2GB – Luke Grant

SUBJECTS:  Reforming the Parliament E&OE................................ Luke Grant:…time to tell memore he’s just had a couple of hours with the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne detailing the proposals in a speech, Chris welcome. Hon Christopher Pyne MP: Luke, good to be with you. Grant: Yeah good to talk to you as well. Many people ring this station and talk to us about Question Time being a waste of time the Dorothy Dixers, prepared questions, prepared statements. How would your reforms address that specific issue? Pyne: Well, a number of the changes that I am suggesting would introduce a certain level of spontaneity into the Chamber. For example allowing Members to accept interventions during their speeches so that they have to respond to questions from other Members which would mean they’d actually have to know absolutely about what they were speaking about rather than simply reading out prepared speeches written by someone else that would be helpful. I also think that backbenchers miss the boat a bit with our current structure of Question Time because the frontbenchers get to ask the questions about things like the cost of living, jobs security, border protection, economic management and that doesn’t really leave enough room for local issues from backbenchers to be administered. So I want to  introduce a specific back bench question time and I think people are thoroughly sick of the Ministers standing up and making a slanderous comment about Tony Abbott or me or somebody else despite it being factually incorrect and when its, when its corrected they  still make the same slanderous remark the next day and I think that the public think well for goodness sake if the bloke or the woman who’s corrected it should be at least protected by the Speaker but that doesn’t happen under the Standing Orders so there’s a number of changes  you could make to  restore a bit of faith in the Parliament . The overwhelming one though of course Luke is the Prime Minister needs to lead by example and this Prime Minister Julia Gillard is the past master of a vicious and vindictive speech and I think that unfortunately affects the whole of the parliamentary colour. Grant: Yeah, that, that backbenchers Question Time concept is interesting, would that be in addition to  the existing Question Time or some completely different separate event? Pyne: It would be an addition, so we’d have our normal Question Time where the issues of the day get aired and the Opposition gets to  hold the Government to  account and remembering that I’m hoping that we’ll be in Government but I’m actually giving more strength power to the Opposition in effect then to the Government but I have actually been in Parliament 20 years Luke and I think that having observed it for 20 years a strong Opposition that can hold the  Government to  account is good for the country and I’d like to see the Parliament be able to do that but this would be in addition to the current Question Time. Grant: When, when you all got together and had that awkward although you sensibly tried to get out of it, that that awkward looking group hug thing. Pyne: Group hug? Grant: Yeah. Pyne: I wasn’t part of that. Grant:   No, No I was very, I was very glad , I was, I was momentarily concerned that you wanted to involve yourself with those other three. Pyne: There was no desire. Grant: No, well done there,I would have thought that given the so called cooperation that we were seeing in the early days of this Parliament this Parliament might of in fact been better than previous ones but I don’t know that many of the reforms have actually helped or are there one or two decent things that you’ll be retaining? Pyne: Yes, I think you’re right on both counts. I think this has been one of the worst Parliaments that I have ever been, I’ve ever seen or been part of and I think the reason for that is because of the example set by the Prime Minister but one of the changes of the new paradigm ushered in was that time limits on questions and answers and we’ll certainly be keeping that – I mean who can forget Kevin Rudd’s eleven and a half minute answer to a question. And the fact that there’s now a three minute time limit on questions I think and sorry answers have been a big improvement, keeps things flowing along so we’ll certainly keep some of that. Grant: In relation to that, because the Prime Minister’s made the claim continually that you won’t repeal the Carbon Tax you’ll leave it there, you might just have a little nip and tuck here but in essence it’ll, it’ll remain as it is and of course you and the Leader, Greg Hunt and others have said it’s completely going to be repealed. See they, they repeat that too often and I mean that’s just outrageous. It would be the same were in government and you said something in relation to the way they might behave, that is something that has to stop. But how do you actually control that because you’re right in saying they will get up, they’ll have to withdraw but the fact is it’s still out there and on the record. Pyne: Yeah that’s right. Grant: Unless you suspend them, what do you do? Pyne:    Well it’s incredibly frustrating but I think the best example I could give is that the, that Wayne Swan constantly says that we opposed the Global Financial Crisis Stimulus Package. Grant: Yes. Pyne: And of course that’s factually untrue because our votes are recorded in the parliamentary record of us voting for the Global Financial Crisis Stimulus Package and yet he continues to say the same thing. He must have said it a hundred times -  of course under this change, if the Speaker satisfied themselves that we had corrected the record and he did it again you could through him out of the Chamber and give him an hour’s break or a day off for continuing to  repeat a slander that’s simply factually untrue. Grant: Now your sparring partner Anthony Albanese Leader of the House, of course today argues it’s your side that’s brought the standard down.  He says they suspended Standing Orders on 72 occasions which led to a loss of 409 questions in Question Time.  Is the cleanup of Parliament something that both sides of the House need to work harder on? Pyne: Yes, well of course it is.  And I’m disappointed actually that Anthony would respond so negatively with just saying no to our suggested changes.   Grant: Yeah you’re meant to be the kings of negativity aren’t you, Christopher?   Pyne: It seems odd to me that the irony is he’s always accusing us of being negative and I’ve made some very practical, I hope useful suggestions to reform the Parliament and his response has been to dismiss them out of hand and I think that’s a disappointment.   Grant: Yeah.  He also spoke about contempt for process when you and Tony attempted to neutralise a vote by Thompson but the Government itself could be criticised for dirty politics in creating the situation.  How do you get around that?   Pyne: Yes well you know I don’t think, as much as I like Anthony Albanese as a person, I don’t think he’s in a position to be throwing stones as they say to people in glass houses because we didn’t ask Harry Jenkins to stand down in order to put Peter Slipper into the Speakership and we saw how that ended.  The truth is, this has been a very poor Parliament in terms of people’s faith in it as an institution and come the election in August; we need to restore faith in the Parliament.  I’ve made some practical suggestions and look forward to Anthony making some as well.   Grant: I’m a little surprised that you talk so highly of him as a person do you have the odd cold one with him and talk about you know, football and the like?   Pyne: Well the thing is you see, he’s the Leader of the House and I’m the Manager of Opposition Business.  I think we probably talk to each other more than we talk to anybody else on a parliamentary sitting day because we try to manage you know the Parliament so that it can at least deal with legislation and other matters that need to be dealt with and keep it slightly on an even keel and so I’ve come to know Anthony quite well over the years and of course I have very strong views that are different to his about policy and the direction of the country but  that doesn’t  mean I don’t think he’s not a bad bloke when it’s all said and done.     Grant: Fair enough.  The other point and perhaps we’ll leave it on this is the great frustration many of us feel when for example a range of allegations are made against a Member and there seems to be some evidence there and it just takes forever to have it dealt with and I’m referring here specifically about cases like the allegations to do with Craig Thompson, and those that might do with Peter Slipper.  Now it seems as a voter looking at what’s happening Christopher that they will take as long as it takes to ensure this Parliament goes to the next election.  Now I might have that horribly wrong but it feels like one rule for pollies, this whole investigation takes forever,  where if me or one of my producers here or anyone else, it would be looked at a couple of weeks and you’d be hung drawn and quartered, if that was the case.  Is there anything you can do in tidying up the way Parliament operates to ensure when these matters come forward they’re dealt with swiftly? Pyne: Well one of the things I suggest here in this speech is that we would make time on the parliamentary  schedule for a Member who’s facing the kinds of serious allegations that Craig Thomson has faced for example to respond in the Parliament.  Whereas the Labor party and Independents have spent much of the last two and a half years voting down motions from the Opposition to call Craig Thompson to account I think that the better thing to do would be to front up if Craig Thompson has an argument to put in his defence he should be allowed to put it in the Chamber without being dragged kicking and screaming to do so by Suspension Motions, what I have said is that we will make time available for that rather than having the necessity for the Opposition to move a motion and honestly Luke, I’ve always thought that the better thing to do is for the Member who’s facing these kinds of allegations to come in, to put their side of the story and let people judge one way or the other Grant: But that’s the same with the Prime Minister and the allegations in relation to the AWU fund.  I mean the idea that she fronted some journalists for an hour, there’s the People’s House there that she’s elected to, to be a Member of, shouldn’t she get on her feet in that and make a statement.  I mean I would have thought that’s the appropriate thing to do, she’s accountable in there. Pyne: There’s no doubt about it and the reason why the Prime Minister made those statements to the press gallery rather than to the Chamber is of course if you mislead the Parliament it’s a very serious sanction that attaches to that where as much as we don’t want to mislead journalists, there isn’t the same sanction for parsing an answer at a press conference.  That’s why we wanted the Prime Minister to make a full statement and to be honest; she’s yet to do so. Grant: Indeed.  Good to chat to you Christopher.  Thank you so much. ENDS.