ABC 891

E&OE TRANSCRIPT 891 ABC Adelaide Breakfast with Matthew Abraham and David Bevan Wednesday 27 August 2014 SUBJECTS:  Interview with Christopher Pyne and Mark Butler. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Joining us now is Christopher Pyne.  He is the Liberal MP for Sturt.  He is Education Minister in the Abbott government.  He leads the house in terms of strategy for the Government.  Chris Pyne, welcome to the program. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:                    Good morning, Matthew.  Good morning, David. DAVID BEVAN:         Good morning. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      And Mark Butler, the Labor MP for Port Adelaide, Opposition environment and climate change spokesman.  Welcome to the program, Mark Butler. MARK BUTLER:       Thank you.  Good morning, everyone. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Chris Pyne, I think you and Jamie Briggs made it pretty clear that if Jay Weatherill continued with Martin Hamilton-Smith in his team, then, effectively, they would be frozen out.  Doors would be closed to Martin Hamilton-Smith in Canberra, and it would appear you are following through on that, and is that damaging our state? CHRISTOPHER PYNE:                    Well, the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear on the weekend that South Australia will be the big beneficiary of the new submarine project when that is announced and begun, because obviously South Australia has the equipment, the ship lift, the personnel, et cetera, to do the submarines for Australia.  So the – he actually has used the phrase that there would be thousands of jobs or eons of jobs, one of those phrases, for South Australia because of the submarines and – so South Australia is benefiting from having a Liberal government in Canberra. MATTHEW ABRAHAM: It does seem strange that the state Defence Industries Minister Martin Hamilton-Smith doesn’t know.  He is not informed that 40 Japanese experts are here touring around the site. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:                    Well, I must admit I am not aware of the arrangements, the machinery around that visit.  David Johnston or the ASC themselves would be aware.  I have no idea why Martin Hamilton-Smith would expect to be included. DAVID BEVAN:         Well, he is the Defence Industries Minister.  Apparently, he can’t get a meeting with the Federal Defence Minister. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:                    Well, look, that’s a matter for David Johnston and for Martin Hamilton-Smith… DAVID BEVAN:         [Interrupts] Have you poisoned the well? CHRISTOPHER PYNE:                    Well, certainly not.  The simple truth is that South Australia is benefiting from having a Liberal government by the recovery of the economy, the repairing of the Budget.  Obviously, me as the Education Minister means that our universities are central to the Government here in Canberra.  The submarine projects that will come down the line [indistinct]… DAVID BEVAN:         So there’s no threat to the submarine project? CHRISTOPHER PYNE:                    …1.2 billion dollars.  No.  Absolutely not a threat to it whatsoever. DAVID BEVAN:         Mark Butler, do you… CHRISTOPHER PYNE:                    [Interrupts] And there is a 1.2 billion dollar investment in Edinborough Air Base. DAVID BEVAN:         Okay. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:                    So we are putting a lot of effort into South Australia. DAVID BEVAN:         Mark Butler, as the Labor MP for the port, Port Adelaide, are you happy now? MARK BUTLER:       Not at all.  David Johnston, before the election, came to Adelaide and said these words:  the Coalition is committed to building 12 new submarines in Adelaide.  Now, that took them some time to do that.  There was speculation for many months that the Liberal Party might walk away from this program, but David Johnston promised the South Australians the words I just indicated and Tony Abbott, for all the words that Christopher said he might have used over the weekend, blankly refused to repeat that election commitment. Now, there has been some speculation about this area for some time and I have been willing to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, but what has happened in the last few days is absolutely extraordinary.  Sneaking a delegation of 40 Japanese submarine experts onto the site at Osborne down on the LeFevre Peninsula is just an extraordinary thing to do without even telling, without even giving the courtesy to the state government to let them know that they are there because they are partners. DAVID BEVAN:         Well, when you say they are… MARK BUTLER:       [Interrupts] They are partners. DAVID BEVAN:         When you say they are sneaking them onto the site, they are not… MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Wearing dark glasses and sort of trench coats.  They are not dressing them up. [Laughter] MARK BUTLER:       No.  No.  But they didn’t tell their partner.  Now, the wonderful thing about the success of South Australia’s defence industry is that it has been a partnership between state and federal governments.  Not party-political partnerships:  it was a very open, transparent, constructive partnership between the Wran government and the Howard government and, for reasons that I can’t explain, I can’t understand, the Abbott Government seems to have jumped that cooperative partnership. DAVID BEVAN:         Well, do you – they – wasn’t Jay Weatherill, who is a good friend of yours, dumb in appointing such a controversial figure who has already jumped ship?  He would fit the description of a turncoat or whatever else you would use.  He jumped ship to join the Labor Party when there is a federal Liberal government in. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Mike Wran, he showed extraordinary savvy, didn’t he, when he took conservatives and placed them in his cabinet or gave them appointments such as Alexander Downer, because Downer – not in this cabinet, but in significant roles, because he knew that these people had good connections with conservative governments and they could make things happen.  Hamilton-Smith is the exact opposite.  He is hated within conservative circles now. MARK BUTLER:       Well, that might be the case.  I would be utterly gobsmacked if the Government were approaching their ship-building policy on the basis of a personal hatred of Martin Hamilton-Smith.  I mean, I have read Tony Abbott’s speech that he gave in Adelaide over the weekend, and it was full of hatred and resentment, but that was all targeted at Jay Weatherill.  It wasn’t particularly at Martin Hamilton-Smith. My concern is that the Federal Government is sidelining the Weatherill government, not Martin Hamilton-Smith personally, and I’m deeply concerned – this politics aside, this game-playing aside – I’m deeply concerned that the Minister, David Johnston, is walking away from a clear election commitment and sidling up to a strategy of paying the Japanese to build our submarine fleet. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Chris Pyne, if we can move on directly to your portfolio, you’re meeting Warren Bebbington, University of Adelaide Vice-Chancellor, along with other Group of Eight university leaders this morning.  Are you prepared to compromise?  They want your plan amended.  Are you able to swallow that? CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        Well, yeah, I’m happy to answer that question, but just before I do, before I get off the previous subject, it’s not the Federal Government that is spending $1 million of taxpayers’ money that it doesn’t have to attack a different government.  I mean, the South Australian Labor party is spending $1 million of South Australian taxpayers’ money to attack the Federal Government in an unbridled advertising campaign, and then they turn around and say, well, why doesn’t the Federal Government want to talk to us every day of the week and include us in all their meetings and have coffee with us and catch up with us.  I mean, for goodness sake.  I mean, I will do everything I can for South Australia, and that’s why we’re putting more money into Edinburgh, the North-South Corridor… MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Yeah.  Yeah. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        …which department has to turn the first sod on Olympic Dam, trying to get South Australia moving, while the State Labor government is engaging in pathetic, petty politics. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Now, will you move ground on your education reforms? CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        Well, I’m introducing the reform bill tomorrow into the House of Representatives.  I believe it is a very fair attempt at trying to repair the damage to the universities that was done by Labor.  The Universities Australia and the Vice-Chancellors want reform.  A number of people have views about whether it could be amended, whether it should be changed.  That process will begin tomorrow, but I believe that the whole package will deliver more opportunity for students, make our universities internationally competitive, amongst the best in the world… DAVID BEVAN:         Is… CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        …and I’d like to see it pass. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Yeah. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        But I’m realistic enough to know that the senate is not controlled… MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Okay. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        …by the Government, and I’ll have to sit down and negotiate with the senators. DAVID BEVAN:         Is there much difference between what you’ll be introducing to the Parliament in this package from what you originally outlined? CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        No.  It will be absolutely exactly the same. DAVID BEVAN:         So it’s exactly the same.  So any changes will be from this point onwards negotiated through the Parliament.  It’s not the case of you flagged your reform package months ago, you’ve had a lot of feedback, and you’re going to introduce a modified package to the Parliament.  No, you’ll do the modifying, if it’s necessary, in the Parliament. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        Correct. DAVID BEVAN:         Right. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Now, it’s a quarter to 9, and before the bells ring in Canberra, we have with us Chris Pyne and Mark Butler, two influential people in their own parties, Mark Butler from the Labor Party, Chris Pyne from the Liberal Party and Government.  Mark Butler, to you:  the coalition is proposing… MARK BUTLER:       Well, Matthew, can I just say something about university fees issues. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      We’re all – okay.  Fair enough. MARK BUTLER:       Because your listeners won’t have had the benefit of this, I suspect, but the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age have splashed some new modelling which is from the universities themselves, we understand, that just confirms the inequity of these proposals from Christopher.  It confirms that student debt could skyrocket by as much as 300 per cent if these reforms are passed, and it confirms that the reforms will be to the particular benefit of the old sandstone universities, which includes Adelaide, but there are eight of them around the country, and to the detriment of all of the other universities in the sector, so you know, Christopher usually makes [indistinct]… MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Well, why do the universities support – why do they support some of the major planks in it, though, such as deregulation of fees? MARK BUTLER:       Well, what you’ll see is the Group of Eight, the big old sandstone universities, come out and support the deregulation, because as this modelling confirms, they stand to benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by those reforms.  But that won’t spread the cost [indistinct]… MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      So you say – are you saying in South Australia, Uni SA and Flinders would suffer? MARK BUTLER:       Well, that’s what this modelling confirms.  Now, Christopher usually complains about the sources of these modellings, but this modelling is from the universities themselves, as we understand it.   [indistinct]… MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Well, we’ve also identified… MARK BUTLER:       [indistinct] MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Does he regard that as credible?  Chris Pyne? CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        I haven’t seen that modelling, so I can’t comment on it. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Well, do you believe that Uni SA – or what assurances can you give that Uni SA and Flinders won’t suffer at the expense of University of Adelaide under these changes? CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        Well, University of South Australia and Flinders will be big winners from the reform for the simple reason that we are expanding the demand-driven system.  So we are removing the cap on students in the bachelor and sub-bachelor courses like diplomas and associate diplomas.  They offer a large number of those to low-SES young people, and that means they will be a big, big winner [indistinct]… MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      But how can you maintain standards if you’re going to have a big increase in people who are just prepared to pay for – to get in? CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        Well, that’s not what will happen.  Standards will actually improve because the service that universities offer will have to be better in order to attract students.  That’s what competition does.  A lack of competition means basically you can offer anything and you’ll get the students.  Competition means that students will be more discerning and go where they think they’re going to get a better-quality course. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      It’s 13 to 9.  Mark Butler, if we can just come back to what I was trying to ask you. MARK BUTLER:       Sorry about that. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      The Coalition’s proposed code for the industry:  did you support the current situation where employers have to pay the expenses for union delegates to visit their factories and work sites and drill rigs?  And one example is given of BHP Billiton having to pay a 20 – an average of 20 visits a day.  Now, why don’t the unions pay for that out of the membership fees?  Why should employers be paying for that? MARK BUTLER:       Look, I’m not across that detail.  I don’t know whether that is something that’s been negotiated through an enterprise bargaining agreement.  Often those arrangements for union delegates or union officials to visit sites are the subject of negotiations and employers either agree to them or don’t. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Well, what… MARK BUTLER:       Beyond that, I can’t really help you.  I’m not sure of the details of that. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Okay.  As I understood it from listening to Parliament yesterday… MARK BUTLER:       [Interrupts] Yep. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      …this was a requirement.  But it’s not specific to any particular award. MARK BUTLER:       Look, it might be.  I’ve not looked at that [indistinct]… MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      [Interrupts] But do you think it’s a dumb idea? MARK BUTLER:       Well, I think these things are matters to be negotiated at the enterprise level if employees agree that that’s inefficient for them. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        [Interrupts] He can’t say it’s a dumb idea, he’s a union leader. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Well, Mark Butler, can I ask you this. MARK BUTLER:       Yes. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Malcolm Turnbull in AM was saying, look, it’s not PUP and the Independents that are exclusively blocking the Budget.  It is Labor.  If – Labor could pass this Budget and the criticism he had of Labor was that you haven’t produce an alternative which led him to argue, well, they just think we can keep on going the way we are.  Is that the case?  Do you have a Jay Weatherill approach to deficits, and that is something will turn up? MARK BUTLER:       No.  No, we don’t, and I think our time in government with a range of very sensible saving measures that were equitable across the community indicate that we took the Budget very, very seriously.  Measures, I might say, that were almost uniformly opposed by the then opposition, the Liberal Party. Malcolm is right, though, that we are opposing a range of the measures in this Budget, particularly things that go to Medicare, to university fees, to pension arrangements and suchlike.  But ultimately it’s the Government that is – has the responsibility to get a budget through. Now, I can’t work out whether they’re saying they want to go hard or whether they want to go soft.  The Australian newspaper says today that they’re trucking around a paper that says that if we don’t pass the budget, what they’ll do is increase income tax for low to middle income earners by about $1700 a year. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Well… MARK BUTLER:       [Interrupts] So Malcolm can’t shirk this.  They’ve only done one year of government [indistinct]… MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      [Interrupts] But you can shirk it? MARK BUTLER:       [Interrupts] They’re the ones that have to come up with a Budget. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Well… MARK BUTLER:       [Interrupts] Our responsibility is to hold them to account for measures that are sensible and that accord with their election commitments. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Chris Pyne. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        Well, in fact, Labor is trying to make our break our election commitments.  For example, we were elected on the basis of abolishing the carbon tax.  Labor has spent 12 months stopping the abolition of the carbon tax.  We were elected on the basis of abolishing the mining tax.  Labor is continuing to stop us from abolishing the mining tax.  So, far from actually holding us to our election promises, Labor is voting in the Senate to block us from keeping our election promises and Mark Butler is therefore hoisted [indistinct]… MARK BUTLER:       Election promises like cutting the pension.  Election promises like [indistinct]… CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        Well, why don’t you pass the abolition of the mining tax, since we promised it? MARK BUTLER:       What’s that going to do for your Budget?  I thought we were talking about the Budget. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        But you just said that we would – that you were going to keep us to our election promises [indistinct]… MARK BUTLER:       [Interrupts] Your Budget [indistinct]… CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        …[indistinct] break our election promises. MARK BUTLER:       The GP arrangements.  The pension arrangements.  University arrangements. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        You can’t have it both ways, Mark.  You can’t [indistinct]… MARK BUTLER:       [Interrupts] We’re talking about the Budget. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        …keep their election promises and then vote in the Senate to try and force us to break our election promises and that’s what you’re currently doing. MARK BUTLER:       You made very clear promises about health and education and pensions and we have to keep Tony Abbott to them. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        [Interrupts] What about the mining tax? MARK BUTLER:       We intend to keep Tony Abbott to those promises. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        [Interrupts] What about the mining tax? MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      What about, though, if you are going to keep them to their promises, how about passing the things that they did promise?  That’s his point.  Is that… MARK BUTLER:       [Interrupts] What? MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Well, the mining – the repeal of the mining tax. MARK BUTLER:       We made our position very clear about this. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:  No.  No.  I know that, but now you’re [indistinct]… MARK BUTLER:       [Interrupts] But what they’ve done is bundled the… MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Has Christopher Pyne not pointed to an inconsistency? MARK BUTLER:       What they’ve done sneakily is to bundle the mining tax arrangements in with a bill that cuts superannuation arrangements for the lowest-paid workers in Australia, cuts the schoolkids bonus, and a range of other things as well. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        And we promised that before the election as well. MARK BUTLER:       And we just simply won’t cooperate in cutting arrangements for the lowest income in Australia [indistinct]… MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      So you’ll keep them to the promises you like. MARK BUTLER:       We will assess all of the measures that come before the Parliament and, as I said, make an assessment about whether they’re equitable, whether they’re sensible, and whether they accord with the election commitments that Tony Abbott made.  The GP tax, the university arrangements, the pension arrangements don’t tick any of those boxes. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:      Mark Butler, thank you.  Labor MP for Port Adelaide.  He speaks for the Opposition on climate change.  And, Chris Pyne, thank you to you.  Liberal MP for Sturt and Education Minister. CHRISTOPHER PYNE:        It’s a pleasure.  Thank you. MATTHEW ABRAHAM:  Thank you. [ends]