FRAN KELLY: The Opposition Senate Leader Penny Wong has written a lengthy essay in The Monthly magazine on the case for marriage equality, its simply titled Its Time. Penny Wong is in our Parliament House studio. Senator Wong good morning, welcome to Breakfast.
SENATOR PENNY WONG, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE: Good morning Fran, its good to be back for the new Parliamentary year.
KELLY: Ready and raring to go, I can tell. In your essay in The Monthly thats just come out, you make the case that society has already shifted when it comes to gay marriage and is well ahead of Parliament on this issue. From your own personal experience, whats made you so convinced of that? What feedback do you get as you move through the community?
WONG: I just think if you talk to Australians, if you go and speak to young people, its very clear that the majority of Australians have already moved on this issue. I think that our Parliament lags the community substantially on this. And it is really regrettable that on marriage equality Malcolm Turnbull, who I have no doubt is sincere in his convictions, says one thing and does another when it comes to delivering reform.
KELLY: Youre the mother of 2 children, you have 2 children with your partner Sophie, do you feel the warmth, if I could put it that way, in the community? Or is this a live debate out there even?
WONG: Look, I think for most people the view varies between those who are very strong and passionate advocates, and I think particularly younger Australians dont really understand what the problem is, and those who simply say live and let live, if people want to get married thats their business and the government shouldnt be stopping them.
So peoples views vary, I think, from really strong and active support to acceptance, as well as those who still oppose. But on the issue of my personal experience, and I do touch upon this in The Monthly essay, my experience has been frankly heart-warming, in terms of how so many people around Australia have responded to me and my family. And I think it says something very profound about what is important in our lives and what is important in this debate, and love and family are more important than some of the conservative arguments against change.
KELLY: Its clear from your essay, if you hadnt noticed it before, that you are outraged by some of the arguments that are made by some of those against marriage equality, particularly as they concern children and marriage, is often that its not fair for children, its not safe for children. You quote in your essay the US Supreme Court, noting that discriminatory marriage laws harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. So this argument around the children, does that enrage you?
WONG: It does, it upsets me for my children and for all growing up, or who have grown up, in same-sex families. Children need love not prejudice, and the reality is we know that we already have children growing up in same-sex families. They are a reality, my children are a reality, and whether or not the prejudicial marriage laws are retained wont change that. Yet opponents use children, and often use them in very hurtful ways, to argue against this change, and I think it really needs to be confronted. And I certainly intend, Im sure as many others do, to stand up for my kids. I dont believe they should be told over and over again by opponents that somehow their family is lesser or not normal.
KELLY: Are your children old enough to notice that yet?
WONG: No, I mean Alexandra is four and she asks questions. We have to be judicious in our responses.
KELLY: Does any of this make you, I know that Labors position is against a plebiscite, its about the Parliament having a vote and the latest statistics from Australian Marriage Equality suggest that there is a slim majority in the Parliament now for same-sex marriage if a vote was held. But it wont be held, the Prime Minister has pledged to take this after the election to a plebiscite. Does any of this make you nervous about facing a plebiscite?
WONG: First, the vote should be held ahead of the election, and thats the position that Malcolm Turnbull previously argued for. And he has only stopped arguing for that position, stopped asserting that position, because he had to trade his principles in order to get the keys to The Lodge. Thats the reality. We have a bill before the Parliament, Bill Shortens bill, we could have a vote this week if the Prime Minister allowed it.
On the issue of the plebiscite, I just make this point: we havent had a plebiscite on very important issues, such as the Racial Discrimination Act, the Native Title legislation. This is nothing more than the conservatives trying to disrupt the capacity for delivering this reform. Its a delaying tactic and its nothing more.
Leaving aside the political tactics though, I am worried, as are many people in the LGBTI community and our supporters, about the potential for a campaign in the plebiscite to become hateful. Weve already seen some really difficult things said by some opponents of marriage equality and I fear what this debate could unleash. It might not, and that would really if we end up in a plebiscite that would really fall on the shoulders of political leaders to ensure that it did not, but there are many people who have made contributions to this debate, I think, which are very hurtful.
KELLY: Our guest is the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Penny Wong. Penny Wong, to matters coming before the Parliament now and today in fact, or this week, the legislation to reinstate the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It was abolished by the Gillard Government of which you were a Cabinet Minister. Considering the findings of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance, findings that spoke of blackmail, bribes, intimidation, threats of violence, why is Labor still opposed to having a tough cop on the beat policing the construction industry?
WONG: Labor in government established an inspectorate under Fair Work Australia, which was about focusing on the construction industry -
KELLY: - But with respect, is it working, given the evidence we heard before the Royal Commission?
WONG: We have zero tolerance for corruption.
KELLY: And yet corruption continues.
WONG: And it should be dealt with by the appropriate criminal authorities, thats the question here. The bill before the Parliament is a bill that will deliver coercive powers to a body that could compel construction workers to participate in interview without legal representation and exposes them to penalties if they dont. I think it goes too far. Bill Shorten has already announced a range of measures at the end of last year to increase penalties for criminal behaviour and increase penalties for corrupt behaviour, to improve the oversight of unions by making ASIC in control of their regulation, by increasing the transparency associated with the funding of union campaigns and by protecting whistleblowers.
So we are absolutely willing to have a discussion about how we improve our laws to prevent inappropriate behaviour. We are certainly up for ensuring that our criminal laws adequately target corruption and criminal activity, wherever it occurs.
KELLY: Its clear that, from the findings of the Royal Commissioner, Justice Heydon, he said in many parts of the world constituted by Australian trade union officials there is room for louts, thugs, bullies, thieves, perjurers, those who threaten violence, errant fiduciaries and organisers of boycotts. Thats quite a list. ABCC aside, Palmer United Party Senator Dio Wang will move an amendment to broaden the legislation to create a national corruption body, similar to ICAC in NSW. Will Labor support that?
WONG: Look, I havent seen the detail of what Dios proposing, I saw some reports this morning. Obviously all of us have zero tolerance for corruption. I would make this point: there are already anti-corruption agencies with very strong powers that exist in the federal sphere the Australian Crime Commission, for example. If there is a case to be made that says the existing anti-corruption bodies, which have very strong powers federally, are not sufficient, Im willing to listen to that evidence. I would make the point that we already have bodies with stronger powers than those which exist in state legislation.
KELLY: Can I ask you about the GST debate, its dominating the election year so far. Premiers Mike Baird and Jay Weatherill are leading the debate on tax reform for an increased GST. Jay Weatherill, of course, is the Labor Premier of South Australia. On the 7:30 Report last night he said all major parties need to come up with realistic solutions. And he clearly doesnt believe that Labor has a credible alternative yet to lifting the GST.
WONG: I dont think thats accurate. I think Jay made very clear on the 7:30 Report last night that he welcomed Labors funding of the Gonski, Your Child, Our Future.
KELLY: But he said publicly and on this program hes not confident its sustainable.
WONG: I think if you look very carefully at what he said last night, and he made very clear that he welcomed our full funding of the education reforms. Lets be clear about two things Fran, first Mike Baird and Jay Weatherill would not be in the position of seeking more revenue if the Liberal Government had not cut $80 billion out of Australias schools and hospitals first point. The second point is the only proposition that Malcolm Turnbull seems intent on pursuing is something that will cost everyone more, cost working Australians, middle class Australians more, and that is increasing the GST. We do not support that. We have laid out a clear funding plan for our education reforms and obviously well have more to say on health before the election. And it will be in sharp contrast to the cuts which affect working Australians that have been imposed by the Abbott Government and continued under Prime Minister Turnbull.
KELLY: Just before I let you go, Senator Wong, theres a report today of a group that is having meetings in Australia this weekend, its a group thats called the anti-women group, I think its called, and it says that rape should be legalised on private property, thats just one of its platform. Its planning meetings in capital cities here this weekend. The US-based founder says hell come to Australia for the meetings. Should he be barred from entering?
WONG: Look, I think so. I have to say, I was only aware of this, I saw it on Twitter last night. Its disgusting and those sorts of views and that type of campaigning and organisation has no place in Australia.
KELLY: Penny Wong, thank you very much for joining us.
WONG: Good to speak with you.