Sky News Richo

SUBJECT: Pairing in the House; School funding; vote of no confidence E&OE................................ Graham Richardson: Christopher Pyne is the Manager of Government business for the Opposition and that puts him in a very, very, very serious position. He’s the guy who masters the tactics. He’s the one that runs the show inside the Parliament for the Liberal Party and you’ve got to say, does a pretty good job and I must say, if you have a look at the way the Parliament is being run, the Liberals have got much, much more effective in this Parliament than they have been for a long, long time and much of the credit for that must be put down to Christopher Pyne. I spoke to him earlier on today and I must say when it gets to this bit about what’s happening with honouring contracts with New South Wales and the Federal Government on Gonski, it gets really interesting. Have a look at this. Christopher Pyne, welcome to the program. Hon Christopher Pyne MP: Good to be with you, Richo. Richardson: Now look, let’s get the unpleasantness out of the way first. It seemed to me that you went off half cocked last week over this pair to Michelle Rowland. You said she’d have been given a pair if you knew about the child being sick but it turns out the Whip did know about the child being sick and said “no” anyway. What happened? Pyne: If I had known that Michelle Rowland’s child was ill, I would have advised that a pair should have been granted. I was advised that we weren’t aware of that situation and when I did my door stop on Thursday morning, I relied on wrong information, it happens in politics. I tried to ring Michelle Rowland after that to say that I apologise for that, nobody answered the phone in her office so I told Anthony Albanese when I saw him at nine o’clock if he could pass on to Michelle that I was sorry that that had happened and a pair was then granted to Michelle Rowland and she went home to her infant. Richardson: Did the Liberal Party Room Whip get a swift kick up the Khyber from your good self? That’s the question. Pyne: Well, you know I don’t talk about private conversations in the Coalition Graham, but I wish, well suffice to say, I wish I had better information on the day but as I said, these things happen in politics you’ve just got to cop them on the chin and move on and I apologise to Michelle Rowland for that misunderstanding that occurred last week. Richardson: Okay, well look let’s move on from that. A minor matter. But let’s move on to some major matters. Obviously as Shadow Minister for Education you’re intimately involved in this campaign around Gonski. Now I note that Barry O’Farrell has come out and said that it’s unfair, broken, unsustainable. That is the current system and therefore you’ve got to have Gonski come in. Now, when you say they’re getting conned, I think I read you saying there’s $325 million being taken out of schools it makes it sound as if you think that O’Farrell must be some kind of moron. There he is, he’s got his own Department and staff he’s got an Education Department. Surely to God someone would work out if they were losing money out of this deal? Pyne: What I was trying to say was that if Barry O’Farrell for whom I have a great deal of respect, he’s a friend of mine, I lunched with him last Friday in Adelaide. If he’d known that in fact that the Government was not going to introduce the Gonski Report but instead was going to cut $325 million from education over the next four years, which is what they have done amazingly, that if they were going to pay for it through a means test on parents of children in non-government schools, which is what is in the agreement that they’re asking the States to sign and of course if they were going to do this with unusual indexation figures that they’ve essentially made up and excluded disabilities from the agreement, which they have, Barry might have taken a different approach. Now, my view is the status quo is a better model than what the Government is offering because it provides certainty, it provides higher indexation rates, it doesn’t abolish the National Partnerships or the targeted programs and it delivers to the States more money over the next four years …. Richardson: Yes, but if it’s that good …. Pyne: The Government is actually cutting it. Richardson: But why would O’Farrell say it’s broken, its unsustainable, if that was true? It’s unfair, he said all of these things. Why would he say that if he took the view that it was a better system? He must believe that Gonski’s better. Pyne: Well the Gonski Report called for six and a half billion dollars of new spending, every year, over the next four years. That would be $14 billion and instead, the Government is delivering a cut of $325 million so the Government is not introducing the Gonski Report. It would be like saying all the extra spending is in the fifth and sixth year, Graham. So, it would be like your boss saying to you “I going to give you a pay cut, or a pay rise I should say“ and then when you get your pay packet, you’ve actually had a cut in your pay. So you go and see your employer and you say “Hang on, I thought you were telling me you’re giving me a pay rise”. The employer says “Yes, yes I am but you’ve got to wait five or six years to get it, in the meantime, you’ve got to have a cut to your salary”. Now, no Australian would accept that and I don’t believe the States should accept the very bad deal that the Government is offering. Richardson: Yeah, I’m … obviously O’Farrell and you have a fundamental disagreement about what’s in a) what’s in the current agreement and b) what’s in the Gonski agreement that’s been offered. What about the other States? Are they going to hold the line and not sign up because usually when you’ve got billions of dollars being dangled in front of you, it’s very hard to say “no”. Pyne: Look Graham we’re not dangling billions of dollars in front of the States in fact they’re cutting their share of spending in education over the next four years, on top of the higher education cuts. So they’re cutting higher education by $2.8 billion, they’re redirecting money out of the national partnerships and targeted programmes for $3.1 billion and they’re putting back in to schools $2.8 billion. Now the States are much worse off. And what we’ve seen in the Budget papers, in black and white is, and the graph that I exposed in Question Time last week, is that the line that shows new spending is below the bars showing cuts to education until the end of 2017. So the Government is trying to get away with a financial swindle and I don’t think the States will buy up to this financial swindle. New South Wales is a bit different. Richardson: What happens if you’re right? Let’s just say you’re correct, and let’s say that over the course of the next four months or whatever it is until the election no other States sign up, do you honour the agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales or not? Pyne: Well Graham we must have a national school funding model, that’s another thing the Gonski report suggested. And of course we’ve had a national school funding model since 2000. If only one State has signed up, New South Wales, or if New South Wales and the other Labor States have signed up so that would be the three Labor States plus New South Wales, would be four out of eight, well that is not a National model. So the Coalition couldn’t be expected, and Labor shouldn’t be trying to implement a new school funding model that only operates in half the States and Territories. The Coalition expects there to be a national model otherwise we’ll stick with the status quo, which ironically over the next four years would deliver $325 million more than the Government is promising. Richardson: Well let’s have a look at what happens in general, I mean it seems to me with the Budget the Government went out of their way, in fact it’s extraordinary because I don’t think I’ve seen it in all the years I’ve been working in politics and that’s too many years to recount here, they seem to try and tie future governments in, in some respects up to ten years, but let’s face it over four or five they’ve really tried hard on NDIS and Gonski to tie you in, have they succeeded? Pyne: Well of course you know you can’t tie future governments, in the Gonski area or the school funding model area they’re suggesting that these rivers of gold that will apparently flow to schools will do so after the next two elections, so the current Government is trying to tie the next two governments whether they’re Liberal or Labor to this new school funding model. You can only look at the next four years, and in the next four years they’re delivering a new school funding model, or trying to, that cuts education that is paid for by a means test on parents of non-government school children and has nothing to do with teacher quality. Richardson: Yeah but one of the things about sovereign risk Christopher, one of things that is important about sovereign risk is that when a government comes to an agreement be it with another state government, be it with company or whatever they stick to it even when governments change, that is part of the sovereign risk model isn’t it? Now what, are you saying to me actually that you’re just going to break that model, are you going to say right-o there may be an agreement between these states and the Commonwealth but we do not intend to honour it? Pyne: Well Graham the Budget forecasts for four years, the school funding model is every four years that’s when it’s negotiated, this one’s been extended in to five years because the Government is so incompetent they couldn’t respond to the Gonski report earlier, and they’ve left it all to the last minute to rush it in in the last four months to try and intimidate the states in to signing on to a bad deal and of course governments cant bind another government for two elections away, it is fantasy. And that’s why those figures in the fifth and sixth year are not believable and they’re not of course in the Budget because the Budget is a four year forecast. Richardson: I’m not saying their believable I’ve not been a great fan of the certainly the forecasting of this Government, they have been terrible, so I’m not going to defend it. That’s not the issue, what I’m saying is will you honour a written signed agreement with New South Wales and other States or not? It’s a simple question. Pyne: Well I’ll answer it very simply. If there is not a national agreement we will not honour any agreement with individual states. There has to be a national agreement or we will not honour an individual states agreement. Now if there is an overwhelming number of States, we’ll look at it, but if New South Wales and the three Labor States are the only ones that have signed on to it, we will certainly will not be having a SRS model - a Student Resources Standard model - for four States and Socio Economic Status for the other four States. That is totally chaotic, dysfunctional and we won’t bring Labor’s hopeless approach to government in to a new Coalition government if we are fortunate enough to be elected. Richardson: Well, let’s just change the topic for a second. You’re the Manager of Government Business, you have a big say with what goes on with the Opposition in the House. Are you going to move a Vote of No Confidence and if so, when? Pyne: Well, we do plan to move a vote of No confidence in the Government but we want to do so when we can maximise its chance of success and when we come back to Parliament in the next fortnight, that would be the most likely time that a no confidence motion could be moved but it’s a moveable feast with the cross-benchers. One moment Robert Oakeshott tells me that he’s open to discussing it, debating it and considering it; the next minute he says don’t do it in Budget week, then he accuses the Coalition of being gutless if we don’t do it in Budget week. I mean, it’s very hard to follow Robert Oakeshott’s train of thought. Richardson: Yes, but as they say in the classics “Twas ever, thus”. I mean you don’t really expect to get Oakeshott or Windsor or Adam Bandt. I mean, I just don’t see how you get the numbers. Craig Thomson may be a different kettle of fish, these days; he seems to be having his share of difficulties. It does seem unlikely you can get it up, doesn’t it? Pyne: Graham, this Government is so incompetent and it’s so lost its lode star which should always be cost of living, job security, border protection and economic management that it’s high time that it went. Now the Coalition thinks we can do a better job that we’ve got a better plan for the future and Joe Hockey expanded on that again today in his response to the Budget at the National Press Club. The sooner that happens for confidence in the economy better. The sooner that people can start to expect to have adults running the country instead of the juvenile approach this Government’s taken, the better, so we will move a vote of No confidence. I mean yesterday, Kevin Rudd thought that the world would stop moving on its axis if he came out and talked about his changed approach to same sex marriage. It speaks volumes for the fact that people like Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party think they are the issues the mum’s and dad’s of Australia want the Government focussed on when they can’t pay their bills, they’re worried about... Richardson: Now wait a minute. Even for you, that’s a big step. A big over reach. Let’s face it, Kevin did nothing on behalf of the Government, yesterday. He did something that he always does, he did something on behalf of himself. Mind you, it does bring in to clearer focus the fact that you are not giving a conscience vote which really disappoints me. You really should. It really is a conscience matter. Why can’t you just say to people “It’s up to you”? I mean, you’re the Party that stresses that you don’t overdo the whole Caucus thing but this is over doing it hugely, isn’t it? Pyne: Well, what Kevin Rudd highlighted yesterday was that the Government is dysfunctional, it’s divided, it’s chaotic. He’s going to have another go, I’m told on June 3, that he’s going to launch another challenge for the Leadership. I hope he actually puts his name up this time rather than poor Simon Crean. Richardson: Well you know more than me. I don’t believe that will happen, so there you go and I think I probably still know a bit more about the Labor Party … Pyne: We’ll see. Richardson: I don’t think so. I really did want to say it just disappoints me that you’re not giving a conscience vote. Look, last point. If Craig Thomson’s vote was the difference between getting your no confidence motion up or not up, what would you do? Pyne: Ah, well we have not accepted Craig Thomson’s vote . We have said it’s a tainted vote. In the past, Julia Gillard’s been willing and happy to accept it. In fact, Karl Bitar, sorry Sam Dastyari has been the subject of some controversy over Labor’s most recent arrangements with Craig Thomson and there’s the disputed account about those conversations. We haven’t accepted his vote and it isn’t our plan to change our mind about that subject. Richardson: Well, there you go. We’ve got a definite answer on that. Christopher Pyne, always a pleasure. There’s no doubt about it. You do know how to make a headline. I’ve got to say, you are one of the best I’ve ever seen, at it. I hope we can talk to you again soon. Pyne: I hope so too, Graham. Thanks for having me. Richardson: He certainly can get a headline and that stuff about not honouring the deal with New South Wales, that’s a huge step. What the Liberals are saying is they will not be tied down, they will not be locked in. I just don’t know what’s going to happen with that. It could make for some very good High Court cases. I’ll be back in just a moment with Anthony Albanese. ENDS.