Transcript - Doorstop - 20 January 2010

SUBJECTS: Community Cabinet in Sturt; Referendum on the Murray-Darling Basin; Referendum on the Republic

(greetings omitted)

PYNE: The Murray-Darling Basin is the most important issue facing South Australia right now. The most important environmental issue and the most important economic issue. We've seen in the last few weeks the continued wrangling between New South Wales and South Australia. Yesterday it was reported in the papers that South Australia had lodged a claim against New South Wales in the High Court. There couldn't be any more evidence needed that the Murray-Darling Basin should be in the hands of the Government for the whole Murray-Darling Basin and that is the National Government. We can't expect the Premiers in Queensland or Victoria to put South Australia's interests in front of their own but you can expect the national Government to take a national perspective on the Murray-Darling Basin which crosses four states. For this reason this Community Cabinet in my electorate today will be a waste of time if Kevin Rudd today doesn't address the fundamental issue today, which is ""who controls the Murray-Darling Basin?"". Tony Abbott has called for a referendum in 2013 if the States haven't resolved their issues by that time and I am calling on Kevin Rudd today to make a bi-partisan commitment to a referendum on the Murray-Darling Basin to put power of the Murray-Darling Basin into the hands of the National Government. If he doesn't do that, today's Cabinet is just an expensive, taxpayer-funded promotion of the ALP brand in marginal seats across Australia. Today, particularly, in mine. If the ALP wants to promote its brand it should use its own money and not taxpayer's money.

Just interested in what you think might come out from today's meeting?

PYNE: Tony Abbott has announced that the Coalition will support a referendum in 2013 to coincide with the election campaign in that year. To take the power over the Murray-Darling Basin away from the State Government and into the hands of the National Government. Between now and that time we will work...our Government will work with the States to get infrastructure funding and also we will try to get those states to refer their powers to the Commonwealth. If they won't do that, our response is a referendum. That's the only way to make sure the Murray-Darling is in the hands of the National Government and Kevin Rudd should today make a commitment to do the same thing. If he doesn't make that commitment then it is an utter waste of taxpayer's money. It's the only issue that South Australians want to get bi-partisan agreement on. It's the most important issue South Australians want to get bi-partisan agreement on and Kevin Rudd should make that commitment today.

Since the cooperation of the states and Labor, we had a big influx of water. It seems like the States are working well together. Is that not enough?

PYNE: Well I think that wrangling over the last three weeks only shows what a farce the management of the Murray-Darling Basin is. Sure, New South Wales out of the goodness of their hearts has decided to give us one drop of water. They didn't need to decide to do that and it just highlights that we are at the beck and call of the New South Wales Government. The Victorian Government has announced that they are extending their caps on water trading which means South Australia will be less likely to get water in the future and all these problems only highlight that there is no proper management of the Murray-Darling Basin unless it's managed by the National Government.

So the Deputy Prime Minister has criticised your position on the bi-partisan programme and the funding for the Education Revolution. What is your reaction to that?

PYNE: Unfortunately Julia Gillard personalises policies. That's part of her style. I prefer to focus on policies as I think that's what the Australian people care about. My problem with the MySchool website is that it will go the same way as GroceryWatch and FuelWatch unless the MySchools website is matched with giving principal's autonomy in public schools it will be another waste of taxpayer's money. The Opposition's all in favour for transparency and information being given to parents and school communities but the way the MySchools website is set up is it will highlight problems and problem areas without giving principal's the autonomy or recourses to actually change the outcomes in their schools. So they are highlighting a problem, they are shaming schools but they're not giving principal's any capacity to address those problems and I think without that, principal autonomy will go the same way as many other policies in education and will be a Labor bungle.

And as the Computer in Schools...obviously the mix up and whether they are actually needing to pay for these computers that have been supplied by the Government...

PYNE: Well at the last election, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd waved a laptop around saying the laptop was ""the toolbox of the 21^st century"" and they'd provide a laptop for every child between year 9 and year 12. That was 970 000 laptops. Two years later they've provided 150 000 and they still claim the programme is on track. It's blown out by $1.2billion and I'm getting reports from all across Australia that parents are being charged for the use of laptop computers after-hours so of course that means you have two classes of students - those who have the laptop after-hours and those who haven't. and we all know from our experiences as parents there will be no way your child will be able to go without a laptop after-hours. It's like missing out on the school excursion because you haven't got enough money to go and that puts new pressure on parents. That wasn't part of the Rudd/Gillard promise before the last election. I think parents will be very disappointed to find that, yet again, the Rudd Government has failed to follow through their election promises.

So is it giving a laptop to every child or...?

PYNE: Well, that's the Government's programme. The money has been spent and allocated so it's far too late to stop it. I could think of a lot better ways to spend $16million than on Julia Gillard Memorial School Halls and over $2billion on a laptop for every child. You can start, for example, by getting better teachers, good quality teachers, improving teacher's salaries and start making sure teaching is a vocational profession that our best and brightest want to go into.

Just back to the water...do you think it's a token gesture by the New South Wales Government or do you think this will help defuse the situation?

PYNE: I think that every drop that is attracted to South Australia, through whatever agreement is welcome in this state. My concern is that the wrangle over the last three weeks over New South Wales only highlights why the Murray-Darning Basin should be in the hands of the National Government. Tony Abbott has made a commitment that we will sponsor a referendum to take responsibility out of the hands of the Commonwealth and into the hands of the states. The National Government is the only Government that can take a national view when dealing with a river that crosses four states. I would not expect the Premier of Queensland, New South Wales or Victoria to put South Australia ahead of their own state's needs but the National Government can take a whole-of-nation view. I'm calling on today, for Kevin Rudd to create bi-partisan support for a referendum to get the power from the State to the National Government because if we wait for Penny Wong's solution, we'll be waiting until 2019 and a lot can happen in 9 years. Victoria will still have a veto power until 2019 if we go with the Wong/Rudd solution. If we go with the Abbott solution we will get a referendum in 2013 to hand the power to the National Government and that will be good for South Australia.

Do you think that will get much support? Seeing as South Australia is the one crying out for more water, whereas New South Wales is doing okay and Victoria a bit better. Do you think there's support out there in the community?

PYNE: Well I think that certainly in South Australia there's certainly an overwhelming view that the way the Murray-Darling Basin has been managed for ten years has been a failure and it would be in our best interest for the National Government to have control, real control, over the Murray-Darling Basin. I can't speak for how the campaign will go, it's in another two or three years time and we have another before that one. What this Community Cabinet is today, is a complete and abject waste of taxpayer's money if when Kevin Rudd is in Adelaide, he doesn't address the number one issue that the people in my electorate have been talking about. Which is water and how to manage the Murray-Darling Basin. If he returns to Canberra tomorrow without having given a bi-partisan commitment on water, he would have basically spent taxpayer's money for nothing.

Is this Cabinet just a PR exercise for the Government?

PYNE: I think the Community Cabinet is a very expensive use of taxpayer's money, promoting the ALP brand around Australia. Today, particularly, in my electorate. My opinion is if the ALP want to promote their brand, they should spend their own ALP money and not taxpayer's money. This is like a king's progress throughout the country where he uses taxpayer's money to promote himself, his message and his political party. I think that's inappropriate and I think that the Community Cabinet today is an expensive abuse of taxpayer's money on self-promotion.

Now you're talking about the Murray referendum but the Government has been talking about the referendum for a Republic. What's your opinion on that?

PYNE: Well I'm a Republican but we had a Republican referendum in 1999. I'm happy to say that Sturt voted "yes" and I think it just highlights the flawed priorities of the Government when almost every analyst will tell you that while the Queen is Head of State a referendum on the Head of State is extremely unlikely to be successful. This is just another way of Kevin Rudd distracting people from the real bread-and-butter issues with cost of living issues and the fact that his Government is an all-talk, no action Government. Unfortunately it underlines that point yet again when we're talking about a Republic , which is not what mums and dads and pensioners and self-funded retirees I my electorate are talking about today. It's something again, well into the future and until the Queen is no longer our Head of State, I don't see any point of returning to the issue of a republic. When that happens, which is inevitable, then we should revisit the issue of a republic.

(ends)