Sky News AM Agenda

SUBJECTS: Julia Gillard allegations; Gonski Review; Asylum seeker policy

E&OE………

Peter van Onselen:
Welcome back. This is Australian Agenda and we're joined now out of Adelaide by the Manager of Opposition Business as well as Shadow Spokesperson for Education, Christopher Pyne.  Mr Pyne, thanks very much for your company.

Christopher Pyne:
Good morning, Peter.

Van Onselen:
We just had the Prime Minister on a moment ago, you would have heard that, Paul Kelly was talking to her about the allegations in the 'The Australian'.  Is the Opposition going to weigh in on this and follow this up in the coming days and weeks?  Do you think there are questions there that need answering?

Pyne:
Look, there are serious questions which do need to be answered, Peter, and this matter has percolated in the background for months if not years. The intensity has become much more dramatic and yesterday in 'The Australian' obviously the exclusive story about the former senior partner at Slater & Gordon and the circumstances in which the Prime Minister left Slater & Gordon are very serious ones for her to answer. Now I would have thought the Prime Minister would take a personal explanation in the parliament this week to explain her side of events, and if she chooses to make a statement to the parliament the Opposition will of course facilitate allowing her as much time as she needs to put her side of the story. That seems to be the right course.  If I was the Prime Minister I would want to make a clean breast of the issues and the right place to do that is the House of Representatives.

Paul Kelly:
Mr Pyne, what's your response to the comments made by the Prime Minister this morning that she's done nothing wrong and this relates to events many years ago, 17 years ago, which are no longer relevant.

Pyne:
Well, they are relevant because it appears to be one of those stories that doesn't go away and it's relevant because they go to her integrity as a solicitor at Slater & Gordon and what she knew or didn't know about what are very serious matters about involving the misappropriation of the funds of members of the Australian Workers Union. Now Paul Howes has got a request in front of him from Slater & Gordon to release all the files in relation to this matter.  Paul Howes has had a lot to say about the Health Services Union over the last few months, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander and Paul Howes should allow those files that Slater & Gordon have sought permission to have released, allow them to be published. That's obviously one way that they can clear the air with this matter but secondly the Prime Minister clearly has questions to answer about this.  If she wants to she can make a statement to the parliament. If as she says she has done absolutely nothing wrong then making a statement to the parliament would seem a perfectly appropriate course of action. If she's been misrepresented, as she claims she has been by 'The Australian' yesterday, well, there are forms of the parliament to deal with that, they are called taking a personal explanation, and the Prime Minister can do that tomorrow.

Van Onselen:
But Mr Pyne you mentioned Paul Howes and the approach from Slater & Gordon, he says they've only done that through the media, there has been no approach to him, he's received no letter from them, no telephone call.

Pyne:
Well, perhaps Slater & Gordon should send him a letter. I don't work for Slater & Gordon so I'm not responsible for what they do. I certainly don't work for the Australian Workers Union either.  So that's a matter they need to resolve.  One person or the other should perhaps pick up the phone and ask what's going on, but the files are held by Slater & Gordon, they can't release them without permission from the Australian Workers Union.  In the interests of clearing the Prime Minister's name those files should be released and Paul Howes could make that happen.

Kelly:
If we can just move on to schools policy, Mr Pyne.  You've made in recent weeks some very strong comments suggesting that the Opposition is likely to reject the Government's school funding policy based on the Gonski report - Although we are still waiting, of course, to see that government policy. Is that still your position?  Do you think that your concern with this policy is such that the Opposition is likely to oppose it?

Pyne:
Well, Paul, we've seen in the papers of the 'Sunday Telegraph' today the 3,254 schools on the hit list, the Gonski hit list in this case, that would lose money even if Gonski was implemented in full. Now, 3,254 schools out of 9,600 schools in Australia, both public and private, is one in three schools. That's why the Coalition is deeply concerned about the debate surrounding the Gonski review, because what it actually represents is a cut to one in three schools across Australia. Now, the Government's approach to this is another shambles. They've had the report since last November, they released it in February, we are now almost into September.  The school sector is very concerned about the uncertainty that the Government's created. The Government said that they would be making an announcement either today or tomorrow, and they have shelved it yet again. They have tried to create a distraction with a six week old reheated story. What all this points to is that the Government is very concerned about how they could respond to this report. They know they haven't got the funds necessary to cover the losses that the Gonski review has foreshadowed and the Coalition - to answer your question specifically, sorry I took so long to get there - the Coalition will not support a policy that forces up the school fees in both government and non-government schools at times when the cost of living pressure is very acute. So we won't support anything that causes private school fees or government school feels to rise in current circumstances.

Kelly:
The Government and Julia Gillard is clearly very committed to this policy. How do you think the politics of this will play out? Are we likely to see a fundamental frontline election conflict here on this issue between the Government and the Opposition?

Pyne:
Well, Paul, it depends how the Government responds. The Government keeps talking about no school losing one dollar, but that doesn't include the 6% indexation that schools have been used to over the last decade. Now if it's not indexed at 6%, if their funding is not indexed at 6%, that represents a real cut again to non-government schools. I'm not sure how committed the Government is to this policy, Paul, because they simply haven't managed to get it into port yet and we are now, as I said, almost into September. They have to work with the states, they have to work with the sector, and they are very ambivalent about how they will fund the full ticket which is $26 billion over four years. Now if anybody believes the federal and state governments have $26 billion between them over four years well they need to have that proved to them. I need to have it proved to them. I'm a doubting Thomas on this matter, Paul. They need to prove to me that they've actually got that money before they go to an election making outlandish promises.

Van Onselen:
So where does that leave the Coalition if they do make that commitment, get the agreement of the states, put the policy in practice? But as you say if there are still major question marks about the funding in the forward estimates  - the way the polls look you're going to be the education minister who is going to have to deal with that. Joe Hockey's going to be the treasurer, does that mean you will unwind what they put in place or will you stick with it and just simply try to find a way to make the numbers add up?

Pyne:
Well, Paul, let's see what they come up with. I mean it's been a shambles so far, it was supposed to be announced today or tomorrow, it's been delayed yet again. If the Government can get the independent schools, the Catholic sector, all of the state governments together, put together a response to the Gonski review that ensures that non-government schools don't lose money in real terms over the next four years, well the Coalition will look very closely at that. And has to be based on a realistic assessment of whether the government, both states and federal, actually has that money. Now, we know that the Government has never delivered a surplus, the Prime Minister just said that they've got a great record on delivering surpluses. Well they've delivered the four biggest deficits in Australia's history and never delivered a surplus. There is a strong argument in Canberra that we will have an election before the end of the year because they don't want to get to MYEFO which will prove that they are not delivering a surplus again next year. How can the Government claim to have a surplus when they have just increased the refugee intake from 14,000 to 20,000 which on its own blows the surplus, let alone the blowout since May in the boat arrivals coming to Australia?

Van Onselen:
We will get to boats in a moment, but just on education the issue of class sizes was something that we spoke on this program to the School Education Minister Peter Garrett about last week. You have expressed, you know, no concern I guess about class sizes. You think there are elements of teaching that are the bigger issue there, he had a bit of a crack at you. How do you respond to that?

Pyne:
I'm obsessed with teacher quality, I'm obsessed with a robust curriculum, I'm obsessed with principal autonomy and more decisions being made locally. I'm not obsessed with the myth that smaller class sizes are somehow the holy grail of the Australian education system. We've had small class sizes for the last 10 years with diminishing class sizes over that time. We've increased our spending in government and non-government schools by 44% and 25% respectively, and in that time our student outcomes have gone backwards. So if class sizes were the holy grail of education that wouldn't have happened. If putting more money in was the holy grail that wouldn't have happened. The truth is the most important thing you can do in a classroom is give the teacher the professional development they need, the excellent training that they need and the rewards that they deserve for being good teachers rather than focusing on all the things that don't matter as much as teacher quality.

Kelly:
If we just go to the issue of boats.  The Houston report, which the Government's endorsed in principle, says that the offshore program, the humanitarian program should be immediately increased to 20,000 and then subsequently to 27,000. What's your response to that recommendation?

Pyne:
Well, Paul, my concern about that recommendation or the Government's announcement of increasing the refugee intake is that what's happened then is that people smugglers have basically pushed and pushed and pushed the Government until finally they've decided the easiest thing to do is simply increase the refugee intake.  Now that is a very easy way out and it masks the real problem which is that our borders are not being protected by this Government's policy. So while I'm not personally against a generous refugee intake, and we have the second most generous in the world - and did so under both the Howard Government, Hawke-Keating Governments and this Government - it isn't the answer to border protection. The answer to border protection is the three-legged stool which is the Coalition's policy of turning back the boats where it's safe to do so, temporary protection visas, and offshore processing. The Government's done one of those three.  My view is it won't work. The boats will keep arriving because they haven't done the others.

Van Onselen:
A lot of commentators take the view that it was the closing down of the Pacific Solution that has created what is potentially an unfixable problem because of the message that it has sent to people smugglers.  Do you accept that the Coalition had a hand in ending the Pacific Solution when Sharman Stone, as the then shadow immigration spokesperson, made it very clear in a number of interviews that she felt that there was no problem in closing down Nauru because Christmas Island was always available to take up the slack once there was a new facility built there?

Pyne:
Peter, I think people know that in the Howard Government between 2001 and 2007 the Government introduced the border protection policies that stopped the boats, and they were a three-part policy. Nauru, on Manus Island, or offshore processing whenever that's conducted, is a very important part of that. The people smugglers started up their business again and we've seen the tragic consequences of it because the Government put the sugar back on the table which is permanent residency. And as long as people are able to access permanent residency in Australia they will keep coming. The Howard Government's policy that stopped that was temporary protection visas, the ending of the family reunion program for people who had come that way, which meant that the people smugglers no longer had a product to sell.

Van Onselen:
Sure, but do you accept though that nonetheless as far as - and I don't deny that about TPVs - but in relation to the issue of the Pacific Solution there has been a lot criticism of Labor by Coalition MPs about Labor unwinding the Pacific Solution but when that was done the shadow immigration spokesperson, not some backbencher, not some shadow minister unrelated to the portfolio, the relevant shadow minister, Sharman Stone, said that she supported the notion of wrapping up the Pacific Solution. Do you accept that as a matter of fact?

Pyne:
Well, look, if Sharman said that, and I don't know that, but if Sharman said that well I don't think that is the correct Coalition position. It was some time ago, but more importantly I don't think the Australian public are blaming Sharman Stone or the Coalition for the unwinding of the Pacific Solution. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard unwound the Pacific Solution, Chris Evans described it as one of his most sweetest days in politics, that they got a particular pleasure out of dismantling the Pacific Solution. Julia Gillard said six weeks ago in fact that Nauru wouldn't work and yet last week Julia Gillard reintroduced Nauru as offshore processing. It has been a humiliating back-flip for the Prime Minister. The Coalition's not gloating about it, we are glad the Government has endorsed at least one arm of our policy.  But unless she does the other two parts the boats will still keep coming and she won't have anyone to blame but herself. She's had every review under the sun, she's the Houston report, she's hid behind that to reopen offshore processing.  We've been advising her since they reduced the Pacific Solution, since they removed it I should say, to bring it back. If she took our advice we wouldn't have had these 22,000 boat arrivals in the last four years.

Kelly:
Can I just ask, Mr Pyne, whether the Opposition accepts any responsibility at all in terms of sending a message to the people smugglers.  Don't you think that the criticism the Opposition is making this week of the new Government policy in relation to Nauru and Papua New Guinea saying that it won't work, that it can't work, is actually sabotaging the policy?

Pyne:
No, I think it's a statement of the obvious, Paul. The Coalition has said since time immemorial we have a three-part policy. The Government has adopted one of our parts and then tried to pretend that we are all united behind the Government's change of policy. Well, we are as far as they've gone, but they haven't finished the job and it's the Opposition's job to hold the Government to account, it's the Opposition's job to point out its deficiencies and also come up with its own proposals. We are certainly - we have the proposals, the Government needs to adopt them and they will be able to stop the boats. But we're not going to pretend that the Government's announcement last week is going to end the matter because that would be complicit with bad government decisions.

Van Onselen:
Christopher Pyne, Manager of Opposition Business, we appreciate you joining us out of Adelaide . Thanks very much for your company.

Pyne:
That's a pleasure, thank you.

ENDS