Sunday Agenda Sky News

E&OE…………… 

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Mr Pyne, thanks for your company.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

Good morning Peter.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

We will obviously go straight to this security issue and what the Prime Minister’s Office did or didn’t know. One of the things the Opposition have been calling for is a police inquiry into this. What is it that you’re looking for in this respect?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

Well, obviously there are so many questions left unanswered by the Prime Minister’s press conference yesterday and in this morning’s press Kim Sattler who is the woman at the centre of these swirling controversies has directly contradicted the Prime Minister’s statement that she made yesterday afternoon. This is a very serious matter. The Prime Minister’s security was placed at risk, Kim Sattler thinks it was important enough to talk to the federal police about at 1:30 on Friday afternoon. The Prime Minister needs to get to the bottom of the truth in this matter. Yesterday she said that her former staffer had simply passed on Tony Abbott’s statements to Kim Sattler. Kim Sattler says that he said exactly what triggered these riots, which was that Tony Abbott thought that the Tent Embassy shouldn’t exist anymore and should disappear. Now, that is a direct contradiction of the Prime Minister’s own statements. We know that her new fixer, Mr McTiernan has been closely involved in discussions with Kim Sattler over the weekend and potentially on Friday. We know that there were three staffers with Mr Hodges on Thursday. We know that the Prime Minister’s press group were in the gallery on Thursday afternoon, telling journalists that Tony Abbott had been responsible for this riot. So we are a long way from satisfying ourselves or the Australian people about what the truth is about this matter. The Prime Minister, her office has verballed Tony Abbott, a riot has occurred as a consequence, her statements have been directly contradicted by the primary sources involved in this controversy and what it points to is a stench at the heart of this government in the Prime Minister’s office where dirty tricks and grubby political deals are elevated and the concerns of the Australian people about job security and border security and other issues, cost of living issues are pushed to the background.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

But Mr Pyne, it’s hard to disagree with all of that, it’s a terrible look for the Government. It’s going to, I imagine, do enormous harm in the view of the public. I can understand that the Opposition is pretty irate about some of the targeting that happened with Tony Abbott, not to mention the security issues here but by the same token, this isn’t Watergate. What is it about bringing in the federal police that is so important here? I mean, isn’t the issue just a matter of a political stunt on the Opposition’s part to keep what is a bad situation for the Government kicking along?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

This is the most serious security scare an Australian Prime Minister has faced since the Fraser Government. The federal police should automatically be reviewing their own processes and procedures but also the Prime Minster should want to get to the bottom of who is responsible for what happened. What was the purpose of her office verballing the Leader of the Opposition and passing on that information to the Tent Embassy protesters? Now, sure, while there has been property damage and while the Prime Minister has been humiliated internationally and domestically, there’s no doubt about that, what if somebody had been seriously injured? Now, the Australian Federal Police need to be brought in to work out who did what and why and whether any security laws were breached. There are a lot of security laws that surround the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, their schedules, their whereabouts. This was a breach of security by the Prime Minister’s office which led to a serious outcome that could’ve been even worse. And the Prime Minister herself should want to get to the centre of this in her office.

SIMON BENSON:

Sorry to interrupt you there but surely the Prime Minsiter has done enough in forcing the resignation of the person responsible for this in her office. She said that he’s acted alone, there’s no evidence to suggest otherwise. Surely she’s done enough in forcing his resignation?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

Well, Simon I don’t think that’s right. I mean, the Prime Minister made a full statement to the press yesterday afternoon which within hours was directly contradicted by Kim Sattler. Now, the Prime Minister’s statement, she says that her staff passed on exactly what Mr Abbott had said in his statement that morning. We now know that is completely untrue. The Prime Minister didn’t address the issue of why her staff were in the press gallery on Thursday afternoon telling journalists that Tony Abbott had been responsible for a riot at the Lobby restaurant. Now, who were those staff? We want to know who they were. She should want to know who they were. We want to know all those things that she didn’t answer yesterday in her press conference and until she does, this matter is not going to go away.

JENNIFER HEWETT:

Mr Pyne, you said that the Prime Minister had been humiliated both domestically and internationally. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have been praising the police in terms of how they handled the situation. Do you think a lot of people and the public seem to think that there was a degree of overreaction by the police and resulting in some of those images that we saw of the Prime Minister? Do you agree with that?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

Well, I think the police did what they thought was required to protect the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in a very dangerous situation but I think images of our Prime Minister being dragged down stairs, pushed into the back of a car, losing her shoe, stumbling and falling, looking terrified was about as bad an image of a Prime Minister that you could possibly imagine. Now, that was caused because of the verballing of the Leader of the Opposition by her office. Now, we need to get the Australian Federal Police to get to the bottom of what was the purpose of that. Now we are getting two conflicting stories. On the one hand, the Prime Minister is saying that none of this had anything to do with her office, that Mr Abbott’s views were conveyed correctly. In fact, Kim Sattler is saying Mr Abbott’s views were conveyed in a completely false way. Now, the Prime Minister can’t just say, just can’t sweep this under the table. This goes to a culture at the heart of the Prime Minister’s office, where grubby deals, whether it’s the dispatching of Harry Jenkins, whether it’s the protection of Craig Thomson, whether it’s the calling of Fair Work Australia by her office, now her office verballing the Leader of the Opposition and causing a riot. This is a culture at the heart of her office and while all this is going on, who is, besides the Coalition, who cares about what average Australians care about? Cost of living, job security and border security. Who’s working on those issues?

JENNIFER HEWETT:

Mr Pyne, I’m sure that the Government would be very anxious to get back to those issues and it is the Opposition which is also very much pursuing this so I don’t think you’re exactly trying to get back to the issues of job security either but on the broader scale, where do you think, what do you think the impact for this will be on the whole issue of constitutional changes to the Constitution in terms of recognition for the Aboriginal community?

 CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

Look, I think most Australians will see the riot on Thursday that was created out of the verballing of the Leader of the Opposition by the Prime Minister’s office as an isolated and very unfortunate incident. Out of it we need to get the Australian Federal Police to review the processes that they would naturally do, I’m assuming, and also get to the bottom of what happened, why they did it and who else might have been involved in the Prime Minister’s office. Also, it beggars belief, it’s utterly unbelievable that a new media adviser would actually act this way and we already know, Jennifer, that her staff were in the press gallery on Thursday pushing this story around...

JENNIFER HEWETT:

Are you saying there’ll be no impact in terms of the broader politics of whether or not there’s any chance of getting a referendum accepted by the public?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

I think we’re a long way from being able to determine what’s going to happen with a referendum on recognising indigenous people in the Constitution. I think everyone has very good will about that issue but unfortunately I think there is some doubt about whether the actual terms and the recommendations of the committee will be acceptable, and I would rather see a bipartisan referendum where the recognition of indigenous people is included in our Constitution without any doubts, without any constitutional concerns. We’re not at that point yet. I don’t think Thursday and Friday’s events will be determining factors in whether that referendum is carried or not. I think the determining factor will be the terms of the actual changes and whether both sides of politics are able to support them.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

But what chance is there really of bipartisanship on that issue or anything else? One of the problems here is that and I’m not blaming either side for this but clearly the combination of the Opposition’s concern about the Government and the negativity that goes with that, with the Government’s concern that the Opposition is purely being negative for the sake of being relentlessly negative, there’s little chance isn’t there on Aboriginal reconciliation issues or any other issue of true bipartisanship in the life of the current parliament?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

Well, Peter I do think that the Government’s lines about the Opposition are simply political spin. We all know that we are hearing this broken record from every minister and the Prime Minister every day, it’s all part of the spin...

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

So you’re negative about their attitude about accusing you of always being negative?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

Look, Peter the truth is the Prime Minister is running an agenda against Tony Abbott because she’s obsessed with Tony Abbott. It’s all about him. The Prime Minister’s office’s focus is entirely on Tony Abbott. It should be on the day to day concerns of Australians. I think there’s a very good chance they’ll get bipartisanship on a referendum to recognise indigenous people in the Constitution as long as the terms of that change are not such that they would create a bill of rights inadvertently.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Can I ask about your portfolio of education before we let you go. The Gonski report is expected to be handed down soon and the Government will obviously respond to those recommendations. What’s the Opposition’s expectation in this pretty delicate area of funding for secondary schools?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

Well, I would like to see the Gonski review and what it can do to improve our current funding model. Where we part company with the Government is that we believe the current funding model is not broken and the Government does, for ideological reasons, argue that it’s broken. I think David Gonski will come up with some really good ideas that will be worth considering, and how the Government responds will determine how the Opposition responds. If we believe the Government is placing the schools at risk, that it’s likely to increase school fees in non-government schools or see teachers laid off, obviously we will oppose that. And that won’t be because we are being relentlessly negative. It will be because the Government has yet again made a mistake.  That is the job of oppositions, to hold them to account and that is what we will do.

JENNIFER HEWETT:

There’s also the job of oppositions, I think, to create an alternative. The Opposition does seem to be obsessed with the idea of Julia Gillard as well and the idea of forcing an early election. Is that really a credible alternative do you think and do you think there’s any chance of that happening and if not, don’t you think here’s a risk for the Opposition in terms of the public perception and that’s all you’re interested in doing and not trying to help to actually fix the problems in the country? 

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

Well, Jennifer, I think there’s a flaw in your analysis...

JENNIFER HEWETT:

I can’t imagine that.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

It’s hard for us to be obsessed with one particular Prime Minister when we’ve already faced two in the last 18 months and likely to face a third sometime this year, potentially quite soon. So the Labor Party’s leadership is a moveable feast, so it’s very hard for us to obsess about one or another particular candidate who is running for Prime Minister. We have a lot of positive alternative policies that are already being announced. All policies that we have at the last election remain extant until they are changed at the next election, if they do get changed. The Leader of the Opposition routinely gives speeches, whether it’s to the Menzies Centre or other places around Australia about his plans for the future of Australia and they’re very simple. The Liberal Party stands for lower taxes, smaller government, strong borders, a strong United States alliance, focusing on cost of living issues and job security and no carbon tax, getting rid of the carbon tax, not supporting the mining tax. We say no to a carbon tax because we say yes to lower taxes. We say no to the mining tax because we say yes to lower taxes.

SIMON BENSON:

With respect Mr Pyne, they’re all grand idea, they’re not policies and isn’t there a contradiction here in the Opposition’s desire to force an election as soon as possible and the fact that you claim to have policies ready to roll out for such an event yet you’re not prepared to release any of them at the moment in the event that that may occur at any time, according to you?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

Well, Simon, we will release all our policies before election day. That is what is expected and that is what we would like to do. We want the Australian people to know that we have the alternative policy package that will make Australia a better place, but I know that the Australian people already understand what the Liberal Party stands for. We are not an enigma. We’re not Bob Katter’s new political party which is just starting out. We have 60 years of tradition behind us and the Australian people know what that usually means in a Liberal government. That usually means lower taxes and lower interest rates and job security and strong borders and a strong US alliance. These are the basic platforms that average mums and dads around Australia want to be sure about. Now, under this Government, they don’t know who is concentrating on those issues. It seems to be one chaotic event after another under this Government. They want people to be focused on their concerns where this Government is focused day to day on survival, on dirty tricks and on grubby deals like the one to replace Harry Jenkins and the protection of Craig Thomson which goes on and the breaching of the contract, the written contract with Andrew Wilkie. I mean, the Prime Minister is so cynical that she can’t work out why the Australian public have a problem with any of that. But they do and so does the Opposition.

PETER VAN ONSELEN:

Alright. Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives Christopher Pyne, we will let you go. Thanks very much for joining us on this first episode back of Australian Agenda. Thanks for your company.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE:

It’s a pleasure.

[ends]