Transcript - Sky News AM Agenda - 11 April 2011

SUBJECTS: ADFA Scandal; Federal Budget; Schools Funding

Kieran Gilbert: First though joining me from Adelaide the Manager of Opposition Business and the Shadow Education Minister Christopher Pyne. Christopher Pyne, thank you very much for your time this morning.

Christopher Pyne: Good morning, Kieran. Good to be with you.

Gilbert: I want to ask you first of all, we've got some issues to talk about in terms of your own portfolio responsibilities in education, but I want to get your reaction to these reports this morning about a stand off between Stephen Smith and the Chief of the Defence Force. If it's true it's not the first time is it that we've seen tensions between the civilian minister and the military commanders that handle this sort of thing?

Pyne: Defence has traditionally been a very independently run part of the federal government and whether that's been a good or a bad thing is open for debate, but what we're seeing right now today is a stand off between the department and the actual forces. The minister should have control of his defence forces. That is part of our Westminster System and it's not good enough for him simply to blow hard as they say and talk about action without actually getting control of the defence department. He needs to make sure there is a very thorough investigation into the allegations that are being made about defence but also make sure that he doesn't scape goat particular individuals in defence without them being given a proper and due process.

Gilbert: I spoke to Peter Reith, the former Defence Minister, one of your former colleagues. In the Howard Government he was the Defence Minister. He said that Stephen Smith hasn't put a foot wrong in the handling of this. Is this just the example of the military being recalcitrant so to speak in response to these demands by the civilian minister?

Pyne: I think it's very important that individuals in the military are not scapegoated. I'm concerned about the language surrounding demands for action to be taken against the commander of ADFA without proper process being gone through, but I'm also very concerned that the Minister does not appear to have a handle on his defence department. Obviously there needs to be a full and thorough investigation into the allegations of sexual harassment and bullying and bastardisation at ADFA. That is very concerning, but equally concerning is that the Minister for Defence himself appears not able to get the defence department under control.

Now, I'm not sure what he has to do to make that happen, but he clearly is at the moment allowing himself to be run roughshod over by defence.

Gilbert: Would you support and independent judicial inquiry into ADFA more broadly?

Pyne: Well, there needs to be a full inquiry. What the parameters of that are probably need to be discussed, and the Shadow Minister for Defence, Senator David Johnston, would have views on that. There does need to be a full and thorough investigation into the allegations of bastardisation at ADFA and the Defence Department needs to be brought to heel by the Minister, but the Minister needs to show the strength; the reason why he is the Minister for Defence and the reason Labor is in Government is because they felt they could do these jobs and he needs to do it properly.

Gilbert: Onto a couple of other issues now and we've seen the budget speculation and rhetoric ahead of what's going to be another tough budget according to the Finance Minister. But on any objective analysis it's not an easy time in terms of framing this budget given the loss in tax receipts, but also the enormous flood recovery the Government has to face.

Pyne: Well, Kieran, that's what the Government wants you to believe. It's the old pea and thimble trick. They are softening up, or massaging the Australian public and the Press Gallery before the budget to say, "Look, this budget will be a disaster. It'll be a tough budget." It's because they don't want people to recognise they have mismanaged the economy for the last three years. They want people to be saying, "Oh, it's so difficult. It's hard work for the Government. They've got flood recovery and so forth." We showed how you could actually fund the flood recovery without a levy through savings in the budget from the Opposition and without all the resources of Government at our disposal. We know that they came to power, they had a $22 billion surplus, they had no debt at all and they had money in the bank. Three years later they are saying that they're running out of money, that they have to borrow more money and that they can't return to surplus. The truth is they could not run any kind of budget. Larry, Moe and Curly would do a better job than Wayne Swan, Penny Wong and Julia Gillard. And we shouldn't let them off the hook. We shouldn't say, "It's going to be very difficult," and accept their excuses. They aren't very good and it's time that they recognised that.

Gilbert: But given the investment timeline that the Government talks about repeatedly, particularly in the resources sector - I think its $55 billion this year, $75 billion next year in terms of that investment trajectory. You'd have to think it's time to reign in spending and support that initiative from the Government wouldn't you?

Pyne: Kieran, the wider point about your question is the Government has presided over this financial mess in a times of a booming economy, they have a mining boom the likes of which this generation has never seen before, they have a low unemployment so therefore most Australians are working and paying income tax, they have rising receipts from GST over the last three years and yet they still have a financial mess. Now we can't just let them off the hook and say poor old Wayne, Penny and Julia are hopeless so let's give them a bit of slack. The truth is they have made a complete mess of the budget and now they want to be given a leave pass. They could have, if they did absolutely nothing, still had a surplus budget, still have money in the bank, and not have the government in debt, but they chose to spend like drunken sailors when they first elected and now we are seeing the downside of a government that hasn't controlled spending for three years.

Gilbert: Christopher Pyne the pubs and clubs are launching a $20 million campaign today against the Andrew Wilkie push for pre-commitment technology on poker machines, what's the Coalitions view on this?

Pyne: Well I think its perfectly reasonable for the clubs to run a campaign protecting their revenue stream - and that's what they are doing - I also think its perfectly reasonable for Andrew Wilkie who was elected on a platform of reforming pokies to continue that battle. He has made some very good points about the need to rein in spending on pokies. I'm not particularly attracted to pokies. By the same token anything that the government does has to be reasonable and has to be effective and mustn't kill the goose that laid the golden egg, if you like, for hotels and pubs and clubs across Australia who have benefited greatly through consumer's spending in their venues. In South Australia the hotels have been transformed because of the introduction of hotel pokies which meant that patrons were coming to those hotels and spending money in those hotels giving them some certainty for those investments, so there are both economic considerations and social considerations. Andrew Wilkie has some good points and so do Clubs Australia and they're entitled to run their campaign.

Gilbert: You've been running a campaign in the area of private schools particularly warning that the government's review into school funding could see more than a thousand schools across Australia lose their government funding status. Isn't that unreasonable though the argument that you are making, given that the government's got a review underway? Why should it give any guarantee to maintain funding exactly where it is now? Why have a review in the first place if you do that?

Pyne: Kieran, the point that I am making is that the government is trying to slide under the radar yet again on a very important issue. The government is trying to pretend that nothing will change for schools while they slowly trap them in the Gonski review into school funding. The point that I am making is that in 2004 when Mark Latham said that funding should be removed for non-government schools or should be reduced, he was talking about 67 schools. At the moment the federal government is introducing a review that could effect the funding of 1076 non-government schools. And it's very important that those 1076 non-government schools know the train is coming down the track, down the tunnel, to hit those schools if Labor takes away their on-going funding or doesn't include indexation in on-going funding. It won't be good enough to cry over spilt milk after the event. It's very important that those schools, those parents, know in those 1076 schools that their school fees will rise - and substantially- if the government proceeds with its plans as they are currently refusing to rule out and these 1076 school s are over one third of all non government schools.

Gilbert: Mr Pyne, are you satisfied though that every private school in the country receives the right amount of funding because it sounds like you are seeking a guarantee from the government that is almost impossible to give do you, do you....

Pyne: Not at all.

Gilbert: Do you think that every school receives the right amount of money, funding that, that no private schools receive too much?

Pyne: I don't think any school in Australia should have their funding reduced into the future, I think every school should be able to rely on the current levels of funding that they have. I don't care what the semantics are, of what it's called, whether its called 'Funding maintained' or the SES funding model or whatever, the bottom line is every school must be able to go forward knowing that it has the funds that it is receiving now and with indexation into the future, and government schools also need that same commitment that they will continue to get the same levels of funding that they do now, with indexation into the future. The problem with the government's position is that they want to have their cake and eat it too, they want to convince non-government schools that nothing will change without ruling out that they will have funding removed, and those parents in those 1076 schools need to know that the government is coming for them and that it will be too late to complain after the event.

Gilbert: Christopher Pyne as always appreciate your time this morning thank you

Pyne: It's a pleasure Kieran, thank you

ENDS