Transcript - Two Chrisses - ABC 891 - 7 June 2010

David Bevan: And Christopher Schacht, you've been to the launch of Rick Sarre's...

Chris Schacht: Campaign on Friday night. It was very good. A couple of hundred people there.

Bevan: He wants Chris Pyne's job.

Christopher Pyne: (inaudible)

Schacht: It was launched by Penny Wong and Paul Caica and there was a good roll up of grass root supporters and people from across Adelaide, including members of parliament, former....

Bevan: Rick Sarre's in the left faction is he?

Schacht: By and large I think you could say he's being supported by the left faction. I there were people there who weren't in the left faction such as myself who's in no faction these days.

Pyne: You got chucked out.

Schacht: There was Chris Herford who was the founding member of the right wing faction in South Australia in the mid 80s, he was there.

Bevan: Who?

Schacht: Chris Herford, the former member for Adelaide.

Pyne: He's a nice fella, Chris Herford.

Schacht: He was there so you had a good cross section of people. And Rick pointed out, and I think Chris Pyne would be interested in, that his mother in Law is still a very devout Liberal supporter and that he grew up in a family of strong Liberals until he became Labor, joined the party 20 years ago when he got involved in legal aid in serving the under privileged people in the Northern Suburbs of Adelaide.

Pyne: Since he's been you're candidate we have been inundated with Sarre's telling us about Rick.

Schacht: Well of course. We've been inundated by your wonderful Liberal Ladies Burnside group telling us how wonderful you are. We're going to try and remove that. There's one thing I've got to say, otherwise I'd be in trouble with my mother. On Saturday we celebrated my mother's 90^th birthday at the Feathers Hotel in your electorate.

Pyne: 90 years of putting up with you would not have been easy.

Schacht: Yes. I was there, her grandchildren were there and her great grandchildren were there and friends of hers that go right back to the 30s. So it was a very nice occasion.

Bevan: Now we've got all of the pleasantries out of the way.

Schacht: Let's get right into it.

Bevan: Ok.

Pyne: I think you've got a new intro for us.

Bevan: We have; thoroughly modern.

Schacht: We're showing our real literary skills, our knowledge.

Bevan: Matt and I are always encouraged.....

Schacht: Can you get us on the book program on the ABC? We might be able to do very well there.

Bevan: Matt and I are always very encouraged when the ABC puts the effort to creating a new opener for us because we think, ""they're going to keep us on for another week now."" Kevin Foley, is he in trouble?

Schacht: Well, the Liberal Party hope he's in trouble, a section of the community hopes he's in trouble and I suspect that people who don't want to build a new Adelaide Oval hope he's in trouble. He's going to cop a bit of flak for what he said last week; admitted that he'd made a mistake, but he will continue on as treasurer and so he should. The issue that is really rolling around is, I think, and I've said this before, while the Treasurer and the Government allows themselves to be run by a committee, which is a mixture of SANFL and SACA, the Government is always going to have a problem trying to get an outcome that's good for all South Australians, not just good for those two organisations.

Bevan: But surely something that involves half a billion dollars worth of taxpayers money, you shouldn't be letting other people manage it.

Schacht: I've expressed that view on this program on six occasions now and I've expressed it privately to members of the Labor Party.

Bevan: So Kevin Foley's problems aren't going to go away while he leaves the management of the project to McLachlan and Lee Whicker?

Schacht: That's my strong view and there will always be a possibility of leaks or misunderstandings and every time Ian McLachlan tries to explain how he's got the money and how he wants more etc. it just looks tawdry in my view and does not do the Government's position and good at all.

Bevan: Now this is a loaded question, but I think it's fair. How dopey was it for Kevin Foley to take on the Crows by calling them a bunch of fence sitters? We saw this extraordinary spray by Rod Chapman in the paper today; Michelangelo Rucci in the sports section. It ought to be on the front page frankly.

Pyne: I was there.

Bevan: You were there?

Pyne: Yeah, I went to the.....

Schacht: They don't invite me to those lunches anymore.

Pyne: I went to the Freo-Adelaide match on Saturday with three of my children. It was a great match actually; sensational, especially the first half. And I went to the lunch before hand and heard the speech from Rod Chapman. They're extremely angry with the Government trying to pin the blame on the Crows for the Government's own woes. And can I say that C1 did a fantastic job of not answering your question. Your question was ""Kevin Foley in trouble"" and the reason Kevin Foley is in trouble, it's not because of the Adelaide Oval or the amount of money; they could have been talking about infrastructure project, whether it was a road or a bridge or a railway or whatever. The reason Kevin Foley's in trouble is because during the state election the signature issue of the election was the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, which was designed to cut across the Opposition's single standing stadium proposal and Kevin Foley kept to himself the fact that the numbers the Government was proposing for the cost of the Adelaide Oval were not the numbers that he was being quoted by the people involved in the issue. And he kept that to himself and now says he conveniently forgot it. Now whether he forgot it or he didn't forget it, the truth is this is a very important issue and the reason he is in trouble is because he's the treasurer and he should actually know better than to think he can run this state like Boss Hogg from the Southern United States in the Dukes of Hazzard. And when he's actually pinged on it he says, ""I'm not the sharpest tool in the tool shed."" I mean what the hell is going on in this state?

Schacht: Let me go back to the Crows.

Pyne: (inaudible)

Schacht: David raised it. One of the things that is not transparent in this situation is the fact that the SANFL board led by Lee Whicker appoints all of the directors of the Adelaide Crows and half the directors of Port Adelaide Football Club. Everyone knows that you do not get anyone in the Adelaide Crows or in the Port Adelaide Board making any comment against what Lee Whicker wants. What I read about what Mr Chapman was saying is, ""Is that the first sign of Lee Whicker bailing out;"" SANFL bailing out of the deal? I don't know. That's another reason why the Government's got to take independent control of the development because of the interests and conflicts of interests between the football community and cricket community and their internal conflicts. You should not have it run that way.

Bevan: The line being run by the State Opposition at the moment, and it's a pretty good line, is that we saw over the last few days a New South Wales state minister resign because he said, ""I gave a misleading statement regarding travel arrangements worth two thousand eight hundred dollars."" He said, ""I thought I paid for them. It turned out the taxpayer paid for them so I'm going to resign."" Now that's less than three thousand dollars, it was a travel entitlement, who cares? This is a project worth half a billion dollars.

Pyne: (inaudible)

Schacht: Under the Ministerial Code of Conduct as I understand it in New South Wales and in South Australia; that New South Wales Minister got it wrong about a claim that was to his personal advantage. You can't say that Kevin Foley is getting any personal advantage out of the argument going on out of the development of the Adelaide Oval.

Bevan: There is a huge personal advantage to Kevin Foley that his party win Government.

Schacht: That's not his personal money in his pocket.

Bevan: Nobody is suggesting that....

Schacht: There is a difference between New South Wales and what we have here.

Bevan: But you can't say that he didn't have an interest in winning the election. Of course he did.

Schacht: Just as the other side had an interest in winning the election. And to say Chris, that the stadium was the fundamental issue at the election; the fundamental issue was economic management and that the South Australian economy was better than the rest of the Australian average.

Pyne: Rubbish.

Schacht: For the first time in 30 years.  That was the major issue.

Pyne: There were three issues in the state election. There was water, there was the Royal Adelaide Hospital and there was the Adelaide Oval redevelopment. People might say that wasn't a very interesting set of issues, but they were the three issues that the State Government and the Opposition fought it out over, slugged it out over. And one of the key ones, the treasurer knew apparently throughout that election that the figures being quoted by the State Labor Party were not correct.

Schacht: Your shadow treasurer said his figures for the Adelaide Hospital were spin.

Pyne: This has nothing to do with the Opposition.

Schacht: That's the political debate.

Bevan: To be fair to Kevin Foley, he says that at this meeting with Lee Whicker, Lee Whicker did not give him anything like a detailed analysis. The impression that we're getting from Kevin Foley is that is was simply a case of, ""look, we've been working on this for two weeks and the costs are blowing out. It's going to be more."" But there was nothing like a detailed analysis.

Pyne: I appreciate you trying to cover us from the point of view of defamation. I understand that. The point here is that Kevin Foley spent weeks and weeks during the State election campaign mocking the Opposition about their figures for their large infrastructure projects, and yet he had a conversation with Lee Whicker where he'd been told, ""In terms of the Adelaide Oval development, we think the figures might be X and you're saying they're Y."" Now, quite frankly that is very unfair of Kevin Foley for now to turn around and say, ""I just forgot, I'm not the sharpest tool in the tool shed. I should be allowed to continue as the treasurer.""

I mean the arrogance of this State Labor Government is penetrating everybody in this state. We have people saying, ""The right are going to stick with Kevin."" It's not actually a personal fiefdom for the Labor Party in this state. There is such a thing as democracy and the Westminster system of government. Where's the Premier in all these things? We've heard nothing from Mike Rann about what on earth is going on in the last two weeks in this state. It's like we are a rudderless ship.

Schacht: There is democracy in South Australia. People voted on a fair set of....

Pyne: Four years and nothing would happen again.

Schacht: Unfortunately that's the Westminster system that we have. You have an election and an outstanding result in marginal seats because you had dud candidates; Labor wins the election on the number of seats. You got a majority of the two party preferred vote, but you didn't run good candidates where it counted. So Labor wins with a comfortable majority. That means they're in for another four years, just as if you'd won the election, you would have been in four years. And John Howard broke more promises than I can poke a stick at.

Pyne: Can I just finish with one thing? That is that the electors of South Australia will get the chance to vote in the next few months because there will be a Federal election in Australia in the next few months and if people are angry in South Australia at the arrogance of the State Labor Government they can display it at the polling box on election day at the Federal Election, particularly in Sturt.

Bevan: While we make reference to defamation, Chris Schacht let's make it absolutely clear, when I said, ""Kevin Foley has a personal interest"", I was not talking about his finances. But I think it is self evident....

Schacht: (inaudible)

Bevan: Chris Schacht, if I could finish.

Schacht: I'm trying to help you.

Bevan: Thanks, I don't need your help. I think it is self evident that it better for Kevin Foley's career for him to win the election.

Pyne: I don't think Kevin's the suing kind myself. He's a bit grown up for all that.

Bevan: David from Mt Barker. Hello David.

Caller 1: Good morning. How are we?

Bevan: Very good.

Caller 1: I might ask the two Christopher's and I think Christopher Pyne hit the nail on the head. It is a democracy. Isn't it about time we had a referendum on the football stadium and the hospital because it is the people's money, not the politician's money. Why can't we have a say?

Pyne: Well, I guess the State Opposition needs to think about that, David. I mean, it certainly is the case that the election; C1 will say the election is the referendum and the Labor Party was re-elected. The truth is the Liberals got 51 point six per cent of the vote, Labor was 10 seats ahead going into the election. They were never going to lose because of the maths in the chamber. They were 10 seats up. It would have been absolutely extraordinary if the Liberals had won; so the election itself doesn't make it clear what the people's view was on the either the stadium or the hospital because we got a majority of the votes, but they got a majority of the seats.

Bevan: Why do you say that?

Pyne: Hang on, I can say that because as a psephologist of 20 year standing, C1 and I both know that Labor had 10 seats more than us and the idea of us getting to 24 was going to always be extremely difficult. We did a good job, we tried very hard, we improved our number of seats, but it doesn't resolve the issue of the stadium and the hospital.

Bevan: So Chris Schacht, you buy that argument that you can't read anything into the result in terms of a mandate?

Schacht: There is a mandate. The Government was returned. However, I've got to accept that the State Boundaries are drawn up to be extremely even and fair; the same number of votes. Not like in the Gerrymander days of Tom Playford. And it was drawn up so that if you do get 50 per cent plus one you should win. Unfortunately, because the Libs ran dead candidates in a number of key marginals....

Pyne: (inaudible)

Schacht: No, no. We had good candidates.

Bevan: They weren't dead.

Schacht: No, they weren't dead. All I am saying is therefore, the Government is back and it's got to govern. It can claim that whoever won a majority of seats won the election. Can I go back to the philosophy of holding referendums? I don't support that; governing by referendum and holding them every six months or every 12 months. Go to a couple of state in America where they have that system like California, and they have completely destroyed the fiscal structure of the Government of California because people have carried referendums saying ,""don't increase taxes, don't do this, the Government can't do that."" And as a result both Democrats and Republicans led by Arnold Swarzenegger are completely broke. They cannot do anything because of all these referendums. If you want Government by referendum, after about a decade or so you'll have a crippled financial state.

Bevan: Now the Two Chris's; you won't be surprised that through that little ad we played they continued to talk and argue. In a moment we'll turn their microphones back on, but now let's got to Gabrielle from Mannum. Hello Gabrielle.

Caller 2: Good morning. And good morning to the two Chris's. Something concerning me and I guess it's concerning many other people; I'm getting more and more the feeling that this state is burning. We have a Nero who's invisible. And who is actually running this State? Kevin Foley seems to have made himself absent while it's hot. Mike Rann is on holidays. Who did we vote in and where the hell are they?

Pyne: It's a good question. Well, I think that frustration you just expressed there, Gabrielle is the frustration a lot of South Australians are feeling; that there are some very substantial issues on the table. The Premier apparently is uncontactable travelling in Britain or the United States. I'm not sure where he is at the moment, but he's not with staffers. He seems to be missing in action. He's left Kevin Foley to run the state. Kevin Foley is describing himself as not the sharpest tool in the tool shed, which I'm not sure is the person you'd want to be running the state. And it's a very peculiar situation. I mean, somebody has to take the Government by the throat and say, ""well, we need a bit of leadership."" Now, whether it's Jay Weatherill, who ran against Kevin for the deputy leadership of the Labor Party and lost or whether it's one of the other people there I'm not sure. But certainly the way things are going at the moment South Australians are getting a very rum deal.

Bevan: Chris Schacht?

Schacht: We're at the beginning of a four year cycle; I don't want to sound arrogant on behalf of the Labor Party because things do come back to bite you. The issue that is dominating and it is because of the associated feeling about the Adelaide Oval and the problems it has caused the Government. And I said my piece about that. The Premier will be back in the end. I think the cabinet, including the Premier is going to have to make a tough decision; either the management committee won't get a deal to build a stadium for the money or therefore the Government says it's all off. And then what happens? There'll be an ongoing brawl in the community about, ""do we need a news stadium or do we not? We're not going to build the Liberal one because that's where the new hospital is going, which I strongly support.""

The gradual gentile decline of AMMI Stadium without State Government or Federal Government money will continue and it can only be upgraded with money from those bodies; the same with the Adelaide Oval. I'm still not confident that the debt situation of SACA if the new oval doesn't go ahead, is under control, but Ian McLachlan tells me it is. That will be a matter for SACA members to sort out. There is no doubt that the Government is going to have to one way or the other wear some bruising while they sort it out and the only way to sort it out is to take full control of the process.

Bevan: Now, let's got to another topic. Norbert wants to talk about mining. Good morning Norbert.

Caller 3: Good morning gentlemen and listeners. I would like to talk about the mining tax and bring to the fore the metaphor that is constantly used; that is ""killing the goose that laid the golden egg."" Now, when you consider that, who is the goose in the matter and what are the golden eggs?

Bevan: Norbert, thank you for your call. Chris Schacht?

Schacht: In my view the golden egg belongs to all the Australian people and therefore we've got to make sure all the Australian people share in the big resources we have

Bevan: Now, you're a director of a mining company.

Schacht: I am the director of a mining company which has already expressed its view about the process of the impact of the resources tax, but I'm just saying at a philosophical level I can't argue against the view that the resources belong to all the people and to make sure that the people through their elected Governments get enough money to provide the general services for it. I do point out that a similar tax was introduced in the mid eighties on liquid petroleum gas on the offshore areas of the Northwest Shelf. And that was opposed by the petroleum companies who said, ""This is terrible."" Subsequently over the next decade or so some 100 billion dollars has been invested to expand so I don't think it is as grim; we're not ""killing the goose that laid the golden egg."" We're trying to find out what's the proper share from the golden egg to the community.

Pyne: Mindful of the time, Norbert's question is a serious one. The goose is the mining exports of resources and the eggs are the incredible standard of living Australia has enjoyed as a consequence of riding on the back of the mining industry for the last 30 years as we rode on the back of the sheep for decades before that. I notice that C1 talks about the petroleum rent tax; I simply make that point that the Northwest Shelf was exempt from the petroleum resources rent tax. Where the petroleum has been extracted from has been exempt from that tax. And in the 20 years since its introduction until very recently there has been no new petroleum industry created around Australia; sinking of the wells because of course it's not profitable for them to do so over that 20 year period. So there's no comparison between the two. The petroleum resources rent tax was not a retrospective tax, this is a retrospective tax. And that is why BHP and Rio....

Bevan: How is it retrospective?

Pyne: The resources rent tax is a retrospective tax. It's going to be levied on the profits of all the revenues of past mining extractions.

Schacht: (inaudible)

Pyne: The profits that come through from past extractions will also be taxed at 40 per cent if they're regarded as a super profit. That's why they're so upset about it.

Bevan: How far back do you say they go?

Pyne: As long as these revenues are coming through from past extractions they'll be taxed as part of this tax. Check it with Marius Kloppers.

Bevan: How did you work that out?

Pyne: That's just the way the tax is being levied. It's a retrospective tax.

Schacht: Well, I have to say you're using retrospective in a slightly strange sense.

Pyne: That's why the miners are so upset.

Schacht: I stand corrected about the petroleum resources tax. I'm happy to acknowledge that you've corrected me. But they're not saying retrospectively, ""You've already paid the tax"".....

Pyne: They're not going back on past taxes, but the profits they're already earning.....

Schacht: (inaudible)

Pyne: That's not the way they see it.

Bevan: Oh, so whatever the mining companies say, you say?

Pyne: No, they're right. They're right.

Bevan: Why don't we just elect Marius Kloppers?

Pyne: The Coalition has no embarrassment about standing up for the mining industry because the mining industry has been the basis for our amazing standard of living, and if you want to be a country with a low standard of living. And if you want to be a country with a low standard of living that has no major natural resources, like New Zealand in comparison to Australia then you will go down this track of taxing successful industries like mining. The only difference between Australian and New Zealand - because they're basically similar in many respects, very similar people, and very similar backgrounds - is the mining industry. New Zealand doesn't have it. We do. And that's why were are a major economy in the world rather than a very minor economy in the world.

Schacht: All my comment is, going back if we don't have this tax where would you raise the money to pay off this modest, this very modest deficit we have because this is where the money is going; to help pay off the deficit as well as provide services. The Liberal Party is other than a very global figure says, ""we're not going to do this. We're not going to do that."" In a general figure you haven't put your finger on where the cutbacks will come.

Pyne: C1, you've just helped our argument. I'll be very quick. I'll say it in one sentence. This is typical of Labor. They've got us into so much debt; they now have to introduce new taxes to pay it off.

Schacht: We have got the lowest public debt of any OECD country.

Pyne: That's why you should never vote Labor.

Bevan: Gentleman, thank you for coming in. Chris Schacht....

Schacht: A pleasure.

Bevan: And Christopher Pyne.

Schacht: (inaudible)

Bevan: Former Labor Senator and former.....

Schacht: (inaudible)

Bevan: Something else you've got in common with Tom Koutsantonis. Former Labor Senator and former ALP State Secretary and before that Christopher Pyne, Liberal MP for Sturt.

Ends.