VAN ONSELEN: Minister Wong, thanks very much for joining us on Australian Agenda.
WONG: Good to be with you all.
VAN ONSELEN: First question, youre obviously backing Julia Gillard. Ive got to ask you, have you been happy with the personalised nature of some of the commentary during the course of this leadership showdown?
WONG: Obviously theres no leadership challenge which is pretty to watch, is there? And this has been a difficult time. But people have to make their judgements about who is best for the future of the nation and Ive made the judgement that that person is Prime Minister Gillard. I think shes got the determination and resilience to do whats needed for the future of the country.
KELLY: Minister, I want to ask you as Finance Minister, and formerly as the Climate Change Minister, what your view is of the proposal Kevin Rudd put forward on Friday that, as Prime Minister, he would seek to radically change the carbon pricing arrangement to eliminate the fixed three year $23 a tonne price. Is that necessary in policy terms?
WONG: I didnt see a lot of detail, obviously that was one of the comments that Kevin Rudd made in his speech. I do take the view as someone who was, as you say Climate Change Minister and now Minister for Finance, that it would be pretty difficult to unpack yet again a policy thats been pretty hard-won.
This was a very difficult policy area to deliver as you know. It caused a change in leadership in the Liberal Party. And now we have a price on carbon. The only other point Id make, and this is a policy detail I suppose, is that youd have to be very careful that that didnt have a very negative effect on the budget. Because if you move to a floating price, obviously household compensation quite rightly is fixed. Theres obviously budgetary risks there.
KELLY: But do you think the current price is tenable given that the European price is about half the $23 a tonne price? Do you think the present position is tenable? Because Kevin Rudd clearly thinks it isnt.
WONG: Paul, I think the situation in Europe is obviously affecting prices across the board. I mean, the economy in Europe is, as you know, not growing. But more importantly for the purposes of this, there is a lack of confidence. And when youre looking at prices which are about future markets, obviously markets are pretty lacking in confidence at the moment. I think weve got a good package.
It was one that was hard-won and took a lot of determination from Prime Minister Gillard to navigate this highly controversial issue through a minority Government in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and we have done so. As someone who vehemently believes in a price on carbon that thats about the future, its about building a low carbon economy, its also about our obligation to future generations I dont want to see that unpicked.
KELLY: But what are the political consequences of reopening this issue?
WONG: Well, arent they self-evident Paul? Havent we had this discussion for the last few years?
KELLY: Id like you to tell us because its been proposed by Kevin Rudd.
WONG: We went to the 2007 election with both major political parties saying we want a price on carbon. We now have a man the alternative Prime Minister in Tony Abbott who says what I actually want is a huge bureaucracy to dole out taxpayers cash and Im going to campaign against any price on carbon despite what economists say.
Its a very controversial issue, its an issue where politicians have been required to look, not to day-to-day popularity but to what is in the long-term interests of the nation. And it is a great credit to Prime Minister Gillard that, not only did she do that and showed fortitude at that, but she delivered.
VAN ONSELEN: Senator Wong, just turning to the contest itself. It seems to me that it is an argument of competence versus trust. That is, Kevin Rudd says the people of Australia trust him, but Julia Gillard says she has done, shown she has competently governed the country. But this is about electoral politics. So do you think that Julia Gillard, after a good year of being in the cellar in opinion polls, can actually, if she wins on Monday, bring the party back to a position where it can be re-elected?
WONG: Yes I can. And I think she can do that because she is a politician of determination and of strength. A politician who is prepared to do whats hard because its right, and a politician who is all about the best interests of the nation. The big job after Monday will be to bring the party together and my view is weve got to make sure we do that. We have to unify, and remember, the person who we need to focus on is Tony Abbott. Because what he would do to this country if he were Prime Minister is not in the best interests of working Australians.
VAN ONSELEN: Senator Wong, are you saying then that you do not buy Kevin Rudds argument that he has the trust of the people of Australia and Julia Gillard doesnt? Is that the case?
WONG: What Id say is I have to make a judgement as a member of the caucus, as a member of the Cabinet, about who I think is best placed to be Prime Minister of the country. And Ive made a judgement that that person is Prime Minister Gillard for the reasons Ive outlined.
VAN ONSELEN: Senator Wong, can I ask you this with everything that has transpired over the last few days, and its been pretty ugly you must admit, was it a mistake to do what you did on the 23^rd of June 2010?
WONG: That was a very difficult period wasnt it, a very difficult time in Labor history and a lot of criticisms has been made of it, and it certainly was a very emotional time. But whatever ones views are about the rights and wrongs of that night, the decision we make is not about then. The decision we make is
VAN ONSELEN: But Im asking what your personal view is.
WONG: And my view is that my decision now is a decision about the future. And whatever views people have about what occurred on that night, the decision the caucus has to make is about who is best placed for the future of the country and, as I said, I believe thats Prime Minister Gillard because of the qualities shes demonstrated.
BENSON: On the future then, would you serve under a Rudd Cabinet, a Rudd Prime Ministership?
WONG: I want to serve in a Gillard Cabinet.
BENSON: Yes, but would you serve under Kevin Rudd as Minister if he was successful tomorrow?
WONG: Simon, I think the way Id answer that is this. Ive been asked to serve both in Opposition and in Government under four Labor leaders, and the decision I have always made, and would always make, is what would be in the best interests of the party.
VAN ONSELEN: So does that mean that you would Senator Wong? Because the reason we ask is because Peter Garrett came out just before the ad break and said that he would not serve in a Cabinet under Kevin Rudd? You would be open to the idea?
WONG: Ive given you the answer that Im going to give you Peter, I want to serve in a Gillard Cabinet, thats the Cabinet I want to serve in for the reasons Ive gone through. And Ive also said these decisions should always be made by people in what they think is in the best interests of the party. And thats the way I will always approach these issues.
KELLY: Minister, the partys very divided at the moment obviously. Can Kevin Rudd as a re-elected Labor leader unite the party?
WONG: Well thats for him to answer. Im supporting Prime Minister Gillard and I believe she can unite the party.
KELLY: No, but I think it
WONG: I dont think its for me to answer that. I think theres obviously very strong views on both sides here. Views held by people about who is best to lead the party and views held about the future.
KELLY: So youre not prepared to say that Kevin Rudd can unite the party.
WONG: I think Im here as a person supporting Prime Minister Gillard and what Id say to you is I believe she can. But I think its incumbent upon all of us. Unity is not something that a leader alone can foster. Unity is something we have to make a decision to engage in and unfortunately and very regrettably, what we have seen in recent times is a lack of unity inside the Labor Government and this has been going on for some time, as I think has been evinced by some of the articles you have been writing. But we need to move on from that. We have delivered good things for Australians, but we need to do more and we need to do better.
FRANKLIN: Senator, can I take you back to the events of 2010. Kevin Rudd has said that when he working on pricing carbon, both Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan advised him not to. You were central to these negotiations. Did you advise him not to and can you confirm that that was the advice that Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard gave to Kevin Rudd?
WONG: Matthew, Im in a difficult position here because others have chosen to put things on the public record about internal Cabinet discussions which I do not discuss in public. I think you would know, I have been consistent in my view about the need for a price on carbon. I have argued that passionately and vehemently and consistently.
FRANKLIN: You certainly have, but surely you would concede that when we go to Kevin Rudds claim that this is an issue of trust, if it is the case that Julia Gillard advised him to drop the carbon pricing, how does that fit with where we are now?
WONG: Rather than have a discussion about what might or might not have happened or aspects of things which might or might not have happened, isnt it more important to look at what people have done? This Prime Minister has delivered a price on carbon. She has done that in minority Government. She has done that where she has had to get the support of rural Independents along with the Australian Greens. She has done that when she has had an Opposition leader not Malcolm Turnbull who believed in a price on carbon but Tony Abbott who has gone down the populist reactionary path. And she has delivered it. That should be the issue we look to when it comes to credit on climate change.
VAN ONSELEN: Minister Wong, let me then just ask the question a little bit differently. Who are you more disappointed with Kevin Rudd for giving up on a price on carbon ahead of the last election or Julia Gillard for advising him to?
WONG: Thats the same question. But I was deeply disappointed that we didnt get the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme through the Parliament. Deeply disappointed, not just because I negotiated it and it was my legislation, but because I dont think it was the right thing for the country to have to go through the sort of division and conflict on this policy issue that we have seen.
VAN ONSELEN: But isnt that exactly why this is such an important issue to answer because if you were so disappointed by it, and it was such a bad thing to do, it is a crucial question whether or not Kevin Rudd was or wasnt advised by the now Prime Minister to dump it.
WONG: Isnt the crucial question, who got it through?
VAN ONSELEN: Not necessarily, when she said there wouldnt be a carbon price.
WONG: Her position was consistently for a price on carbon through an emissions trading scheme, but lets not got through that. I do find it remarkable that we focus on the past instead of focusing on who actually delivered it. Lets not dismiss that. In this discussion its as if that was something easy. I mean Prime Minister Gillard took an enormous amount of political heat for doing what she did, but she did it because she thought it was right.
KELLY: Well lets ask a question then about the future. Theres a shared Cabinet position at the moment that the budget must be returned to surplus next financial year, which concerns you as Finance Minister. Is that a non-negotiable commitment regardless of whos leader?
WONG: I believe we should be returning the budget to surplus, full stop. I believe that when youve got an economy growing at trend, when youve made your fiscal policy clear to the markets and to the Australian people, you should deliver it. There is no doubt it is difficult. Weve taken a very substantial write down in revenues over a number of budgets and even between the budget and the mid-year review we saw I think it was a some $20 billions write down this is a difficult time. But when youve got the budget projecting the economy growing at trend, and that continues to be reflected in the macro-economic data, then it is the right economic call to return the budget to surplus.
KELLY: So youre really putting your job on the line here, arent you, saying that the return to surplus is non-negotiable as far as you as Finance Minister is concerned?
WONG: Well, its not just me. I dont think ...
KELLY: No, but Im asking you.
WONG: I dont think it is tenable for Labor to be saying to the markets and to the Australian people that whilst the economy is growing the way it is were not going to return the budget to surplus as we committed to. I dont believe thats tenable. And I dont think its sensible economic policy.
BENSON: Senator Wong, on that issue, can I take you back to the global financial crisis, mark I. There seems to be a complete disconnect here between what Ministers, colleagues of yours, have been saying over the last few days about how dysfunctional Kevin Rudd was as a leader and how chaotic the Cabinet was. How on earth did you get through the global financial crisis if things were so bad in the Cabinet? Are you saying you got through it despite Kevin Rudd? Or is it because of it?
WONG: The difficulty with that question, Simon, is it invites me to get into discussion about who said what and what happened and internal Government processes.
BENSON: But its a pertinent question. How did you get through the global financial crisis if the Cabinet was so dysfunctional and Kevin Rudd was such a bad leader?
WONG: I think whatever peoples views about internal processes, there is no doubt that this Government, under both Kevin Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard, has always sought to do whats right for the Australian people and the global financial crisis response was absolutely the right response.
VAN ONSELEN: But Senator, you can see how hard this is for you because one of the big things that Labor is trying to pin its economic credentials on is the fact that you wedded the storm of the global financial crisis and it was sound economic management that did that. But youve now got, amongst others, the Treasurer saying how dysfunctional Kevin Rudd was over his two and a half years as Prime Minister, so the public would be looking at this and perhaps just saying well, maybe the Liberal Party are right, maybe it was the foundations that they laid and good luck that got Australia through it because after all, even the Treasurer thinks that the Prime Minister during that time was dysfunctional and didnt even hold Labor values?
WONG: It was not what the Liberal Party did, because if wed done what the Liberal Party did, you wouldnt have had the stimulus which ensured we stayed out of recession and kept 200,000 Australians in jobs as opposed to being unemployed. So Tony Abbott can coast all he tries to on the coat tails of Peter Costello but he is no Peter Costello, and hes demonstrated that by the sort of economic ineptitude that has characterised his leadership of the Liberal Party.
On this issue, what Ive said publicly is that I do believe Cabinet processes and the process of decision making in government has improved under Prime Minister Gillard. But rather than going into the details, what Ive said is that that in part has formed my judgement about who is best placed to lead the country and I believe thats Prime Minister Gillard.
VAN ONSELEN: Alright, Penny Wong, Finance Minister, we appreciate you joining us on Australian Agenda, thanks for your company.
WONG: Good to be with you.
ENDS