4BC Drive with Gary Hardgrave
10 May 2012
Transcipt SUBJECTS: Craig Thomson Scandal; Peter Garrett’s Handling of Laptops in Schools Program
E&OE………
Hardgrave: [introductions]
Pyne: I don’t think that the standing of politicians or the Federal Parliament has ever been lower, and it doesn’t make me feel any happiness about the state of the parliament because obviously we need the people to have some faith in their politicians federally.
Hardgrave: Now a few people scratched their head on Tuesday when you moved the motion to basically throw this Craig Thomson bloke out for two weeks because he’d failed to declare certain things, as I understand it. Two days on, that motion was way ahead of everyone else, I think. You knew something he hadn’t done.
Pyne: Well the remarkable thing, Gary, is that the Labor party has, three times this week, lined up to support Craig Thomson in the parliament, to stop him having to make an explanation to the house, to stop him from being suspended from the parliament, and today to stop an explanation of the deal between New South Wales Labor and Craig Thomson to pay his legal fees.
Hardgrave: Well this is just not the way the Parliament should operate; surely disclosure has got to be at the heart of the way the chamber operates.
Pyne: Well this is the second time Craig Thomson has failed to declare something of great significance. I mean, obviously members of parliament every now and then are late declaring a gift from the Samoan government or whatever it is, but in this case he once forgot to declare $150,000 that the New South Wales Labor Party had gifted him to pay his legal fees, and to make loans to him so that he would avoid bankruptcy, which is a pretty significant thing to forget, and this time, of course it’s come out that Labor’s been paying his legal fees since last September. I told the parliament today Craig Thomson’s story is that he only got the money two weeks ago, and of course as we all know lawyers, they bill every month. They don’t bill after eight months because one thing we can always say about lawyers is they’re very good at billing.
Hardgrave: Well, reliable in that regard. So where does this now leave us? Parliament, after tonight, stops for a week. You come back in a fortnight’s time. We’ve just got to wait ‘til he’s ready to tell us what’s going on?
Pyne: Well he said yesterday, for the first time in eight months, we got him up on his pegs and he said that he would make a statement to the parliament, something we’ve been asking for since September last year. The Prime Minister said that she would ensure he made such a statement last year, and of course he hasn’t done that, and it took a motion that was going to be supported by the cross-benches, by the independents, for the government to finally force him to admit that he would make a statement. And now, apparently, we simply have to wait for him to do so. Well, I can assure you that when we return to parliament Monday week, we will be making sure he makes that statement.
Hardgrave: Christopher Pyne you’ve been in the parliament for eighteen, going on twenty years next year. You’ve been there a long time; you’ve seen a lot of things happen. Members of parliament are meant to disclose these sorts of linkages because the theory is they are affected – their judgment or they may make a decision that may have been influenced by these sorts of bits of support and gifts and whatever else. That’s the theory behind this, but surely the Prime Minister would have been aware of it, isn’t she the leader of the Labor Party?
Pyne: Well you’re absolutely right Gary, the purpose of the disclosure rules are that if it’s open and transparent and everyone knows that you’re receiving, say $150,000 from the Labor party for legal fees that therefore it reduces the potential conflict of interest. If you keep that a secret – if you don’t declare it, then obviously you have a significant conflict of interest, and because this government teeters on the edge of oblivion on a daily basis, because they have a one seat majority, for a member of parliament to be receiving significant financial support from a political party, and then not declare it, creates a very direct conflict of interest because if that member decided to up and leave the government would fall.
Hardgrave: Now on another matter because I know you’re interested and you look after education matters, did you hear what Peter Garrett said? Every child who was meant to get a computer got one! I can’t believe that.
Pyne: Well Peter Garrett always confuses what his department tells him with reality and he’s trying to say that the money has been allocated for the laptops program and therefore his job has been done. Most people would regard the delivery of the program as being laptops in the hands of students from year nine to year twelve. Mr Garrett reinterprets that to mean has the Commonwealth allocated the funds, have they been sent, in which case his job is done. But any minister worth his or her salt, and you were a minister in the Howard government, knows that it’s the minister’s job to ensure the program is delivered.
Hardgrave: We’ve got an SMS message here from somebody who says “I’m a teacher. Over half the kids do not have laptops in the school”. That’s Mike. The point here is that Peter Garrett doesn’t know what’s going on.
Pyne: Well he didn’t know what was going on with the pink bats program, he doesn’t know what’s going on with the laptops and computers program, and it’s so embarrassing for him that all the questions about this school kids cash splash go to Jenny Macklin, who’s the minister for families and community services, rather than the minister for schools, so one wonders why he is still the minister for schools.
Hardgrave: I don’t know, they’ve stumped him up to us, we thought we’d have a chat, but I don’t know whether we’ve learnt much. Maybe we’ve learnt too much. Christopher Pyne, good to talk to you.
Pyne: Pleasure
Hardgrave: Thanks for your time