Sky News – Australian Agenda

E&OE TRANSCRIPT Sky News – Australian Agenda 8:35am, 23 February 2014 SUBJECTS: The week ahead in Parliament, Pink Bats Royal Commission and Cabinet Documents, Manus Island and Operation Sovereign Borders, Queensland election, Independent Public Schools policy and NSW, Western Australian Senate Election, Craig Thomson and the Privileges Committee. PETER VAN ONSELEN: ...much for that analysis. And as mentioned, we are joined now live out of Adelaide by the Manager of Government Business, Christopher Pyne. Mr Pyne, welcome to the program. Can I... CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Good morning, Peter. PETER VAN ONSELEN: We're going to talk about the week ahead in Parliament, but can I start, I guess, asking you about some of the issues to come out of the G20 finance ministers' meeting. A little later, our viewers are going to be treated to an interview I've done with Axel Weber, former head of the Bundesbank in Germany. Now, he has expressed concerns about the ratio levels for banks and the blunt instrument of what they're required to hold by way of capital holdings. He thinks that that needs to change, what's the Government's position on that? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, Peter, the Government's position will be properly announced, or enunciated by the Treasurer at an appropriate time, or in fact, you can look back through his speeches over the last couple of years and you can see that Joe Hockey has laid out a very important program for the economy if a Coalition government was elected, and now that we are elected, getting on with the job. It involves more investment in infrastructure, lower taxation, lower regulation, more approvals to get the economy moving again, [inaudible]... PETER VAN ONSELEN: Can I jump in there, Mr Pyne, and ask you about infrastructure. Because one of the things, in an opinion piece he penned during the week - this is Axel Weber - he mentioned infrastructure as something that, if you adjust the blunt instrument of the ratio capital requirement, you can actually get more money shovelled into infrastructure. Because without adjusting it, banks are more likely to shy away from that kind of investment as not having high enough returns. So if the Government's serious about infrastructure investment, looking at this sort of a crucial issue is important, isn't it? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, we're very serious about infrastructure investment, Peter. Everything that we are doing is trying to create the environment where infrastructure can get under way quickly to create jobs, but also to grow the economy and improve productivity. And we'll look at all the measures that are available to us to bring that about. One of those that's very important is working with the states and territories to ensure that their policies also encourage infrastructure development, and that's exactly what we are doing. It's not a process that can be done overnight. Labor left us with a lot of infrastructure issues and dangerous situations in terms of debt and deficit, $123 billion of cumulative deficits, $667 billion of debt, and as far as the eye could see, and no capacity to bring the budget back to surplus. So we want to grow the economy by investing in infrastructure, by deregulating and reducing taxes. That's our narrative, which I think the public understands very well. Labor wants to keep pretending that you can spend and spend and spend and tax the public into submission. PAUL KELLY: Minister, we've had, in the last couple of days, the Treasurer raise a number of quite contentious proposals concerning the age of entitlement. Do you think it's politically viable for the Government to sell the idea of a further increase in the pension age? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I think the public understand, Paul, that they elected us to make the decisions that are necessary to reset the economy. They understand that Howard and Costello left the economy in very good shape. I think one of the reasons we lost the election in 2007 is that people thought that Labor couldn't make a mess of it, but they certainly did. And they elected us in 2013 to try and reset the economy. And so Joe Hockey is laying out some of the difficult decisions that are going to have to be talked about, considered. Not all of them will be adopted, some of them will be discarded, the most - the overriding commitment, of course, is that we will keep the promises that we made in the election. We will deliver the promises that we made and we will not be a government of surprises that will change the way people think about this government. We've had governments for the last six years that you couldn't rely on their word. Tony Abbott wants to lead a government where the people can have faith again in their central government. PETER VAN ONSELEN: Well, you tried that in the education space, to shift the goalposts from what was promised at the election, but ultimately went back. Is that why you did that, because of a reaction or a backlash against the government being seen to break its word? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well Peter, what really happened on that was that Bill Shorten ripped $1.2 billion out in the pre-election financial outlook from education. So when I was - became the Education Minister, I was presented with $1.2 billion less off education for schools. And I found that money, delivered it, got Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland into the new national school funding model. Labor didn't, we delivered it. PETER VAN ONSELEN: But not with the requirements for Gonski, not with the target requirements for Gonski. That's the criticism, isn't it, that those target requirements of the states that did sign up are not required by the states that are now getting the money without having to adhere to the targets? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, that's a different issue to the fact that we delivered the one-point-two billion dollars that Bill Shorten ripped out of school education. On the question you've just asked, well, we don't want to infantilise the states, Peter. The states are responsible for education in schools and they have to be treated as sovereign adult governments, not as branch offices of Canberra. PAUL KELLY: Minister, you said earlier on there'd be no surprises. But the fact of the matter is that all this debate about the age of entitlement is full of surprises. There wasn't talk before the election about a Medicare co-payment, about increasing the pension age. So to what extent do you think the Government is actually serious about tackling some of these issues, and doesn't, in fact, that mean that they have to walk away from this no surprises commitment? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No it doesn't, Paul, and let me be absolutely clear. We will keep the commitments we made in the election, and in the election we said that we would not reduce overall spending in health and in education. But that - we also said that, within that parameter, we would deliver services more efficiently and effectively, and we would fund the commitments that we had made within the current spending. So therefore there will obviously be a different mix of spending in health and education, but that doesn't mean that there'll be overall cuts to either portfolio. We haven't made any announcement of a commitment to a co-payment for Medicare, but there is a necessity to have a debate about many of these issues. People have been talking about the - raising the pension age for a very long time, for twenty years, ever since, really, Peter Costello and John Howard introduced the intergenerational report... PAUL KELLY: Well, what's your view on that? I mean, do you think in fiscal terms we need to further raise the pension age, is that your view? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: My view is that we shouldn't be a government of surprises and any changes that might be made that weren't taken to the election would not be introduced until there's another election, so a second term of an Abbott Government for example. So there is no commitment. PAUL KELLY: Well, does this mean that - I mean, does this mean that Joe Hockey's got it wrong? I mean, he's out there attempting to change expectations on the part of the public, he's softening up the public for a lot of hard decisions. So has he got it wrong? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, what he's doing is what all Treasurers should do, which is being - creating a national debate, a conversation, if you like, about the kind of country Australia can afford to be. Now, we've been living beyond our means for six years under Labor, there was no possibility of a surplus as far as the eye could see under Labor. We want to give mums and dads across Australia, all Australians the opportunity to live in a country that is high growth, that has a growing economy, more jobs, and that is living well. But we also have to be able to live within our means, and as the Treasurer, Joe is explaining to the public that we have been living beyond our capacity for the last six years. Now, that doesn't mean that in the coming Budget we will be breaking election commitments, but it does mean that we'll keep the commitment that we made to be more efficient with taxpayer money, to fund our election promises within the current parameters of spending. And any other changes that might be made down the track, as Tony Abbott has said before, if there is anything that we want to change, we will go back to the Australian people in three year’s time and give them an opportunity to case judgement on it. PETER VAN ONSELEN: But Mr Pyne, isn't one of the issues here that what you're doing is you're essentially quarantined, because you don't want to be seen to be breaking promises, you're quarantining important time that you need to be able to get things done until after the election before you can start instituting it, for political reasons. All these things that we've talked about needing to be addressed in the age of entitlement and the fiscal pressures on the budget, you are constrained by election promises that, in a sense, go counter to the very requirements of the public policy agenda that your Government are laying out. You're going to wait 'til after the next election, that's too long from now, isn't it? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well Peter, I think that is a very black and white view of what I've just said. I mean, the more sophisticated analysis of what I've said would be that, in fact, there is much that we can do in this Budget that's coming up, within the parameters of keeping our election commitments. And that's exactly what we will do. We'll reduce taxation. Bill Shorten should help us to do so by abolishing the carbon tax this week when Parliament sits and show which side of the worker he is on. We can reduce the taxation through abolishing the mining tax. We can reduce spending through deregulation. We can fund our election commitments without going back to the taxpayers for more money, by doing it within the current boundaries of the Budget. So there's much that we can do to fund infrastructure and support infrastructure, like the announcements that we made before the election, to get the economy going, to create jobs. We're going to do all of those things. But if they're - we're also going to be a government of no surprises, so if there are any changes that we didn't warn the public about before the election, then we will keep those for an opportunity down the track. So we've... PETER VAN ONSELEN: Well, I've got a surprise that is, you know, sort of a bit inside the beltway, but it's a - certainly a surprise to see George Brandis announcing that a rule that has been in place since Federation, of Cabinet papers remaining confidential until the 30 year rule, that's slightly adjusted lately, has been changed. He is going to allow Cabinet papers to be released as a once-off for the Royal Commission into the pink bats. That is entirely unprecedented, how on earth can the Government consider doing that? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, Peter, to be honest, I'm not aware of that decision having been made. So I couldn't comment on it until I had the... PETER VAN ONSELEN: All the better, we can get an immediate reaction from you. All the better, we can get your honest, immediate reaction without spin. I can't believe that the Government would consider releasing Cabinet papers ahead of time for a pink bats Royal Commission when we've already had two or three commissions look at this, not royal commissions. It is unprecedented, it didn't happen in the Cole Royal Commission, it has never happened before, it didn’t happen for the children overboard inquiry. Yet all of a sudden, we're in this situation where the Government, George Brandis has said that he will allow the Royal Commissioner to look at Cabinet papers over pink bats. Your reaction? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, my reaction is that it would be unwise, as a member of the Cabinet, to comment on matters that you have informed me about, that I haven't had the opportunity to talk to the Attorney-General about. But I would say that on the issue of the roof batts... PETER VAN ONSELEN: So he's announced this without even going to Cabinet? He's just said he's going to do it, he's going to break tradition since Federation without even discussing it with his colleagues? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, if I could say on the roof batts Royal Commission, the truth is that people died, houses were lost, livelihoods wrecked because of very bad policy, driven by Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister and implemented by the hapless Minister at the time, Peter Garrett. People want to get to the bottom of why that happened, and that's why we are having a Royal Commission, and to make sure that government policy doesn’t allow something like that to happen again. I'm sure... PETER VAN ONSELEN: But that's a separate debate, surely, to allowing Cabinet papers to be unsealed, if you like, decades ahead of time. That strikes me as a very dangerous unintended consequence of dealing with, as you say, an albeit understandable want to have an inquiry into an issue. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, much as I know that journalists are extremely trustworthy and that everything they say is entirely to be relied upon, I shouldn't comment on that just on the basis of what you've told me. PETER VAN ONSELEN: Okay. PAUL KELLY: Minister, given the tough line taken by Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison in relation to Manus Island, given that the riot there, the death that occurred there, how much concern is there in the Parliamentary Liberal Party about these conditions? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, the issue on Manus Island was obviously extremely unfortunate. Fortunately, within one day, people on Manus Island were again being housed and clothed and fed, and safety and security had returned to Manus Island Detention Centre. In a perfect world, Paul, there'll be nobody on Manus Island in detention because the boats will have entirely stopped. And the good news is that in the last sixty-five days, no boats have reached Australia. The number of people arriving in Indonesia to transit to Australia has dropped seventy per cent, according to press reports. The Malaysians are telling the Australian Government that people in Indonesia are returning to Malaysia on their way to other places, because they know they will not be able to get to Australia. So our policies are working. Labor said that it was impossible to stop the boats. In fact, quite the opposite has occurred, because Labor had no real will to stop the boats. Manus Island was very unfortunate, but at the end of the day, security has returned, people will be processed, and then they will either be settled elsewhere or remain on Manus Island until they can be. So it's a - it is a tough policy, there's no doubt about it. But we want to send a very clear message that we will protect our borders and that we want people to come to Australia through the refugee program in the correct way, rather than an unauthorised way. PAUL KELLY: Well, in years gone by, under the Howard Government in particular, there were some Liberal backbenchers who spoke out about this. The conditions on Manus Island today are worse than the conditions that provoked the criticism of the Howard Government. How much tolerance is there inside the Liberal Party for these conditions? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I think there's a very real understanding in the Coalition party room that Operation Sovereign Borders is a very important part of the Government delivering its commitments before the election, that we would stop the boats. There haven't been any tragedies at sea that we are aware of, Paul, since we were elected, since Operation Sovereign Borders began working. That is a very important part of our policy. And Manus Island, offshore processing, is an important part of delivering - turning back the boats where it's safe to do so, temporary protection visas, and real offshore processing. Certainly, we don't endorse what happened, there's an investigation, that's ongoing, into the incidents last week. But we do have to send a very clear message to people smugglers that we're not going to tolerate their evil trade. And we have done that. PETER VAN ONSELEN: Speaking of sending very clear messages, up in that state by-election in Queensland, it looks like voters have sent Campbell Newman a very clear message. Were you surprised by the size of the swing, the double-digit swing against the Newman Government in just its first term? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, Peter, I wasn't, because the public in Redcliffe would be well and truly aware that the Newman Government has a massive majority - I don't think that the Labor Opposition even can fill a soccer team - and, as a consequence, felt entirely free to vote - to say to Campbell Newman, you know, we - you're not immune from the democratic processes. And by-elections are usually that's the way voters react, they think, well, this won't change the government, but we'll tell the government that we, the people, are still sovereign, and we can vote differently to the way we did last time if we choose to. And that's exactly what's happened. PAUL KELLY: How concerned are you with the problem you've got with the New South Wales Education Minister? You're being rebuffed on a number of fronts, the most recent, of course, being your policy for independent public schools. Does this concern you, that New South Wales is clearly heading in a different direction to you? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, New South Wales is a sovereign government, Paul, and they should be treated as such. But Adrian Piccoli and I are working very well together, I have a letter from Adrian Piccoli about the very subject that you raised, saying he - that New South Wales wants to be part of the independent public schools program. As I have from every state and territory, by the way, except South Australia. And I'll be working with him to develop the kind of autonomy in schools that we both think is of an advantage to students, particularly, in bringing about good outcomes for students. I mean, our policy is unabashedly students first, that's why we've got a commitment to independent public schools, because research indicates that the more autonomy a school has, the better the students do, the higher the expectations. And yesterday in The Australian, we saw yet another report that expectations and school leadership are part of the five measures that most change the outcomes for students. We've announced a review of the curriculum, because we want the curriculum to be meaningful, robust and useful. And, of course, we've just last week announced a review of teacher education in universities. Because there's no doubt that the number one determinant in Australia of good outcomes for students is teacher quality. PETER VAN ONSELEN: But this - it'd be denying the undeniable, wouldn't it, to say that there aren't tensions there between yourself and the New South Wales Education Minister. It seems like each time that there's been an announcement of significant substance by the Federal Government, he has had something to say contrary to that, half the time on programs that I've interviewed him on. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, Peter, I must say, I don't feel that there are any tensions, but my wife does sometimes say I miss social signals, so perhaps I am just missing the social signals. But I feel very positive towards Adrian Piccoli. PETER VAN ONSELEN: Alright, let's move onto next week, with the return of Parliament for a fortnight. What - you're the Manager of Government Business, what is the primary, you know, are of legislative implementation that the Government's going to be looking at? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, the primary objective over the next two weeks of Parliament sitting is for Bill Shorten to vote to pass the repeal of the carbon tax, to show which side of... PETER VAN ONSELEN: Well, we know he's not going to do that, so that's political posturing. I understand that you want him to, I understand that he's got political risks in not doing so, he's calculated that he's not going to pass it, we'll see the test of that, I guess, at the WA half-Senate election soon enough. But given that that is not going to happen, what are you going to embark on that you might actually be able to succeed at? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, the Western Australian Senate by-election will be a referendum on the carbon tax and the mining tax, there's no doubt about that. It'll also be a referendum on the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which Bill Shorten is blocking, the Registered Organisations Commission, which he is blocking, the royal commission into union corruption, which he is opposing. And I guess he would be able to show this week whether he thinks that people should lie to the Parliament or not, because I think I'll give him the opportunity to support an apology to those people and to ask him whether he'll support a referral to the Privileges Committee. Because if he doesn't, then I'm not going to allow that to become another partisan issue. But on the other hand, if he thinks that Craig Thomson's statement to the Parliament should be tested, then he would want to refer that to the Privileges Committee. But this'll be another test for Bill Shorten. The tests are mounting up. He's opposing repealing the carbon tax because he's on the wrong side of workers when it comes to jobs and growth. He's opposing repealing the mining tax. He's got himself into quite a pickle, actually, because now he's so negative and so against change, but the problem for all of those things is all of them would help reduce jobs - increase jobs, I should say, and reduce unemployment, and he's on the wrong side of those debates. PETER VAN ONSELEN: Well, I don't doubt he'll be uncomfortable if you look to take him on in the Craig Thomson issue. We’re out of time .. Ends