Sky Showdown

SUBJECTS: Emission trading schemes ; Education E&OE............................... (Greetings omitted) Peter Van Onselen: Can I just ask you, you and your colleagues have spent a good 3 years now telling us this government is undoubtedly the most dysfunctional government since federation, possibly with the exception of the Whitlam Government, although Tony Abbott and others have made it quite clear that they think the Whitlam Government had more to go for it than this Government. What is so bad about you as an opposition that now suddenly you are 50/50 in the polls? Christopher Pyne MP: Well Kevin Rudd is enjoying a honeymoon, which you would expect, Julia Gillard had a honeymoon, when she was, when she toppled Kevin Rudd three years ago, Kevin Rudd had a honeymoon when he beat John Howard three years before that, and when he toppled Kim Beazley 18 months before that so, when new leaders become the leader, whether it’s the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition, they usually enjoy a period where the public are prepared to give them a fair go. What we’ve seen in the last few days though is that Kevin, is all talk and no action. Kevin Kardashian is trying to be the celebrity Prime Minister, rather than be the Prime Minister who actually gets on and does the job that needs to be done. And we should be thanking… Van Onselen: But can we, can we try, can we try to put a yard stick on that though if we can, because the facts are that the polls went from being sort of 57/43 to 50/50 right across the spectrum of polls, all of a sudden overnight. Clearly Kevin Rudd was that factor and its sounds like by looking at that, that voters want to find a reason not to vote for Tony Abbott. Now they may come off that, it might just be a sugar hit as you say, but presumably in what 2, 3, 4 weeks if it’s still 50/50 in the polls, then there has to be a point doesn’t there at which the Liberal Party thinks wow, we’ve been saying this is the worst government since federation, yet half the population want to vote it back in? Pyne: Well a couple of things I’d say about that, I always thought the election would tighten, I never believed that there would be a landslide victory, even with Julia Gillard as the Prime Minister, because federal elections just aren’t like that, they’re usually somewhere between sort of 50 and 53 per cent for the winning party. And so, those polls that were so dramatic, I always thought were quite misleading. Secondly, Kevin Kardashian is a celebrity Prime Minister, and there is a sugar hit about getting rid of Julia Gillard and about having Kevin Kardashian back, but that doesn’t mean that when the election is called and people actually have to make a decision about who they want to govern, that they would rather vote for Kevin Kardasian than a Liberal team with sixteen shadow ministers in it who were ministers in the Howard Government, who focused for four years on cost of living, job security, boarder protection and economic management and who have the plan to turn around the problems we have on our borders, to scrap the carbon tax, which we still have with us, to scrap the mining tax, to give people job security back again, and to actually run the budget like a national budget should be run without all the fiddles and smokes and mirrors that Labor have employed over the last six years. Van Onselen: Do you accept that your direct action scheme is a form of pricing carbon? Pyne: Look, the direct action policy is the only policy that’s being embraced by countries like the United States and elsewhere around the world because it’s the only way to address climate change. Since the Copenhagen Conference, emissions trading schemes and carbons taxes have been hopelessly discredited, because they only work if all the countries in the world adopt them. So in the absence of all countries in the world having an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax, a country taking direct action, which the coalition proposes through planting more trees, better agriculture, and better technology, is the only way that Australia can make a contribution to reducing carbon emissions without destroying our jobs, without damaging cost of living and without damaging job security. Van Onselen: But, but I want to get to the ETS in a moment, or the potential move to an ETS that Kevin Rudd has move to but before doing that… Pyne: No it’s a floating carbon tax… Van Onselen: Well and, and we’ll get to that, but do you accept that putting 3.2 billion dollars of tax payers’ money into direct action, even if you think it is a better way to price carbon, is indeed, a form of pricing carbon? Pyne: Well if you were going to levy the Australian tax payer to raise that money then I think you could say that it was a tax, but because we’ve said that we will fund that, out of the current budget, through savings and through better budgetary management, and its capped and its costed, then it’s not a levy on the Australian public, it is a spending measure that is going to come through other savings in the budget, and I think the Australian public will embrace a direct action policy which costs 3 billion dollars as opposed to a floating carbon tax which collects 58 billion dollars over the period of this carbon tax. Nobody’s going to believe, in fact people are going to get, start getting quite angry that Kevin Rudd is over reaching classically, by saying that he’s terminated the carbon tax when it’s a, a terminated tax that collects 58 billion dollars. He’s not a terminator he’s just a very naughty boy. Van Onselen: Well they may well do that but I’m sort of not even going that far in what I’m asking, I’m just wondering if you’re able to admit that it is a form of pricing carbon because the spokesperson Greg Hunt, seems allergic to admitting that. But clearly, whether it’s coming out of consolidated revenue or whether it’s coming out of a direct levy, it’s coming out of tax payers’ dollars one way or the other clearly spending 3.2 billion dollars, even if it’s a more efficient way to do it, and even if I accept ah the arguments of the Coalition, it is a form of pricing carbon surely? Pyne: Well I think it’s a debating point. The point is at this election, and we should be thanking Kevin Rudd and putting, hanging garlands around his neck for so successfully putting the carbon tax right back at the centre of Australian politics because Julia Gillard had managed to move it off the agenda by focussing on other things. Kevin Rudd is not so brilliant after all, has stumbled right into this issue and put the carbon tax right back at the centre of Australian politics. The election will be a referendum, as we always said it would but now clearly so, whether you want a Labor party 58 billion dollar floating carbon tax, or whether you want a 3 billion dollar direct action plan, which is costed and payed for out of savings and the budget that achieves the same 5 per cent reduction in carbon emissions. Now it seems a very simple choice to me. Van Onselen: Does it, does it achieve it though Mr Pyne? Are you prepared to put your career on the line, because you’re a, you’re a young man, your wanting to be in politics come 2020, are you… Pyne: You are too charming… Van Onselen: …Are you prepared to put your career on the line that by 2020, if the Coalition is elected in this election coming up in a matter of months that there will be a 5 per cent reduction on 2000 level emissions, on your scheme or direct action? Pyne: I’m absolutely prepared to commit my career to that goal, because that is what the estimates say will occur, and that’s what the Government says will occur with their plan, and we know that under the direct action plan, the same thing will occur, but without a 58 billion dollar floating carbon tax. Now, Kevin is all talk and no action. He said he was going to get rid of the carbon tax, all he’s done is given a one off, three hundred and eighty dollar reduction in next year’s household bills. After that, is goes back to the same price it was going to be before, and the burden continues to stay on tax payers, and he’s so, so dishonest Peter, that he’s still saying tonight Rockhampton at his Community Cabinet that it’s three hundred and eighty dollars a year, which is a bald-faced lie and the Treasurer, Chris Bowen, had to correct him at the press conference today, and yet having been corrected, he still determinedly misleads people at the community cabinet in Rockhampton. I think the Australian public are going to get very sick of Kevin Kardashian, and his old ways and they’re going to want a stable, secure, alternative which is the Coalition. Which has been unchanged for four years, it’s had the same policy for four years, and will reduce the burden on tax payers in their electricity bills, help secure their jobs and stop making Australian businesses uncompetitive against their foreign competitors. Van Onselen: I need to ask you about these remarks about the invisibility of carbon dioxide by Tony Abbott yesterday, let’s just have a quick listen of what he had to say and then come back. GRAB Tony Abbott: This is not a true market. Just ask yourself what an emissions trading scheme is all about. It’s a market, a so called market, in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one. Now let’s, lets this think about it, it is a market, in the non-delivery, or an invisible substance, to no one. Van Onselen: Mr Pyne, do you agree with that? Pyne: What Tony Abbott was saying is that the emissions trading schemes that exist around the world, are proven to be a total farce. The European emissions trading scheme, which is currently trading at 6 dollars, the New Zealand trading scheme which is at 75 cents, but the one in Europe has been beset by problems with corruption, last year the suggestion was that the mafia in Sicily had taken over the emissions trading scheme in Europe, that there was a phantom trading in permits, and the problem with the emission trading schemes is that since the Copenhagen Conference fell over, there is no future for an emissions trading scheme or a floating carbon tax and the only way we can reduce… Van Onselen: …But can I just jump in there because I want to ask you about the fact that it didn’t get through in Copenhagen in a moment, but they must have played a different clip for you than they did for me, let me read it out for you because Tony Abbott didn’t say any of that, what he said is, he said “it’s a market, a so called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one”. You were supporting the idea of an ETS so long as it got through in Copenhagen, now you might think that it’s not a good idea to do it if there’s not global action, but Tony Abbott’s words weren’t to that effect his words seemed to be global action or not, this sort of a market is a joke, that’s what he seemed to be saying. Pyne: Well I think he’s saying since Copenhagen, you can’t have a successful emissions trading scheme because no one else in the world is buying up to an emissions trading scheme. But Kevin Kardashian got so confused today Peter that in response to that comment he said the next thing Mr Abbott will be saying is that air is invisible. Well air is invisible, so I’m not sure that Kevin has really, you know got his radar honed in very successfully today. Van Onselen: But do you think that carbon dioxide is invisible because if you freeze it, it’s dry ice? Pyne: But this debate it’s such a, such an inside the belt way of kind of debating point. What Tony Abbott was saying is, the Coalition has a plan that works, the Labor party has a 58 billion dollar tax, the public have to make a choice, do they want the ephemeral emissions trading scheme floating carbon tax, or do they want direct action which solves climate problems. Van Onselen: Did you at least worry for one moment maybe that when you heard that press conference, that perhaps, just for a second, Tony Abbott had morphed into Alan Jones? Pyne: (laughs) No, no nice try but I’m not going to get into the Van Onselen versus Jones debate. I’m too old and wise. Van Onselen: Alright let’s move on, let’s move onto education. Your portfolio of choice, I’m sure you would have liked us to have started there but we’ve got through the issues of the day first, let’s discuss education. Now don’t you think that from Kevin Rudd’s perspective, he’s on a winner here whether Campbell Newman signs up or not. If he signs up, great, he gets to say that Queensland’s on-board. If he doesn’t sign up he gets to say guess what, there’s Campbell Newman who’s cut services and gone down the austerity path also not being prepared to fund education. This is a difficult issue for the Coalition to manage either way, isn’t it? Pyne: No, look it’s become a very difficult issue for the Government to manage, because Kevin Kardashian clearly is not committed to this new school funding model… Van Onselen: Can you stop calling him Kevin Kardashian? Let’s just refer to him as the Prime Minister, I mean at least your proving that it wasn’t misogyny that was the reason we all disrespected Julia Gillard, it is, it’s just the attitude towards Labor Prime Ministers at the moment. Pyne: But how can we not refer to him as Kevin Kardashian when he’s taking ‘selfies’ of himself in the bathroom and posting them on the Internet? I mean that’s no way for a Prime Minister to behave. And he seems to be much happier… Van Onselen: Well he’s not doing what Kim Kardashian did, she, she posted a sex tape for heaven’s sake. Pyne: Well look I wasn’t suggesting that, and let’s hope Kevin doesn’t go down that path, although, you know, nothing would surprise me about Kevin Kardashian in terms of his desperation to be the centre of attention. This education issue has become a major problem for the Government, because the now effectively have four different models in operation, one for Tasmania, one for South Australia, one for the ACT and one for New South Wales. I understand that they are returning to the South Australian model, to tweak that even more on behalf of the South Australian Government. So, this is chaos, and mismanagement on a grand scale, which unfortunately has all the hallmarks of the pink batts disaster and the over-priced schools halls fiasco, both of which were over sighted by Kevin Rudd. See there, I’m calling him his name for you Peter, to make you happy. Van Onselen: Thanks very much, thanks very much Mr Pyne I appreciate it. But let me ask you another question on education because it’s an interesting situation, Kevin Rudd is throwing, and Julia Gillard was doing it before him, increasing amounts of money at the states that haven’t signed up yet to try to bring them aboard, are you prepared to say that New South Wales’ decision to sign on so early, now that that is happening, do you think that Barry O’Farrell, and the Education Minister Adrian Piccoli, look like fools for signing on too early, and for undercutting their state in terms of the money they could have gotten? Pyne: Well my calculation Peter is that the Government has now promised 1.2 billion dollars, on top of what was in the budget. Now, that has blown the surplus on its own. New South Wales, I’m sure, will be returning to the negotiating table because they have been sold a pup, to use an old expression, when the other states are racking, are wrenching, better agreements out of the Government. But Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, the Northern Territory, are still very sceptical and the Government doesn’t have a new school funding model anymore, it has four bilateral arrangements, with four different jurisdictions, its more complex, less transparent, and it’s still a 325 million dollar cut to school funding, if you rely on the budget figures over the next four years, so it was always a con, and I think that a lot of people are working that out. Now the Government can make all sorts of outlandish promises, and it is doing so, to try and get people on board, put some they’ve got to be paid for, and if you believe that Backstabber Bill will deliver those enormous billions of dollars, then you’ve got more faith in him than Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd should have since he stabbed both of them in the back in only three year period. Van Onselen: Mr Pyne you’ve been generous with your time as always. Thanks very much for joining us on Showdown. Pyne: It’s a pleasure, thank you. ENDS.