RN Drive
28 Jan 2016
Transcipt E&OE TRANSCRIPT
Interview with Patricia Karvelas
28 January 2016
SUBJECTS: National Innovation and Science Agenda;
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Happy New Year Minister, and welcome back to RN Drive.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Patricia, it’s great to be with you on your birthday. Happy birthday.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: I wanted to spend my birthday with you, Minister. Let’s get into it.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Have you turned 30 yet?
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Just today.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Excellent, lucky you.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Finally. Let’s get into it. What can you tell me, what is the Government ready to announce? You’ve just stepped out of Cabinet.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Yes, it was our first Cabinet meeting of the year, where we discussed obviously strategy around the Government’s agenda. Late last year as you would know, and your listeners would know, we announced the National Innovation and Science Agenda in December, and one of my important roles now is to deliver that; to implement it over the coming months. So obviously we talked about that agenda, but we also had briefings from Scott Morrison and Mathias Cormann about the situation with the economy and the budget from members- senior officials around the national security situation. And we didn’t make any decisions today, because today was a general discussion about the directions over the next 12 months, but I can tell you we are focussed on jobs and growth as our number one priority, and all of our policies will be built around jobs and growth.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, on that package that you’re responsible for, the $1 billion Innovation Statement …
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: 1.1.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: 1.1. Start-ups have been worried about really an investor drought over the next few months until the package is implemented and it’s ready to be rolled out. Obviously there’s a reason for that, they’ll get a better deal once it starts. What are you doing to address those concerns that people will just hold off from investing until the rollout begins?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well the rollout, as you describe it, starts at all sorts of different times. We launched it in December, things that don’t require legislation can begin almost immediately. So for example, last week I announced $7 million for the University of Adelaide for their programs around promoting science, technology, engineering and maths to school children. And the angel investor tax breaks for income tax and capital gains tax, they don’t start until 1 July because obviously we need to set a date. So we’re working with the stakeholders between now and then to make sure there isn’t an investor drought. And of course, after 1 July we expect there’ll be a rush of investment which will more than make up for the period between now and then because of the very generous new tax arrangements that we’ll be introducing to encourage people into investing in start-up businesses.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: On RN Drive my guest is Christopher Pyne, he’s the Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science and the Leader of the House of Representatives. Our number here: 0418226576, I’d love to get your texts. You can also tweet us at RN Drive.
Today you probably know, you’re no doubt across this, the Opposition has been busy also making an announcement. As a recent Education Minister, what’s your response to Labor’s promise to fund the final two years of Gonski, which your Government withdrew? Can you compete with that? I mean, what they’re trying to create is a big election fight around education funding.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well look, Labor is making promises but they haven’t shown how they’re going to pay for it. Now, the public are very cynical about politicians that make announcements about spending when they can’t prove where the money is coming from …
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Well they have outlined the savings though. They have talked about the savings, they talked about reducing superannuation, tax …
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well they seem to use the same … well they use the same savings for every announcement. Now, that’s no way to run a budget and I think the public understand that. What we’re trying to do in the Coalition, and of course we did fully fund the National Education Agreements and put $1.2 billion more into it than Labor would have. We’re focussing on the outcomes, that’s why when I was the Minister for Education, and now Simon Birmingham, we did things around parental engagement, teacher quality – because every parent I’ve ever met has said the most important thing is the teacher in the classroom, and that’s what all the evidence shows. Things like the curriculum, having a robust curriculum, and school autonomy – these are the things that lead to better outcomes. We’ll make announcements about school funding as the election approaches, of course we will …
PATRICIA KARVELAS: But Education Minister Simon Birmingham says he’ll negotiate the post-2017 funding in due course. Is that enough to win the education debate at the election, a promise to sort it out later? To put it off?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well that’s not what he’s saying, he’s saying that the current agreement doesn’t expire until 2018, and therefore we won’t start negotiating a new agreement until 2017. But that’s what he’s saying because the current agreement started in 2014. Look, the important thing is if Labor is going to make these promises they need to prove where the money is coming from. Now, we will have a properly costed school funding agreement with the states and territories and the Catholic schools and the independent schools at the appropriate time, and the public will know all about that before the election. Labor is obviously just going to keep making these kinds of promises; keep using the same savings for each one of these promises, and I think the public are very cynical about that.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: On another debate which is very, very much dominating the headlines in the last couple of days, is it still worth spending $160 million on a plebiscite on same sex marriage when at least three coalition senators now, Eric Abetz, Cory Bernardi, Bridget McKenzie, have said openly that they’ll disregard a yes vote. What is the point if they will not be bound by this decision?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, the whole of the Government and the Parliament doesn’t rest with three individual senators. There are 225 members of the House of Representatives in the Senate and they’re welcome to put their views. It’s a democracy, that’s the whole thing about our country, that they don’t decide whether something will become law or not. The whole purpose of the plebiscite is …
PATRICIA KARVELAS: They do though, they get a really crucial vote in the Parliament about whether something becomes law or not because the Parliament’s ultimately responsible.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well Patricia, if the Government’s policy is to hold a plebiscite and to implement the outcome of the plebiscite then obviously that will become the law. I would have thought the Opposition would support that as well and of course there are ways to ensure that if a plebiscite is passed it becomes the law. Now, there’s also no government …
PATRICIA KARVELAS: But you can’t guarantee it, though, can you, you can’t guarantee it will become law?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Yes I think you can absolutely guarantee it, I mean…
PATRICIA KARVELAS: How can you guarantee it? How could you get more people …
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: For example Patricia- for example- let me give you an example, you asked me the question, I’m happy to answer it. You could pass a law that said this marriage equality bill comes into legislation, comes into being the moment that a plebiscite passes that says yes. Now, if the plebiscite says no, the law- it doesn’t become the law. If the plebiscite says yes it becomes the law so in fact the decision will be made by the Australian people not by three particular senators.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:Isn’t that Warren Entsch’s proposal?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I don’t know, I haven’t discussed it with Warren Entsch. I’m just talking to you about how you could- I’m just answering a question about how you could make sure that a plebiscite became the law, it’s not very hard to do.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, well that’s a really- that’s an interesting proposition. Is that one that the Government has endorsed?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, I mean, you just asked me how it could be done and I’m explaining one way it could be done that way.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, then I’ll ask another way, should it be done that way? You’re saying that’s one way it could be done, should it be done that way to ensure that it is a meaningful vote?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I’m not advocating for that because I don’t believe that any government or any political party that holds a plebiscite that says yes to marriage equality, or for that matter no to marriage equality, would then disregard the views of the electorate. I think that would be just political suicide and I don’t think anybody would do that. So I think it’s a bit of a moot point. It’s a nice debating pint but I don’t think it’s in the least bit realistic.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Many people are saying that Malcolm Turnbull has already lost the ability to control the outcome. Is he losing control of the Coalition party room? There’s a lot of people speaking out everyday.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Goodness gracious. I mean, no is the answer to that question, obviously not. Malcolm Turnbull is doing a very good job with the public, obviously willing him to do well. His team is 100 per cent behind him. People are allowed to have different views about marriage equality. It is a democracy. It’s a matter for them what they wish to say and Malcolm would just as much say that as I would. So no, there’s not in the least bit any concerns about that. The public know we’re getting on with the job.
The job is jobs and growth. That’s what we’re focused on and so is Malcolm Turnbull.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Last week on national TV, you told Australians to vote Labor ahead of the minor parties and independents. How worried are you about the Nick Xenophon Team taking your seat of Sturt? I mean, yesterday Noel Pearson praised Nick Xenophon as the best example of the radical centre. Is that part of the problem, that he represents the centre ground perhaps better than some of the other parties?
