Transcript - Radio National - 24 February 2010

SUBJECTS: Peter Garrett controversy; Government management of the Senate

(greetings omitted)

Fran KELLY: Christopher Pyne, let me start with you. I'm just wondering if the Opposition's running out of steam on its attack on Peter Garrett. Where else are you going to go as the PM's obviously going to stand by this Minister?

Christopher PYNE: Well the difficulty is Fran, that the Prime Minister won't sack a Minister who clearly should be sacked and the Minister won't resign, who clearly should resign. So we're in a similar situation to that which the Opposition faced, found itself in with Carmen Lawrence back before 1996. Now that issue bled for the Keating Government, in those days, for months and months and months until finally Carmen Lawrence succumbed and the same thing happened with Ros Kelly. Now some people will give the Prime Minister a big tick for being prepared to stand by a failed Minister presiding over a maladministered scheme because they'll say that's good old Labor tribal loyalty, but unfortunately the Westminster System requires that Peter Garrett take responsibility for the, some are saying now, one-hundred and sixty-five house fires, the one thousand electrified roofs and two-hundred and forty thousand houses that now have shoddy insulation, four deaths.

KELLY: Okay, let me say there, we certainly have more evidence that, going back to the Keating Government, for the Minister standing by, as John Howard showed a distinct inclination to let go of Ministers after his first year in Parliament when he lost seven or so of them. I think it's both sides of politics but this does bring us to this whole issue of Ministerial responsibility. Let's hear the definition from the PM yesterday, on Ministerial responsibility as it refers to Peter Garrett.

Kevin RUDD: I think the proper definition of Ministerial responsibility is as follows. One, that a Minister, when charged by Cabinet with implementation of a programme, has commissioned through his Department appropriate risk assessment as to what measures should be put in place for the proper implementation of the programme. Secondly, that the Minister then acts appropriately to the Departmental advice that the Minister receives in the implementation of that programme. Against those core measures, I stand by the Minister as I did last week, as I'll do next week.

KELLY: Chris Bowen, if that is what the definition of what Ministerial responsibility is? That you do what your Department tells you and that's okay?

Chris BOWEN: Oh, well no, Fran. I don't think, in fairness, that's what the PM said.

KELLY: Isn't it?

BOWEN: When you're a Minister, you get problems put to you all the time. You get issues that get identified, things bought to your attention. The test is do you act? Do you take on board the concerns? Do you get expert advice? And do you act on that advice? And on the information you have before you, at any given time and not with the benefit of hindsight, at any given time with the information you have before you do you take appropriate action? And on any test, in my view and objectively, in any test Peter Garrett passes that test.

KELLY: How did you get to that test? Didn't it used to be simply "the buck stops with you, Minister"?

BOWEN: Well, the buck stops with you if you take action. If you get advice and you take action and you act on the information you have before you at that time. Now the Opposition now says "we would have acted differently" well when Malcolm Turnbull took a very similar scheme in the Cabinet, objectively and honestly, look anyone else in the eye, Fran, and say "we would have made different decisions. We would have overturned the Australian standard. We would have said the Australian standard isn't good enough. We would have said the building code isn't good enough"

KELLY: ...okay...

BOWEN: ...now it's all very good to make those allegations in hindsight. Objectively and fairly, with the information you had before you at that time, Peter Garrett acted accordingly. And just saying Fran, I think they've run outta puff. They're getting shriller and shriller...

KELLY: ...I don't think I said that!

PYNE: Come now, let Fran have a word in...

KELLY: ...I just want to stay, I just want to go to this definition of Ministerial responsibility before we move on and you two can have a go at each other. Christopher Pyne, I'm just wondering what your definition of it is because I remember when Senator Amanda Vanstone, when she was Immigration Minister, seemed to redefine it too as her job as Minister responsible, was to stick around and fix the problems. Fix the Department, is that the new definition or is that what Peter Garrett's doing?

PYNE: Well what we're talking about is the Rudd Government and the definition of Ministerial accountability that Kevin Rudd talked about in 2007 is now quite different in Government. it's a broken promise from Kevin Rudd because, as we're getting close to him, he's all talk and no action. So, before the election, to hear the definition of Ministerial accountability, which he applied to the Australian Wheat Board Scandal, which if Alexander Downer hadn't read thousands and thousands of cables that came into his office, he was either negligent or culpable. Now that's completely changed because Kevin Rudd's in Government and his promise about Ministerial accountability has gone the same way as the promises about whaling, about hospitals and all the others that we're getting used to from Kevin Rudd now.

KELLY: So, what is your clear definition on Ministerial responsibility?

PYNE: The Westminster System requires that a Minister is responsible for the actions of his Department. If those actions lead to deaths, to house fires, to shoddy insulation...to a completely failed programme, the buck stops with that Minister and he is responsible.

BOWEN: Well Chris used to be the Minister for Ageing and there are difficulties in every portfolio. Ageing is no different, Bronwyn Bishop, she didn't resign when she had problems in her sector. Christopher Pyne didn't resign when somebody died in a nursing home and we didn't call for his resignation because if you act on the information that's in front of you, if you deal with it, you have met your responsibilities as a Minister.

PYNE: No, nobody suggests that if a Defence Minister sends Australian troops to Afghanistan and they perish, that somehow the Defence Minister should suddenly resign. The difference is that when the Minister is given warnings, twenty-one warnings in this case, and doesn't act decisively to deal with them and instead keeps putting off a decision for months and months and months, then common sense suggests that he has abrogated his responsibility and he must resign. It's as simple as that.

KELLY: ...Chris Bowen, the Government has problems in the Senate and it looks like you've got a $1.9billion hole in your Budget because the Senators voted down the means testing for a private health insurance rebate and now the Youth Allowance looks like it's going to get blocked too. What's wrong with the Government's management of the Senate? Why can't you get anything through?

BOWEN: Well, we don't have the numbers, Fran, we need every non-Government Senator...

KELLY: ...sure, you don't have the numbers but you and most other Governments...

BOWEN: ...well we've got quite a bit through the Senate, under Tony Abbott's leadership the Liberal Party has decided it's going to oppose for opposition's sake. Now take the private health insurance and Youth Allowance that you raised. I mean, I would appeal to Christopher that Youth Allowance is a very serious issue. If we really need to raise the number of people in lower socio-economic backgrounds getting into university...

PYNE: ...it's an ambush...

BOWEN: ...the numbers have been going down...and we really need to tackle this issue as a nation. The Bradley Review recommended changes to Youth Allowance and if Christopher and Tony Abbott would just put the politics aside for just one moment and let through this very important change and let us pay this Youth Allowance to a...very targeted group...to increase participation rates in university...I think the nation would say "good on you Government and Opposition for getting together, putting politics aside and putting through an important reform which is important for the...social stats of the nation...to let through more kids from...challenged economic backgrounds go to university". Let's get on with it.

PYNE: Christopher Pyne, a quick response from you?

PYNE: Well, Fran. The decision to support private health insurance and not let the Government break its promise about private health insurance...means testing...was made under Brendan Nelson and not Tony Abbott.

KELLY: Well maybe it was a non-core promise?

PYNE: Well with Labor most promises are non-core promises! The decision to stand up for rural students and to oppose retrospective legislation, which is the Youth Allowance legislation, was made under Malcolm Turnbull and nothing to do with Tony Abbott's leadership. Let me say this, Fran, the Coalition will stand by rural students who will be harmed by these changes to Youth Allowance and we'll not support retrospective legislation. We've said that all along and our position has not changed...

BOWEN: ...every Vice-Chancellor in the country supports these reforms...

PYNE: ...wait a minute, it's my turn. Surprisingly it's my turn, and Vice-Chancellors are always very supportive of the Government, they always have been.

(ends)