GILBERT: Senator, thank you very much for being here.
WONG: Good morning. Good to be with you.
GILBERT: Can I first of all ask you about this suggestion that its going to give the complainant in discrimination cases too much power because the onus of proof once a prima facie case is established will shift to those being sued?
WONG: What we want is simpler and fairer laws. And what we want is a situation where a complaint with merit is easier to take, a complaint without merit is easier to dismiss. And thats why weve put this draft legislation out for consultation. What weve done is given the Commissioner power to dismiss complaints that dont have merit earlier.
So that means is if youre a defendant, for example an employer, and there is a complaint that doesnt have merit thats taken against you, instead of having to wait until the end of the process to win your case, you can have the complaint dismissed at an earlier stage. But equally we do want to make sure complaints that have merit, that are reasonable, are easier to take. And thats the balance that were seeking to strike.
GILBERT: But if you look at the well, is it true first of all that complainants who lose claims wont have to cover costs?
WONG: We have suggested or recommended a no cost jurisdiction and there are arguments on both sides for that, because also from a defendants perspective sometimes a cost jurisdiction also can increase the risk for you.
There are no cost jurisdictions in a number of jurisdictions and in this case weve also suggested that the [Courts] can look to award costs in certain cases. For example in different jurisdictions if you take a complaint that we call vexatious, then sometimes you can have costs awarded against you, so weve given some discretion there.
GILBERT: So there would still be scope for a
WONG: There would be scope
GILBERT: for a complainant to have to pay costs
WONG: There would be scope for the [Courts], in its discretion, to order costs, but what were suggesting in this exposure draft is a no cost jurisdiction where both parties pay their own costs.
GILBERT: So just, if you can clarify for us, the reason why the five Acts need to be consolidated into one discrimination law?
WONG: Thats a good question and really its about this: we have five pieces of legislation all introduced at different times with different tests and different defences. Theyre complicated for complainants, theyre complicated for respondents and theyre complicated for the people who have to comply with them. Theyre simply not effective and theyre simply not clear.
So, by putting them into one Act, by having a single definition of discrimination and a very clear and simple definition of a defence to discrimination, we think we can make this clearer for the whole community, for respondents and also for complainants.
GILBERT: Lets move on and look at the Royal Commission. The consultation paper was released yesterday. Groups, governments and religious groups have been given one week to provide their submissions. Is that enough, particularly for a Royal Commission of such enormous scope?
WONG: Lets recall there will also be other face-to-face consultations that the Attorney-General has flagged with particular representative groups. But we do want to get on with this. And remember this is not the actual process of hearing the Royal Commission that will take a long time. This is the process of constructing the terms of reference and having the proper process around that.
GILBERT: But some of these victims groups wouldnt be very well resourced and submissions in a week it just looks a bit rushed.
WONG: Thats not the intention. In fact, in past arrangements youve seen Governments come up with terms of reference and just put them out. We want to go through a process of having the dialogue.
This is a very important Royal Commission. This is an issue which has touched far too many people and has harmed far too many people and we do want to get it right, and we are genuine about this process of discussion.
GILBERT: Does the Government need to manage expectations? Is this part of the consultation paper, the message being sent to victims groups, particularly, that there just isnt the scope to investigate every individual case; that it cant become an investigative body?
WONG: I think it is really important to be clear about what the Royal Commission can do and what it cant. Obviously no process can wipe away the hurt and damage that abuse has inflicted upon someone.
But what we can do is to be forward looking and to ensure that these matters are aired. What we want is a country where this never happens, and what the Commission can do is make a contribution to trying to strengthen our responses as a community and the institutions in our democracy; strengthen their responses to this type of abuse.
GILBERT: Okay, lets move on to another matter. Rob Oakeshott, the Independent MP, says senior sources on both sides of politics have told him that when it comes to tax reform they get it; that GST must be part of a comprehensive review but no ones going to look at it until after the next election.
WONG: Weve made very clear, both in the last term of Government and this term, our position on the GST. Were willing to look at distribution and in fact weve got a panel thats considered that issue and it is a complex issue. But the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have made very clear as have I that we are not in the cart for increasing the rate nor extending the base, and thats been a consistent position.
GILBERT: So whats Rob Oakeshott talking about when he says both sides get it when they need to address more efficient taxes as part of a comprehensive review? And he said the GST would be in that.
WONG: We are looking at the distribution of the GST, but not the rate nor the base. But certainly in terms of more efficient taxes and tax reform, were in the cart for that. Thats why weve changed the tax free threshold which is good for participation. Thats why weve got the loss carry back arrangement, which is good particularly for small business. Thats why we also have a group thats also going to be reporting to Treasury Ministers shortly about state taxes and whether or not theres ways of making them more efficient
GILBERT: But why is the other element, the rate and the base, why are those elements off limits? Why cant they even be debated? It seems quite, well, nonsensical.
WONG: Well from the Labor Partys perspective because we dont think that a tax which, all other things being equal, is regressive, that theres impacts on the food people buy and the things people buy in the supermarket
GILBERT: Youve already lifted the low income youve lifted the tax-free threshold you could do that again
WONG: We dont think that individuals and families should bear the brunt of the cost of tax reform. We think there are better ways to approach tax reform and weve demonstrated that.
GILBERT: But the carbon tax is an example of a regressive tax where youve provided compensation
WONG: Hang on, thats
GILBERT: Youve provided compensation to counter it. You could do the same thing for the GST.
WONG: Hang on. On the carbon price, youre right, we have specifically looked to give more tax cuts and more benefits to low income earners
GILBERT: You could do the same thing with the GST.
WONG: but in terms of the GST weve made our position very clear, Kieran. We are not going to be extending the base nor increasing the rate. Its not like thats a surprise. Weve been saying that for a long time; prior to the last election and subsequently.
GILBERT: Well, I suppose people are wondering what Rob Oakeshott is talking about here. Senior sources are telling him, and its not just the distribution of the GST, the way that its being perceived is that its the whole box and dice.
WONG: Certainly we have been very clear about the need for tax reform and I think we put in place a number of reforms in a number of budgets, including associated with the carbon price, which are a good thing in a tax system.
The changes to the tax free threshold will increase participation; thats a good thing for the Australian economy. So were in the cart for tax reform, but were not in the cart for making peoples groceries more expensive because of an increase in the GST.
GILBERT: Finally Kevin Rudd last night on the ABC says that the balkanisation of politics of Australia means that people get howled down for putting ideas forward. Is the GST debate an example of that, where you cant even have a proper discussion on the issue?
WONG: I think the better example is the carbon price, dont you? The sort of appalling and unfounded and frankly quite hysterical scare campaign that the Opposition mounted $100 roasts
GILBERT: Kevin Rudds called it a Punch and Judy Show though, A rolling Punch and Judy Show. Do you agree with him?
WONG: I agree with him on this issue very much. That is, Australians are tired of aggressive, destructive negativity and they want a policy debate. And if Tony Abbott wants to put out policies Id be very happy to have a policy debate.
GILBERT: Mr Turnbull said that he would be when asked if he was going to return to leadership he said that was not going to happen but he will be a member of the Coalition Cabinet if they win the next election. But that the same couldnt be said for Kevin Rudd of the Labor Government. Should that be re-thought given his experience?
WONG: Kevin made certain decisions. Were where we are, and what Im more focused on whats happening now and whats happening in the future.
GILBERT: Finance Minister Penny Wong, thanks for your time.
WONG: Good to speak with you.
ENDS