DAVID SPEERS: Penny Wong, thank you for your time.
PENNY WONG: Good to be here.
SPEERS: Now you were Finance Minister in the last Government. Just to clarify, what was the advice you received on the sort of debt limit we needed?
WONG: Well, as you can see from the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook where the Treasury Secretary and the Finance Secretary made clear to the Australian people the state of the books, we did need an increase in the debt cap. That around 2016-17 we were looking at a debt on issue of about $370 billion which is certainly a lot less than what he is asking for now
SPEERS: But you had advice there was a buffer required on top of that.
WONG: That's true. Thats true and we released that publically.
SPEERS: And that said $40 billion to $60 billion on top of that. So that would clearly go beyond $400 billion.
WONG: That was in 2016-17. I mean there was a very interesting moment today in the Senate where we voted on this, as you probably know, and I asked Senator Sinodinos who is the Assistant Treasurer, Minister representing the Treasurer I said when will we hit $400 billion? Like you dont want to go to $400 billion because you need a buffer when will it be? And he wouldn't answer it.
SPEERS: No, but you've just admitted though that your own numbers said you would hit $370 billion and you need a buffer on top of that.
WONG: At 2016-17. Where are we now?
SPEERS: Well were in 2013.
WONG: Correct.
SPEERS: Why do you have to come back and do it twice?
WONG: Because I think it is absolutely appropriate that when a government seeks this sort of scale of increase in the debt cap, they are upfront with the Australians about what the Budget numbers are. That is what we did.
SPEERS: Why set the cap lower than what you know is going to pass?
WONG: Hang on. Because the position is from the Opposition, we said we will give you $100 billion, here you go, bang, without sight, unseeing, a very generous offer, certainly we never got that from the Liberal Party when we were in government, never got it so easily. But we have said here it is, $400 billion, we pass the amendment in the Senate today, Joe Hockey could have another $100 billion up his sleeve this afternoon if he passes it through the Lower House. Our point is this: if you are going to ask for that scale of increase to the debt cap, to half a trillion dollars, I do think the minimum level of information you should give people is an explanation as to why and your budget numbers.
SPEERS: But you know the explanation.
WONG: No I don't.
SPEERS: You know the budget numbers are $370 billion, you know there's a buffer required on that.
WONG: In 2016-17, and I think it is entirely reasonable for Australians to say well show us the Budget numbers so we understand why it is you are seeking something, such a big increase in the debt limit.
SPEERS: Where is this going to end up? Are you prepared to see some level of government shut down?
WONG: Well, if there is any government shut down it is because Joe Hockey has a dummy spit. That is what this is about.
SPEERS: Would you rather see that than raise it to $500 billion?
WONG: No, I am not of the view that any responsible Opposition, nor the people of Australia, should respond to childish threats like that from the Treasurer. I mean, you know what that shows? He wants a fight. He doesn't want an outcome, that's what it shows.
SPEERS: But again, the question is are you prepared to see any level of shut down or not?
WONG: There is no need for a level of shut down. We have passed an amendment in the Senate that delivers a $100 billion increase.
SPEERS: Can you say to public servants that you will do whatever you need to avoid that shut down?
WONG: Weve done that. We have already done that. We have given $100 billion. It will be very interesting when the midyear review is released, and see if you remember this David. If the midyear review is released and it demonstrates that we weren't going to get to $400 billion for two years, then Joe Hockey will be shown to have done nothing but play politics this week.
SPEERS: Can I ask you on boats, the Senate passed a motion today to force the Immigration Minister to reveal boat arrivals within 24 hours and incidents at sea as well. What happens if he says no?
WONG: There are a range of consequences in the Senate and there is a range of things we can do in relation to that order. That order is an order, which shouldn't have been required if Scott Morrison was actually telling Australians what happened. We have got this extraordinary position, haven't we? We have got to look to Indonesian press to find out what is happening in our own country. We get the Northern Territory News reporting on a boat arriving that magically Ministers can't talk about. It is absurd.
SPEERS: If he says no to this demand, it goes to the Privileges Committee presumably.
WONG: There are a range of options. It actually relates to Senator Cash because she is the Minister representing in the Senate chamber
SPEERS: The responsible Minister.
WONG: And there have been various things done in the past. I understand that in the past, for example, the Senate has chosen not to deal with any legislation in the portfolio for a period of time.
SPEERS: Would that be a good idea do you think?
WONG: Well Im just saying there are various things that the Senate can do. Ultimately there are censure motions, ultimately it could be considered a contempt but there are a range of things we can do between now and then. And I think that the political point here is that the Government hasn't worked out that the Senate is not the House of Representatives and they don't have the numbers.
SPEERS: Sure but they say this is an operational matter. This is the advice from the military.
WONG: Right, so we are going to simply class everything an operational matter and we won't tell Australians anything about it? I mean, that line was used today in the Senate chamber. I didn't see the House because obviously weve got a Question Time
SPEERS: (inaudible) there as well?
WONG: No but in the Senate Chamber to justify not answering a question about asylum seekers on the mainland, actually in Australia, now if someone can explain to me how a question about asylum seekers at blatant point on the Australian mainland is somehow an operational matter that will flag something really significant about our policies, well, let's hear it.
SPEERS: And finally, Kevin Rudd, are you sorry to see him go?
WONG: Look, I am very sorry to see the pain that so much of this last period has caused him and his family. I think it has been a very difficult thing to observe and, you know, I think it has been very sad also to see the sort of insults which is were thrown at Prime Minister Gillard. I said this morning I'm really grateful personally to Kevin, he gave me an opportunity to be a Cabinet Minister in the Labor Government and thats what you come into Parliament to do. And he gave me that opportunity, both by winning the election and by putting me in the Cabinet. I wish him well. He achieved enormous things not only leading us to Government but as Prime Minister, many of which were spoken about last night.
SPEERS: Penny Wong, thank you.
WONG: Good to speak to you.