E&OE………

Matthew Abraham: Senator Don Farrell, good morning to you. 

Don Farrell: Good morning Matthew. 

Abraham: And Christopher Pyne; powerbroker from the other side of the bench, Manager of Opposition Business on the big house on the hill in Canberra, Shadow Education Minister, Chris Pyne, good morning to you. 

Christopher Pyne: Good morning Matthew.  Good morning Don. 

Farrell: Good morning to you Christopher.  Are you supporting Peter Costello’s return to Federal Parliament? 

Pyne: That was good.  You get to ask the questions so I guess I get to ask you questions too.  Peter Costello of course is not coming back to Parliament and I think that’s been made perfectly clear.  Much as we love him and we enjoyed his time as treasurer back in the time of surpluses and low unemployment and low interest rates and income tax cuts and company tax cuts, unlike the current era.  We can’t always hanker after the past.  He’s had his go and he’s happy in his retirement from politics. 

Abraham: Don Farrell, do you want him back? Sounds like you’re pining for him. 

Farrell: Well, significant sections of the Liberal Party, are, ah, keen to have him back.  There have obviously been some discussions about it, but it appears that his former close friend Mr Kroger isn’t prepared to support it so it’s not going to happen now. 

Pyne: I’m not surprised Don wants Peter Costello back, given the current Treasurer. Even Don would recognise that Peter Costello is a much better treasurer than Wayne Swan so it doesn’t surprise me at all that he’s hankering after his return. 

David Bevan: Gentleman, if we could get a question into both of you, Rob Lucas Liberal frontbencher has told the Upper House of state parliament that it’s nonsense to suggest either of you, that is federal MPs in general, are worth $40,000 a year more than a state MP.  Can you explain to our listeners why it is that federal MPs get paid so much more than a state MP?  Christopher Pyne? 

Pyne: Well, the reason for that is very simple.  Until recently the state MPs were linked to the Federal Remuneration Tribunal determinations.  For some inexplicable reason that only state MPs could explain they decided to decouple themselves from the remuneration tribunal’s federal determination.  I can’t answer why they would do that. 

Bevan: $40,000 is a lot more money though.  What is it that a Federal MP does that justifies $40,000 more than a state MP?  Don Farrell have you got an answer? 

Farrell: Look, I think the ah, answer to that Matt, sorry Dave, is ah, that ah, there was a review of wages for Federal Parliamentarians took some 12 months to complete.  Umm, it was in the nature of a work value assessment, so obviously, umm, the ah, tribunal went out and determined what the wages or conditions ought to have been.  I think the significant thing that now distinguishes state and federal pay is a string of benefits, which federal parliamentarians were previously entitled to , including travel and so forth have been abolished. 

Bevan: And in return for that you got a 31 per cent pay rise.  You gave up a whole lot of Parliamentary allowances, you got a whopping 31 per cent pay rise to compensate for that and you’re in front of the state MPs by $40,000 a year.  South Australian MPs by the way have just voted to get themselves a 2.9 per cent pay increase, which is 0.4 of a per cent more than they are giving to the state public servants. 

Abraham: It’s one thing you all agree on isn’t it? 

Farrell: Well….

Pyne: Obviously not because the state MPs didn’t link themselves to the Federal Remuneration Tribunal and the thing about MPs pay is nobody goes into Parliament because they’re chasing a dollar.  They go into Parliament because they’re seeking to serve the people and serve their electorates.  Now, I don’t have any say and neither does Don about our remuneration.  That’s decided by the Federal Tribunal, as it should be. 

Abraham: Now, Chris Pyne, was the Coalition a little poleaxed by the poll bounce for the budget in Newspoll?  The Nielsen Poll, the Fairfax poll came out an showed after the budget that there wasn’t a big bounce, but Newspoll certainly showed quite a kick for the Gillard Government and are they now going to be able to build on that with handouts going out for carbon tax compensation and the school kids allowance? 

Pyne: Well, the carbon tax is coming on 1 July like a wrecking ball through the economy.  It doesn’t surprise me that the Newspoll showed a tightening of the polls.  It was 59-41 the previous fortnight which is an unsustainable level, but as Labor is happy with a 55-45 poll position in the Newspoll then I’m happy with that too.  I’m very happy to have an election on that basis. 

Abraham: Don Farrell?

Farrell: I don’t say we’re happy with those results and obviously as a Government we’ve got a hell of a lot of work to do.  We’re starting that with of course today the rollout of the compensation package for the ah, ah…..

Pyne: Say the word.  Come on, you can say it.  We know the advertising campaign doesn’t say it. 

Farrell: Look, look. 

Pyne: Come on, spit it out, the carbon tax. 

Farrell: Let me have a go.  It’s not the lower house of parliament here.  It’s ABC Radio.  We’ve got to have equal time. 

Pyne: Fair enough. 

Farrell: Look, the ads might not say it, but the reality; everybody in Australia knows that the Labor Party have put a price on carbon and what we’re telling about now to the Australian community is the rollout of the compensation package. 

Abraham:  Don Farrell, why not mention in the ad, is it an insult to people Don Farrell, South Australian Senator from the Labor Party, is it an insult to people to run ads about compensation for the carbon tax without using the word compensation and without using the word carbon tax or even the Government’s preferred word of carbon price?

Farrell: Oh look the reality is Matt, there’s no person in Australia that doesn’t know the Government is putting a price on carbon as of the 1^st of July this year.  We’ve been talking about it for the past five years, Mr Abbott talks about it I think every single day and Mr Pyne talks about it every single day.  I don’t think people, umm, I mean, I think actually the reverse of what you’re saying.  I think people would be insulted if you had to explain what this compensation was for.  They know that it’s for the carbon tax and they’re looking forward, looking forward to getting it.

Bevan:  Well before the quarter to eight news we were trying to work out who exactly was going to get this money.  And a lot of our listeners in the last half hour or so have sent us a text saying they’re concerned that they’re not going to get any.  They don’t consider themselves to be wealthy, Don Farrell.

Farrell: Look look we’ve got a, we’ve got a website.  I know you’ve been playing around with it this morning.  The Household Assistance Estimator.  We’ve set that up so people can do the calculations themselves.

Abraham:  But what about (Caller name inaudible) who sent us a text, Don Farrell, saying we’re a semi-retired couple, we both work three days a week, our combined income is less than $100 000.  Are we considered rich?  As we get nothing.

Farrell: Look it’s not about being rich or poor.  The Government has decided that they will compensate those people who are in the most difficult circumstances.  And so the package is all about trying to ensure that that happens.  And the Estimator that’s there to refer to is a way to determine just how much you will receive for that compensation.

Abraham:  Chris Pyne, people will do their sums and it is targeted assistance.  You either have to believe the Treasury modelling and that is that the impact is going to be ranging from 300 to 600 it depends on which part of the calculator you’re looking at and people are being compensated.

Pyne: Well the truth is, Matthew, the best compensation for the carbon tax is to have no carbon tax at all.

Abraham:  But we’ve got one.

Pyne: It’s an entirely unnecessary tax.  It’s simply a government trying to raise more revenue to fund its spending addiction.  It won’t reduce emissions, it will simply push emissions off shore along with jobs and investments.  And the compensation that the Government has indicated will be paid will compensate not nearly enough Australians for increased costs in every part of their lives because electricity is in every aspect of things that they purchase and the services they use.  So when you buy your coffee, when you turn on your air conditioner, when you catch the bus you will be paying the carbon tax and nothing will compensate people for that and the people know that.

Bevan:  Don Farrell, your Government is sending an awful lot of cheques out to people at the moment.  We’ve got the compensation for the carbon tax and then there’s going to be the education money that’s coming out.  Does it worry you that it isn’t education money, it’s just a cheque?  It’s not in response to you actually buying something that will directly help your child’s education.  If you wanted to you could take the money and go and buy a wide screen TV or a trip to Bali.

Farrell: Yeah look that’s true but we trust the Australian people and we trust families that when we send them this money that they would spend it responsibly and in the best interests of their families.  We’re not telling them how to spend the money but we’re giving it to them so that they can (inaudible).

Bevan:  As inconvenient as keeping receipts is and we all know it is inconvenient, at least that is a way of making sure that the money is actually spent on the child.

Farrell: I don’t think there would be any parent out there, whether they’ve got a reciept or not, who hasn’t spent this money and more on their child.  Having brought up three children myself, and I know Christopher’s got four, there is no end of things that you spend your money on for your children.

Abraham:  Just finally, just to both of you but particularly Senator Don Farrell, Julia Gillard geeing up the troops at the ACTU Congress yesterday and she was scathing, she was realistic I suppose about the job ahead for her as Prime Minister, she was scathing about the Craig Thomson affair.  Look as a former union official yourself and very well versed in the union movement, do you find some of the salaries being paid to the top union officials, and it is not confined to the Health Services Union, are obscene?

Farrell: Look I was a union official and I only got a fraction of these salaries.  But look as you say…

Abraham:  So do you regard them as obscene?

Farrell: Look I can only talk about my own, my own, salary when I was a union official.  Only a fraction of what has been paid to these officials.

Abraham:  So you won’t be critical really of it.  You’ll just say your salary wasn’t very good?

Pyne: Well Don Farrell was famously parsimonious as a union official.  But the current crop who are represented by Craig Thomson could not be described ever as parsimonious, quite the opposite.  Given they represent 77,000 health services workers who are the poorest paid people in the workforce it is obscene.

Abraham:  We’ll wrap there.  Christopher Pyne, Manager of Opposition Business in the House and Shadow Education Minister, thank you.  And Senator Don Farrell, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability Urban Water.  Two South Australians who swing a lot of power in their respective parties.  Thank you Don Farrell.

ENDS

E&OE………

Hardgrave:          [introductions]

Pyne:                    I don’t think that the standing of politicians or the Federal Parliament has ever been lower, and it doesn’t make me feel any happiness about the state of the parliament because obviously we need the people to have some faith in their politicians federally.

Hardgrave:          Now a few people scratched their head on Tuesday when you moved the motion to basically throw this Craig Thomson bloke out for two weeks because he’d failed to declare certain things, as I understand it. Two days on, that motion was way ahead of everyone else, I think. You knew something he hadn’t done.

Pyne:                    Well the remarkable thing, Gary, is that the Labor party has, three times this week, lined up to support Craig Thomson in the parliament, to stop him having to make an explanation to the house, to stop him from being suspended from the parliament, and today to stop an explanation of the deal between New South Wales Labor and Craig Thomson to pay his legal fees.

Hardgrave:          Well this is just not the way the Parliament should operate; surely disclosure has got to be at the heart of the way the chamber operates.

Pyne:                    Well this is the second time Craig Thomson has failed to declare something of great significance. I mean, obviously members of parliament every now and then are late declaring a gift from the Samoan government or whatever it is, but in this case he once forgot to declare $150,000 that the New South Wales Labor Party had gifted him to pay his legal fees, and to make loans to him so that he would avoid bankruptcy, which is a pretty significant thing to forget, and this time, of course it’s come out that Labor’s been paying his legal fees since last September. I told the parliament today Craig Thomson’s story is that he only got the money two weeks ago, and of course as we all know lawyers, they bill every month. They don’t bill after eight months because one thing we can always say about lawyers is they’re very good at billing.

Hardgrave:          Well, reliable in that regard. So where does this now leave us? Parliament, after tonight, stops for a week. You come back in a fortnight’s time. We’ve just got to wait ‘til he’s ready to tell us what’s going on?

Pyne:                    Well he said yesterday, for the first time in eight months, we got him up on his pegs and he said that he would make a statement to the parliament, something we’ve been asking for since September last year. The Prime Minister said that she would ensure he made such a statement last year, and of course he hasn’t done that, and it took a motion that was going to be supported by the cross-benches, by the independents, for the government to finally force him to admit that he would make a statement. And now, apparently, we simply have to wait for him to do so. Well, I can assure you that when we return to parliament Monday week, we will be making sure he makes that statement.

Hardgrave:          Christopher Pyne you’ve been in the parliament for eighteen, going on twenty years next year. You’ve been there a long time; you’ve seen a lot of things happen. Members of parliament are meant to disclose these sorts of linkages because the theory is they are affected – their judgment or they may make a decision that may have been influenced by these sorts of bits of support and gifts and whatever else. That’s the theory behind this, but surely the Prime Minister would have been aware of it, isn’t she the leader of the Labor Party?

Pyne:                    Well you’re absolutely right Gary, the purpose of the disclosure rules are that if it’s open and transparent and everyone knows that you’re receiving, say $150,000 from the Labor party for legal fees that therefore it reduces the potential conflict of interest. If you keep that a secret – if you don’t declare it, then obviously you have a significant conflict of interest, and because this government teeters on the edge of oblivion on a daily basis, because they have a one seat majority, for a member of parliament to be receiving significant financial support from a political party, and then not declare it, creates a very direct conflict of interest because if that member decided to up and leave the government would fall.

Hardgrave:          Now on another matter because I know you’re interested and you look after education matters, did you hear what Peter Garrett said? Every child who was meant to get a computer got one! I can’t believe that.

Pyne:                    Well Peter Garrett always confuses what his department tells him with reality and he’s trying to say that the money has been allocated for the laptops program and therefore his job has been done. Most people would regard the delivery of the program as being laptops in the hands of students from year nine to year twelve. Mr Garrett reinterprets that to mean has the Commonwealth allocated the funds, have they been sent, in which case his job is done. But any minister worth his or her salt, and you were a minister in the Howard government, knows that it’s the minister’s job to ensure the program is delivered.

Hardgrave:          We’ve got an SMS message here from somebody who says “I’m a teacher. Over half the kids do not have laptops in the school”. That’s Mike. The point here is that Peter Garrett doesn’t know what’s going on.

Pyne:                    Well he didn’t know what was going on with the pink bats program, he doesn’t know what’s going on with the laptops and computers program, and it’s so embarrassing for him that all the questions about this school kids cash splash go to Jenny Macklin, who’s the minister for families and community services, rather than the minister for schools, so one wonders why he is still the minister for schools.

Hardgrave:          I don’t know, they’ve stumped him up to us, we thought we’d have a chat, but I don’t know whether we’ve learnt much. Maybe we’ve learnt too much. Christopher Pyne, good to talk to you.

Pyne:                    Pleasure

Hardgrave:          Thanks for your time

<ENDS>

E&OE………

Fran Kelly: Christopher Pyne welcome again to breakfast.

Christopher Pyne: Good morning Fran.

Kelly: Why don’t you trust 1.3 million Australian families to spend their money wisely?

Pyne: Well, we do trust families to spend their own money and that’s why in the Howard Government we kept reducing income taxes. We kept giving them income tax cuts because we think that families should make their own decisions about how they spend their money.

Kelly: You also gave them the odd bonus too.

Pyne: We gave them broad based bonuses, especially the pensioners towards the end of the financial year when we knew we had strong surpluses….

Kelly: So what’s the difference between that bonus to pensioners and the Government handing a school kids bonus to parents now?

Pyne: Well, there’s a big difference and the difference is this. The bonuses or the support that the Howard Government gave to Australian families were always linked to a policy outcome. So, for example the baby bonus was linked to increasing our population and therefore had a policy basis to it. The problem with this schoolkids bonus is that it doesn’t have any link to any policy outcome.

Kelly: That’s not true. It’s a school kids bonus. It’s for school expenses.

Pyne: It’s not an education payment. There’s not a requirement to show any spending on school….

Kelly: But neither is there for the baby bonus.

Pyne: Fran, it’s not an education payment. It is simply a cash splash to some Australian families on low incomes. There are many other Australian families; in fact more families are missing out on this bonus than are getting it because of the Government’s class warefare narrative that they are trying to run.

Kelly: You mean it’s means tested?

Pyne: It is only being provided to people on incomes, on combined family incomes of $80,000 and therefore it is being missed out on by many, many families. Now…

Kelly: Yes, but don’t the families living on $80,000 or less that need the support to pay for their kids to go to school in shoes that don’t have holes in them, in shoes that fit with a bag to carry their books? Aren’t they the ones who need it?

Pyne: If they’re tyring to provide more money for families so that they can afford the necessities of life the first thing the Government should do is abandon the carbon tax. That’s number one. Secondly…..

Kelly: (inaudible)

Pyne: No, you asked me how we could support families who are struggling to get to school with holes in their shoes and I can tell you that. There’s two ways we can do it. Number one, we don’t introduce an economy wide carbon tax and that’s what the Government is doing and this bonus is simply compensation for that for some families. Secondly, the best way to do that is to reduce income tax across the board and that’s what the Howard Government did.

Kelly: This Government has just cut income tax too in this budget.

Pyne: No they haven’t.

Kelly: Yes they have.

Pyne: This Government delivered the Costello income tax cuts.

Kelly: Tax cuts were delivered in this budget.

Pyne: In terms of the tax free threshold?

Kelly: Yes.

Pyne: That’s true, but not the sort of income tax cuts that the Howard-Costello Government delivered over 11 and a half years which lead to a 22 per cent real increase in wages in this country.

Kelly: One of the arguments from the Opposition when you were arguing against the delivery of this school kids bonus, which you described as a bribe or a sugar hit is that parents could do anything with it. They could go to the pub or put it in the pokies.

Pyne: They can.

Kelly: Don’t you trust Australian parents to look after their kids – give them money to do that?

Pyne: Governments should be transparent about their policies. Now, the Government should simply say “we’ve made a mess of introduction of the carbon tax. The compensation isn’t enough so we are going to give some families more cash in this cash splash.” Just like the $900 cheques the Government sent out.

Kelly: This is replacing an education bonus that parents weren’t accessing all of them because they weren’t managing to get the receipts together and claim it. They weren’t claiming what they were entitled to. So this is directly comparable to an education bonus that was there. The Government is changing the way it’s delivering it. Let me ask you. You’ve got kids in school. You know how expensive it is.

Pyne: Sure.

Kelly: Exactly. If you were given $400 or $800 for each kid, how would you spend it? Would you spend it one their school costs?

Pyne: Well, Fran, when the money came in, you spend it one whatever bills you have at that particular time and I can tell you that you don’t pay all your school bills in June. The Government is delivering the school kids bonus in June just before the carbon tax comes in. The big costs associated with school kids are in January and February when you are buying shoes, buying new uniforms, buying books, covering exercise books, buying pens and pencils. That’s when the expense is starting, not in June. So that just makes it transparently obvious this is carbon tax compensation.

Kelly: Well isn’t there a problem with that argument because both you and the government had policies that were education subsidies, you wouldn’t get that money in January, you’d get that when you put in your tax return.

Pyne: Our education tax rebate policy at the last election, was a much better policy then this government’s policy…

Kelly: It’s a more expensive policy.

Pyne: It was more expensive, and I can tell you, we said we would take into account all aspects of education spending by families, whether it was: extra tutoring for dyslexic children, whether it was school fees itself, could be uniforms, could be computers…

Kelly: But there is nothing to stop families spending this money that the government will send in a cheque that gets in their bank accounts in June on any of those things.

Pyne: And there is nothing to stop them spending it on pokies as well.

Kelly: So you don’t trust Australian families to spend it responsibly.

Pyne: No, not at all, I do trust Australian families. The truth is the Howard Government trusted them so much we reduced their income tax dramatically over eleven and a half years. We could afford to pay them bonuses and support because we were running surplus budgets. This government has run $167 billion dollars of deficits over the last four years.

Kelly: With the global financial crisis in the middle of that…

Pyne: Well we had the Asian Financial Crisis Fran
(inaudible)

Kelly: Well that was on a different scale…

Pyne: No, not at all. We had the Asian financial Crisis we had the appalling Tsunami ( inaudible) in Indonesia that killed so many people, that cost Australia and Asia a great deal of money to repair those countries that were affected…. Every government has to deal with natural disasters and financial matters.

Kelly: You are not truly equating the Asian Financial Crisis with the Global Financial Crisis?

Pyne: The government will use any excuse Fran, to avoid the truth which is that they are a big spending government; they are a high taxing government. Taxes have gone up since this government have come to power, spending has gone up $100 billion dollars since this government came to power and they never cut their own costs to suit their circumstances, they always tax the Australian Tax payer more.

Kelly: If that’s your logic then, does that mean that the Coalition won’t support the other budget payments to households (inaudible) in this budget? the.. increase in family tax benefits and the supplementary allowances to the unemployed and to students? Because I thought that Joe Hockey indicated yesterday on this program, that the Coalition was inclined to support those.

Pyne: No Fran we are supporting those, because we understand that living below the poverty line is unbelievably difficult and people shouldn’t be placed in that position. Now that is income support.

Kelly: What about the family tax benefit A? That’s not every body living below the poverty line.

Pyne: That is income support which we support. The school kid’s bonus is a cash splash Carbon Tax compensation to be paid in June.

Kelly: But you’re picking and choosing and making up your reasons why aren’t you?

Pyne: No we are not. It is startlingly obvious that the government wanted to give low income families cash, to try and repair the damage they have done to their support base. This is a bribe to low income families and they know it, now they will take the money I’m sure, why wouldn’t they? It will be passed through both houses of parliament. But whether it repairs the Labor Party’s stocks amongst their base is a moot point.

Kelly: Is there another contradiction in the Coalition’s policy then that you will support the other handouts…

Pyne: I don’t call them handouts Fran.

Kelly: Alright the other income support payments… you will support those even though they are funded by the mining tax but you wouldn’t support the corporate tax because it was funded by the mining tax.

Pyne: Well the government has picked and chosen what they said is funded by the mining tax and what is not funded by the mining tax.
(inaudible)

Pyne: It’s shuffling money around and trying to say its doing this and its doing that. But we don’t have to play the Government’s games with this shuffling of money. If the truth is if it shuffles into early years and it shuffles into later years then the changes to this dodgy budget, this “fudget” as some people are calling it, weren’t the case then there would be a $12 billion dollar deficit next year, not a wafer thin $1.5 billion dollar surplus.

Kelly: Its 8:15 on breakfast, our guest in the parliament house studio is Christopher Pyne the Shadow Minister for Education and also the Manager of Opposition business in the House. With that hat on Christopher Pyne, how close was the Coalition yesterday to securing the votes of Rob Oakeshott or Tony Windsor to move against Craig Thompson? Were they inclined to support your motion before Craig Thompson said he’d deliver (inadible)

Pyne: It became very clear yesterday in the Parliament that the Independents were tremendously uncomfortable both on Tuesday, having to back Craig Thomson on the Oppositions motion of suspension, and also yesterday having to back the Government and Craig Thomson on blocking him from making a statement to the Parliament. The incredible thing about yesterday Fran, was that the Government yet again, sided with Craig Thomson against the 77, 000 members of the Health Services Union, and I think the crossbenches are getting thoroughly sick of it. So they have made it quite clear that they were going to support that motion, not publicly, but you could see the Government scrambling to stop that defeat on the floor of the house. And, the very important development that occurred yesterday, that Craig Thomson finally got up on his feet to make a statement to the House saying he’d make a more thorough one when Parliament resumes.

Kelly: Do you welcome that?

Pyne: For eight months we have been asking him to make a statement to the Parliament, so if he ever makes it, I’ll be delighted, but let’s wait and see if he ever does.

Kelly: He says he will make it the week after next when Parliament resumes.

Pyne: He also said he’s up to date with his register, and we know from this morning paper that in fact the New South Wales ALP have been paying his legal fees from September last year, which has not been declared.

Kelly: Wilkie received the Fair Work of Australia Act, 1100 pages, he says now he will make a statement. Is there anything he could say in his defence in a fortnight’s time, or have you already delivered your verdict, that he’s guilty.

Pyne: Well, Fair Work Australia has made findings against the Member for Dobell, they haven’t made allegations, they’ve made 1100 pages of findings, and they are very serious findings, they are findings of corruption and they are findings of him misusing union funds to the tune of almost half a million dollars, so these are very serious allegations, and the Government has continued to back him.

Kelly: Well, the Government says that people have to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Pyne: Well, we haven’t formed an opinion, until the Federal Court makes their final decision.

Kelly: Well you have, you want him to leave the Parliament.

Pyne: Clearly, we want the Parliament to be given an explanation as to why we should continue to support the Member for Dobell being amongst our number, which is our right to do so.

Kelly: But he has a right to be amongst your number doesn’t he, because the law says that unless convicted of a crime that carries a penalty of more than 12 months you have the right to be an elected member.

Pyne: There are three precedents of suspensions of Members of Parliament, from the Parliament when their colleagues have decided their behaviour has been so egregious that it disburses us all.

Kelly: Yes, but our system its a slippery slope when colleagues (inaudible) decide they have the right to decide which cases are the ones that deserve suspension. I mean how would you ever draw that line.

Pyne: Well, the Parliament has drawn it three times before, three times in 112 years.

Kelly: For behaviour in the Parliament.

Pyne: We don’t do it for no matter at all, we do it for serious matters.

Kelly: But that was for behaviour in the Parliament, wasn’t it?

Pyne: Fran, with this matter to do with Craig Thomson and his legal fees and his declaration and his registry of interest, this is the second time we have been in this situation, this isn’t the first time. This member doesn’t seem to ever learn his lesson. If he only simply kept to the rules in the register of Members interest, then he wouldn’t be in his situation today.

Kelly: Just finally Christopher Pyne you were a friend and colleague and supporter of Peter Costello when he was Treasurer, would you welcome Peter Costello back to the Federal Parliament.

Pyne: Peter Costello is a good friend of mine, he was a tremendous Treasurer. It’s nice to be reminded of Peter Costello, because it reminds us of the days of surplus budgets, income tax cuts and growing real wages under the Howard Costello Government. I wish he had never left Parliament, but he has left Parliament and I’m absolutely certain he is not coming back.

Kelly: You are absolutely certain; have you spoken to him about that?

Pyne: I speak to Peter Costello on a regular basis, and I can tell you he is not coming back. He is enjoying post political life, there is such a thing Fran if you can believe it, for people like you and I who have around a bit long in this business, but he will not be coming back.

ENDS

“The Gonski Review called for a $5 billion increase in funding based on 2009 figures and the funding for the existing model dries up at the end of next year,” Mr Pyne said.

“There is no hint in the forward estimates that the additional billions required from the Commonwealth are coming – that alone would turn Wayne Swan’s cooked book surplus into a deficit,” he said.

While the Government is paying $22 million a day on interest repayments to fund their $8 billion a year interest bill on $145 billion of Government debt, their promises to change the school funding system have been left out in an attempt to fiddle the figures.

“Instead, the big so-called education policy in this Budget is a cash hand-out. The policy billed as a ‘school kid bonus’ is in reality a sugar-hit to offset increasing carbon tax costs,” Mr Pyne said.

“The non-government sector has estimated the Gillard Government’s school funding changes plus indexation will cost $113 billion in additional funding over 12 years,” he said.

“Non-government schools know if there is no money, there is no new model and changes without extra funding will adversely impact upon school fees.

“Under those circumstances Labor’s Private School Hit List would be back with higher school fees forcing up the cost of living for parents and slashing school funding.

“Only the Coalition is offering funding certainty for schools beyond 2013, with the current funding levels, plus indexation guaranteed,” Mr Pyne said. 

May 9, 2012

E&OE………………………………………………………………………………………

Matthew Abraham: Where will the pain be in this budget? 

Penny Wong: Well, we’ve taken over $33 billion worth of savings in this budget and they come across government.  There’s a net reduction in the number of public servants.  There’s savings in defence.  There are savings as a result of the deferral of the (inaudible).  Essentially there’s been savings across government.  We have redirected a number of those savings to important priorities and they include the school kids bonus for giving familles up front assistance for school costs as well as increases for low and middle income families through the family tax benefit system.

Abraham: You’ve pulled back promises that were made as compensation to ordinary taxpayers.  We know you’ve done that to the business community, but you’ve pulled back promises that were made in selling the mining tax.  There were going to be compensation sweeteners.  There was going to be a deduction to simplify their tax returns and a discount on interest income that was meant to encourage bank savings.  That was promised in the original mining tax.  If you can break those promises what’s to stop you breaking the promises for compensation from the carbon tax? 

Wong: Well, the carbon tax assistance is already rolling out so you don’t have to trust me on it.  You can just receive the assistance.  If you’re a person on less than $80,000 a year you’re going to get a tax cut, if you’re on a family tax benefit of pension, you’re going to get those increases, but in terms of the two issues you raised they were part of the original mining tax package, but recall what we have done instead is triple the tax free threshold.  So the standard deduction, once you’ve taken a million people out of the tax system through raising the tax free threshold was not the most effective policy.  Remember also what we’re doing with the mining tax revenue now is providing it to families.  That’s what the increases for family tax benefit…..

David Bevan: While you’re handing out cheques to families; those same families, what sort of services will they get in South Australia when the South Australian Government is looking at GST revenue being cut by billions of dollars? 

Wong: Regrettably the South Australian Government, like us are having to deal with the same problem, which is less revenue than occurred previously.  Remember we are actually getting much less in tax than Peter Costello got when he was the federal treasurer. 

Bevan: Yes, but you could compensate the states for that fall in GST revenue.  Yet instead you choose to hand out cheques to families, which is very good politically for you, but those same families turn up to a hospital; there might not be the same services.  Their school might not have the same services.  Jack Snelling is going to cop the pain there isn’t he while you’re handing out cheques? 

Wong: Well, let’s recall how much more money the Federal Government is investing in health.  Health spending will continue to grow as a result of our policies.  We’ve also increased infrastructure spending.  We have in fact doubled the annual infrastructure spending per South Australian since we’ve come to government.  So there is a substantial amount of assistance that we’ve put into the state.  All governments, this government and state governments are having to deal with the fact that revenue, that is tax to government is less than it used to be for an equivalent level of growth and the way we’ve dealt with that is to make the savings measures, the cuts that we’ve had to. 

Abraham: Chris Pyne, is this really snookering Tony Abbott, your leader?  Paul Kelly describes it as an “Abbott trap”; using the mining tax to fund a nearly $5 billion resources boom family package.  It’s substituted the corporate tax cuts that the Coalition has opposed.  This time politics surely dictates that Tony Abbott cannot oppose the new cash splash for families? 

Christopher Pyne:  Matthew, no, I don’t think that’s the case at all.  The truth is this is an unbelievable budget.  The public won’t believe that the Government can deliver a one and a half billion dollar surplus while they’re saying they wan the debt ceiling raised by $50 billion.  So they want the debt ceiling raised from $250 to $300 billion at the same time that they’re saying they’re going to have more money than they did last year.  So if you have more money coming in, if you have a surplus why would you need to borrow $50 billion more and I think that is the hole in the heart of this budget.  I just heard how Penny was talking about how they had less revenue, but they’ve forecast $39 billion of more revenue by next year when the terms of trade have fallen by five per cent.  So I don’t think the public will buy this budget. 

Abraham:  You will pass the Budget.  Will you block any of these measures?

Pyne:  We don’t since 1975, I think most people remember that particular year, we don’t make a habit of blocking supply.  The Government is entitled to pass its Budget bills.  Not of course are all measures part of the Budget and the Opposition doesn’t have to pass every singe measure but we don’t have a position where we would block supply.  This is a fiddled figures Budget and I think the public will know that.  There’s also cruel hoaxes in this Budget.  The Government says its delivered a National Disability Insurance Scheme but the Productivity Commission said it would cost $3.9 billion when the Government’s saying it’s going to cost $1 billion so $2.9 billion that was to go to the National Disability Insurance Scheme has been cut.  And so I think people who had high expectation that an NDIS would be delivered should be very disappointed today.  In my own portfolio area, the Gonski Review called for $5 billion a year for education, the Government’s delivering $5 million.  That’s $5 million rather than $5 billion.

Bevan:  Penny Wong, just quickly before we go to calls.  Can you respond to Christopher Pyne?

Wong:  Well a few things.  On is he isn’t being up front with you about what they’re going to oppose and what they’re going to support and what that means.  Christopher’s the Shadow Spokesperson for Education, is going to be opposing the Education Bonus.

Pyne:  It’s not an education bonus.

Wong:  Well it’s an upfront payment…

Pyne:  It’s not an education bonus.

Wong:  It’s an upfront payment to families to deal with the cost of putting children through school.

Pyne:  It can be spent on anything, Penny.

Wong:  Can I finish my sentence?

Pyne:  Well if it can be spent on anything you should tell the truth.

Wong:  I try to tell the truth but I actually can’t speak at the moment.

Pyne:  That’s never stopped you before.

Wong:  It’s an upfront bonus because we had in place an Education Tax Refund and we found that about a million families weren’t claiming what they were entitled to because obviously keeping receipts isn’t at the top of the ‘To Do List’ for families is the first point I’d make.  The second point I’d make is we have close to doubled the amount of funding for schools so I think it’s wrong to say this Government is not investing in education.  I think what’s more interesting is what will the Coalition do?  I notice Andrew Robb, my counterpart, last night was promising a surplus of $15 billion.  Now that would mean this year that the Coalition if in government would have to not pay any Medicare out.  So if they’re seriously saying to the Australian people we believe we can deliver a surplus…

Abraham:  Well there are other ways…

Wong:  Well then tell us.

Pyne:  Now you’re interrupting the radio host.

Abraham:  Well that’s OK.  This is a robust democracy as we all know (inaudible)… now your public service cuts.  3,000 jobs out of a workforce of 258,000, so 1.2%.  Are you saying you couldn’t find any more?  I mean that’s almost the level they’re looking for in South Australia. 

Wong:  It’s actually slightly more than that if you take out the increases as a result of Defence Reserves and so forth.  They’re not the only efficiencies we’re making.

Abraham:  And if you take out casual census collectors moving off the books, its less than that.  There’s well over a thousand there. 

Wong:  I’m not sure that’s right.  But I think it’s important to remember we don’t say to people we want you to sack people.  What we say is we want to take more efficiencies out of the public service and we’ve done that.  We put in place what’s called an efficiency dividend, a very high one.  4% for 12-13.  

Abraham:  What your saying is you could only take out 1.2% out of a workforce of over a quarter of a million public servants.

Wong:  No what I’m saying is that we have taken many efficiencies and my instruction, or my indication, as Finance Minister was people should look to non-staffing matter first.  They should look to consultancies, travel, advertising, those sorts of things and that voluntary redundancies and forced redundancies should be a last resort and that’s the approach the public service has taken.  This is the first net reduction in the public service that we’ve seen since figures started which were in I think the early 2000s.  So it is very substantial.

Bevan:  Lets go to a call (name inaudible).

Caller 1:  Good morning.  Chris actually said my point about the deficit and the debt, the debts increasing and yet we’ve got a surplus.  But where does the actual money come from?  Do they actually, in cartoonistic terms, do they actually go to another big bank to draw out $50 billion cap in hand?

Bevan: Penny Wong, where do you get the money from?

Wong: No, no, look there is currently what is called a debt cap, a legislative debt cap in place which keeps the size of what we call the government bond market, so how much money the government can issue in terms of its debt. We anticipate being below that at the conclusion of every financial year and the forward estimates. But during each year there is a large amount of variability because of technical reasons of about when you get payments, when revenue comes in when the expenses go out and also different government bond lines maturing at different times. So the advice from the Office of Financial Management is we do need to have the capacity to deal with this temporary fluctuation during the year.

Bevan:  If you are as fiscally responsible as you’re telling our listeners, you wouldn’t need to increase it by that much would you?

Wong:  Well we are seeking to increase it for the reasons I’ve outlined.

Bevan: Yes, but if you were fiscally responsible, you wouldn’t have to.

Wong: We are fiscally responsible and that’s why we have taken $100 billion savings in the last budget and an 11 and half billion..

Bevan: why do you need to borrow then?

Wong: Let me finish, and another $34 billion in savings from this budget. We have as a government experienced $150 b right down in revenue as a result of the financial crisis, but we are still protecting return to surplus, and the only way we have done that is by protecting the bottom line by taking savings.

Pyne: Can I make two points?

Bevan: Make it one because Robin wants to call.

Pyne: Ok, well very quickly, Penny Wong keeps saying they are making $33billion worth of cuts or savings as she euphemistically calls them, she’s not.  A half of those $33 billion dollars are new taxes and charges in six new areas and forecast high dividends from government business enterprises.  It’s actually about half of that $33 billion are actual cuts in a $350 billion budget. 

Wong: (inaudible)

Pyne: Hang on; I let you speak; now you let me speak.  Secondly, Penny Wong talked about the forecast the government has planned. Two years ago they forecasted a $12b dollar deficit this year, last year it became $23 billion dollars, then it was $37 billion at MYEFO, and it’s ended up being actually $44b dollars of deficits. Why would anybody believe that this government can deliver (interruption) the actual deficit this year is $44b dollars, forecasted next year to be a one dollar and half a billion surplus, why would anybody believe that a government that can’t get it right so often is suddenly going to find fiscal prudence.

Wong: Can I just make one point; we have laid out our budget.  My challenge to Christopher, if he is so sure that he can do better is get Tony Abbott to tell Australians what he’d do.

Bevan:  Let’s go to Robin from Winnvale. She’s called; she wants to put something to the both of you.

Caller 2:  Hello, my question is regarding the Medicare funding of mental health services with regard to better access schemes to psychologists and mental health social workers. Penny in last year’s budget your Government told sufferers of anxiety, depression and other mental health illnesses that they must recover in 10 sessions, which is half what research shows, research says 18 – 20 sessions.

Abraham: You want to know what happened to that funding whether it’s been restored or cut further I suppose, Minister?

Wong: There has been no change to that in this budget, but you’re right we did make some savings in the mental health package that we announced in the last budget. Bearing in mind there was a very substantial additional investment in mental health and I think, whilst I can understand that some people would prefer more sessions, what I would say is we did find a lot more other services, services that were very much needed by people who suffer from mental illnesses and their friends and families.

Pyne: I actually introduced the better access to psychologists and social workers when I was the Minister responsible for mental health. So I thought the government measure last year was the wrong measure and I am still disappointed with the changes and cuts to what was an excellent program.

ENDS

E&OE………

Ross Greenwood: Christopher Pyne, thanks for your time her in Parliament House tonight.  The  budget is out tonight.  It was an important question time, but it seems it was completely distracted by the matters Peter Slipper and quite clearly Craig Thomson. 

Christopher Pyne: Well, that’s the whole problem with this budget, Ross.  It’s dead on arrival.  The Government has been totally overshadowed by their mishandling of the issues that are dominating the news.  One; getting rid of Harry Jenkins last November and replace him with Peter Slipper, which has dramatically backfired like an exploding cigar in the Prime Minister’s face and secondly their whole mishandling of the Craig Thomson affair. 

The pity of it all is they could have dealt with the Craig Thomson matter three years ago.  They have let themselves bleed on Craig Thomson for three years and remarkably allowed the Fair Work inquiry report to be released the day before the budget with all the damning revelations of the misuse of HSU member’s money allegedly by Craig Thomson as national secretary of the HSU. 

Greenwood: You raised the point and raised, if you like, that Craig Thomson be suspended from Parliament for 14 days while the Parliament gets time to investigate whether he has appropriately used money in terms of his election campaign.  Do you believe he deserves his place in the Australian Parliament? 

Pyne: Well, we don’t and we think that a suspension for 14 days was an appropriate motion for us to move today to express our real concern about the standing of the Parliament; the integrity to which the Parliament is being held.  I don’t think it’s any surprise to your listeners that we understand the horror they view in the 43^rd Parliament and we followed the precedents.  There’s been three precedents where members have been suspended for an extended period of time in the last 100 or so years. 

Greenwood: Generally you indicated today that was about effectively abusing the Speaker or not retracting comments against the Speaker at that time.  This is quite different isn’t it? 

Pyne: Well, it was effectively about bringing the Parliament into disrepute, those three previous precedents and our view is the Member for Dobell has brought the Parliament into disrepute and as members of Parliament we need to protect our own reputations and the reputation of the Parliament.  This is the most significant Parliament in the country and the Australian people have no confidence in either the Government or the Parliament. 

Greenwood: But the point was that that particular motion was knocked out.  So the Parliament voted that down.  Does that imply that those on the Labor side, those on the crossbenches are now effectively endorsing the behaviour of Craig Thomson?  It seems like a very fine line they have to tread. 

Pyne: And I didn’t know where they would fall on that issue.  I’m surprised that the Labor Party and Tony Windsor and Robert Oakeshott lined up with Craig Thomson to protect him, which makes a mockery of the fact that they’ve excluded him from the caucus, but they still want his vote in the Parliament because of course if he’d been suspended for 14 days he wouldn’t be voting in the Parliament so they’ve effectively said today he’s good enough for the Parliament, but he’s not good enough for the caucus. 

Greenwood:  The vote on the motion that was put to actually install the Labor MP, Harry Jenkins, into the Speaker’s seat while Peter Slipper waits for the Federal Police investigation, that was much closer.  72 all.  The Deputy Speaker, she did not have to ultimately use her vote because the motion was tied and as a result was voted down because of that.  That was much closer and you certainly saw more support for that from the crossbenchers.

Pyne:  Sure.  Andrew Wilkie voted with the Opposition on both the matters and Bob Katter voted with the Opposition on the first matter to do with Harry Jenkins.  And the purpose of that motion was to say the last five months should be expunged effectively and we should go back, restart the clock and put Harry Jenkins back in the chair because he should never had been out of it in the first place.

Greenwood:  It is a numbers game because you as Manager for Opposition Business are constantly testing to see if you can find numbers to roll the Government on any given issue.  This is what your day job is effectively to try and see if you can find the numbers because that will ultimately weaken the Government  and could lead to either by-elections or lead to the transfer of the balance of power from the Government to the Opposition.  Is that really what you’re about?

Pyne:  Well what we’re trying to reflect is the public’s desire for an election.  My view travelling around my electorate and Australia in general , the people want an election, they want to get a government with a clear majority and if we can defeat the Government on the floor on a significant matter or on a no confidence motion then there would be an election.

Greenwood:  And is it justification for the approaches that you and also Mal Brough in Queensland have made to James Ashby who was working for Peter Slipper, the Speaker?

Pyne:  Well I’ve never had any discussions with James Ashby about this Federal Court action that he’s taken.  But as Manager of Opposition Business I spend some time in the Speaker’s office and of course the Speaker used to be a member of the Coalition so I’ve known his staff for many years.  So speaking with his staff and him is not exactly an unusual thing to do and why wouldn’t I do that?  So in terms of the Federal Court action though I had no knowledge of it.

Greenwood:  And in terms of where the Parliament now sits because there is a Budget that goes through literally in the next hour or so, is it still a guarantee of the Coalition that it will allow the Budget and these money bills to pass?

Pyne:  Well we haven’t voted against supply since 1975 so we have no plans to block the supply for the Government.   But there are individual members within the Budget that will be in separate bills and different bills we might well consider not supporting.  But in terms of the supply and the Government’s budget we certainly haven’t made a decision to change our practice since 1975.

Greenwood:  And it’s not until you actually have the numbers that you are desperately seeking that you could even be in that position to have that power ultimately.

Pyne:  Well this is obviously all hypothetical but I don’t think the numbers would be on the floor of the House to block the Budget, no.

Greenwood:  Interesting.  Christopher Pyne, as I say the Manager of Opposition Business, it was a hectic and very rowdy Question Time today led by Christopher Pyne for the Coalition and we appreciate your time here on Money News.

Pyne:  Pleasure Ross.

ENDS

“Designed to distract from the carbon tax hit to cost of living, which will go up and up every year, this new policy has abandoned any pretence of being about offsetting education costs,” said Christopher Pyne, Shadow Minister for Education today.

“At least the Education Tax Refund allowed parents to claim some education expenses back on their tax return, ensuring it was offsetting the costs of educating children,” he said.

“The Prime Minister shouldn’t dishonestly pretend this is about helping parents by offsetting the costs of education.

“It is just another form of carbon tax compensation, that can be spent on anything at all. 

“The Government continues to borrow more money and while some parents might benefit this year, it will be their children who will have to repay Labor’s debt for years into the future.

“The Coalition’s Education Tax Rebate allows any education related expenses to be claimed, including school fees, ensuring taxpayer’s money is being spent wisely and parents are truly receiving an offset for their child’s education costs,” Mr Pyne said. 

May 6, 2012

E&OE……… 

Linda Mottram:  You’ve been calling for the Government to do something about Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper.  Now they’ve acted.  Isn’t that what you wanted?

Christopher Pyne: Well Linda they haven’t really.  The Prime Minister has done quite a David Copperfield magician’s trick here.  She wants the public and the press to believe that she’s taken action on Craig Thomson but in fact while she continues to receive Craig Thomson’s support in the Parliament in fact nothing as changed at all.  The only difference is Craig Thomson won’t have to put up with the tedium of Labor Party caucus meetings but in fact she still gets his support.

Mottram:  But he is still a member of the Parliament and he gets to vote and as such if he votes with Labor so be it, surely?

Pyne: Yes but the politics of this is the Prime Minister wants people to believe that she’s taken decisive action and showing real leadership three years after the Coalition first asked her to do so.  And yet she wants people to believe that she’s doing that but in fact it’s a smoke and mirrors trick.  Labor still receives Craig Thomson’s support, still receives his vote.  So in fact nothing has changed.  She’s just doing her usual trickiness to try and fool the public.

Mottram:  The Howard Government in the past has relied on the votes of MPs who have been under a cloud over various allegations.  What’s the difference?

Pyne: Well the difference is that Craig Thomson, the allegations against Craig Thomson, are very dramatic.  We’re talking about the potential misuse of hundreds of thousands of dollars of HSU member’s money.  His union has been deregistered by the ACTU.  The Government has acted to put the HSU into administration.  Craig Thompson has been accused of very serious allegations.

Mottram:  Yes, Mr Pyne, but they are still allegations.  That’s the point isn’t it?

Pyne: That’s true and I guess that’s why the Prime Minister felt she needed to act because it’s a corrosive cancer within her government.  This sense that she doesn’t take action because she’d rather hang on to power in the face of all other evidence to the contrary but I don’t think she’s falling anybody.  I think the public believe that there needs to be an election, that we need a government with a clear mandate so that the Government can get  on with governing for the good of the people.  Putting the people first rather than political survival.

Mottram:  Mr Pyne we have a lot of callers to this show who say that regardless of what the political mire may be the Government should see its term through, that it does have policy achievements and that these voters want to see those carried through.  You wouldn’t want to see an early election if that’s the view of voters would you?

Pyne: I think there should have been election almost immediately after the 2010 election which ended with a Parliament where a Labor Government was supported by two conservative MPs in two conservative seats.

Mottram:  That’s just because you guys couldn’t get the Independents across the line to support you.

Pyne:  But Linda the problem with this Government is that it’s never been legitimate.  It’s never been legitimate because it governs with less seats than the Coalition, even more so today, and with the support of conservative MPs sitting in conservative seats.  That’s why its never had any legitimacy and that’s why its never been able to convince the public it deserves to run its full term.  The only way to resolve this is to give the people a say so that we can elect a government  that has as its primary focus the governing for the people rather than governing for its political survival.

Mottram:  Christopher Pyne is our guest this morning, Leader of Opposition Business in the House.  Give us a call if you sit in the seat of Dobell in particular and have a view on whether Mr Thomson’s vote should still be accepted by Labor if he votes in their favour which he says he will.  Mr Pyne, it is about the numbers though and the Government does still have the numbers even though there is some shakiness around that.  The Government does still have the numbers doesn’t it?

Pyne: Well look, Linda, its not really about the numbers it’s actually about good government, it’s about good government for the Australian people. I think we have a government that got elected on the basis of a promise that they would introduce no “Carbon Tax” under a government that the Prime Minister led, a promise she promptly broke. We have a government that relies on a faustian deal with the Greens to stay in power and various side deals with cross benchers in order to prop itself up. We have a government where it’s suborned the member of the Coalition into being the Speaker over Harry Jenkins who was a honourable and fair Speaker, and that’s all ended in tears as we’ve seen this weekend. Unfortunately this is a government that is fackling the confidence of the Australian public, in both its government and its incompetence and its doing it damage. 

Mottram: Okay, have you sought or held meetings with any of the independents, particularly Andrew Wilkie, I think, to try and win them over, to topple this government?   

Pyne: No I haven’t and I don’t know anybody in the Coalition that has. I mean, I read closely what the independence are saying in the press, Andrew Wilkie is clearly at the end of his tether with this government and that’s of course of the Speaker deal, the deal with Peter Slipper into the Speakership was designed to side-line him so the Prime Minister could break yet another promise, this time on “Pokies Reform”.

Mottram: Okay, so there’s no doubt that the government has allowed the Thompson affair to drag out until now, I mean, its years and years. Doesn’t the government get any credit for acting on the Slipper affair far more quickly? 

Pyne: Well the government gets no credit for the matter to do with the Speaker because the Speaker, Peter Slipper should never have been in that role in the first place. The government provides the Speakership and yet because the Prime Minister wanted to shore up her numbers in the parliament and break a promise to Andrew Wilkie over “Pokie Reform”, she suborned a member of the Coalition into taking Harry Jenkins role, of course she gets no credit for it. This is a exploding cigar which has blown up in her face.

Mottram: So how do you balance then, the right to the presumption of innocence in the case of both of these men with questions of integrity? I mean, you’re playing a hard political game with this and yet the presumption of innocence shorely must still stand for both.

Pyne: Well, the Coalition believes they should have the presumption of innocence. If the Labor Party that introduced the Fair Work Act and under section three hundred and sixty one of the Fair Work Act, that suspends the presumption of innocence, in fact, puts the owness of proof on the accused to prove that the accuser is false. So, in fact the Labor Party, against the Coalitions wishes, suspended the presumption of innocence in the Fair Work Act under section three hundred and sixty one, the Opposition voted against that, the government insisted on it, employers have been complaining about it ever since saying you should fix it and now their being quosted on their own cretard because of their desperate support eighteen months ago for whatever the Union wanted.

Mottram: Okay, will we see a motion of no confidence in the government next week? Will you move one?

Pyne: Well, we will do whatever is necessary to restore confidence in the parliament and in the government and at the moment however, Tony Windsor and

Robert Oakeshott seem to have made it clear that they will continue to prop up this terrible government. Therefore there’s not much point in having a motion of no confidence that simply ends with a result that we can already predict if those two gentlemen are going to keep propping up this government. Andrew Wilkie’s indicated that he thinks the government’s time is up, the Opposition obviously thinks that. If Tony Windsor and Robert Oakeshott move such a motion we will definitely support it.  

Mottram: Okay, Christopher Pyne thanks for your time.

Pyne: That’s a pleasure Linda, thank you.

ENDS

E&OE………… 

JON FAINE: Christopher Pyne is Tony Abbott’s Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives he is also shadow Minister for Eduction, Mr Pyne good morning to you.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Good morning Jon.

JON FAINE: There are many lines that get crossed in politics all the time, neither Mr Slipper nor Mr Thomson have been charge or convicted of anything.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well Julia Gillard is talking about an imaginary line Jon, but no one can quite work out what line in particular has been crossed over the weekend. I think probably the truth is that she returned overseas and was told by the faceless men of the Labor Party that her time was up and this is her desperate attempt to cling on to power while Bill Shorten and Kevin Rudd circle her like two vultures.

JON FAINE: Well whether or not there is leadership speculation either way, going back to the original question, in government John Howard faced similar problems, any government  with embarrassing problems has to deal with them as best it sees fit, does it not? This is the process that has got to be followed.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Sure and three years later Julia Gillard has done what the Opposition has been calling for 3 years which is; disown Craig Thomson but she won’t disown his vote, so in fact she’s putting David Copperfield to shame with her magicians trick because essentially while Craig Thomson will be sitting on the crossbenches he’ll continue voting with the Labor Party; so Julia Gillard is no worse off in the Chamber than she was last Friday.

JON FAINE: So you’re saying this is only about how things look rather than how they are? But isn’t that the art of politics, this is a Government that hangs by a fragile thread if Tony Abbott had of done a deal he would have been in a similar position, you do what you need to, to stay in power.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well Tony Abbott wasn’t prepared to do what Julia Gillard was prepared to do which was to sell her soul to Bob Brown and the Greens for a deal and to make a special arrangement with each of the crossbenchers  to secure their power and my how the country has suffered as a consequence. The last 18 months have been amongst the worst in the history of Australia in terms of the confidence of the Parliament and in the confidence of its government. It reached it’s nadir with the appointment of Peter Slipper as Speaker, a Coalition Member she suborned from the Coalition to the Speakership over the top of Harry Jenkins  in order to shore up her numbers and the chickens have very much come home to roost.

JON FAINE: Well insofar as the chickens or eggs, if you nailed down what actually matters the Government still commands the support of the majority on the floor of the House of Representatives, it can survive a vote of no-confidence and has a budget coming through which is guaranteed to go through; the Government is and will still be the Government

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: What really matter Jon is the confidence the public has in their Government and how it affects the business community, employment, inflation, interest rates, cost of living and so on and this Government this Parliament has done a great deal of damage to the confidence of the Australian people and confidence in the Australian economy; that is the real rest on whether the Government is harming the nation, sure they are clinging to power with various backroom deals one after the other in their desperate bid to keep their sorry hide on the Government benches; but in terms of what is good for the Australian public a Government mandate to get on and govern is what the public are demanding and need and that requires an election and the Prime Minister should do the right thing and call one.

JON FAINE: This is really Julia Gillard’s actions yesterday, ring-fencing the problem, quarantining it and trying to get on with the business of running the country as you say, if indeed you’re concerned about confidence, you’re concerned about running the country then shouldn’t you let the Government have some clear air?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well it’s the Opposition’s responsibility to hold the Government to account, it’s our responsibility.

JON FAINE: But it’s how you do that Mr Pyne?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well we show up a bad Government making bad decisions about the Australian Network tender as just one example where people will believe in fact the Government could be accused of corruption for the way they have handled the Australian Network tender, that’s just one example of how the Opposition needs to hold the Government to account. The Government also promised it wouldn’t introduce the carbon tax, the Prime Minister said there would be no carbon tax under a Government I lead; she’s now introduced a carbon tax so it’s the Opposition’s job to hold her to account; we are doing our job and some would say we’re doing it quite effectively.

JON FAINE: Alright well here we are we’re waiting the next session of Parliament which is the budget section, what’s the strategy, what are the tactics for that?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well we’ll continue to put our best foot forward to hold the Government to account, to show that there is at least an adult in the room that is capable of governing, with a group of people who are united behind their leader; all that stands in stark contrast to the Labor where Bill Shorten and Kevin Rudd are manoeuvring for the Leadership while the Prime Minister is drawing imaginary lines saying they’ve been crossed, when everyone’s known for some time that Craig Thomson should not be a part of the Labor Party Caucus and they shouldn’t be accepting his vote and of course the Government should of never have done this backroom deal with Peter Slipper to make him Speaker over the top of a good and honourable Speaker in Harry Jenkins.

JON FAINE: Well we shall see whether or not your in fact your predictions bear fruit, it may be that the inquiries Messrs Thomson and Slipper bare no fruit and all of this turns out to be like Godwin Gretch; a dreadful tactical error the Opposition regret. 

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well we can only hope that the gentlemen are cleared of the allegations that are made against them because they’re very serious allegations, my hope is that they are able to be cleared and get on with their lives but I’m not confident in the case of Craig Thomson at least; there’s so many reports about to be released by Fair Work Australia, the Victorian and NSW Police investigations will soon be completed, it will all end..

JON FAINE: Time will tell, undoubtedly talk back will as well. As always Mr Pyne thank you for your time.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: It’s a pleasure, thank you Jon.

ENDS

E&OE……… 

Latika Bourke: Well, you must be applauding Julia Gillard today.  She’s done two things you’ve long be asking for in asking Peter Slipper to step aside as Speaker and for Craig Thomson to lead the Labor Party. 

Christopher Pyne: Far from it.  All the Prime Minister has done today is confirm what the Opposition has been saying for three years and that is it’s untenable for her Government to be propped up Craig Thomson given the cloud hanging over him, but today all she’s done is ask Craig Thomson to move to the cross benches.  He might be sitting in a different part of the chamber, but he’ll be voting with the Labor Party.  She hasn’t damaged herself holding onto power one iota.  In fact this smoke and mirrors trick would put David Copperfield to shame.  It’s a magicians trick and she’s not fooling anyone.  She’s disowned Craig Thomson, but until she disowns his vote she’s expecting to stay in power with the tainted vote of Craig Thomson. 

Bourke: Tony Abbott has asked for Craig Thomson to be denied voting rights in the Federal Parliament while this goes on.  Is there any precedent in that? 

Pyne: Certainly.  When Mal Colston was under a cloud in the Senate the Government of the day, which was the Howard Government refused to accept Mal Colston’s vote.  If Julia Gillard wasn’t doing anything more than simply cauterising her leadership, which she’s doing today then she would not accept Craig Thomson’s vote.  He’s already indicated Latika that he intends to vote with the Labor Party on every vote.  So in fact she hasn’t changed the position of the Parliament at all.  If she was serious that her Government shouldn’t be tainted by the tainted vote of Craig Thomson she would do what the Howard Government did with Mal Colston and refuse to accept his vote. 

Bourke: But Christopher Pyne, there are no charges laid against Craig Thomson.  There were charges laid against Mary Jo Fisher.  Why did you continue to accept her vote in the Senate? 

Pyne: There are different kinds of cases, as well as you know Latika.  Nobody is seriously suggesting that the case involving Mary Jo Fisher is exactly the same as the case involving Craig Thomson.  With the case of Craig Thomson the Government has moved for the administration of the Health Services Union.  The ACTU has expelled the HSU from the union movement.  The claims are that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on personal expenditure, prostitutes, interstate travel and campaign expenses when Craig Thomson was the secretary of the Health Services Union.  What the Labor Party has done is replaced Ben Chifley’s light on the hill with Craig Thomson’s red light on the hill and they’re all rushing towards it with their credit cards.  The truth is there’s no comparison.  The public knows that.  Common sense tells us that and until the Government refuses to accept Craig Thomson’s vote, they are simply trying to fool the Australian public yet again that they’re somehow acting appropriately when they haven’t changed anything at all. 

Bourke: Christopher Pyne, Federal Parliament resumes next week.  Are you going to move a no-confidence motion in the Government now that you’ve been denied the opportunity to move one on the Speaker? 

Pyne: The Opposition hasn’t been denied an opportunity to move a no-confidence motion in the Speaker or the Government.  We can do that at any point.  The Speaker remains the Speaker. 

Bourke: But Peter Slipper is going to step aside for Anna Burke.  You are going to support Anna Burke aren’t you? 

Pyne: Peter Slipper has stood aside from the chamber, but he’s still the Speaker.  Technically we could move a no-confidence motion in anybody we wanted to, but that’s besides the point.  The Opposition doesn’t support this Government.  We’ve already lost confidence in it and everyone knows that and Andrew Wilkie today has indicated he’s lost confidence in the Government. 

Bourke: Why not test that on the floor of Parliament then Christopher Pyne? 

Pyne: This isn’t about the numbers in the Parliament, it’s about the judgement of the Prime Minister and her integrity and the integrity of the Parliament, but Tony Windsor and Robert Oakeshott continue to prop up this Government.  While those two gentlemen continue to insist that there’s “nothing to see here, everyone move on people, there’s nothing to be concerned about” there’s no point in the Opposition moving a no confidence motion.  Those members should move a no-confidence motion.  Tony Windsor and Robert Oakeshott should move one and the Opposition should support it, but while they continue to prop up a very bad Government, which is getting worse they will get themselves further and further into the mire with the Labor Party and the revenge on election day from the Australian public I think will be of Titanic proportions. 

Bourke: It could take from now until the next election for Peter Slipper’s case to be resolved.  Should he just stand aside from the Parliament? 

Pyne: Well, that’s up to Peter Slipper.  That’s up to Peter Slipper.  We didn’t make Peter Slipper Speaker.  The Labor Party made Peter Slipper.  The Labor Party supported Craig Thomson for three years and continues to take Craig Thomson’s vote.  The Labor Party has to resolve these issues.  If Peter Slipper wants to stand down from the Parliament that’s entirely a matter for him.  Certainly it was the right thing for him to stand aside from the Speakership.  Whether he goes any further than that – what’s in his best interests and the best interests of his family – is a matter for him. 

Bourke: Do you have any knowledge of anyone in the Coalition aiding James Ashby to make these claims against Peter Slipper? 

Pyne: No I don’t. 

Bourke: Is it possible that anyone in the Coalition did? 

Pyne: I haven’t got the faintest clue.  The first I knew about the Federal Court action was when I read it in the News Ltd papers Saturday week ago.  I had no specific knowledge of these allegations. 

Bourke: You’ve claimed some political scalps today Christopher Pyne, but are you worried in general about this brutal brand of politics taking place here in Canberra and the damage it’s doing to the parliament and the institution? 

Pyne: I am.  I’m very worried about the brand of politics in Canberra at the moment.  I think this has been a terrible Parliament.  It’s been a Parliament, which has been as you said brutal, but it’s all because of the Prime Minister’s desire to hang onto power post the 2010 election.  Her determination to do a deal with the devil of Faustian proportions with Bob Brown and the Greens to bring them front and centre into the Government. 

Bourke: You don’t take any responsibility for the brutal brand of politics we’re seeing? 

Pyne:  Well no I don’t.  It’s the Opposition’s job to hold a bad Government to account and there’s been plenty of material with which to do so.  It was the Government’s choice to play a dance with the Independents in conservative seats in Tony Windsor and Robert Oakeshott. It was their choice to do a deal with the Greens and bring Bob Brown into the Government and they are all paying the price for that.  It was their decision to suborn Peter Slipper into leaving the Coalition and taking the Speaker’s chair and ditching Harry Jenkins, an honourable and fair Speaker in the process.  These are all bad judgement calls the Prime Minister’s made and she is reaping the whirlwinds of her yesterday.

Bourke: Christopher Pyne, we’ve run out of time.  Thanks for joining us on ABC 24.

ENDS