Australian MPs pick up torch in fight against global anti-Semitism
All 105 federal Liberal MPs and senators join the London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism.
By Dan Goldberg | May.22, 2013 | 1:45 AM

SYDNEY, Australia – Despite the 500-plus anti-Semitic incidents in the latest annual report of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the specter of anti-Semitism Down Under is low.

After all, Australia is not Europe. It's still the “lucky country,” especially for the Jews and Israel. Witness the mass signing last week of a declaration pledging to combat global anti-Semitism by more than 100 federal MPs.

The Australians joined a campaign spearheaded by legislators including Canadian MP Irwin Cotler, Israeli MK Isaac Herzog and U.S. Congressman Chris Smith. It's an international coalition of lawmakers, founded in 2009, to combat “an escalating, sophisticated, global, virulent and even lethal anti-Semitism, that is arguably without parallel or precedent since the end of the Second World War.”

About 300 other lawmakers from some 60 countries have signed the London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism, a spokesperson from the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism told Haaretz this week. Of them about 50 are Canadians, 18 are Brits, six are Israelis and two are Americans.

Australian legislators now represent the largest contingent of signatories, and more of the nation’s 226 federal parliamentarians in Canberra are expected to sign the declaration this week. British MP John Mann, chairman of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition, was delighted by the support.

“The London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism is a document with clear recommendations to improve the way in which anti-Semitism is being confronted,” he told Haaretz. “We hope that this endorsement from Australia will encourage colleagues in other parts of the world to follow suit.”

The declaration resolves to “expose, challenge, and isolate political actors who engage in hate against Jews and target the State of Israel as a Jewish collectivity.” It also endorses the 2005 definition of anti-Semitism by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, which acknowledges that some attacks on Israel can be anti-Semitic.

Last month Australia’s Julia Gillard became the fourth prime minister to sign, following Britain’s Gordon Brown and David Cameron, and Canada’s Stephen Harper, who in 2010 signed the Ottawa Protocol, reaffirming the London Declaration.

“The London Declaration is, above all, a warning and a witness to those who hold offices of public trust,” Gillard said, urging her fellow lawmakers to sign up. “In the 1930s, another generation of leaders failed the test. We face the same test – and we must not fail it.”

On May 10, Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, a former chairman of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel group, followed Gillard’s lead.

“Activism, boycotts and sometimes sanctions campaigns aren’t always anti-Semitic, but when you target individual businesses because they are Jewish, it is clearly anti-Semitic,” Pyne said, referring to a campaign to boycott Max Brenner, the Israeli-founded chocolate shop that has more than 20 outlets across Australia. On Tuesday, New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell and opposition leader John Robertson signed the declaration in Sydney.

A dissenting voice

But not everyone supported this latest bout of philo-Semitism. “The resort to charges of anti-Semitism regarding the worldwide criticisms of the internationally illegal policies of the government of Israel is an age-old technique to stifle any criticism of blatant human rights abuses,” said Prof. Stuart Rees, a trenchant Israel critic at the University of Sydney’s Center for Peace and Conflict Studies.

Rees’ “polemical attack” was a “much more significant trigger for this sweep of signatures than the BDS campaign itself, which has been a conspicuous failure in Australia,” said Peter Wertheim, the executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. He was referring to the international boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel.

Admitting that Rees’ remarks added “momentum” to the cause, Liberal MP Joshua Frydenberg rallied his party colleagues in Canberra, and by the end of last week all 105 federal Liberal MPs and senators had signed up to the London Declaration.

“No major political party in any other country has seen all its parliamentary members sign on in this way,” Frydenberg said, denying that Labor had been wedged on the issue just months before an election.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus added: “The prime minister represented our nation, our government and the Parliamentary Labor Party when she signed the London Declaration.”

Dr. Danny Lamm, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said he expected “no division” between the major parties on the issue. “It will be equally supported by Labor and the coalition. It demonstrates what a terrific country we live in,” he said, adding that he had experienced anti-Semitism firsthand earlier this month.

But not in Australia. He was in Hungary at the annual assembly of the World Jewish Congress when a gang began chanting Nazi slogans at the group of Jewish leaders he was walking with.“I've never seen or heard of anything like that here,” Lamm said.

“You can only find some anti-Semitism in Muslim and radical left circles, but that represents a very small minority,” he told Haaretz on Saturday night from Melbourne’s major sports stadium, where he was watching his Australian rules football team with almost 70,000 fans.

“I'm sitting at the Melbourne Cricket Ground with a kippa on and no concerns.”

E&OE…………………………..

Graham Richardson: Christopher Pyne is the Manager of Government business for the Opposition and that puts him in a very, very, very serious position. He’s the guy who masters the tactics. He’s the one that runs the show inside the Parliament for the Liberal Party and you’ve got to say, does a pretty good job and I must say, if you have a look at the way the Parliament is being run, the Liberals have got much, much more effective in this Parliament than they have been for a long, long time and much of the credit for that must be put down to Christopher Pyne. I spoke to him earlier on today and I must say when it gets to this bit about what’s happening with honouring contracts with New South Wales and the Federal Government on Gonski, it gets really interesting. Have a look at this. Christopher Pyne, welcome to the program.

Hon Christopher Pyne MP: Good to be with you, Richo.

Richardson: Now look, let’s get the unpleasantness out of the way first. It seemed to me that you went off half cocked last week over this pair to Michelle Rowland. You said she’d have been given a pair if you knew about the child being sick but it turns out the Whip did know about the child being sick and said “no” anyway. What happened?

Pyne: If I had known that Michelle Rowland’s child was ill, I would have advised that a pair should have been granted. I was advised that we weren’t aware of that situation and when I did my door stop on Thursday morning, I relied on wrong information, it happens in politics. I tried to ring Michelle Rowland after that to say that I apologise for that, nobody answered the phone in her office so I told Anthony Albanese when I saw him at nine o’clock if he could pass on to Michelle that I was sorry that that had happened and a pair was then granted to Michelle Rowland and she went home to her infant.

Richardson: Did the Liberal Party Room Whip get a swift kick up the Khyber from your good self? That’s the question.

Pyne: Well, you know I don’t talk about private conversations in the Coalition Graham, but I wish, well suffice to say, I wish I had better information on the day but as I said, these things happen in politics you’ve just got to cop them on the chin and move on and I apologise to Michelle Rowland for that misunderstanding that occurred last week.

Richardson: Okay, well look let’s move on from that. A minor matter. But let’s move on to some major matters. Obviously as Shadow Minister for Education you’re intimately involved in this campaign around Gonski. Now I note that Barry O’Farrell has come out and said that it’s unfair, broken, unsustainable. That is the current system and therefore you’ve got to have Gonski come in. Now, when you say they’re getting conned, I think I read you saying there’s $325 million being taken out of schools it makes it sound as if you think that O’Farrell must be some kind of moron. There he is, he’s got his own Department and staff he’s got an Education Department. Surely to God someone would work out if they were losing money out of this deal?

Pyne: What I was trying to say was that if Barry O’Farrell for whom I have a great deal of respect, he’s a friend of mine, I lunched with him last Friday in Adelaide. If he’d known that in fact that the Government was not going to introduce the Gonski Report but instead was going to cut $325 million from education over the next four years, which is what they have done amazingly, that if they were going to pay for it through a means test on parents of children in non-government schools, which is what is in the agreement that they’re asking the States to sign and of course if they were going to do this with unusual indexation figures that they’ve essentially made up and excluded disabilities from the agreement, which they have, Barry might have taken a different approach. Now, my view is the status quo is a better model than what the Government is offering because it provides certainty, it provides higher indexation rates, it doesn’t abolish the National Partnerships or the targeted programs and it delivers to the States more money over the next four years ….

Richardson: Yes, but if it’s that good ….

Pyne: The Government is actually cutting it.

Richardson: But why would O’Farrell say it’s broken, its unsustainable, if that was true? It’s unfair, he said all of these things. Why would he say that if he took the view that it was a better system? He must believe that Gonski’s better.

Pyne: Well the Gonski Report called for six and a half billion dollars of new spending, every year, over the next four years. That would be $14 billion and instead, the Government is delivering a cut of $325 million so the Government is not introducing the Gonski Report. It would be like saying all the extra spending is in the fifth and sixth year, Graham. So, it would be like your boss saying to you “I going to give you a pay cut, or a pay rise I should say“ and then when you get your pay packet, you’ve actually had a cut in your pay. So you go and see your employer and you say “Hang on, I thought you were telling me you’re giving me a pay rise”. The employer says “Yes, yes I am but you’ve got to wait five or six years to get it, in the meantime, you’ve got to have a cut to your salary”. Now, no Australian would accept that and I don’t believe the States should accept the very bad deal that the Government is offering.

Richardson: Yeah, I’m … obviously O’Farrell and you have a fundamental disagreement about what’s in a) what’s in the current agreement and b) what’s in the Gonski agreement that’s been offered. What about the other States? Are they going to hold the line and not sign up because usually when you’ve got billions of dollars being dangled in front of you, it’s very hard to say “no”.

Pyne: Look Graham we’re not dangling billions of dollars in front of the States in fact they’re cutting their share of spending in education over the next four years, on top of the higher education cuts. So they’re cutting higher education by $2.8 billion, they’re redirecting money out of the national partnerships and targeted programmes for $3.1 billion and they’re putting back in to schools $2.8 billion. Now the States are much worse off. And what we’ve seen in the Budget papers, in black and white is, and the graph that I exposed in Question Time last week, is that the line that shows new spending is below the bars showing cuts to education until the end of 2017. So the Government is trying to get away with a financial swindle and I don’t think the States will buy up to this financial swindle. New South Wales is a bit different.

Richardson: What happens if you’re right? Let’s just say you’re correct, and let’s say that over the course of the next four months or whatever it is until the election no other States sign up, do you honour the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales or not?

Pyne: Well Graham we must have a national school funding model, that’s another thing the Gonski report suggested. And of course we’ve had a national school funding model since 2000. If only one State has signed up, New South Wales, or if New South Wales and the other Labor States have signed up so that would be the three Labor States plus New South Wales, would be four out of eight, well that is not a National model. So the Coalition couldn’t be expected, and Labor shouldn’t be trying to implement a new school funding model that only operates in half the States and Territories. The Coalition expects there to be a national model otherwise we’ll stick with the status quo, which ironically over the next four years would deliver $325 million more than the Government is promising.

Richardson: Well let’s have a look at what happens in general, I mean it seems to me with the Budget the Government went out of their way, in fact it’s extraordinary because I don’t think I’ve seen it in all the years I’ve been working in politics and that’s too many years to recount here, they seem to try and tie future governments in, in some respects up to ten years, but let’s face it over four or five they’ve really tried hard on NDIS and Gonski to tie you in, have they succeeded?

Pyne: Well of course you know you can’t tie future governments, in the Gonski area or the school funding model area they’re suggesting that these rivers of gold that will apparently flow to schools will do so after the next two elections, so the current Government is trying to tie the next two governments whether they’re Liberal or Labor to this new school funding model. You can only look at the next four years, and in the next four years they’re delivering a new school funding model, or trying to, that cuts education that is paid for by a means test on parents of non-government school children and has nothing to do with teacher quality.

Richardson: Yeah but one of the things about sovereign risk Christopher, one of things that is important about sovereign risk is that when a government comes to an agreement be it with another state government, be it with company or whatever they stick to it even when governments change, that is part of the sovereign risk model isn’t it? Now what, are you saying to me actually that you’re just going to break that model, are you going to say right-o there may be an agreement between these states and the Commonwealth but we do not intend to honour it?

Pyne: Well Graham the Budget forecasts for four years, the school funding model is every four years that’s when it’s negotiated, this one’s been extended in to five years because the Government is so incompetent they couldn’t respond to the Gonski report earlier, and they’ve left it all to the last minute to rush it in in the last four months to try and intimidate the states in to signing on to a bad deal and of course governments cant bind another government for two elections away, it is fantasy. And that’s why those figures in the fifth and sixth year are not believable and they’re not of course in the Budget because the Budget is a four year forecast.

Richardson: I’m not saying their believable I’ve not been a great fan of the certainly the forecasting of this Government, they have been terrible, so I’m not going to defend it. That’s not the issue, what I’m saying is will you honour a written signed agreement with New South Wales and other States or not? It’s a simple question.

Pyne: Well I’ll answer it very simply. If there is not a national agreement we will not honour any agreement with individual states. There has to be a national agreement or we will not honour an individual states agreement. Now if there is an overwhelming number of States, we’ll look at it, but if New South Wales and the three Labor States are the only ones that have signed on to it, we will certainly will not be having a SRS model – a Student Resources Standard model – for four States and Socio Economic Status for the other four States. That is totally chaotic, dysfunctional and we won’t bring Labor’s hopeless approach to government in to a new Coalition government if we are fortunate enough to be elected.

Richardson: Well, let’s just change the topic for a second. You’re the Manager of Government Business, you have a big say with what goes on with the Opposition in the House. Are you going to move a Vote of No Confidence and if so, when?

Pyne: Well, we do plan to move a vote of No confidence in the Government but we want to do so when we can maximise its chance of success and when we come back to Parliament in the next fortnight, that would be the most likely time that a no confidence motion could be moved but it’s a moveable feast with the cross-benchers. One moment Robert Oakeshott tells me that he’s open to discussing it, debating it and considering it; the next minute he says don’t do it in Budget week, then he accuses the Coalition of being gutless if we don’t do it in Budget week. I mean, it’s very hard to follow Robert Oakeshott’s train of thought.

Richardson: Yes, but as they say in the classics “Twas ever, thus”. I mean you don’t really expect to get Oakeshott or Windsor or Adam Bandt. I mean, I just don’t see how you get the numbers. Craig Thomson may be a different kettle of fish, these days; he seems to be having his share of difficulties. It does seem unlikely you can get it up, doesn’t it?

Pyne: Graham, this Government is so incompetent and it’s so lost its lode star which should always be cost of living, job security, border protection and economic management that it’s high time that it went. Now the Coalition thinks we can do a better job that we’ve got a better plan for the future and Joe Hockey expanded on that again today in his response to the Budget at the National Press Club. The sooner that happens for confidence in the economy better. The sooner that people can start to expect to have adults running the country instead of the juvenile approach this Government’s taken, the better, so we will move a vote of No confidence. I mean yesterday, Kevin Rudd thought that the world would stop moving on its axis if he came out and talked about his changed approach to same sex marriage. It speaks volumes for the fact that people like Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party think they are the issues the mum’s and dad’s of Australia want the Government focussed on when they can’t pay their bills, they’re worried about…

Richardson: Now wait a minute. Even for you, that’s a big step. A big over reach. Let’s face it, Kevin did nothing on behalf of the Government, yesterday. He did something that he always does, he did something on behalf of himself. Mind you, it does bring in to clearer focus the fact that you are not giving a conscience vote which really disappoints me. You really should. It really is a conscience matter. Why can’t you just say to people “It’s up to you”? I mean, you’re the Party that stresses that you don’t overdo the whole Caucus thing but this is over doing it hugely, isn’t it?

Pyne: Well, what Kevin Rudd highlighted yesterday was that the Government is dysfunctional, it’s divided, it’s chaotic. He’s going to have another go, I’m told on June 3, that he’s going to launch another challenge for the Leadership. I hope he actually puts his name up this time rather than poor Simon Crean.

Richardson: Well you know more than me. I don’t believe that will happen, so there you go and I think I probably still know a bit more about the Labor Party …

Pyne: We’ll see.

Richardson: I don’t think so. I really did want to say it just disappoints me that you’re not giving a conscience vote. Look, last point. If Craig Thomson’s vote was the difference between getting your no confidence motion up or not up, what would you do?

Pyne: Ah, well we have not accepted Craig Thomson’s vote . We have said it’s a tainted vote. In the past, Julia Gillard’s been willing and happy to accept it. In fact, Karl Bitar, sorry Sam Dastyari has been the subject of some controversy over Labor’s most recent arrangements with Craig Thomson and there’s the disputed account about those conversations. We haven’t accepted his vote and it isn’t our plan to change our mind about that subject.

Richardson: Well, there you go. We’ve got a definite answer on that. Christopher Pyne, always a pleasure. There’s no doubt about it. You do know how to make a headline. I’ve got to say, you are one of the best I’ve ever seen, at it. I hope we can talk to you again soon.

Pyne: I hope so too, Graham. Thanks for having me.

Richardson: He certainly can get a headline and that stuff about not honouring the deal with New South Wales, that’s a huge step. What the Liberals are saying is they will not be tied down, they will not be locked in. I just don’t know what’s going to happen with that. It could make for some very good High Court cases. I’ll be back in just a moment with Anthony Albanese.

ENDS.

E&OE…………………………..

Hon Christopher Pyne MP: Good afternoon Belinda.

Belinda Heggen: Kevin Rudd, is he just wrecking the Labor Party again or do you think he’s a potential runner with this latest view of his?

Pyne: I think this is definitely the opening salvo in the next chapter in the Kevin Rudd horror movie for the Labor Party. I believe he will try and make a comeback, I think he will do so on June the 3rd and the opening salvo was same sex marriage I think he’ll follow it up with other significant announcements over the next 10 days and it highlights the chaos and dysfunction that’s the heart of the Labor Party because they can’t resolve who should be driving the coach.

Heggen: So you heard June 3 as a potential Leadership tilt, again?

Pyne: That’s exactly right. I’ve got contacts in the Labor Caucus who because of the dysfunction in the Caucus are unbelievably leaking to members of the Liberal Party and they’ve told me that the putative date is June 3 and then of course, I was warned that he was going to say this about same sex marriage before he did and that came to pass and I’ve been told he’ll make other substantive remarks over the course of the next ten days because he believes that he should be leading the Labor Party and so do a substantial group in the Caucus and unfortunately, while the Labor Party are fighting about who should be the Leader, they’re not focussing on cost of living, job security, border protection and economic management.

Heggen: You know I was only thinking the other day ‘Gee things have been relatively quiet on the Kevin Rudd front’ and then lo and behold he pops up yesterday claiming the spotlight again. You know, I wonder whether in fact he does want to lead. I wonder whether this is just all part of as I say “wrecking”. Wrecking the image of the Party.

Pyne: Well, Mark Latham certainly has the view that Kevin Rudd, if he can’t lead the Party wants to wreck it and of course, since he lost the Leadership in July 2010 there have been many stories about the time when Julia Gillard and he were in Cabinet together – he or somebody leaked that she had voted against a pension increase during the Rudd Government because she said that pensioners didn’t vote Liberal. They also leaked that she had assured him that she wouldn’t run for the Leadership of the Labor Party even in the meeting on the night that the numbers were being counted against Kevin Rudd and we’ve had two challenges as recently in the last 12 months and a month ago and this statement that Kevin Rudd’s made today, or yesterday, quite clearly identifies I think that he wishes to lead the Party again he knows there’ll be a group in the Labor Caucus who will like those views if he wants to get their support in his column.

Presenter: But he sent his people out and didn’t even put his hand up in the end, I mean he lacked the courage and the guts, I mean he didn’t even have the numbers. He clearly didn’t do very good calculations. But you know. Should people like me just stop talking about Kevin Rudd perhaps?

Pyne: Well, I’m sure that there are a lot of members of the caucus who wish that Kevin Rudd would just go away and stop creating all this trouble and stirring up difficulties for Julia Gillard’s leadership. But because of the way Julia Gillard came to power, in that such extreme political death squad that was sent around to knock off Kevin Rudd. How you come to power in politics really determines the kind of leadership you have and she can’t demand loyalty from Kevin Rudd when she didn’t show loyalty to Kevin Rudd. But unfortunately, the people who are the poorer for this are the Australian public because their Government is not focused on all the problems we have in the economy right now. With sky-rocketing electricity prices. I mean I am a local Member of Parliament as you pointed out for 20 years I have never known my constituents to be so concerned and anxious about the direction of the economy and about their job security and that they just can’t pay their bills.

Presenter: No, very well said. Let’s get, let’s have a look at the same-sex marriage bill which as I say, will be voted on, on June 6. Labor MP’s get a conscience vote on this (inaudible).

Pyne: Well no. Because before the last election, the Coalition formed a policy that we would not alter the Marriage Act in this Parliament, as did Labor by the way. Labor broke that promise and we have decided that we won’t. Labor of course said that they were not going to introduce a carbon tax before the election and then promptly introduced one after the election. But Tony Abbott says the public are thoroughly sick of politicians that say one thing before an election and do the other after it. And so, we’ve stuck to that policy through this Parliament…

Presenter: But you will look at it after the election?

Pyne: If a Bill is presented in the next Parliament we will then determine whether we will have a conscience vote on the matter. So we have been entirely consistent and the Labor party has been entirely inconsistent.

Presenter: Your name has been reported as someone who is in favour of same-sex marriage…

Pyne: Well, I believe that we should recognise same-sex couples in some way. Now I would favour recognising them through civil unions because I believe it is not right to ask the church to marry same-sex couples against their religious beliefs and dogma. But I don’t think that many people quibble with the idea of civil unions, which is essentially a contract. But I don’t, at this stage, obviously (inaudible) the bill for the next Parliament. If Adam Bandt’s bill is presented again it will be defeated again the last time it was defeated in September, the vote was 98 to 42.

Presenter: I notice Joe Hockey is currently addressing The National Press Club. Gee, there won’t be much money left if and when you get into power will there?

Pyne: No. Look we’re looking at a shocking situation from a budget point of view should we be fortunate enough to be elected. Unfortunately the public often elects Labor governments who spend money and then they elect Liberal governments to get the books back in order. And I wish I had a dollar for every person who has said that to me over the past four or five years. But the financial situation of the budget is dire and we have a budget emergency. And this won’t be an election which is a decoction of promises being made of big spending promises. It will be an election where the Coalition says we need to live within our means, just like our households have to and we’ll have to be the adults in the room. Julia Gillard I think will say anything and do anything to win. Tony Abbott will say what he means to do and he will do what he promises.

Presenter: And all eyes will be on June 3 to see whether your contacts are right Christopher Pyne.

Pyne: That’s right.

Presenter: Thank you very much for your time.

Pyne: Thank you.

ENDS.

E&OE…………………………..

(Greetings omitted)

Presenter: If we could start with the ABC, Christopher Pyne does the Coalition have a group within it that would like to see the ABC privatised?

Pyne: No it doesn’t. There are motions moved at State Conferences, Young Liberal conferences, Federal Conferences year to year as occurs in the Labor Party, they are not binding on the parliamentary party, they’re not party policy, they’re just often interesting debates and we encourage debate in the Coalition, but no there’s absolutely no plans to do any such thing.

Presenter: Because the headline in the Australia today is “Liberal push to sell off ABC and SBS” but these people are on the fringes of power are they? They’re within your party but they are on the fringe and you don’t really need to pay much attention to them?

Pyne: Well the ABC is a national broadcaster and so is the SBS, it’s axiomatic that it’s the public broadcaster – it’s not possible for the ABC and SBS to be a private organisation, otherwise it sort of flies in the face of the whole charter of the government providing a public broadcaster.

Presenter: Well the government had a telecommunications provider, which was a monopoly and that’s sold. We had a bank and that’s been sold, you’ve not got both got lots of things, both Liberal and Labor. What’s so special about the ABC?

Pyne: We in the Coalition love the ABC so we couldn’t possibly see it being any different.

Presenter: You don’t really?

Pyne: We do, I love it.

Presenter: Really? You do?

Pyne: The ABC keeps opposition alive. John Howard told me that years ago that during the long years of opposition, it was the ABC who always gave the opposition equal time, gave them a chance to sell their message to the public and we wouldn’t want to see the ABC change at all.

Presenter: Mark Butler?

Butler: Yes, they were ‘halcyon’ days for the ABC the Howard Government- I remember that well.

Pyne: Funding went up dramatically – you’re right.

Butler: Christopher and a whole range of others keep complaining that the Labor party is coming up with scare campaigns about the future of the ABC or scare campaigns about what might happen to the GST if Tony Abbott is elected Prime Minister later this year. But they need to look a lot closer to home. I mean it’s the Victorian branch of the Liberal party, the old jewel in crown of the great Liberal party that will be debating over the weekend whether or not to sell off the ABC, I don’t know to Fox News, or News Corp or someone else and around the GST it’s really just Liberal Premier after Liberal Premier or former Liberal Premier, Nick Greiner this morning, coming out and saying we need to jack up the GST, we need to redistribute more of it to Western Australia. So frankly, I think Christopher and others in the Liberal party need to look closer to home than the Labor Party about these campaigns to have a muscular Abbott Government if it is to be elected later this year to take on some of these pretty awful agendas.

Pyne: If only we had a muscular Federal Labor Government right now that made good decisions, that didn’t get us into massive debt and deficit, that didn’t jack up taxes to pay for that debt and didn’t cut spending because they‘ve mismanaged the budget so badly. I mean, I think the public would be very much looking forward to a government that knows how to manage an economy and balance its books.

Presenter: Now, Chris Pyne. I think two weeks ago roughly, we asked you about whether gay couples were eligible for the Liberal Party’s parents subsidy. John wants to know whether you’ve found that out. Because I think you said you would find out about it and get back to us.

Pyne: Well I haven’t. The paid parental leave scheme, the details of which are being fleshed out as we speak will be released in full during the election campaign and people will be able to see exactly how it will operate in government. Mark Butler is in Government so I’m assume he knows the question of whether the Government’s paid parental leave scheme applies to gay couples seeing as it is already in operation.

Presenter: Mark Butler?

Butler: Well I gave my answer last time we talked about this which was yes because we have removed any point of discrimination between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in relation to commonwealth legislation. My understanding is that I was right about that answer.

Presenter: Ok, Ok. Now Mark Butler…

Butler:…And can I just say also that the same equal treatment would apply to the family tax benefit arrangement that we have announced in relation to families as well, but which the opposition would abolish if they were elected in September.

Presenter: Mark Butler, Kevin Rudd has had a good think over the last few weeks and in a very lengthy essay has explained that he now supports gay marriage. It’s an interesting issue, is that a big turning of the tide and is it something that you think could be done, a vote could be taken before the September election? You could get cracking on it. I mean if Kevin Rudd is on board – it’s got to be a fait accompli is it not?

Butler: Well, no I don’t think it is. I mean, Kevin is one vote and I think the fact that he is a former Prime Minister and someone who’s indicated pretty firm views about this in the past means that this is a significant change. But we had a vote, only several months ago and it was a pretty decisive vote. I voted in favour of the Marriage Act being changed. But, you know, we lost pretty significantly because the opposition will not allow a conscience vote or a free vote on this and I think…

Presenter: … and your Leader, Julia Gillard opposed it? Has she ever explained to the Party room because her constant reply to this, very consistently is that “My position is well known on this” and that is she’s opposed to it. Has she ever, as Kevin Rudd has done, explained her thinking behind that? In other words has she explained to the Party Room or has anyone asked her “Why” is she opposed to gay marriage?

Butler: Well no, she hasn’t given any explanation to the Party room that’s different to the public explanation that the Prime Ministers given a number of times and that is.

Presenter: And what’s the public explanation?

Butler: Well she takes the view, that I don’t particularly share, but these are matters of conscience in our Party. She takes the view that the Marriage Act should be maintained that there is a strong traditional view in the community about marriage being a relationship between a man and a woman and I guess that is the matter of conscience debate in the Party that we allow free vote on and I think until such time as both Party’s allow free vote, there’s not much chance of this passing the Parliament.

Presenter: So that’s as far as it goes for her and that is that it’s traditional?

Butler: Well far be it for me to speak for the Prime Minister but that’s been her public explanation and I think she’s been consistent about that.

Presenter: Do you think it’s a bit lame though?

Butler: Well, I think …. It’s not a view I share but there are a number of people in the Labor Party that take that view and a number of people who take a different view and we’re allowed to vote according to those views.

Presenter: Christopher Pyne, is it the case? That there’s Party discipline on the issue of same sex marriage for Liberals?

Pyne: Well, yes there is because we took the policy to the last election which said that we would not change the Marriage Act, as did Labor, by the way. Labor’s changed their policy and we’ve said that we will not change it in this term because when we make a promise, we keep that promise we don’t do what Labor did on the Carbon Tax for example where they promised they wouldn’t introduce one six days before the election and they did ten days later.

Presenter: Do you think that same discipline should apply to the next term or, should the Party go to the election this time round and say in the next term, we’ll leave it to individual conscience.

Pyne: Well, if a bill is presented in the next Parliament we will address it at that time.

Presenter: No, you’re saying you’re bound by the promises you made at the last election campaign which is fair enough. This time around as you approach another election, so that you’re not bound next time should you say to the people we’ll leave it up to the individual consciences of individual MPs after the next election?

Pyne: Well Tony Abbott’s made it clear that if a Bill is presented in the next Parliament that we will then discuss the issue of a conscience vote. I think the more interesting thing..

Presenter: No, no Chris Pyne, you can’t allow yourself to be hand cuffed this time around can you?

Pyne: Well, we’re not hand cuffed now. The point is …

Presenter: Well you are really because your saying we didn’t, we went to the election with a defined position and that is it wasn’t a conscience vote and that’s really your get of jail card, now to avoid that terrible situation happening again, if you regard it as terrible, and you support I think, gay marriage.

Pyne: I support recognising same sex couples through civil union.

Presenter: We haven’t got all day to go around that merry-go-round but you wouldn’t want, as David says, you wouldn’t want to be hand cuffed to that excuse again, I suppose? Why discuss it next time because what you could say in two years time is oh, well we went in to the election with the same policy we had the last election so this has just become one of those fulfilling prophecies.

Pyne: Look we could be debating the number of angles on a pin. The point is there are massive issues facing the Australian public to do with cost of living, border protection, job security and economic management. This is an important issue particularly to some people who are very, very passionate about it on both sides of the debate. If there is a Bill presented in the next Parliament, we will then discuss whether a conscience vote will be given to Members of the Coalition, or not. I think the more interesting thing is…

Presenter: But you’ll be bound by a position taken before this election

Pyne: No because Tony Abbott’s made it clear that we will be discussing whether there should be a conscience vote or not, after the election if a bill is presented, which is different to the position we took to the 2010 election.

Presenter: So you are softening your line?

Pyne: Labor took the position to the 2010 election which was the same as ours, they changed that position in Government, the same way they changed their position on the Carbon Tax and so many other policy issues.

Presenter: But I’m asking you about your position.

Pyne: Well I think I’ve made our position perfectly clear, David.

Presenter: Is it fair to say that your position is softening because there is some flexibility after the next election.

Pyne: I’m not going to get into the processes of commentating in the way that you’d like me to do. I’ve outlined the position. It’s perfectly straight forward. The more interesting aspect of Kevin Rudd’s intervention is that it signals that he is back on for the Leadership challenge against Julia Gillard and my information from within inside of the Labor Party is that that is planned for June 3rd, in two weeks time.

Presenter: You’re saying you’ve been told by somebody from within the Labor Party that Kevin Rudd will challenge for the Leadership in June?

Pyne: That’s right, June 3rd.

Presenter: Was this from an MP?

Pyne: Well, I won’t say any more about that but I can tell you that my information has been very good and I was warned by this person two days before Kevin Rudd’s change of heart on same sex marriage that he would change his heart and make a public statement about it. I was also told that he would next make another interesting public statement, which I won’t reveal just in case I’m wrong about this in the next couple of weeks or the next ten days then he will challenge in that week of June the 3rd or on June the 3rd.

Presenter: Mark Butler, what do you think?

Butler: Ah, well I think that’s complete garbage. But I’ve heard no such thing. I think Kevin made the comments he’s made over the last couple of days because on reflection and particularly talking to other people, as he’s indicated, he has changed his views. I think he thought that was important to communicate to his electorate, the people of Griffith, not many of whom have strong views about this as Christopher said, in the community there are strong views on both sides but the idea that this has something to do with the leadership of the Labor Party I think is just ridiculous.

Presenter: Oh well. June 3 is now in the diary, though and I bet it will be in yours. Mark Butler thank you.

Butler: Thank you very much.

Presenter: Federal Labor MP for Port Adelaide a federal seat. Minister for Social Inclusion. Chris Pyne thank you, federal Liberal MP for Sturt.

Pyne: It was a great pleasure.

Presenter: Thank you Manager of Opposition Business in the House.

ENDS.

“The Mid Year Economic Update released in October last year projected that the average indexation rate would be 5.6 per cent beyond 2012-13. In previous Budgets this figure is used to project indexation over the forward estimates,” Mr Pyne said.

“As Mr Garrett says in his statement, this is ‘standard budgetary practice’.

“In this Budget, the Government claims there will be a cut to education spending if indexation drops and remains at 3 per cent for six years.

“This assumption clearly abandons the ‘standard budgetary practice’ of projecting indexation levels using the average, which is the 5.6 per cent from MYEFO.

“For the Budget to suggest indexation will remain at 3 per cent for six years also assumes indexation will not fluctuate, but Peter Garrett explicitly says in his statement that indexation does fluctuate, proving this is a blatant deception.

“Therefore, in this Budget, past standard Budgetary practice has been abandoned so Labor can run a shameful scare campaign and they have deceptively claimed indexation will remain flat when they know it fluctuates.

“To say Mr Garrett has hoisted himself on his own petard is an understatement. We are seeing shades of Mr Garrett’s handling of the roof batts fiasco now with something as crucial as the education of our children,” Mr Pyne said.

“The Mid Year Economic Update released in October last year projected that the average indexation rate would be 5.6 per cent beyond 2012-13. In previous Budgets this figure is used to project indexation over the forward estimates,” Mr Pyne said.

“As Mr Garrett says in his statement, this is ‘standard budgetary practice’.

“In this Budget, the Government claims there will be a cut to education spending if indexation drops and remains at 3 per cent for six years.

“This assumption clearly abandons the ‘standard budgetary practice’ of projecting indexation levels using the average, which is the 5.6 per cent from MYEFO.

“For the Budget to suggest indexation will remain at 3 per cent for six years also assumes indexation will not fluctuate, but Peter Garrett explicitly says in his statement that indexation does fluctuate, proving this is a blatant deception.

“Therefore, in this Budget, past standard Budgetary practice has been abandoned so Labor can run a shameful scare campaign and they have deceptively claimed indexation will remain flat when they know it fluctuates.

“To say Mr Garrett has hoisted himself on his own petard is an understatement. We are seeing shades of Mr Garrett’s handling of the roof batts fiasco now with something as crucial as the education of our children,” Mr Pyne said.

E&OE…………………………..

David Speers: The Prime Minister says you have been incredibly arrogant by accusing the New south Wales Premier of being conned do you seriously think Barry O’Farrell was conned?

Hon Christopher Pyne MP: Well David, the numbers that I think Barry O’Farrell and New South Wales were presented with a month ago are different to the numbers that appeared in the Budget and the only numbers you can really rely on are the ones that are in the Budget and they show a $326 million cut to school education over the next four years and rely, her statements rely on a doctored up indexation figure of 3 per cent when indexation over the last 10 years on average has been around 6 per cent. So the other clanger that she dropped today, the most important one was that she said teacher standards and student standards were a distraction. Now every parent in Australia should be shaking their heads in amazement that the Prime Minister thinks that the outcomes for our students and the standards of our teachers are nothing more than a distraction, well now, actually the whole purpose of what government policy should be about.

Speers: Well I’ll get to this issue of standards in a moment; let’s just deal with the issue of funding. Now, your claim that the Government will actually will spend $326 million less over the next four years is based on this indexation figure that would remain in place if these reforms didn’t go through now you’re saying it would be 5.6% but the Budget says that it’s now 3.9% because State Governments have cut their school funding and the indexation rate is linked to how much States spend on their own government schools.

Pyne: Well, there’s two separate issues David, the first one is that the $326 million is based on the fact that the Government has redirected money from national partnerships and targeted programs to the new school funding model but in the process they’ve lost $326 million because they are only moving across $2.8 million dollars. Billion dollars, I should say. They’ve lost $326 million because they’re moving across $2.8 billion. The indexation argument is a separate argument because the Government is saying that indexation will be 3per cent for the next 6 years, every year.

Speers: 3.9 per cent, 3.9 per cent.

Pyne: On the $16 billion figure she was touting on the weekend and again today was based on 3 per cent if you read the Minister for Education’s press release, unless he’s got that figure wrong as well. I’m prepared to accept he might have got that figure wrong but whatever percentage they’re saying it is, it is a doctored up figure because over the last 10 years, the model has shown average increase every year of 6 per cent and there’s never been the same figure every year for each of those 10 years so they have somehow managed to come up with a number which is apparently going to stay exactly the same for 6 years when all evidence is to the contrary and in fact the Department of Education have answered questions in Senate Estimates on many occasions over the years which bears out the Opposition’s position, not bears out the Government’s position.

Speers: Okay but just to be clear on this, we’re talking about the coming four years, is the timeframe we’re discussing, and you’re suggesting there’s a funding cut because you think…

Pyne: That’s right.

Speers: …that indexation growth will remain at around six per cent. The budget says it’s at 3.9 per cent. Do you accept though, that when states cut their funding, that indexation rate comes down?

Pyne: When the states cut their funding the indexation rate comes down, but even in MYEFO last year, the figure that the Government relied on was 5.6 per cent. Somehow it’s miraculously become another number, but in fact in that time Victoria has settled a pay dispute with the teachers, so their spending will increase. Campbell Newman in Queensland has announced $710 million of new spending, so the number will increase, and New South Wales has announced $1.7 billion of new spending, so the number will increase. So whatever way you look at it, the numbers the Government’s relying on is wrong.

Speers: How do you calculate that? How do you know it will increase?

Pyne: Because, well it’s the corollary of what you made, David, which is that if the states are cutting their spending, the number goes down. If the states are increasing their spending – and I’ve just given you three examples of where they’re increasing their spending – The number will go up. So there is no credibility to the Government’s figures at all. It is just another hysterical scare campaign from a Prime Minister who is running out of scare campaigns.

Speers: Okay. You’ve pointed to those examples. Is there any certainty that over the coming four years, that indexation rate will be, as you forecast, around six per cent?

Pyne: Yes, absolutely, because the MYEFO last year said it would be at least 5.6 per cent, and since that time at least three State Governments have announced large increases in spending, so the number can only go up. We’re the only political party that can promise that no school will be worse off, because they’ll get their current quantum plus indexation, and in fact we’re now in the position where Coalition policy is more generous.

Speers: At six per cent?

Pyne: Well, at least at 5.6. It could be six per cent, but even the Government admitted 5.6 in October last year, so there’s no way that any school could be worse off under the Coalition. In fact, they could only be better off, because if the Government’s got $326 million of cuts over the next four years, and we’re apparently expected to believe in the fifth and sixth year there’ll be a massive balloon payment. I mean it’s like your employer, David, coming along to you and saying ‘in the next four years, I’m going to pay you less salary, but in the fifth and sixth years I’m going to really put your salary up. It’s going to skyrocket’. No Australian worth their salt would accept that deal from their boss, and the public shouldn’t accept that deal from a very bad Government, which can’t promise from year to year, let alone in five or six years time.

Speers: Well let me ask you this – are you able to give a commitment, then, that if you do become education minister, you would keep the current system in place, and the indexation rate would remain at least 5.6 per cent over the coming four years?

Pyne: The indexation rate, I can give you this guarantee. If the Coalition’s elected, we will keep the SES funding model for two years, we will keep the current indexation rate which over the last ten years has averaged 6 per cent, and therefore you can expect that over the next two to four years it will be around that figure, which means it could drop down a little bit below, it could drop up, go up a little bit, but schools couldn’t possibly be worse off under the coalition, but under the Government they will be worse off. A quarter of the schools will be worse off in real terms, and as well as that they’re cutting $326 million from all schools in the next four years, and we’re expected to believe they’ll make that up. Now, let’s not forget that David Gonski’s model suggested $6.5 billion of new spending each year. Even on the Prime Minister’s own admission, if she had a two for one deal with the states, that’d be about $4.2 billion over the next four years, in every year, by the way. That would be $14 billion of new spending, and yet she’s cutting $326 million. No wonder she’s running a scare campaign, because the truth is really scary.

Speers: Now if what you’re saying is right, it will therefore cost you money off the Budget bottom line to keep with the current model and the indexation rate you’ve just articulated there. This is actually going to cost you money compared to what’s in last week’s Budget papers if there really is a $326 million difference here, is that what you’re saying that this is going to cost the Budget more?

Pyne: There’s no doubt that if the Coalitions policy is implemented rather than the Governments, our policy is more generous to schools by at least by $326 million which is money we’ll have to find in our other savings measures or in the education budget elsewhere and we’ll have to give those figures a clear indication of where that money will be found before the next election, once the PEFO, the pre election forecasts are released but yes the Coalitions policy is more generous than the Governments policy.

Speers: Alright. And just on the Prime Ministers comment today on school standards, let’s just play it, she was asked a question about your claim that despite increased funding we have seen outcomes fall in recent years, here she was.

Quote from Julia Gillard

Speers: There Chris Pyne, she says it’s a distraction because based on what they’ve seen on the ground you can get better outcomes by transparency and more money.

Pyne: Well the Prime Minister has just described the outcomes for students as a distraction, as white noise. There are 3.6 million students in Australia and she has just said that their outcomes is a distraction. What she’s exposed is that she’s much more interested in big spending proposals in five or six years time than she is in the outcomes for students. Now I’m a father of four children, I can tell you the most important thing that I want for them in their education is the best outcomes they can achieve, the Prime Minister’s just said outcomes are a distraction that they are just white noise, that teacher quality and student outcomes don’t matter. Now she should be hanging her head in shame if she genuinely believes that government policy should be about spending rather that about getting the best outcomes possible for our students.

Speers: Shadow Education Minister, Christopher Pyne we’ll have to leave it there. Thank you for joining us this afternoon.

Pyne: Pleasure.

ENDS.

E&OE…………………………..

Announcer: Marius Benson is speaking to the Shadow Education Minister, Christopher Pyne

Marius Benson: Christopher Pyne, the Prime Minister says the choice is very clear for Australians at the next election. You, if elected, will cost the Australian education system billions. You will cost individual schools millions of dollars.

Hon Christopher Pyne MP: Well of course, it’s another Labor lie, and Julia Gillard is the past master at telling lies to the Australian public and trying to get them to believe them. The Prime Minister is cutting school education in the next four years by $326 million. In the fifth and sixth year, on a fantasy, she is promising billions of dollars of new spending. And that’s like saying ‘I’m going to reduce your salary for the next four years, but I promise that in the fifth and sixth year, your salary will skyrocket. Now, no Australian will accept that as a sensible proposition, and neither does the Opposition.

Benson: Well, one Australian has accepted that as a sensible proposition, in the form of the New South Wales Premier, Barry O’Farrell, who wants to sign up to it. Has he been conned?

Pyne: I think he has been conned. I think New South Wales has signed up to a very bad deal, and I think now that they have the opportunity to see the budget in all its black-and-whitedness, it’s quite clear that the Government is cutting education for the next four years, and then expecting people to sign on to a promise in 2018 and 19, which is a long way away. I think Barry O’Farrell has been conned, and I think he should pull out of this national agreement, as his is the only state that has signed up to it.

Benson: On another issue, the Prime Minister says that on tax, the Opposition’s intention is to increase the rate and broaden the base of the GST. ‘It’s on their agenda’, she says. ‘It’s not on ours’

Pyne: Look, another Labor scare campaign. Julia Gillard is sounding and behaving in a desperate way. There is no plan from the Coalition to increase the GST. Of course there isn’t. The GST is a state and territories’ Tax. If the states and territories want to talk about it, they’re perfectly entitled to do so. This is a democracy. We’re not Stalinist Russia.

Benson: But if the states and territories want to increase it – and they get revenue from it – if they want to increase it, will they find support in an Abbott government?

Pyne: No. The Coalition has no plans to change the GST, but this is not Stalinist Russia, and therefore if the states and territories want to talk about changing the GST that’s a matter for them. It’s their tax, but the Coalition has absolutely no plans to change it, and Labor could be asked the same question since they haven’t responded to the report that the Grants Commission did on the GST carve-up. Why didn’t they respond to that report? Have they got a secret agenda to change the GST? I mean, this is all the kind of nonsense you expect from the Labor Party when they are flailing around like a cut snake, desperate to find any distraction from the hopeless economic management they’ve visited upon the country.

Benson: Two new polls out today, and broadly the figures are better for Labor. Do you think Labor’s on the up and up?

Pyne: Look, I think the public are waiting for the election in one hundred and eighteen days, and we’ll know then whether people want to re-elect a government that’s failed to protect our borders, can’t manage the economy, has increased pressure on cost of living, and made peoples jobs more insecure. That’ll be a matter for the public, but the polls will come and go. We have almost four months left before the election. The Coalition will put its best foot forward to try and win because we think we have a better plan for the nation.

Benson: Christopher Pyne thanks again.

Pyne: It’s a pleasure Marius.

ENDS.

E&OE…………………………..

Pyne: The media has revealed today that the Coalition has a very detailed plan for the abolition of the carbon tax. We will have done so within a hundred days of an election, and what that will mean is that we are immediately addressing the cost of living issues that Australians are facing. By getting rid of the carbon tax will reduce prices in electricity and gas, and across the economy, and in fact the Energy Users Association has already indicated that the abolition of the carbon tax should lead to an immediate at least 8 per cent drop in the price of electricity. So we have a plan, and that is on the front page of The Australian today. That means that the tax cuts that were carbon tax compensation, and the increase in the pensions which were carbon tax compensation, are now genuine tax cuts, and genuine increases in pensions, because they’re no longer linked to a carbon tax. So an Abbott Government will deliver cost of living pressure relief by increasing pensions, by reducing taxes, by getting rid of the carbon tax which caused prices to rise.

Journalist: Christopher, six Government Ministers have been out attacking the Coalition’s super stance. What’s your reading on this?

Pyne: Look, six Government Ministers are hysterically trying to create a desperate scare campaign around Tony Abbott. Labor has given up governing, and has simply decided that for the next one hundred and nineteen days, they will excoriate Tony Abbott and lecture the Coalition. Now being lectured by Julia Gillard about budget honesty is like listening to Hannibal Lecter telling you he has become a vegetarian, and the Coalition won’t be lectured by Julia Gillard. This is the woman who, six days before the last election, said that she would never introduce a carbon tax – ‘There’ll be no carbon tax under the government I lead’, she said – and ten days later, announced she was introducing a carbon tax. Last year in the budget she said she’d give people $1.8 billion in increased Family Tax Benefit part A, just to rip it away two weeks ago. She’d give people $1.4 billion in tax cuts, which were legislated, only two weeks ago to rip them away. She said she wouldn’t increase the cost of Medicare, she’s cutting Medicare by $900 million. The Government said they wouldn’t touch the Medicare rebate. They’ve now means tested the private health insurance rebate. So the Government cannot be trusted, and listening to Julia Gillard lecturing the Coalition really makes my stomach churn, knowing how much she has lied to the Australian people over the last three years. The carbon tax shows she’s a proven liar.
Who will people believe? A Prime Minister who lied about the carbon tax, or an Opposition Leader who has told people exactly how he will pay for increased pensions and lower taxes.

Journalist: The Government says people will be $10,000 a year well $10,000 worse off under this super plan. Are you worrying about a voter backlash?

Pyne: Look, the Government is talking about changes to superannuation in twenty years time. People are facing real cost of living pressures right now. People can’t pay their bills. They’re worried about paying their school fees. They’re worrying about filling up their car. They’re not worried right now about a two year delay to a change in superannuation. What they’re worried about is cost of living pressures today. They’re worried about job security today, and the Government will do anything it can to distract people from its failures. I mean this is a Government that last week announced $43 billion of spending cuts and is now trying to pretend that the Leader of the Opposition’s honesty about where he is going to get the money from for tax cuts and increasing the pension is somehow a great scandal. I mean you can’t believe the credibility of this Government on any issue.

Journalist: Labor said the Coalition government would raise the GST, are you considering a rise?

Pyne: The Coalition has absolutely no plans to change the GST. The GST is a State and Territories tax. In a debate about tax reform and white papers or whether it’s COAG or tax reform or industrial relations of course everything is discussed and if the States and Territories want to try and build a case amongst themselves for changing the GST that is a matter for them, but the Coalition has no plans to change the GST and we couldn’t in any event because it’s a State tax and Labor States would have to agree and the Labor Opposition would need to agree and that’s not going to happen so there’s no possibility that there will be a change to the GST. But if the States and Territories want to talk about it that’s a matter for the States and Territories.

Journalist: Well if the states want to change the GST, would the Coalition be prepared to talk about that?

Pyne: Well we have absolutely no plans to change the GST. The next election is about the Carbon Tax, it's about job security, it's about cost of living, it's about protecting our borders, it's about economic management. It isn’t about the GST, but the Labor Party will do anything to create a desperate scare campaign, because they are desperate and listening to Ministers talking, Bill Shorten could hardly get his words out yesterday he was so desperate to try and attack Tony Abbott. Julia Gillard talks about nothing other than Tony Abbott and the public are thoroughly sick of it, thoroughly sick of it. They want adults in the room running a Government for the benefit of the people, not running a Government for the benefit of the Labor caucus and that's all we're seeing from the Prime Minister. Constant campaigning, negative attacks on Tony Abbott, no new ideas about the future of Australia. As I said before, being lectured by Julia Gillard about budget honesty is like listening to Hannibal Lector telling us that he's become a vegetarian. Nobody's going to buy it.

Journalist: Is the Coalition going to- Would the Coalition put the GST into its tax white paper?

Pyne: We have said that if the States and Territories want to talk about the GST that is a matter for the States and Territories. It's a state and territories tax. It isn’t a Commonwealth tax and as a consequence it's not up to the Coalition to say what's in or not in any kind of report or white paper about tax reform but we have absolutely no plans to change the GST whatsoever.

Journalist: Will there be merit in at least considering the changes to GST in a tax review?

Pyne: Look I think I've answered this question now in about three or four different ways and I've made it absolutely clear that the Coalition has zero plans to change the Goods and Services Tax. It's a State and Territories tax. It’s a matter for the States and Territories if they want to argue for it. It's not a matter for the Coalition.

Journalist: Super groups say people could be retiring with $20,000 less in their account, how’s that fair?

Pyne: Well if super groups want to find ways to deliver cost of living relief to Australians right now, I'd be very interested to hear their ideas, but I'm the father of four children, I run a household. Tony Abbott is the father of three children, he runs a household. We know from our own experiences and the experiences of listening to our constituents that what they're concerned about right now is a government that will reduce their cost of living pressures, that will secure their jobs, that will start managing the economy like adults and protect our borders and they're really not that concerned about people in the superannuation business community, lecturing the Coalition about superannuation which is 10, 20, 30 years away rather than the concerns they have right now about the need for tax cuts and about the need for pension rises that are genuine because they have the Carbon Tax removed from them.

ENDS.

“Only $2.8 billion of the promised $9.8 billion in funding will be paid over the next four years of the Forward Estimates as part of Labor’s school plan,” Mr Pyne said.

“This additional $2.8 billion over four years will be offset by $3.126 billion in school education cuts and redirections over the same period,” he said.

“The $3.126 billion comes from cuts from targeted funding and the ‘redirection’ of national partnerships funding.

“Overall, education will lose $325 million over four years. Labor is relying entirely on the extra funding from State Governments to prop up their floundering school funding model.

“After six years of promises and declining student outcomes, Labor is creating more uncertainty within the school sector.

“This is supposedly the centrepiece of Labor’s Budget and election campaign. In truth it is a sneaky Budget trick from a Government that entirely undermines the credibility of Labor’s school funding changes,” Mr Pyne said.

15 May 2013