only refer to the widespread reports that you have quoted directly, what the UN Secretary General has said, and they are also the words that this is a, and I quote, "textbook example of ethnic cleansing", and they are also the words of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights. But what I would also say is that all of us looking at those reports would say to this government of Myanmar, "this violence needs to end" and we should continue to urge them to ensure that it does.
EPSTEIN: Should Aung San Suu Kyi speak out, should she do more?
WONG: It's understandable that Aung San Suu Kyi has been the focus of a lot of media discussion, a lot of community discussion. She is seen by Australians and by the world as being pivotal to Myanmar's democratic transition. We would say that all leaders need to resolve this crisis, all leaders need to respect human rights and to respect the human rights of all the people of Myanmar.
EPSTEIN: Would you go any further? I guess the question is do you think she should do something about it because so much of the analysis is she's got a lot of power, but not where the violence is happening.
WONG: I'll make a couple of points. I think this is an opportunity for her and other leaders to show leadership. I visited Myanmar earlier this year and the issue of the treatment of minorities and the people of Rakhine state was raised, and we will continue to press those issues. Obviously Myanmar is in the process of a great number of transitions, there's economic transition but also democracy transition and Australians have watched with hope the transition of that country towards democracy and we'd continue to want that democratic transition to proceed.
EPSTEIN: Let's turn to, I guess, the number one crisis or there are a few. You're going to Seoul soon with the Opposition Leader Bill Shorten. If I can just offer you a reflection, I guess I want to know what you think is going on? It looks to me like North Korea, the United States are two countries, in many ways, deeply unaware of how the other thinks. President Trump's motives are opaque to them and Kim Jong-un's motives are opaque to us. Can Australia do anything to fix that?
WONG: The first thing I would say is that this is not a question of equivalents. We have a state that has violated UN Security Council resolutions consistently, that is engaging in provocative escalatory action in the continued development and testing of missiles and if they are to be believed, recently, of nuclear weapons.
This is a great risk to regional stability and security and to peace and security around the world. Having said all that, I agree with you, this is a time for sober heads, a time for de-escalation, and that does require people to exercise sound judgment, both in terms of the diplomatic action taken, the sanctions taken and how messages are expressed publicly.
EPSTEIN: Can we add clarity, because they seem to misread each other? I'm not saying that we should or can, I'm just genuinely curious. Can Australia make a difference?
WONG: We're not the primary player. Obviously we have a longstanding interest both in terms of our bilateral relationship with South Korea and also our historic involvement in the loss of Australian lives in the Korean War; but we're not the primary player.
I'd probably turn the question around if I may Raff, which is this is a matter on which the international community must speak as one. The only way this is resolved peacefully is through sustained, consistent pressure from the whole of the international community. I think it has been a good thing we have seen the major powers through the UN Security Council work together on sanctions and the increasing sanctions over this last period and that cooperation will need to continue.
EPSTEIN: Do you think we're just going to have to put up with a nuclear-armed North Korea? Steve Bannon who was key in the White House says there's no military option, we're just going to have to accept them having serious nuclear missiles.
WONG: Looking ahead, it's always difficult to project where we'll be in five or ten years. Certainly the trajectory has not been one that is helpful to peace and stability. I would also make the point about military action. General Mattis and others have made clear the enormous risks associated with military action and those are well known.
EPSTEIN: If I can just ask you a final question - if I can do a Patricia Karvelas trick - just on the same-sex marriage debate. We've got these new $12,000 penalties for intimidating or threatening people. Do you trust George Brandis to be the gatekeeper for that process?
WONG: That's a tough question isn't it?
EPSTEIN: [Inaudible]
WONG: Well you pass legislation not on the basis of individuals but on the basis of the office, and he holds the office of Attorney-General. And our judgment of that legislation was that it did not cure a flawed process - we think the survey is a flawed process and we should not have to engage in it. But now we are here, the Labor Party will campaign for a 'Yes' vote.
We are deeply concerned and I have spoken out on this a number of times not only about the really nasty vilification and hateful material we are seeing, but also the way in which the arguments are being run by the 'no case'. Arguments which are about extraneous, and certainly irrelevant, but often factually incorrect matters. We thought this legislation provided some protection that's why we supported it, but ultimately the tone of the debate will be set by leaders including the Prime Minister. And Prime Minister Turnbull should speak out against some of the arguments which are being put into the public arena including by people of his own party.
EPSTEIN: Thanks for your time.
WONG: Good to speak with you.