E&OE…………………………………………

Alan Jones: Christopher Pyne, good morning.

Christopher Pyne: Good morning Alan.

Jones: Thank you for your time. You’re the manager of Opposition Business. Just explain to my listeners who maps out this strategy that’s applied in question time.

Pyne: That’s primarily my responsibility to work on tactics and strategy in the chamber. And obviously the leadership group; Tony Abbott, Julie Bishop, Joe Hockey, myself, and then we have a questions committee which talks about how to hold the Government to account in question time and on matters of public importance. So it’s a team approach, but if it all goes wrong, it’s my fault.

Jones: So what is the strategy in 2012?

Pyne: Well, obviously we want to continue what we did last year, which is to hold the Government to account for its promises. That’s proving difficult because the Prime Minister is adept at breaking them. We also want to get to the bottom of why the Fair Work Inquiry into Craig Thomson is taking such an inordinate amount of time, it’s taking longer than the Korean War, longer than it took to build Sydney’s Olympic Stadium. We also want to find out what the Prime Minister knew and what her office was up to in the Australia Day protest only about 10 days ago. And of course there’s the whole issue of the Prime Minister’s credibility given her extraordinary broken promise to Andrew Wilkie, which was the basis of the forming of the Government. People need to understand that Julia Gillard signed a contract with Andrew Wilkie to get his support to be Prime Minister, which she has torn up at the beginning of this year and of course we also want to ensure if we can possibly do it stop the carbon tax from coming in before an election so that once we’ve had an election so that we can make sure it never happens.

Jones: It does defy belief. I heard your comments yesterday. It does defy belief this Thomson affair does it now that this inquiry has taken longer than the Watergate trials, longer than the Korean War, longer than the construction of the Olympic Stadium, longer than the life of the Rudd Government. I said earlier today, I repeated last week Tony Abbott’s points; longer than the Wood Royal Commission into police in New South Wales, longer than the Fitzgerald Royal Commission, longer than the Cole Royal Commission into the building. This to investigate a bloke spending $100,000 of union money on himself, what is going on there?

Pyne: Well clearly Alan there’s an institutional go-slow and there’s evidence….

Jones: Something’s at risk for the Government.

Pyne: Yes well of course the Government is at risk because Craig Thompson is a vote in their Parliament and they rely on his support to remain in office. Without Craig Thompson the Government will fall. So Fair Work Australia and the Government have been working together, we know that, there’s evidence of emails of collusion between Fair Work Australia and the Government over the massaging of the media lines. We want the Prime Minister to commit to revealing all the communications between Fair Work Australia and the Government, that’s the least she should do, but obviously Fair Work Australia must bring this investigation to a close because it just hangs a cloud of illegitimacy over a government that relies on the tainted vote of Craig Thomson.

Jones: Everywhere you turn, every poll you see suggests that by a mile Kevin Rudd is the preferred Labor Leader. Should Kevin Rudd become the leader? Would that require new strategies? Would that inject new fears into the Opposition? New risks? Or would you be just as comfortable dealing with him as Julia Gillard in terms of the past record of both leaders?

Pyne: Alan, the problem with this Government is not just the personnel, not just the fact that there is a massive leadership unrest and tension between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. Sure that makes the government look chaotic and shambolic but the real problem with this government is its policies. Its border protection policies and it was Kevin Rudd who dismantled the Howard Government’s border protection policies not Julia Gillard although she’s wearing it now. Kevin Rudd was the person who began the whole process towards a carbon tax. Julia Gillard has implemented it but Kevin Rudd was part of that at the very beginning, he wanted to put an emissions trading scheme into place before Copenhagen.

Jones: The greatest moral challenge of our time he called it.

Pyne: That’s right. So, you know, Kevin Rudd is as much attached to the carbon tax and the failed border protection policy and the massive spending that is causing so much trouble in our economy and to our budget bottom line as Julia Gillard is. So if Kevin Rudd was to become the Prime Minister, it wouldn’t take the Opposition very long to remind people who was the person who started the biggest deficits in Australia’s political history, who started to dismantle the border protection policies and who started the pathway towards a carbon tax.

Jones: You made a speech yesterday on education to the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute Forum. You are the Shadow Minister and will most probably be the next Minister for Education. Now admittedly it was a specific subject namely maths for the future and I know you’ve done a heap of work on all of this. Can I just ask you this for a start: you talk about a strong mathematics and science education system needed and you outline ten principles that would underpin your approach to student funding but how are we going to have better science and maths graduates if we don’t have adequate maths and science teachers?

Pyne: Well you’re right about that and it’s very much a chicken and egg argument. We won’t have better maths and science teachers unless children in school are learning maths and science. And half the reason we don’t have enough maths and science teachers is because students throughout their schooling aren’t necessarily attracted to maths and science. When they leave school they’re not going to suddenly become maths and science teachers if they didn’t do it at school.

Jones: But then why wouldn’t you see – what just concerned me – I know it was a specific subject you were addressing and you’ve addressed these issues before but people listening to you now as the likely next Minister, federal Minister for Education, saying the thing that worries me is content. I’m worried about what my kids are being taught. And I note that the Nobel Prize winner, Professor Schmidt, has said yesterday that many Australian children, too many Australian children are being taught quote ‘by teachers without the competency required to teach the subjects their teaching.’ That’s not the teacher’s fault he said, it’s the system’s fault.

Pyne: That’s right.

Jones: Now if we want more science teachers then shouldn’t we build a bias into the HECS system whereby they actually are able to go to university, well for nothing, so long as we indenture them into the teaching profession for a period of time after that.

Pyne: Well Alan, that is one option and it’s certainly worth considering. What I said in my speech yesterday is that in the last thirty years the schooling system has been skewed towards teaching children skills and what we need to be teaching children is knowledge. Because once things change, as professions change and skill-sets change, if all you’ve been taught is how to text or how to use a computer or whatever else then you won’t be able to change with the times. And the whole basis of our education system decades ago was a knowledge based system built around science, mathematics, English, classics, history and so on. And we were taught about things not just how things happen. And I think the tremendous change we need to bring about in education which I will do if I am Minister is send the education system back to a knowledge based system rather than a skills based system so that when people learn about algebra and trigonometry and mathematics and calculus they can then understand…

Jones: The thing that worries me is content, I’m worried about what my kids are being taught, and I note that the Noble Prize winner professor Schmidt has said yesterday that many of Australian children, too many of Australian children are being taught by teachers without the competency required to teach the subjects that they are teaching, that’s not the teachers fault he said it’s the systems fault.

Pyne: He’s right.

Jones: Yeah, now if we want more science teachers, shouldn’t we build a bias into the HECS system whereby they actually are able to go to university well for
nothing so long as we indenture them into the teaching profession for a period of time after that.

Pyne: Well Allan that is one option and it’s certainly worth considering. What I said in my speech yesterday was that the last 30 years the schooling system has been skewed toward teaching children skills, and what we need to be teaching children is knowledge, because once things change as professions change and skill sets change, if all you have been taught is how to text or how to use a computer or whatever else, then you wont be able to change with the times and the whole basis of our education system decades ago was a knowledge based system built around science, mathematics, english, classics, history and so on, and we were taught about things, not just how things happen and I think one of the tremendous changes we need to bring about in education which I will do if I’m Minister is send the education system back to a knowledge based system, rather than a skills based system so that when people learn about algebra, trigonometry and mathematics and calculus they can then understand how that works.

Jones: Does that include grammar, punctuation, syntax and spelling?

Pyne: Absolutely, that would be the same in English, we wouldn’t be using the whole language learning system that we use now, and we would use the phonetic system which is the system where you learn why it sounds a particular way, so when people learn about algebra, trigonometry and mathematics and calculus they can then understand how that works.

Jones: We just had the 200th anniversary of Dickens birth, and a whole heap of kids out there had never heard of him.

Pyne: This is the tragedy. It is a tragedy when you elevate text messaging and movies to the same level as Shakespeare.

ones: See we just had a report from the Australian Curriculum and assessment reporting authority on the revised history curriculum, now the greens and the national sorry day committee, excuse me I nearly burped saying that, objected to the fact that the earlier draft curriculum didn’t introduce the study of the stolen generations until year 10, so now we’ll have national sorry day on the 26th may commemorating the forced removal of aboriginal children, and that will be taught to all Australian children from year three. Now, I don’t think it matters what event is the subject of historical analysis, so long the analysis is accurate and all sides are presented and as you know there were many reasons why children were removed many of them for example were removed because they could have been killed from their tribes because they were not full blooded aborigines. See it’s this kind of invasion of this stuff into the curriculum that is worrying the mums and dads that are listening to you now.

Pyne: Well Allan, I have four children, two in grade six, one in grade four, and one who’s not yet at school, the one in grade four, honesty, I don’t believe that when he was in grade three he would have had the sophistication, as much as I love him, I just don’t think he would have had the sophistication in grade three to understand all the issues associated with the matters you’re talking about.

Jones: But they are taught today that carbon tax is a pollutant in primary school, they know all about global warming, but they can’t spell. I mean there are kids that have come out of school thinking the word ‘u – n –d –a – u – b – t –e –d –l – y’ and they say ‘I would of gone to the cricket if it hadn’t been raining’, I mean their language is poor, but they know all about global warming and carbon dioxide and the stolen generation.

Pyne: Well, that’s why I said yesterday in my speech that we need to return to a more traditional method of teaching that we need to have a knowledge based education system, we need to have a proper understanding of the basics in education rather than a simply elevated system.

Jones: How do you do this? How do you do this? This is now engrained, it’s like turning around the Queen Mary.

Pyne: I think there are a lot of Principals and senior people in the education system, who thinks exactly the same way, but they don’t have any opportunity to do what they want to do because everything is controlled in the state education system through central office. What I said in my speech yesterday, is that we will link the Federal government $3.8 billion of funding for public schools that goes to the states to be spent in those schools to genuine Principal autonomy which will give Principals the freedom that they want and desire to do what they need to do in their schools.

Jones: That’s a very good point because to use the very base measuring stick of wealth I mean if a community has an outstanding school doing the sorts of things that you’re talking about where content is pre-eminent where literature, languages science and maths are well taught people would want to live in that community, housing values go up and so on. So obviously there’s autonomy about the principal as to what will happen in my school.

Pyne: Well that’s what people want, that’s want parents want, its what principals want and all the overseas studies and even Australian studies that have been done here by a man called Brian Caldwell indicate that principal autonomy is one of the driving factors in the outcomes for students in their achievements, in their aptitude and in their future employment and whether they will go to university and get further education. So, we will be unabashed in our drive for autonomy in the school system.

Jones: But Professor Schmidt yesterday talking about science and maths you’re going to have to do something about that to get people into the science and maths faculties at universities and you might have to build a bias into the funding so that these people are encouraged by scholarship to take up those disciplines.

Pyne: And that’s why teach for Australia a program that been coming out of Melbourne and has been running said yesterday in the United Kingdom for some time is all about getting people who are Economics graduates, Science graduates, Maths graduates into teaching rather than going into….

Jones: But on salaries that can compete, are we paying them enough?

Pyne: Well, we’ll be able to do a lot of those things if we give the flexibility to the system that isn’t there now.

Jones: See the irony of this is Julia Gillard spent $16 billion of taxpayers money on school halls and building the rest of it rather than .. I mean if you’re a good teacher you can teach on a hot tin roof but the content is the issue I mean good teachers is the issue isn’t it?

Pyne: Well Alan, imagine this, imagine a situation where a principal could save money in their own school through their own measure and then keep those savings and spend them on priorities in the school. Rather than every decision being made by NSW Education Central office down to how many pencils a principal can have in their school.

Jones: How did we get to this, how did we get to this?

Pyne: Ideology

Jones: Ideology, you’re right you’re right it’s frightening and there’s parents out there generally concerned about what’s happening in the schools. Thankfully you’ve got four kids so you’re going through all this yourself. I thank you for you’re time and you’ve got a hell of a lot of work to do but you’re doing a great job on that front. We’ll talk again.

Pyne: Thanks Allan

ENDS

“Presented with an opportunity to make a statement during proceedings the Gillard Government instead voted against having a debate on the issue,” Mr Pyne said.

“As this was the most serious breach of a Prime Minister’s security in thirty years it warranted a full debate and explanation from Ms Gillard to the Parliament,” he said.

“Instead the Prime Minister suggested it was some sort of triviality and a waste of time, an extraordinary claim when contemplating the graphic images of her own extraction from the Lobby restaurant on 26th of January.

“It is equally extraordinary that this physical extraction was necessary because a staff member in the Prime Minister’s office – supposedly the highest elected office in this country – had a hand in causing it.

“While the questions regarding the events and the involvement of her office remain unanswered a stench will hang over the Prime Minister’s office.

“For example, the Prime Minister denied today that members of her media unit were briefing the press gallery on Thursday afternoon that the Leader of the Opposition had caused the riot, despite media reporting to the contrary.

“Ms Gillard refused to adequately explain why her former staff member, Tony Hodges was forced to resign if, as she was at pains to point out, he had faithfully relayed the Leader of the Opposition’s comments on Australia Day.

“The facts, as put by the Prime Minister, simply do not add up,” Mr Pyne said.

February 8, 2012

 
The sixteen questions needing to be answered are:

1. What precisely did the Prime Minister’s staff say to Kim Sattler on Australian Day that would have lead her to instigate the subsequent events? If the Prime Minister expects us to believe that her staff related Mr Abbott’s words exactly, why did Kim Sattler write on Facebook and in an email to 3AW that Mr Abbott had suggested the Tent Embassy be cleared?

2. Did Mr Hodges speak to any other activists or protesters on Australia Day in relation to the events that were unfolding at The Lobby Restaurant? If so, who and what was the content of those conversations?

3. Why were the Prime Minister’s media advisers telling Press Gallery journalists on Thursday afternoon that Mr Abbott had started a riot if they weren’t trying to gain political mileage from the events of Australia Day? Who were those staff members? Has any action been taken in her office in relation to those staff?

4. Who were the other three PMO staff at The Lobby on Thursday when Mr Tony Hodges was communicating with Kim Sattler of ACT Unions at the Tent Embassy Protest? Have they been questioned as to their involvement in the events of that day? Can she guarantee that no other staff were involved in the events that led to the Australia Day affray?

5. Does the Prime Minister accept that an unhealthy culture has developed in her office that would elevate dirty tricks above addressing the serious policy changes that beset the nation at the current time?

6. What conversations occurred between her head of communications, Mr John McTernan and Kim Sattler on Friday, Saturday or Sunday? What was the content of those conversations that would lead Kim Sattler to describe herself as being “the meat in the sandwich”?

7. Did any conversations occur between the Prime Minister’s Office and Ms Kim Sattler on Sunday that would cause her to alter her account of her interaction with the Prime Minister’s staff from the one she gave the News Ltd papers on Saturday?

8. Did Mr Hodges, when passing on Mr Abbott’s comments, make any mention of his remarks on the historic apology in 2008 or the proposal for recognition of indigenous Australians in the constitution?

9. When Mr Hodges informed his “immediate superiors” on Australia Day of his phone calls to the office of the ACT Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Ms Sattler, who else was subsequently told about the events? Who, in turn, did they tell? Why wasn’t the Prime Minister told for close to 24 hours? Once being informed on Friday afternoon, why didn’t the Prime Minister immediately tell the public rather than waiting until after 6pm that night?
10. Was Mr Hodges required to sign a confidentiality agreement or an agreement of non-disclosure upon his resignation from the Prime Minister’s Office?

11. When initially making contact with the office of Chris Bourke, ACT Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, to whom did Mr Hodges speak? What was the content of that conversation? During that conversation, was the suggestion made that Mr Hodges speak to anyone else? Who made that suggestion?

12. Has anyone in the Prime Minister’s Office spoken to senior AFP figures in relation to the events on Australia Day?

13. Given the gravity of the events on Australia Day, has the Prime Minister or her Chief of Staff initiated a review of their internal processes?

14. To whom did the Prime Minister’s staffers, Sean Kelly and John McTernan speak once they were informed of events by Mr Hodges on Thursday? While they were working to establish the facts, did they speak to anyone else in the Prime Minister’s Office, other ministerial offices, or to other Labor or union figures?

15. When did Mr Kelly or Mr McTernan inform Mr Ben Hubbard of the matters raised with them by Tony Hodges?

16. What instructions did any member of the PMO convey to Labor Members of Parliament on Australia Day about the use of social media, including Facebook and Twitter, about the events that had occurred?

E&OE………………………………………

Leon Byner: Christopher, do you honestly believe you’ll be able to achieve this?

Christopher Pyne: Well, I do Leon, yes, because the federal government is really the level of Government that really has the purse strings and while state governments fund public schools and the federal government non-government schools we have many programs amounting to several or many billions of dollars are also pumped into government schools. I think working with the states, particularly new Coalition states like New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and hopefully Queensland, many people in the Coalition think we need to get back to that traditional method of schooling rather than the progressive method, which has dominated for several decades.

Byner: Are you talking a whole of language approach?

Pyne: That’s one example. That is one example in terms of the teaching of English, but there are many examples and what I believe education is about is building knowledge of a student; building the whole student. It’s not about skilling students and while that’s an unfashionable argument, it’s an argument we need to have in Australia today. There is a blind acceptance among the education elite that skilling students is what education is about. In fact it used to be about building knowledge so that as professions change, as trades change whoever is in those jobs can shift to another job because they have the general knowledge and the basis of learning which they learnt at school; that if you learn an obsolete skill then when those skills are no longer required, the education system has let you down.

Byner: But knowledge is not obsolete.

Pyne: Knowledge is never obsolete.

Byner: It’s highly portable. Can I put something to you? All this education is a real issue for Australia and boys now are seen as problems and boys get the raw end of the stick in terms of the way we teach, even the way we examine. What is your government going to do if it gets to be in Government?

Pyne: Well, we are going to do a number of very important things. The first one is to introduce genuine autonomy at the school level decision making to the local community and the local school. We trust principals and parents to make the best decisions for their students. We will weaken the power of central office and the bureaucracy and we will strengthen the decision making at the local level giving principals more autonomy. All the overseas studies show, not all, but what many of the overseas studies show and even studies conducted in Australia show that schools with greater autonomy get more out of their students and those students are more likely to go onto tertiary education.

Byner: What’s your view of the new SACE in South Australia, which has been very controversial?

Christopher Pyne: Well it has been controversial and it continues the approach to education which seeks to deliver some would say outcomes rather than build the knowledge of individual students. For example a lot of the students I see through my office coming to see me about the fifth subject which is essentially the project subject, they tell me that they don’t want to be doing this project that they regard it as a second class option they would rather be doing fib=ve subjects so that universities and other tertiary institutions can rely on the result they get in Year 12.

Now, why we have to have four subjects plus a project is really beyond me but it continues that sense that schooling is made easier rather than lifting the student’s abilities – the system is settling to where the student’s abilities were before they were given the chance to grow.

Leon Byner: OK what’s your take on what’s going to happen in Canberra in the next few weeks? Do you think that there will be a leadership challenge or …everybody says that Rudd hasn’t got the numbers so if he hasn’t he’s not going to challenge is he?

Pyne: Well Leon, commentating about politics is your job and the job of the press gallery in Canberra; I’m an advocate so I don’t come to this with an unbiased view. I obviously think that the government should get their house in order. The loses from the chaos and the shambles that is currently the Labor Government are the Australian people. While their focussed on their internal divisions and their breaches of promise and who’s up and who’s down then their focussing on job security, border security and cost of living.

Byner: Let me ask you this, it’s a big issue at the moment that many jobs are going off shore. We’ve had the financial sector exporting good jobs overseas because they can get people to work for a third of the money. If the Coalition Government was in power, what would you do to curb this trend?

Pyne: Well obviously we need to make the economy strong enough that Westpac or other institutions and bodies corporate don’t feel they need to go off-shore in order to stay in business and what the first thing we could do Leon is to restore confidence to the Australian business community and to the Australian people. Last year in 2011 was the first year in twenty years when there was a no net jobs growth. So Australian people are hanging on to their money, retail is week, property prices are falling and that’s all because the Australian people don’t have confidence in the elected government so it all goes back to having an unambiguous government in Canberra that can get on with the job of doing what’s needed to address the day to day concerns of the Australian people rather than introducing a carbon tax which the economy doesn’t need and which is only going to export our emissions and not even help the environment.

ENDS

“It was an extraordinary display and suggests a Prime Minister under immense pressure, especially as it followed an answer from her leadership rival, Kevin Rudd, which was very well received by the Labor backbench,” said the Manager of Opposition Business, Christopher Pyne.

“The Government is suffering from leadership turmoil and the uncertainty that originates from the ongoing investigation into the Member for Dobell, Craig Thomson,” Mr Pyne said.

“The Prime Minister needs to answer many, many difficult questions.

“If Julia Gillard can’t defend her own Government in Question Time, then perhaps it’s time to go to an election and let the people decide,” he said.

February 7, 2012

E&OE………………………………………

Kieran Gilbert: Mr. Pyne thanks so much for your time, a busy day, and a busy year ahead. I want to ask you a bit about your portfolio in a moment. But first of all, on the politics of the day, we have just heard from Wayne Swan who has attacked Andrew Robb for not committing to a surplus in the first term of an Abbott government, why has he done that? Why hasn’t he committed to that?

Christopher Pyne: Well Kieran, being lectured by Wayne Swan on surpluses is like being lectured on drug reform by cheech and chong. Wayne Swan has never delivered a surplus budget. He has had four budgets; everyone of them has been a deficit. They racked 167 billion dollars of deficits and they came to power when there was a 22 billion dollar surplus. They came to power with 76 billion dollars in the bank and we now have a 133 dollar net debt position from the commonwealth government. So Wayne Swan should really just get his blocks and his play things and go somewhere else because nobody is taking him seriously as a treasurer. When labour delivers a surplus, then they can start lecturing the coalition on fiscal rectitude and fiscal management.

Gilbert: Well they are on track to deliver a surplus in 2012/2013.

Pyne: Well they have been saying that for years…

Gilbert: Well he has reiterated that again today, despite the softness in the global economy that is something that the Coalition hasn’t been willing to do.

Pyne: The Government’s numbers change every six months Kieran. MYEFO changed last year, we will see how the numbers change in this year’s budget. The numbers change every six months at least with this Government. They are utterly unreliable and all that Andrew Robb has said is when we get into power, and hopefully we will, and we can see what the books are, then we will be in a better position to say when our first surplus will be delivered. We aren’t backing away from the need to rein in spending and reduce taxes and take the burden off the Australian people, of course we’re not. But we’re not going to be lectured by Wayne Swan on surpluses.

Gilbert: He says that your books aren’t in order to begin with and that Joe Hockey last night on the ABC in now denying that there is a 70 billion dollar issue that the coalition has to deal with in terms of funding your commitments. Is it 70 billion dollars or is it less than that.

Pyne: Well Kieran we are not in Government, so we don’t have any books. I mean the sadness for this government is that they have been behaving like an Opposition for four years, four and a half years. They have never really taken on the handle of being in government and this just confirms Wayne Swan’s confusion. He is the government, we’re the opposition. By the next election we will have a set of policies with savings measures included, with our tax cuts included, and the fact that we are going to abolish the carbon tax; we will take that to the election. We are happy to put our fiscal record up against the Labor Party’s anytime. The last time the Labor party delivered a surplus was over 20 years ago before Wyatt Roy, the Member for Longman was even born, so lets not get carried away with Labor lecturing us on surpluses.

Gilbert: On the Parliament today, I’m not expecting you to give me your strategy straight off the bat, but obviously the Craig Thomson matter will be high on the Coalition’s agenda. Will you move a no confidence motion in the first week or so?

Pyne: Well Kieran, we will move a no confidence vote when it is appropriate to do so. But obviously this week we need to tease out from the government a number of issues about their integrity and one of those is the ongoing saga of the Fair Work inquiry into Craig Thomson which has now taken longer than it did to build the Olympic stadium in Sydney for the Sydney Olympics. It’s taken longer than the Korean War to start and finish. I mean Watergate took half the time of the Fair Work inquiry into Craig Thomson, so obviously we want to find out about this institutional go slow from Fair Work Australia. There’s the whole Australia day riots which are yet to be tested in the Parliament and the role the Prime Minister’s office played in those riots and of course the broken contract with Andrew Wilkie on pokies is yet to be discussed in the Parliament. All of those things need to be canvassed and we also of course want to continue to focus on job security, border security and the cost of living pressures.

Gilbert: You are the Shadow Minister for Education as well. Tonight you will be giving a speech in which you will be arguing that skills, essentially taking too much of a focus in our school system, that there needs to be a focus more on traditional schooling, on gaining knowledge. Can you give us a quick snapshot on what you are arguing on that?

Pyne: Well my speech today is about the ten principles which will underpin the Coalitions approach to school funding. Obviously beginning with choice and going through to every child being given some support from the Commonwealth Government. That outlines the speech. What I said in general is that education should be knowledge based not skills based. There’s a great confusion, if you like, a split personality in education in Australia about whether we should be teaching children skills like computing, or text messaging, or accounting or whether we should be teaching children knowledge based subjects, maths, science, the classics, English, languages; and I favour a more traditional approach to schooling which gives children the basics of knowledge so that if skills change overtime, their job can change because they’ve go the knowledge to do that.

Gilbert: That skills focus comes at a later point?

Pyne: Well if it’s to be vocation and training in schooling, which there should be, people should make that choice towards the end of their school period. They shouldn’t be dragged in that direction and stream too early in life.

Gilbert: I know you’ve got to get going, one last question relating to the procedure around the parliament. The Speaker apparently going to don a gown, a bit more pomp and ceremony, what do you think of that?

Pyne: Well I’m a great believer in more formality in the chamber so if the Speaker wants to introduce more formality I’m all for it.

Gilbert: And the gown and so on?

Pyne: Well if the Speaker wants to don a gown I’m all for that and I think we should have more formality in the chamber and if he wants to wear the wig, the Opposition certainly wouldn’t criticise him.

Gilbert: Christopher Pyne, thanks for your time.

Pyne: Pleasure.

ENDS

E&OE…………………………………………

Michael Rowland: Christopher Pyne, good morning.

Christopher Pyne: Good morning Michael.

Rowland: Now, we have those nervous leadership rumblings continuing, but at the same time there’s that Fairfax Nielsen Poll out this morning showing a jump in Ms Gillard’s preferred Prime Ministership rating and Labor’s primary vote. How do you explain that?

Pyne: Well, the polls come and go Michael, and after the summer break Government’s often rise in that period when beaching and tennis and so on is supposed to be on the agenda. Unfortunately with this Government the summer has been spent with Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard circling each other like two gunmen at the OK Corral with neither prepared to reach for the guns. Unfortunately the Government continues to be a shambles and a chaotic mess.

Rowland: And despite all of that for the first time in nine months Julia Gillard is the preffered Prime Minister over Tony Abbott. How do you explain that?

Pyne: Well, as I said, Government’s usually get a rise over the summer period. If the Government feels confident that they would win an election, then the Opposition would very much welcome one. I think the Australian public would also welcome an election. We had on the weekend Bill Shorten saying the Government won’t necessarily release the Fair Work Australia inquiry into Craig Thomson. Now I don’t think the public will tolerate an inquiry, which has taken three and a half years at least – still isn’t finished, longer than it took the Korean War to start and finish – then not being released publicly. The Government already exists with this tainted support with the member for Dobell and if it continues with a secret inquiry never released publicly it will call into question the very integrity of the Government.

Rowland: A lot of Australians may have indeed been playing tennis or sitting on the beach over the holiday period Christopher Pyne, but your leader Tony Abbott was exceedingly busy, and yet he’s still not getting traction with voters. What does the Coalition have to do to improve on that front?

Pyne: Tony Abbott is very busy, as is all his senior leadership team. Everyone is out working very hard because we think the Government is contemptible and we think it’s time to change the Government and I think the public are very sick of the ambiguity that the hung parliament brings to Australian politics. They’re sick of the soap opera, of broken promises, of the contract with Andrew Wilkie being ripped up, of the cross benchers constantly saying they might renegotiate their support of the Government or not. The only thing that’s going to resolve this Michael is not opinion polls, which come and go, but one poll; an election in which the public get to choose the party they want to actually govern the country clearly.

This morning we have figures showing the Government’s carbon tax will hit the economy by up to a trillion dollars by 2050 and 32 billion dollars by 2020 and yet the Government persists with the idea of introducing a carbon tax, which they never had a mandate for. Let’s take it to the election. Let’s take it to the people and give them a verdict on the carbon tax.

Rowland: At the same time the Government is signalling some of its strategy going into this week and into this session is to promote the tax cuts and pension increases that come with the carbon tax. Will that change the dynamics of this debate?

Pyne: Well, tax cuts and pension increases are illusory when people are being hit with increases in their cost of living because of the carbon tax. I mean it’s so crazy it’s amazing we even have to explain it, but what the Government is asking people to do is pay a greater tax in the carbon tax and then receive some of it back in compensation. Now, anybody who’s sensible would say lets not have the tax in the first place. Especially when it’s not going to reduce emissions world wide, our emissions are simply going to be exported overseas. So we’re paying more. Our real wages will be hit according to the treasury figures released today. Our economy will be hit and not grow as quickly as it should because of the carbon tax and all for nothing as our emissions are sent overseas.

Rowland: As the Manager of Opposition Business how is the Coalition strategising this very important first week of the parliamentary session?

Pyne: Our strategy is to keep holding the Government to account and we have since the last election, to keep focusing on the things that the Australian public care about; cost of living, job security, border security and allow the Government soap opera of their leadership to distract them, but not distract us. At least one political party ahs to be focused on solutions for the challenges Australia faces and that’s not the Labor Party at the moment. They’re only focussed internally and only thinking about what’s good for themselves, not what’s good for the Australian public.

ENDS

E&OE…………………………………………

EMMA ALBERICI: It's time for our Friday night forum.

Joining us tonight from our Canberra studio is the Minister for Trade, Craig Emerson, and from Adelaide we're joined by the Manager of Opposition Business in the House, Christopher Pyne.

Now, if we can just leave the elephant in the room for later – the question of leadership – I will start with you if I can, Craig Emerson.

The Prime Minister this week gave a speech in which she talked a lot about building a new economy. Why do we need a new economy when the one your party is presiding over is doing very well indeed, in fact, the envy of the world?

CRAIG EMERSON: It is arguably the strongest economy in the developed world. Associated with that strength is a very high Australian dollar, and what that means is that it is a two-speed economy where you've got mining going like the clappers, and other parts of the economy, particularly the export … or compete against imports are being affected adversely by that very high dollar.

The high dollar is a vote of confidence in the Australian economy, but what we're wanting to do is spread the benefits of economic growth more broadly so that everyone shares in it. And there's no better way of doing that, of course, than the mining tax which is designed to take some of those profits from the mining sector and then use those proceeds to improve the competitiveness of the other parts of the economy by cutting the company tax rate, providing small business tax breaks, and also increasing our national savings through an increase in the superannuation guarantee, so that's what the plan is.

The second part of that plan, of course, is to invest in future sources of productivity growth, a big new investment in education to build on the investment that has already taken place, particularly vocational education and training.

ALBERICI: Christopher Pyne, Tony Abbott also delivered a speech this week outlining his vision for the country, which will involve something in the order of $70 billion in spending cuts. For most people, that would be a very scary prospect?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, Emma, Tony Abbott didn't outline $70 billion worth of spending cuts at all.

ALBERICI: But he said that his aspiration is for a 1 per cent of GDP surplus which amounts to around $15 billion. On any estimate, that would have to involve some pretty savage cuts to spending?

PYNE: Well, Emma, it's important to get the facts right.

Joe Hockey said that he was aiming for a 1 per cent of GDP surplus, that was an aspiration. Tony Abbott didn't outline $70 billion worth of spending cuts. What Tony Abbott did say in his speech on Tuesday – and I was there – is that the Opposition, if we are elected, in an election maybe this year will do, as our number one priority, getting the budget back into a healthy surplus, delivering tax cuts by also abolishing the carbon tax and the mining tax which is an immediate tax cut to Australians, ending the spiral of spending that the Labor Party is on, stopping this constant borrowing in order to fund the Labor Party's spending addiction.

And then down the track, when we've returned the budget to a healthy surplus, we'll be able to do things like a national dental scheme, the national disability insurance scheme, and further tax cuts because rather than taking people's money and spending it, like the Labor Party has done, we would rather people make their own decisions about how they spend their hard earned dollars.

ALBERICI: Are you backing away then from this claim of a 1 per cent surplus because you've said then that that was something Joe Hockey said, but in your government he would be Treasurer, wouldn't he?

PYNE: No, Emma, I just think it's important to get the facts right on this program. So, you said that Tony Abbott had said we would have wanted a 1 per cent of GDP surplus and had announced $70 billion of spending cuts.

ALBERICI: No, I said that …

PYNE: Neither of those statements were true.

ALBERICI: I said what he said would involve $70 billion worth of spending cuts, because on anyone's estimate you can't achieve a one per cent surplus without some pretty drastic spending cuts or tax rises.

EMERSON: That's right.

PYNE: Well, I don't want to be accused of splitting hairs Emma, but the Labor Party's spin …

EMERSON: $70 billion worth of (inaudible).

PYNE: … is that the Coalition has $70 billion worth of spending cuts and putting it to me as a question based on saying that that's what Tony Abbott had proposed on Tuesday is simply factually wrong.

ALBERICI: No, I said that his vision would involve that.

EMERSON: It's factually right actually.

ALBERICI: Sorry, Craig Emerson.

EMERSON: It's factually right, and the $70 billion not only comes from Mr Abbott but comes from Mr Hockey and Mr Robb who have both said publicly that there is a $70 billion funding task here. That is, in order to meet the various commitments that they've made, they have to cut spending by $70 billion.

Not the Labor Party's words, those words came out of Joe Hockey's mouth, they came out of Andrew Robb's mouth and they're reaffirmed by Mr Abbott. Then they say that they're going to have tax cuts in the first term. Then Mr Abbott pressed on that, says it's an aim. Julie Bishop says it's an aspiration and Joe Hockey says, “No, we will definitely going to do it”.

And you just heard from Christopher adding to the confusion because they don't know how to make this add up. They went to the last election with an $11 billion black hole. It's blown out to $70 billion and they're all over the place. It depends on who you talk to, as they make it up as they go along.

ALBERICI: Christopher Pyne, the Opposition leader, your leader has promised personal and company tax cuts in the first term of a government led by Tony Abbott. If the Coalition does win the election next year, how is it possible that you will achieve these tax cuts while also vowing to scrap the mining tax and the carbon tax?

PYNE: Well, we will deliver an immediate tax cut Emma, through abolishing the carbon tax. The mining tax is a fraud. The numbers in the mining tax simply don't stack up. Everybody knows that in Treasury and in the Government. That's why they're finding it very hard to bring it to the Senate to actually get it through because they know the figures aren't right.

A lot of people in the mining sector are making it very clear that BHP, Rio and Xstrata won't pay the tax, some people say for up to 19 years. The only people who will pay it will be the small and medium sized miners. So, all the rhetoric from the Government is built on very shifting sands.

What we've said is that before the next election, which is due at the end of 2013, that given the chaos that currently surrounds the Government and the moving feast that is their leadership could be any time, but before the election is held, we will announce detailed spending cuts and how we will fund tax cuts and pension rises. All of that will happen.

But as if we are going to announce in February of 2012, 18 months before a federal election, all of our detailed policies, simply to have them stolen by the Labor Party, (inaudible) of policies on their own side.

EMERSON: We won't be stealing your policies on abolishing the mining tax.

ALBERICI: Craig Emerson, we are currently enjoying relatively high growth rates in Australia, low unemployment, low debt, but your party also has a low primary vote, the lowest in fact in the history of Newspoll. How do you explain that?

EMERSON: I think in part it's the fact that we have taken on some very big reforms.

We knew when we took on the pricing of carbon that that would be a real issue for Australia. It's the classic reform where politically you bear some short term costs, but it's for the long term benefit of the country.

Similarly, when we announced the mining tax, you might remember that wasn't all that popular, but in fact people are coming to appreciate that the mining tax is essential to spreading the benefits of the mining boom to the rest of the economy, to working Australians more generally.

And this is a gigantic con job on the part of the Coalition to say that they are providing tax cuts to average Australians by getting rid of the mining tax. The mining tax itself funds tax cuts for small business, and for superannuation increases. By getting rid of the mining tax, they are actually going to increase the tax burden on small business, increase the overall company tax rate, and why should we be surprised about that when the Coalition, in government over many years was the highest taxing government in Australia's history.

They promise a return to that if we are ever to see the unfortunate situation of Tony Abbott being the Prime Minister of this country.

ALBERICI: Christopher Pyne?

PYNE: Look Emma, I'm not going to be in the business of responding to Craig's near hysteria on national television.

Most of what he has said is utter nonsense, but I can understand why members of the Labor Party are nervous. Steve Conroy said only yesterday that members of the Labor Party Caucus were nervous.

The reason why the Labor Party is tracking so badly in the polls is because the Government is built on a lie. Before the election they promised they would not have a carbon tax, as the Prime Minister said there would be no carbon tax under a government I lead. She then introduced a carbon tax.

People just don't like a Prime Minister who got elected on the basis of a bald faced lie. Wayne Swan described Coalition claims that there would be a carbon tax as hysterical claims that it would never happen. Well, we know what happened.

Now Craig Emerson is claiming it to be a great celebratory reform of the Labor Party. So, the reason why the Labor Party is doing as badly as it is because the Australian public want a Prime Minister and a political party that don't make promises they don't intend to keep.

I mean, Andrew Wilkie was promised pokie reforms, the contract was broken. Harry Jenkins was dispatched at the end of last year …

EMERSON: Completely untrue.

PYNE: And Kim Carr was dispatched in the shadow cabinet … in the Cabinet reshuffle. And the Prime Minister's own office on Australia Day was involved in creating a protest simply to use political dirty tricks.

Unfortunately the reason why the public don't want to vote Labor at the moment is because Labor is entirely internally focused and the public care about cost of living, they care about job security and border security, and the only party that is talking about that is the Coalition.

EMERSON: You've just spent the last three minutes talking about politics. I was talking about policy.

ALBERICI: Can we move to the story of the day, Craig Emerson, the question of your party leadership? Isn't it time for Kevin Rudd to put up or shut up, to say once and for all whether or not he is going to challenge Julia Gillard?

EMERSON: Well, of course I read the newspapers and watch television and listen to radio. And of course, I accept that there is speculation about this, but I would say this: I haven't had anyone talk to me about leadership, about changing the leader, and I would further add this, that there is an alternative to Julia Gillard and that's Tony Abbott, and we don't want Tony Abbott.

The Australian people do not deserve to have Tony Abbott imposed upon them, and so I say stick with Julia Gillard because she is a visionary leader, she is a tough leader. The only mutterings I've heard about this are mutterings in the media.

I'm not suggesting that no one is speaking to the media. I'm not blaming the media, I'm simply saying …

ALBERICI: If you haven't been canvassed, Craig Emerson, it sounds like you would be about the only one who hasn't been because, of course today you would have read anything up to 40 per cent of the Caucus is backing Kevin Rudd and 60 undecided …

EMERSON: Yeah exactly, I read that.

ALBERICI: So it sounds like pretty much everyone in the Caucus has been consulted. Are you really saying that no one has tapped you on the shoulder to ask your opinion on the matter?

EMERSON: That's exactly what I'm saying, and I've talked to a few colleagues because they're friends of mine and they haven't either.

ALBERICI: Ever since Mr Rudd lost to Julia Gillard in the last leadership contest there has been ongoing speculation about his intentions. Why don't you all just test the political waters once and for all and perhaps that's the only thing that might put a lid on his ambitions?

EMERSON: Because the speculation is in the media and the speculation according …

ALBERICI: Well Simon Crean …

EMERSON: Yeah I'll come to that.

ALBERICI: With all due respect Simon Crean has also weighed into this and quite publicly made this an issue?

EMERSON: Yes sure, and I will come to that, but what I'm saying is that the speculation is in the media. I imagine on that basis some people are talking to the media. Basically they are anonymous people.

Simon made a strong statement because I think Simon himself had been through a fair bit of hardship as leader of the Opposition, so he feels strongly about these things. I feel strongly about it, too.

ALBERICI: Christopher Pyne, do you have something to add?

PYNE: Well I have been very patient, Emma, while Craig has slowly dug himself deeper and deeper into a hole. I think all of that is …

EMERSON: I'm really worried Christopher.

PYNE: All of that is blather. We all know what's going on. The media knows it, the public knows it. What the Australians deserve is an unambiguous government that can get on with governing for the everyday issues that concern Australians. What the Australian public deserve is a government that is focused on their issues, not focused on themselves.

While Kevin Rudd remains in the Caucus, no Labor leader will ever have any peace. That has been the reality of the time that he has been in Parliament. The public want the Labor Party to settle their leadership issues and focus on what's good for Australia.

This chaos that we're seeing at the moment, this self inflicted shambles that is the Labor Party, is not good enough for a country like Australia. 23 million people who rely on the Government to provide confidence, strength and direction.

The business community is concerned about confidence. The public are hanging onto their money. Last year was the first year in 20 when there has been a net loss of jobs in Australia under the Government's watch.

This hung Parliament hasn't worked, and whoever becomes Labor leader, whether it's Bill Shorten or Steve Smith or Simon Crean or even if Julia Gillard remains or Kevin Rudd, they owe it to the Australian people to call an election and let the public have a verdict on who they want in government.

EMERSON: That's what you want, isn't it, Christopher. Christopher has just given yet another political diatribe.

The point is when you talk about the Australian economy, he says no jobs. 700,000 jobs under this Government, 700,000 new jobs. Andrew Robb is complaining about interest rates under this Government. The Reserve Bank cash rate is 4.25 per cent. Under the previous government when we took over, it was 6.75 per cent.

We've got reasonably strong economic growth, we've got inflation within the Reserve Bank's level of tolerance. We know that there are requirements to spread the benefits of the mining boom and the other parts of the Australian economy that are going quite well, that's why we're doing this for working Australians.

That's why the sorts of reforms of investing in education, investing in skills, introducing the mining tax, which Tony Abbott will repeal because he says that the mining industry pays too much tax, they're the policy debates and I'm happy to have policy debates with Christopher at any time.

But I would ask your viewers to ask themselves this question; what is he the Shadow Minister of? I don't think anyone knows. I'll help you out. I think it's health, I think he's the shadow health minister. Maybe education, no, it is education. And that's my point, no one knows who the Coalition line up is, because a) they are a shemozzle and b) all they do is talk politics.

When they do get onto policy, they get $70 billion black holes that they can't fill and mass confusion following Mr Abbott's vacuous speech earlier in the week.

ALBERICI: Craig Emerson, Christopher Pyne, we have to leave it there. Thank you very much.

EMERSON: Thanks very much.

ENDS

E&OE………………………………………

Graham Richardson: Good evening Christopher.

Christopher Pyne: Good evening Graham.

Richardson: We’re all starting the New Year. We’re all fresh and happy. And yet here we are again; there’s brawling in the parliament, there’s brawling amongst the staff, we’ve got all sorts of strife. Now, let’s start with the aboriginal tent embassy and Tony Hodges before we get to other matters that have come up a bit later. Do you really see a great conspiracy occurring here? I can see evidence of stupidity, but not conspiracy.

Pyne: Obviously there’s stupidity. There’s also lack of judgement and I do think there’s a problem in the culture of the Labor Party or the Prime Minister’s office or both or in the Government in general where they think that these kinds of so called “clever” West Wing type actions designed to unsettle the Leader of the Opposition are smart politics. I think dirty tricks and grubby deals really backfire on people and this was a very silly trick that has not just backfired, but is kind of the exploding cigar that’s blown up in the Prime Minister’s face because the worst footage from last week was the Prime Minister being dragged in a headlock downstairs, across a path and being shoved in the back of a car and losing her shoe like Marie Antoinette on her way to the guillotine. It really couldn’t have been a worse look for the Government.

Richardson: There wasn’t a lot of dignity in that, being dragged along the way she was, but isn’t it the case when the security detail determines there’s some sort of strife – and what I gather is they thought the glass was going to break from all the people banging on it. Aren’t they supposed to get her in that car fast and do the job for which they’re trained?

Pyne: I think the security group did exactly what they should have done. I think the problem is it wouldn’t have happened in the first place if the Prime Minister’s office weren’t complicit in essentially trying to start an affray and that’s why it blew up in their face like the old exploding cigar gag and I think the problem for the Prime Minister’s office is that this is a pattern of behaviour. They can’t win a trick. That’s what’s playing on the minds of Labor MPs when they come back to Canberra next week.

Richardson: I think you’re right although it is but one of the things that’s playing on the minds of Canberra MPs, but there are plenty of them. Obviously that office has a lack of professionalism, but I’ll speak about that another time. When you go on from that particular nasty incident and you look at tonight; revelations about emails between the office of Chris Evans when he was Industrial Relations Minister and Fair Work Australia. I’ve seen a little bit of these emails. Do you really believe there’s any great smoking gun here? Is it ticking away because it seems to me to be just a case of saying “well, what really is going on”?

Pyne: Well, Richo, the problem for this Government and this story is the Cabinet Ministers had been sent out over the last two days to indignantly deny any collusion between Fair Work Australia and the Government of any kind. They were sent out today and last night to trash Kathy Jackson and say that her claims on the 7:30 Report were utter rubbish about a conspiracy between Fair Work Australia and the Government. For months and months the Prime Minister has insisted there’s been no collusion between Fair Work Australia and the Government and yet these emails that have been exposed tonight on Channel 7 News clearly indicate that the office of the Minister for Industrial Relations at the time was involved with Fair Work Australia about getting assurances from them of the way they were handling media stories at the time in August last year. A time which the Government was very sensitive about the Craig Thomson affair and yet we see a far too close relationship between Fair Work Australia and the Minister’s office in the face of blanket denials from cabinet ministers.

Richardson: You’ve used the word collusion. I’ve read a couple of the emails; I understand the flavour of them. I don’t see any evidence of collusion. There appears to be no attempt from either side to say “this is what we’re going to do, what do you think, is that ok?” Neither side seems to be saying that do they. There’s no collusion, but you might say with some justification there appears to be a bit of friendly relations between them. I can’t see any collusion that’s nasty or dark and that has to be hidden, do you?

Pyne: Well, I think the phrase, “Awesome, that means the story shouldn’t get any lift off tomorrow morning” really suggests there’s probably a great deal more going backwards and forwards between Fair Work Australia and the Minister’s office. That is a sign off which suggests to me that the Minister’s office is happy with the way Fair Work Australia is responding to media inquires. That confirms that we believe there has been an institutional go slow from Fair Work Australia on this Craig Thomson investigation, which lets face it has gone on for well over three years; longer than the Cole Royal Commission, longer than Wood Royal Commission. How long does it take to investigate one particular use of a credit card by a HSU official?

Richardson: Hang on, its just not doing that, three of than have been adversely named Kathy Jackson, Michael Williamson and him three not just one they have been investigating and in the union I think pretty I don’t know how many snouts were in the trough but there were a lot of them. I think they have had a lot to investigate that having been said it’s been hopelessly slow I’m not denying it, but getting back to the phrase used the ‘awesome’ one I mean wasn’t he really saying wacko we’ve had so many bad things here this isn’t nearly as bad as we thought it might have been and so you’ve got a press secretary getting a bit orgasmic over it but again it doesn’t amount to collusion, there’s no evidence to me here I can’t see any line that says do what we’re telling you to do.

Pyne: I think in the court of public opinion Richo people will be saying hang on here’s a government that has been denying any relationship between Fair Work Australia and the government has been saying how independent they are how outrageous it is that we would suggest there be any communication between the two that they harken back to Ben Hubbard’s call to Fair Work Australia in 2009 and essentially say all he was doing was finding out where the investigation was up to what they were actually starting and that since that time they’ve left it all up to Fair Work Australia, now we find in fact Fair Work Australia and the Ministers office were sending emails back and forth to each other which seem to suggest that there was some manipulation, some collusion about the message that was being given out to the press which Channel 7 was quite rightly pursing. I think in the court of public opinion, the public are going to say all these hand on heart denials by Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister and in the parliament are have not been their wait at all.

Richardson: I can agree with you on that score, the court of public opinion this will look really bad but it is a story that will last only one or two days because there isn’t the smoking gun its really about what Hubbard did or allegedly did and that is say what’s going on. The clear thing is the guy tries to find out what’s going on, finds out what is going on and says its not as bad a we might of thought , I can’t see where you can keep that one going. You’ll get a bit out of it but not as much as you probably want. But I want to move though because there not the only things that are happening in the world. Now yesterday your Leader actually made a speech where he talked about doing something but I’m unclear about some aspects of it which you might be able to clear up for me.

Pyne: I’ll try

Richardson: Firstly, tax cuts, where are you where are you on tax cuts are they happening or not happening?

Pyne: Well, basically with respect to things like tax cuts, a dental scheme that’s within Medicare, a national disability insurance scheme we’ve said that we want to do all of those things but we can’t do them until the budget is back in surplus but before the end of the first term of a coalition government there will be income tax cuts. We’ve obviously said that we are going to abolish the Carbon Tax which will be a tax cut immediately in the first few months of a Coalition government. That’s the answer to that question.

Richardson: Well, I introduced the dental scheme way, way, way back in 1993 which I think Peter Costello ditched in his first budget. But a dental scheme really is important isn’t it there are just so many in fact there are several hundred thousand Australians in desperate need of dental treatment that just cant; get it , you can’t just leave them in that state can you forever?

Pyne: Well Richo, your dental scheme, and I was elected in 1993 your dental scheme was for a fixed number of consultations I think it was for a million consultations once that was reached it was to go back to the States, now whether it should have gone back to the States or not because they don’t seem to have done a very good job with it is now a moot point all these years later and I think your dental scheme was a good scheme but it did have a finite life. Now obviously we want to return a dental scheme to the Commonwealth Government and we want to do the National Disability Scheme as well and once we get back into a budget surplus which is our highest priority we’ll be in a much better position to do those things. We’re not go to the next election making promises we can’t keep I think Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have so devalued a politicians promise over the last four years that there is no point letting the public believe that we’re going to do things that we can’t afford to do.

Richardson: No I think your probably right about that mind you I wish I had time to question you about this $70 billion and whether it will really get cut but as usual I always seem to run out of time ,but Christopher Pyne your going to have one would imagine the biggest of years and watching you and Albanese cross swords over the next six to twelve months is going to be a lot of fun. And I intend to watch it closely

Pyne: Well, I’m looking forward to it. Thank you

Richardson: And I hope we can have the pleasure of your company again soon.

Pyne: I look forward to it.

Richardson: Christopher Pyne you’re a great human being thank you very much.

Pyne: Pleasure

ENDS

E&OE…………………………………………

Steve Price:… The fallout from the Australia Day riot that trapped the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and the Prime Minister Julia Gillard inside the Lobby restaurant continues. The federal Opposition believe there needs to be a full inquiry into who tipped off who about what was happening in Canberra on Australia Day, Christopher Pyne is Manager of Opposition Business and Shadow Education spokesman he is on the line good to talk to you again.

Christopher Pyne: Good morning Steve,

Price: What do you think that inquiry will find?
Pyne: Well Steve there was obviously an affray on Australia Day and obviously somebody created that affray so there’s an incitement to violence essentially and we want to know what the AFP find out, who was responsible, what was the purpose of the passing on of the information and ensuring something like this doesn’t happen again. This was the most serious security breach of a Prime Minister since the Fraser Government and yet the prime Minister thinks we should all say well that was unfortunate and move on, no a lot more needs to happen than that.
Price: It’s already cost one of her staffers Tony Hodges his job he has quit, should other people pay with their jobs because of what happened?
Pyne: Well this is exactly what we need to find out, the Prime Ministers conference on Saturday left a lot mote questions unanswered than answered, for example the Prime Minister said there are three other members of her office at the lobby restaurant with Tony Hodges on the on Australia Day but she wants us to believe that this relatively new media adviser decided to unilaterally create this situation and didn’t actually mention it to anybody else on the staff. We know that other members of her staff were speaking to Kim Sattler in the following few days.. we want to know what they had to say and particularly did anybody lean on Kim Sattler yesterday to change her story again and these are the questions that Prime Minister has left unanswered.
Price: We’ve actually been sent a statement from Kim Sattler this morning; she did change her story as you say. She now says that ‘reports that I contradicted the Prime Ministers account of what transpired are inaccurate as I said in my statement on Saturday Tony Hodges from the PM’S told me what Tony Abbott had said that people should move on from the tent Embassy, yesterday the Prime Minister gave an accurate account of my role “ ..and she has declined to be interviewed further. You wonder why her story changed so quickly?
Pyne: So dramatically, I mean on in the Sunday papers yesterday morning she said that Tony Hodges had told her that Tony Abbott wanted the Tent Embassy removed which is big difference from the statements he actually made. But also there is a common sense point here Steve, if Tony Hodges had passed on precisely the words of the Leader of the Opposition to Kim Sattler why anybody would why would anybody take any offence, I mean clearly that couldn’t have happened.
Price: No, the message to her has to have been paraphrased, has to have been at the end of exaggeration as opposed to the accurate quote because if you said the Opposition leader said in relation to the Tent Embassy that it’s served its purpose and its time to move on that would hardly trigger a riot.
Pyne: Precisely, it doesn’t make any sense and therefore the Prime Minister in saying that this is all benign and that Tony Hodges passed on the leader of the Oppositions words precisely etc simply doesn’t stack up and the people that really only get to the bottom of this and also review their processes and procedures at the same time is the Australian Federal Police and any Prime Minister worth their salt would want to do that.
Price: How embarrassing would it be er would it be for the prime Minister to realise that her own office could have generated the anger and fury that saw her dragged along the ground shoeless and dumped into a car?
Pyne: Well, ahh
Price: Well does it get anymore embarrassing than that?
Pyne: No, I think you’ve put it very well…it was utterly humiliating for the Prime Minister, I felt terribly sorry for her at the same time, but also for us as a nation, internationally those pictures were flashed across the world of our Prime Minister being dragged essentially in a head lock, losing their shoes down those stairs and being pushed into the back of a car, it was the most unedifying experience and we know that her office set off the chain of events that caused this to happen.
Price: Can you imagine what would be being said right now Christopher if it was someone for the Oppositions media unit that had caused this?
Pyne: Well, exactly, and it also gets worse to an extent, the Prime Ministers staffer told the rest of the office on Thursday afternoon of his involvement and yet the Prime Minister, was, no-one thought to tell the Prime Minister until sometime on Friday.
Price: Well until Ray Hadley did it at nine o’clock.
Pyne: Until Ray Hadley broke the news it then took a further eight hours for the Prime Ministers office to fess up to what everybody else knew, so they were all they were still trying to manage the media cycle still trying to spin themselves out of this particular problem and on Thursday afternoon the Prime Ministers press office was up in the gallery the press gallery in Canberra blaming Tony Abbott for this riot.
Price: Well you do need a full inquiry I think you’re absolutely right, Christopher Pyne thank you very much.
ENDS

E&OE…………………………………………

David Oldfield: We actually just had a fellow on who told us the burning of the Australian flag was a necessity, it was basically a matter of freedom of speech, a democratic right and we’re going to be seeing a lot more of it.

Christopher Pyne: Well, I doubt that that’s true. I think burning the Australian flag is a pretty rare occurrence and of course the circumstances in which it burnt can be illegal of themselves. It’s dangerous quite frankly to burn anything especially surrounded by children as occurred on Friday. Whether we need a law banning the burning of the flag is really a moot point. If, they wanted to the police could have pressed charges against people putting other people in dangerous circumstances that occurred on Friday in Canberra.

Oldfield: Certainly you would find, you’d hope that we’d have something other than common sense as a deterrent for burning the flag because as you can see common sense is the least common of all senses.

Pyne: My only concern about banning the burning of the flag is that it would simply lead to people burning it more often in order to draw attention to their own situation and to their own political cause.

Oldfield: You could almost build another jail.

Pyne: At the moment most Australians sort of go ho hum, you shouldn’t be burning the flag. It’s stupid and offensive, but because it’s not illegal it doesn’t actually happen that often. I think if they wanted to in the A.C.T the police could have pressed charges against people who were trespassing, who were causing property damage, who are assaulting and battering people and putting people in danger. All of those things are obviously criminal offences.

Oldfield: Sadly however, if you were to find them and you and I both probably appreciate that most of them are not taxpayers and they’re all likely on welfare and you’d likely not collect any money from them anyway. There’s still the pressing matter of the Prime Minister for a start. These are the raw facts of the issue. One of the PM’s young staff members contacted Kim Sattler, a long time ALP hack and told her Tony Abbott made comments pertaining to the tent embassy which were not entirely accurate. The staff member Tony Hodges wanted Sattler to get people from the embassy to respond to Tony Abbott and we saw how they did that. Cleary this man wanted fireworks of some sort. Sattler facilitated that; the image of the frightened PM and the violent mob. Certainly we saw what happened. But have we missed anything in this. Where should this be going?

Pyne: The most important thing that occurred out of the Australia Day affray is her security and the Leader of the Opposition’s security was placed at very serious risk. This is the most serious breach of security since the Fraser Government and arguably the worst ever. Obviously that needs to be inquired into and properly investigated there are now so many claims and counter claims into what was said by whom and why and people changing their stories regularly that only an inquiry from the Federal Police can get to the bottom of who was responsible. The Prime Minister has made a number of press conferences, all of them have left more and more questions unanswered. She is yet to answer why the media office was in the Press Gallery on Thursday afternoon telling journalists that Tony Abbott had been responsible for a riot at the lobby restaurant. That in itself suggests to us that we know what purpose this information was conveyed. An email sent to 3AW in Melbourne from Kim Satler on that Thursday afternoon completely confirmed that she was told that Tony Abbott had said the tent embassy should be bulldozed and removed. Again on Facebook Kim Sattler indicated that she’d been told that Tony Abbott said the tent embassy should be removed. Now, she changed her story on Sunday, but who leant on Kim Sattler to change her story on Sunday. To no longer contradict the Prime Minister? These are all questions that need to be answered.

Oldfield: Look, even if Tony Abbott had said those things, and a lot of people wouldn’t think those things are unreasonable, but even if he had it’s not the excuse to turn it into a riot and does seem to be a matter of if not anything else media manipulation and trying to use ignorant people to create a protest. Do you believe however that the Federal Police have a capacity to potentially find the Prime Minister being involved by this? I mean being the Prime Minister is kind of a useful way of avoiding an investigation.

Pyne: I think it’s the last thing possible that the Prime Minister was involved. I agree and believe her statements that this all came as a surprise to her. I doubt very much that she would want to be involved in something that basically placed her in a headlock and dragged along a path and losing her shoe and pushed into a back of a car.
Oldfield: So is this just her staff doing the wrong thing behind the scenes without her knowledge?

Pyne: I think it is. The more serious issue though is that the Prime Minister has not got a handle on what is going on in her office. Why is it that a junior media advisor can unilaterally decide to take the action that was taken? I mean, that beggars belief. Apparently there were three other Prime Ministerial staffers at the lobby restaurant at the time this was happening, at the time this information was being passed on and yet we’re supposed to believe he didn’t even mention it to any of his new colleagues.

ENDS