ABC 891

SUBJECTS: Labor leadership; Car industry assistance; Education policy

E&OE………

Matthew Abraham: Chris Pyne we were wondering, you had a shot at Julia Gillard yesterday saying she’s less popular than anthrax, I think was the quote. Is that correct?

Christopher Pyne: I compared her popularity levels to the popularity of anthrax. That’s absolutely right.

Abraham: Now, were you talking about anthrax the disease or this anthrax?

BREAK

Abraham: That’s a very popular thrash band that doesn’t do anything for us, but…

Pyne: It does a lot for me for sure. It’s certainly more than the disease. I was referring to the disease. It’s an expression obviously to compare Julia Gillard’s popularity with something that’s obviously very unpopular.

Abraham: It’s a very rude thing to say is it not? It’s not the nicest way of talking about our Prime Minister.

Pyne: I wasn’t talking about her as a person. I was talking about her popularity.

Abraham: So, she’s an unpopular person, but that’s not a personal….

Pyne: I think you’d need to be terribly sensitive and precious to take offense to the suggestion Julia Gillard is as popular as anthrax. I think it’s patently obvious she’s tremendously unpopular, which is why Joel Fitzgibbon, the Chief Whip, has placed on the agenda the need for Julia Gillard to give away the leadership; why he said on Q&A on Monday night that popularity was the key test of whether she could stay and given that she’s so unpopular obviously he was saying she has to go and given he’s the Chief Whip you would think Julia Gillard would have sacked him for that statement, but because of her complete lack of authority as Prime Minister she can’t do anything.

David Bevan: Mark Butler, member for Port Adelaide and Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, do you think Julia Gillard will lead your party to the next election?

Mark Butler: I do and frankly I’d hate to hear Christopher being rude if comparing someone to anthrax is not being rude.

Pyne: Don’t be precious, Mark.

Butler: I’m not being precious. I don’t think the Prime Minister spends much time thinking about Christopher’s commentary on her leadership. I’m sure she doesn’t spend any time thinking about the advice he purports to give her about her appointments like the Chief Government Whip.

Abraham: What about the fairly lame defence of the Prime Minister by one of her own in Joel Fitzgibbon. Does she give any thought to that and if not should she?

Butler: I think she’s focussed on the job and I think a great deal has been read into Joel’s comments that I thought were fairly unremarkable. I think it makes you realise why so many politicians on all sides of politics think it’s easier to just stick to pre-cooked bland talking points rather than talk in a straight way. Joel is a straight talker. That’s why he is a very good Chief Government Whip, I can tell you, but I thought there was nothing particularly remarkable about his comments and I’m surprised it’s attracted so much media commentary.

Bevan: Because it is just common sense if you remain unpopular you will not remain the leader.

Butler: That’s right. It’s a pretty common sense proposition, but I think what Joel said and what all of us have said is we have a very high level of faith in the Prime Minister’s capacity, particularly to turn the carbon pricing regime debate around in this country and think we saw that on Monday night at the people’s forum that was hosted by a pay TV news show I’m probably not supposed to mention on ABC, where 30 per cent of the audience went in supporting the carbon pricing and 49 per cent came out supporting it after hearing the facts rather than the scare campaign that Christopher and Tony Abbott have been running now for 12 months or more.

Bevan: Mark Butler, at six minutes to nine do you agree it’s time for the Federal Government to stop giving money to the car industry. Ford was in trouble yesterday; very bad news for workers there. The expectation is the Federal Government will not give them any more money and do you think that’s a good idea?

Butler: No, I don’t think we should stop giving the car industry money, but I think we should be careful to ensure the basis on which we give money and the basis and the basis on which we’re supported in that process by government’s like Jay Weatherill’s and the Victorian Government in the case of Holdens is very clear about our expectations in terms of the companies intentions. Now, my understanding is Ford will continue to produce falcons in accordance with the agreements they’ve reached with the Government. Holdens has reached a range of understandings with cement their presence here for a decade and I think that’s what people in Australia, particularly people in Victoria and South Australia want. They want a car making industry that is viable here, but there is no doubt that there is pressure on the industry through the high Australian dollar and through the way in which consumer tastes are changing.

Abraham: It must stick in the craw to be tipping millions of dollars into a company that’s laying off hundreds of workers. Is there a better way of doing it?

Butler: We’d all prefer that Ford were able to keep its production at the levels we’ve seen up to date and we’d all prefer that 440 workers weren’t losing their jobs later this year. It’s a tragedy for them and it’s a big dent in the health of the manufacturing sector, but it is far preferable to the devastation we would see if Holdens and Ford left Australia entirely.

Bevan: Chris Pyne, if we could come to you on the issue of teachers yesterday, you said teachers don’t need smaller class sizes. Isn’t it self evident that if you’re trying to control a class of 30 that is going to be more difficult than controlling a class of 20 and you’re going to be able to do your job better if you’ve got a smaller class?

Pyne: No, that’s completely fundamentally wrong. In fact for 10 years we’ve been obsessed with this idea that small class sizes was the answer to our poor student outcomes and in the last 10 years our class sizes have shrunk to 20, 21 and 22 typically around the country and our outcomes have gone backwards, quite dramatically in fact. There’s no evidence, no research presented which shows small class sizes will lead to better student outcomes and that’s why I said it. I didn’t just decide to pick it out of the air and say something I hadn’t done some work on. I have been very concerned….

Abraham: What work have you done on it?

Pyne: I’ve just given an hour long speech and Q&A on Monday night at the Sydney Institute on the very issue of teacher quality, which for all parents and students is their number one priority.

Abraham: You’re saying there’s no research that backs up a link between smaller class sizes and better educational outcomes?

Pyne: The OECD PISA evidence is that East Asian economies and European economies that are doing better than Australia in student outcomes all have larger class sizes in comparable countries. So, that is the research. For 10 years the teachers unions have said that smaller class sizes will result in better student outcomes. The jury is in.

Bevan: What cultural pressure is placed on the students there in terms of discipline at home should they fail and what corporal punishment is available to the teachers if the kids step out of line?

Pyne: David, honestly that is just a red herring. To suggest that so called “tiger mothers” are the reason East Asian economies are doing better in their student outcomes, there’s no research to back that up.

Bevan: What I’m saying to you Is it is a lot easier to control a class of children, a big class if you’ve got corporal punishment available to you. I’m not advocating corporal punishment, but you’re not comparing apples with apples.

Pyne: I’m not aware that in Singapore or Hong Kong or Shanghai that they wield corporal punishment?

Bevan: I’m asking you and you’ve done the research. You said that you’ve done a lot of research on this.

Pyne: I have done a lot of research on this and I can tell you that your contention that small class sizes is the answer is completely false. The answer in the Gratten Institute’s report, which they handed down this year was about putting our resources into better teacher quality, better career paths for teachers, higher remuneration for our best performing teachers, professional development for current teachers and better training at university for the teachers we are producing. They said that is the answer. Nobody said smaller class sizes are the answer.

ENDS