Penny Wong

by Simons, Margaret;

  Wong had agonised over whether to make a public announcement of the pregnancy. But, on advice, she accepted the impossibility of keeping it secret, and knew that, in the context of the impending party debate, trying to do so would only make the invasive publicity worse. Getting the news out early was best. Her office released a brief statement on 9 August 2011 that stated the biological father was known to them. His identity would also be known to the child, but they would otherwise keep private the details of the pregnancy. ‘Like any expecting parents, the prospect of welcoming this child into our lives fills us both with joy,’ the statement said, and asked the media to respect their privacy.8

  Fat chance. In newsrooms across the world, journalists immediately began scrabbling for the few public images of Sophie Allouache and Penny Wong together – one at the Canberra Midwinter Ball the previous year, another from when Wong was sworn into the Rudd ministry. Radio talkback lines ran hot. Television news went into overdrive; the ABC’s The Drum even devoted a segment to the pregnancy.

  It seemed that everyone had an opinion. New South Wales Christian Democratic MP Fred Nile said the conception should not have happened and should not have been made public: ‘It just promotes their lesbian lifestyle and trying to make it natural when it’s unnatural.’9 Julia Gillard congratulated the couple and was, inevitably, asked whether it was fair that they could not marry. She responded that the ‘strongly held views’ in the party would be debated at the national conference and protested that she was a long-term friend of Wong and happy for her.10 Sarah Hanson-Young said it was ‘wonderful news’. South Australian premier Jay Weatherill – referred to in news reports as Penny Wong’s former partner – said that Wong and Allouache were ‘a lovely couple’ and would make wonderful parents. New South Wales Liberal senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells asserted that children were entitled to both a father and a mother. Terri Kelleher of the Australian Family Association told Channel Seven ‘they can be good parents but neither of them can be a good father’.11 A columnist based in the Middle East wrote about the pregnancy for an Arabic newspaper published in London and opined, ‘Here, I thank God we are backwards.’12

  At a media conference on the day of her announcement, Wong tried to talk about the business of government – recently released monthly financial statements – but inevitably ended up answering questions about the pregnancy. ‘I think I’ve made it clear how I want to handle this,’ she said, and maintained that line.

  Meanwhile, hate mail began to flow into her office and dominate her social media feeds. The many congratulations on Twitter – some from people saying they wanted to have Wong’s baby – were balanced by the poison. Miranda Devine published a strange opinion piece saying that the pregnancy was a cause of ‘private celebration’ but should not be publicly celebrated. ‘The unorthodox situation of a lesbian artificially inseminated with the sperm of a male “acquaintance” we are supposed to laud as if it were the Second Coming, the wonderful precursor of what The New York Times once lauded as the “post-marital” future … it is politically incorrect to say so but the ideal situation for a child is to be brought up in an intact family with a father and a mother.’13 The comedian and ‘professional homosexual’ Tom Ballard posted a thirteen-minute YouTube video in response to Devine, titled ‘Miranda Devine: what the f&*k are you talking about?’14 It went viral.

  By 15 August, six days after the announcement, her office having withstood the most intense pressure, Penny Wong was again being interviewed on the Australian economy and whether she thought the federal budget would return to an increasingly chimerical surplus.15 Behind the scenes, the couple continued to get some hate mail. That continues to the present day, as does homophobia on Twitter.

  *

  In her memoir My Story, Julia Gillard describes same-sex marriage as ‘the most explosive’ issue at the 2011 national party conference. She claims that, despite what Kevin Rudd was saying publicly at the time, she was personally in favour of civil unions; she had only helped put a lid on the debate at the national conference in 2009 ‘at Kevin’s request’. She argues that her position is not that same-sex marriage is too radical, but rather that it is not radical enough. Marriage itself is an archaic institution. ‘While my own reasoning and position were undoubtedly idiosyncratic, I nevertheless created the space for Labor to have the debate and resolve it.’

  This is indisputable. By bringing the national conference forward, Gillard allowed it to be a genuine debate and airing of divisions rather than the stage-managed display of unity that would have been necessary had it been held closer to the 2013 election.

  But, as the conference approached, it became clear that Gillard was likely to face a humiliating defeat on the issue. The party’s two most prominent gay politicians – Penny Wong from the Left and Andrew Barr, the Australian Capital Territory deputy chief minister, from the Right – were to move and second the motion that the party policy on same-sex marriage be changed. Michelle Grattan, doyen of the press gallery, described it as a ‘pincer movement’ with Gillard in its grip.

  Gillard had staged a tactical retreat. Realising she would likely lose the substantive motion, she was appealing for enough support for a compromise motion – to allow Labor MPs a conscience vote when the issue came before the parliament. Grattan said: ‘Losing the conscience vote would be a disaster for Ms Gillard, who has put her authority on the line over it.’16 Penny Wong and most of the Left would oppose the conscience vote.

  On the Friday before the key vote, Gillard appealed to factional leaders and senior cabinet ministers – including Anthony Albanese, the parliamentary party’s longest-standing campaigner for gay rights, and by now a close ally of Penny Wong. They agreed to help her save face by backing a conscience vote.

  The motion came before conference on 3 December, a Saturday, and the second day of the gathering. Ardent speeches were given on both sides. Joe de Bruyn, national president of the Shoppies, protested that ‘since the dawn of humanity’ marriage had been the union of a man and a woman.17 Senator Doug Cameron roared, ‘Prime Minister, you are wrong. Ministers, you are wrong.’18

  Wong’s speech struck the same notes as at the South Australian conference a year before. She said Labor’s current platform ‘makes it clear that not all Australians are equal’.

  If instead lesser rights were proposed on the basis of race or age or class or any other attribute, there would not be a person in this hall who would countenance it. But until now our party has accepted it and we should accept it no longer … So do not treat us differently. Do not ask us any longer to accept our relations being treated as lesser. Less worthy, less valued, simply because of the gender of our partner … There is nothing so persistent as the aspiration for equality.19

  She knew, when delivering this speech, that the battle on changing the platform was won. They had the numbers.

  The Australian Labor Party voted on the voices to change the platform in favour of legal same-sex marriage. While the numbers were not counted, it was clearly an overwhelming victory. Along with the core of Left support were dozens of Right delegates who thought the time for change had come.20

  The issue was now whether Labor MPs would be allowed a conscience vote when the issue came before parliament – and Julia Gillard’s attempts to save face.

  In a compromise brokered behind closed doors, a motion was passed 208–184 allowing MPs a conscience vote when legislation for same-sex marriage came before the parliament. Apart from saving the dignity of the prime minister, many – including Albanese – were convinced to back this policy due to the knowledge that otherwise some Labor parliamentarians would cross the floor, meaning they would be expelled from the party. Labor MPs from marginal seats with high numbers of religiously conservative migrants protested they couldn’t sell the issue in their electorates; Labor would lose seats at the next election.

  The vote was close enough to mean that while Gillard was saved from an embarrassing defeat, the limits of her authority were expose
d. She now led a party with a policy on same-sex marriage that she did not support.

  Penny Wong was gracious in partial victory. Asked whether Gillard’s leadership had been damaged, she said no, and that instead it showed ‘something about the measure of the woman that she is willing to allow this forum of the conference to do what it wanted to do, which is to have a full and frank debate. I think all of us are very grateful for that.’21 It took Graham Richardson, the senior powerbroker who had come to Penny Wong’s defence on Q&A months before, to outline what the stakes had been. Had Gillard been defeated, she would have been ‘finished, and God knows who would be leading a bunch of defeated demoralised ministers in a headlong burst to the cliff’. Meanwhile, said Richardson, Penny Wong was ‘the belle of the ball’.22

  That night, Wong attended a celebration of what she later described as an historic change. She didn’t stay long. She went out for a quiet dinner.

  In February 2012, when Labor MP Stephen Jones brought a private member’s bill on legalising same-sex marriage before the House of Representatives, it was defeated 98–42. Tony Abbott had refused to grant his party a conscience vote. Turnbull declared that if there had been a conscience vote, he would have voted in favour – but he maintained party solidarity, and the Coalition voted unanimously against the bill. Thirty-eight Labor parliamentarians had voted in favour and twenty-six, including Gillard, against.23 The Greens brought forward another bill that year. It lapsed without a vote. Labor senators Carol Brown, Trish Crossin, Gavin Marshall and Louise Pratt tried again in September 2012. The bill was defeated 41–26 in the Senate, with eleven Labor parliamentarians voting against. During the debate, Liberal senator Cory Bernardi said that if same-sex marriage was allowed, the next step might be sexual relations between humans and animals.24 The head of a Christian lobby group, Jim Wallace, said gay lifestyles were more dangerous to health than smoking. Asked what she made of this comment in an interview with Emma Alberici, Penny Wong said, ‘I think it only has to be said to be demonstrated to be ridiculous.’25 They went on to discuss the government’s attempt to achieve a surplus.

  In 2013, Sarah Hanson-Young made two attempts to introduce a bill on same-sex marriage. One lapsed without a vote; the other was defeated 44–28, with twelve Labor senators voting against.

  In May Wong again joined a Q&A panel, this one including Joe Hockey, then the shadow treasurer. An audience member asked how Hockey could claim that all Australians were equal and yet vote against same-sex marriage. He said he thought that having a mother and a father was best for a child.

  Penny Wong responded, ‘When you say those things, Joe, what you’re saying, [to] not just me but people like me, is that the most important thing in our lives, which is the people we love, is somehow less good, less valued.’

  Tony Jones asked, ‘Is it hurtful?’

  ‘Of course it is, but I know what my family is worth.’26

  It was, as one commentator put it, a moment of ‘remarkable grace and honesty … from her heart, unconstrained by the need to follow whatever script was issued that day from head office’.27

  After Tony Abbott took government in September 2013, there were eight more attempts up until mid-2015. All of them lapsed.

  The issue was deadlocked. Either the Liberal Party had to grant a conscience vote or Labor had to disallow one. Until then, same-sex marriage would remain illegal.

  *

  On Sunday, 11 December 2011, eight days after the change in Labor Party platform and nine days before her due date, Sophie Allouache gave birth to a girl at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital in North Adelaide. Three days later, on the Wednesday, the birth was announced and a single image of the family released to the media. The statement again asked for their privacy to be respected.

  They named the baby Alexandra, Sophie’s middle name. Sophie had not wanted to know the child’s gender before birth, so they had also picked out other names – ‘all Old Testament’, Penny Wong remarks. Had Alexandra been a boy, she would have been called Benjamin. As is the tradition in Chinese families, Francis Wong, the child’s grandfather, chose the Chinese middle names. Tian, which means ‘heaven’, is a generational name. Alexandra’s other name is Chen, which translates roughly as ‘dawn’ or ‘morning light’.

  Penny Wong took a month off after the birth. When her office issued the birth announcement, Penny and Sophie were experiencing all the sleep-deprived joy and stress of first-time parenthood. They were paranoid about co-sleeping, having read up on the risks of suffocation – but Alexandra would not sleep alone. Wong recalls, ‘After the first two nights I thought, If we don’t do something, Sophie is going to die. So I worked out if I slept on the living-room floor without a pillow, there would be nothing for her to suffocate under. And I just lay her on my chest and then she would sleep.’

  Alexandra has grown to be a bright, assertive and emotionally intense child, says Wong. Parenthood is the most difficult job she has ever held. Most parents would say that, but given the other jobs she has done, for Penny Wong it is quite a statement.

  ‘Kids are wonderful. They are the best thing in your life. You hear people say that, but it’s actually true. It’s a joyful, moving and humbling experience. But there is nothing in your life where you make so many mistakes so often. And that’s OK. None of us are perfect.

  ‘You have the care of these kids, not just in a real physical way, but you are trying to foster their spirits and their identity and give them safety but also joy and stimulation and develop who they are. It’s beautiful and miraculous and it operates at so many levels.’

  Today, Sophie is the primary caregiver for their children. Penny tries to compensate for being so often away by phoning and texting the children daily with ‘lots of emojis’. At the time of writing Alexandra is seven years old, almost eight. She has taken to composing letters to her friends, and checks the mailbox daily. Penny has started writing her letters as well.

  It was when Alexandra told Penny that she should be proud of her public profile that the attitude to this biography, for a while at least, began to shift from reluctant partial cooperation to something more positive.

  But, as the 2019 election approached, Alexandra told her mother that she didn’t want the Australian Labor Party to win. She knew what it would mean: more absence. Wong told me this in our last interview before the election. I commented that it must be hard, knowing your daughter didn’t want you to win when every other part of your being was focused on achieving victory.

  ‘That’s hard,’ she agreed.

  *

  By the time Wong returned to work in February 2012, after Alexandra’s birth and a brief summer holiday, the Canberra press gallery was again in a fever of leadership speculation. Kevin Rudd, now foreign minister, was said to be considering mounting a challenge to Gillard. It was one of the first things Wong was asked about by the media, along with the mining tax and the perpetually receding surplus.

  The ministers supporting Gillard had changed tack. They were now urged to talk openly about Rudd’s shortcomings. Simon Crean had been on radio accusing his former leader of not being a team player, stating that Rudd had to accept he couldn’t be prime minister again. Gillard’s office had encouraged him to speak, but he went in harder than Gillard had intended.28

  Penny Wong told the media that she had made a New Year’s resolution. She wouldn’t engage in any comment or speculation on leadership matters.29 She was forced to break that resolution only three days later, insisting that Julia Gillard was the right person to lead the party and had her full support.30 Meanwhile, Gillard presented her with a little cardigan she had knitted for baby Alexandra over the summer break. Gillard had also knitted two squares for a campaign blanket that was auctioned off to raise funds for the party.31 In knitting, too, the personal tangled with the political.

  Wong continued her attempts to bat away leadership questions throughout February. She was, commented one journalist, ‘a rock in the stormy seas engulfing the Gillard govern
ment’.32 It seemed that every day brought another leak. First, it was revealed that Julia Gillard’s staff had drafted a speech for her to give on becoming leader long before, on her own account, she had contemplated any such move. Then a video of a furious, foul-mouthed Kevin Rudd appeared on YouTube. Rudd thought Gillard’s office leaked it. Gillard maintains she had no idea where it came from.33

  On 22 February, Rudd, who was in Washington, announced his resignation as the minister for foreign affairs, citing Crean’s attack and making it clear he was preparing for a leadership challenge. Gillard announced that a spill would be held at 10.00 am on Monday 27 February.

  The announcement led to the ministers who backed Gillard unleashing another storm of Rudd criticism. For months, they had held back in the interests of party solidarity; now they were given carte blanche. Deputy prime minister Wayne Swan damned Rudd as ‘dysfunctional’; Tony Burke said that ‘the stories … of the chaos, of the temperament, of the inability to have decisions made – they are not stories’. Nicola Roxon declared she could not work with Rudd again; Stephen Conroy said that Rudd had harboured ‘contempt’ for his colleagues, the parliament and the public. It was an awful, devastatingly destructive public lashing. It did Gillard no good. On the morning of the leadership spill Newspoll showed that, among the public, Rudd was ahead of Gillard as preferred leader by a factor of almost two to one.

  Amid this public bloodletting, Penny Wong was restrained. The leadership ballot, she said, was about ‘resolving this issue once and for all’. She would be backing Gillard. ‘I think she is the best person to lead the party, the government and the nation.’ She baulked at joining in the river of vitriol against Rudd. ‘I am not someone who gets into the details of personality and other issues,’ she told ABC Radio. ‘I served Kevin Rudd loyally as a cabinet minister. I now serve in Prime Minister Gillard’s cabinet. I have made the judgement very clearly that the right person to lead the country is Prime Minister Gillard.’34 The following day, she called on Rudd to give up his leadership aspirations if defeated. The only way the party could recover from the damaging stoush was if the leadership vote resolved the issue.35