Doorstop - Adelaide

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
Press Conference — Doorstop, Adelaide
Friday 13 March 2015

SUBJECTS: Higher education reform, Palmer United Party.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well thank you very much for coming this morning to this doorstop. I would like to talk about higher education reform and I’m sure you might have a few questions. The first thing I should say is that the higher education reform bill number two will be debated in the Senate next week on Monday to Wednesday. I understand that the agreement between the Coalition and the opposition has been that that will be dealt with for the first half of next week and not delayed. The Senate Committee reports will be handed down on Monday or Tuesday – the debate will begin and it will be concluded. So we will get a decision one way or the other next week about whether the Senate is prepared to allow universities to be deregulated, provide more opportunity for tens of thousands of more students, make our universities the best higher education system in the world with some of the best universities in the world, or not. I would point the Senate to the comments of Peter Beattie, the former premier of Queensland, who said on Paul Murray a couple of nights ago that the Senate should pass this reform bill. Peter Beattie, a Labor luminary, joins a long list of other Labor luminaries calling for the reform bill to pass. Gareth Evans, the former foreign minister under Labor, John Dawkins, the former Labor treasurer and education minister, Maxine McKew, the former Member for Bennelong and now Peter Beattie have all said that these reform bills should be passed and that the Labor Party should join in the conversation rather than being a blocking party. But even putting Labor to one side, the message to the crossbenchers from Peter Beattie and the other Labor figures is: pass this reform bill and give our universities the chance to reach their full potential and not stagnate into mediocrity, to use the words of Universities Australia.

JOURNALIST: On that topic of higher education and branching off onto the resignation of Glenn Lazarus today, is…

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I thought you might ask about that.

JOURNALIST: I thought you might think that I might ask you about that, too. Firstly, how do you see it – is it an implosion of Palmer United now?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well unfortunately the Palmer United Party began with three Senators and now has one. I can’t comment on the internal dynamics of the Palmer United Party. I get along very well with Clive Palmer. I’m yet to meet Glenn Lazarus, in spite of the fact that the Government’s major microeconomic reform is in the Senate next week for the second time and I’m yet to actually have the opportunity to put our case to him. And as the leader of the Palmer United Party in the Senate, that has surprised me, but that’s a matter for him. I hope that he will have an open mind towards our reforms. Obviously, I will re-double my efforts with both he and Dio Wang to see if we can gain the support that we need. I’m talking to each of the individual crossbenchers. I don’t know, to be honest, what the effect of him leaving Palmer United Party will be on the outcome of the reform bill, but all I can do is to continue to forge ahead with our plans and hope that they’ll be passed next week.

JOURNALIST: Are you planning to announce a deal with Clive Palmer about these reforms?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well I would love to be able to announce a deal with Clive Palmer about these higher education reforms. At the moment, the only Palmer United Party Senator is Dio Wang. Dio Wang’s already indicated publicly that he supports reform of higher education. He’s already indicated publicly that he’s been lobbying both Clive Palmer and Glenn Lazarus to support these reform bills. So I at least hope, now that Glenn Lazarus is not the leader of the Palmer United Party in the Senate anymore, that Dio Wang might be free to support this bill next week.

JOURNALIST: Is there any internal party resistance to follow through on your threat to cut the $150 million into funding for research?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, absolutely none. The Labor Party defunded the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme – it’s a $150 million scheme out of $9 billion of spending the Commonwealth does on research every year. The Labor Party defunded that scheme and I want to re-fund it. I’ve found the savings to do so through the reform of the higher education sector and I’m very passionately committed to continuing the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme, but the savings to fund it are in the reform bill. And if the crossbenchers and the Labor Party vote against the reform bill, they will effectively be voting against the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme continuing.

JOURNALIST: So is the AFR incorrect in saying that there are members of your party that are hoping that you’re not going to follow through on your threat?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: The AFR story is false. I indicated that to the journalist yesterday.

JOURNALIST: So, just getting back to the Palmer United Party, is it rapidly losing the whole Clive Palmer phenomenon? Is it losing muscle now that it seems that Senators are dropping off like flies?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, Mike, you can do the mathematics as well as anybody. They had three Senators in November last year, they now have one. I think that’s obviously unfortunate from Clive Palmer’s point of view, and the Palmer United Party. I haven’t heard what Clive Palmer has said about Glenn Lazarus’ announcement today. I just want Glenn Lazarus to talk to me about the higher education reforms and have an open mind about them.

JOURNALIST: But, it could be that him not being part of the party, he might be a looser cannon than he was before?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, there are eight crossbenchers, not more than one of them in any particular party. So there are eight individuals that the Government needs to deal with. I have, since the Budget last year and before, tried to treat each one with the respect that they deserve, to explain as methodically as I can, the Government’s reforms in higher education, and I am pleased to say that in many other parts of my portfolio, whether it’s the curriculum or teacher training or independent public schools, I have received a lot of support from the crossbenchers. Last November, I received the support of four crossbenchers out of eight, and I’d obviously like to add two of those next week.

JOURNALIST: You’ve had several organisations coming out and speaking out against your attempts to tie research funding with this university package. Do you now see that it may have been a mistake, and that you’re actually creating another front that the Abbott Government’s going to have to fight against?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, it certainly is not a mistake. Most people who are stakeholders in a particular sector would like to have funding for their areas of expertise. They aren’t responsible for finding savings in the rest of the Budget. Ministers, Treasurers, Prime Ministers, Governments are. Under Labor, we had $667 billion worth of debt, starting off on zero they ended up at $667 billion in six years. The job of the Government, and Ministers in it, is to find savings if you have spending proposals. NCRIS is a spending proposal, I have found a saving.

JOURNALIST: Are you looking for savings elsewhere in case this doesn’t come through?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I want the Government’s bill to be passed, that’s why I put it into the Senate, and I hope that it will be passed next week. The saving increase is just one of the reasons why the bill should be passed. There’s also obviously the issue of 80,000 less students getting the opportunity to go to university if these bills fail. There’s also the issue of Labor’s alternative, which is to cap, to pay on outcomes and compacts, which will lead to 37,000 less low-SES students going to uni, and $520 million less revenue for universities. So Bill Shorten’s policy is to slam the door in the face of low-SES and first-generation university goers. We’re now in the, some would regard, the ironic position, of Labor being the party of elitism, and the Coalition being the party of expanding opportunity, as we’ve always been, to low-SES and first-generation university goers.

JOURNALIST: Is it good for Australian democracy that the Palmer United Party appears to be in so much turmoil?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, I don’t think it is good for Australian democracy. I think what’s good for Australian democracy is elections being held, and stable governments governing in the best interests of the people.

JOURNALIST: Stable Senates?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Stable Senates and stable governments governing in the best interest of the public into the future before the next election – until the next election. So, tumult in the Senate is not conducive to good democracy and I think it’s a pity that both Jacqui Lambie and Glenn Lazarus chose to leave the Palmer United Party, but that’s a choice that they made on their own initiative, and as a Liberal, I can assure you that I’m not planning on leaving the Liberal Party.

JOURNALIST: But you still have to suck up to Clive Palmer big time, don’t you?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I prefer to say that Clive and I are in constructiveand charming conversations about the benefits of our reforms.

JOURNALIST: But do you feel now that it’s been slightly a waste of time wining and dining Clive Palmer now he doesn’t have as many party members to take this through?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, the wonderful thing about having dinner with Clive Palmer is he insists on paying, so I haven’t wasted any money or any time. Thank you very much.

[ends]