Transcript - Radio National - 3 February 2010

SUBJECTS: Election; Big new tax vs Climate Action; My School

(greetings omitted)

Fran KELLY: Chris Bowen, it's an election year and the first polls, particularly the Newspoll, shows that the gap is closing pretty quickly. Why don't we get this off our chests right upfront? Can I ask you "who's the underdog here?" Chris Bowen?

Chris BOWEN: Well every election is tough, we don't take it for granted and the Prime Minister made that clear to the caucus earlier in the week. He's made it clear to the Cabinet on an ongoing basis that we fight every election as if it's going to come down to the wire and this election was always going to be tight. You've go the Opposition out there saying "we can fix all the problems with no cost" which is always going to have some short-term political bounce.

KELLY: Do you believe it though? I mean, how fragile do you think your lead is?

BOWEN: Well...without going into the "fragility" of our lead, having been through a few elections at various levels, I know that things can turn around very quickly and people are very punishing of a Government that thinks it's got everything home and hosed. And we certainly don't take that view. I know, to pay him due respect, John Howard never held that view when he was in office and it's not a view that we take.

KELLY: Speaking of John Howard, he famously declared after the Aston by-election that the Government was "back in the game". Christopher Pyne, what do you reckon? Is the Coalition back in the game?

Christopher PYNE: Well I hate to describe him like this, Fran, but I think Chris Bowen is being too cute with his view of the Government's lead. The Coalition needed 11 seats to win this coming election before the redistributions across Australia. We now need 17 seats to win the election. That is a very tall mountain to climb. The odds would have to be on the Government. There's been one one-term Government since the 1920s...that would be the Scullin Government, which was defeated at the beginning of the depression. Other than that, Governments usually always get a second term, sometimes even a third or fourth term. The prospects of the Opposition winning are limited. I think it can be done but there is no doubt that we are the underdogs. I think that if you visit the Sportsbet or Centrebet sites on the web you will see where the odds lie and they don't lie with the Opposition. That said, we will put in a tremendous effort and we believe that this Government needs to be turned out. We think this Government is damaging Australia with its rising interest rates and rising cost of living expenses, the pressure on families on fixed incomes in particular are too great. We'll try not to have too much political rhetoric and try to be more factual for your show. Mr Bowen's done it with a bit of rhetoric, so...

KELLY: ...it's going to be tough, no doubt about it but has the Coalition got its mojo back? Is the mood completely different now than it was under Malcolm Turnbull?

PYNE: Well, Fran, this is an election year and the first two years after our defeat in 2007 it's fair to say that the Opposition has been licking it's wounds. Not a very attractive word to picture but licking it's wounds and trying to recover from its defeat after 11½ years in Government. But this is an election year, the Coalition is now entirely united. We have a policy on Climate Change action which is direct action. It will cost about $10billion over 10 years. I'm quite prepared to pit that against the Government's $114billion new tax over 10 years and I think the Australian public have a clear choice. In terms of Leaders, we have Kevin Rudd who made a lot of commitments before 2007. Most of those commitments have not been kept. Most importantly on hospitals, he promised a referendum on hospitals if they weren't fixed and now, I notice, he's promising a referendum again after the 2010 election if hospitals aren't fixed. I think the people are wising up to a Government that has made a lot of promises, is involved in a lot of talk but no action. On our side we have Tony Abbot who I think is seen as a man of action. He certainly is a man who says what he means and means what he says. Sometimes with the Prime Minister it is hard to work out what he's just said and I think that will be a great contrast for the Australian public to make their choice on this year.

KELLY: Just on that...speaking of language...Chris Bowen, we had a pledge from the PM yesterday on clear speaking. Let's hear what he has to say...

Kevin RUDD: I think our challenge is to communicate more effectively, that which we have done. To communicate our record of achievement, that we have done. We all will share some responsibility for that, including myself.

KELLY: Chris Bowen, did you hear the sigh of relief when the PM uttered those words yesterday?

BOWEN: Haha, well Fran I think it's a challenge for politicians not only in Australia but around the world, particularly in this Climate Change debate...but this is, frankly, a contest between complex truths and simple lies. And the easiest job will be those of us peddling the simple lies. The more difficult job will be those of us who have to communicate the complex truths. And that's the challenge but now they've settled the soundgrab...the grab for tax, which I think he likes...I don't think it's the same soundgrab he used before when he was arguing to support the ETS in the Party Room two months ago but now that he's running that soundgrab and he's taken the lead from his Leader it's a very simple lie and I accept that. It's a very easy lie to get cut through making the case for the ETS, making the case for Climate Change action is a more difficult task. Of course it is but we are raring to go to the election campaign bearing in mind we have the job of communicating those complex issues.

KELLY: I'd say that Tony Abbot is a pretty powerful and direct communicator and that might be tough for Kevin Rudd to match?

BOWEN: Well so was Mark Latham, Fran.

PYNE: Very good.

BOWEN: It comes down to matters of substance, it comes down to a complex policy debate with a simple grab which you are quite right, Mr Abbott does well. It can get you through for a little while but when push comes to shove the Australian people are much more nuanced and have a much more sophisticated view in patterns and will not be persuaded by a single soundgrab.

KELLY: Christopher?

PYNE: Well before the last election, Fran, the "simple lie" was that Kevin Rudd would fix everything. Kevin Rudd said he'd fix hospitals. Kevin Rudd said he'd fix indigenous disadvantage. Kevin Rudd said he'd fix the Japanese whaling in our oceans. Kevin Rudd said he'd be a fiscal conservative. Kevin Rudd said whatever was needed to win the last election. He won the last election and now Chris Bowen is making out that the Government realises that some of these issues are more complex. Before the 1007 election, Kevin Rudd said "we'll just fix it. Elect us and we'll fix it. The buck stops with me". Now, of course, in Government, he's backpeddling away from it. Iran hasn't been taken to the International Court of Justice. The Japanese haven't been prosecuted in an International Court as he promised. Indigenous disadvantage is getting worse. Money's been wasted in remote communities that hasn't been spent in housing. We have enormous debt, we have enormous deficit which we didn't have under the Howard Government. The list in endless. He was going to protect our borders and in fact I think he said he was going to turn the boats back. But instead we've had over 3000 arrivals since he watered down the border protection laws in August 2008. And, of course, Chris Bowen refers to...

BOWEN: ...I'm glad you dropped the rhetoric, Chris!

PYNE: I was going well! You weren't engaging in any rhetoric at all, were you? Even to the point of attacking former Labor Leaders, I noticed. Labor will do anything to win an election, Fran, even going to far as to turn on their former Leaders to try and look like they've changed! But sadly leopards don't change their spots. Labor is a big-taxing and big-spending Government. And, of course, their great big new tax on everything is the penultimate example of how Labor wants to introduce a new tax to solve a problem rather than doing what the Coalition wants to do, which, of course, is to introduce incentives. Incentives are used all the time in Government, as you could see with the Superannuation or incentives for Solar Panels. We've got to use incentives to reduce pollution!

KELLY: Talk about turning on Leaders and this whole issue of credibility, Christopher Pyne. Just last year you strongly backed your leader, Malcolm Turnbull, with the ETS. Now you have a Leader, Tony Abbott, who said last year that Climate Change science was "crap". Where is the Coalition's credibility on this issue? Has it been damaged by this?

PYNE: Everything has changed about the Emissions Trading Scheme because of the fiasco that was Copenhagen.

KELLY: Well you switched Leaders and position before Copenhagen...

PYNE: ...we switched right at the beginning of Copenhagen but I think at that stage we had a fair idea that China, Brazil, India, the former Soviet Union now Russia were now going to sign up to action on Climate Change in the way that the Prime Minister was trying to get Australia to do so. The thing is that Copenhagen has changed not only the Coalition's view about this but also the public's view about this. Kevin Rudd is...before Copenhagen, Kevin Rudd is trying to get Australia to sign up to an Emissions Trading Scheme that would damage our exports, damage our industries and would be a huge $120billion go-around. Copenhagen proved that the rest of the world wasn't going in the same direction. Now Australians aren't third-world citizens. We're very happy to do our bit about Climate Change action but we'd rather do it in a way that benefited Australia and that means keeping our emissions reductions here. It means no redaction. So since Copenhagen the Australian public have realised that Kevin Rudd is once again trying to force an Emissions Trading Scheme on them, a big new tax on them and the Opposition is saying "we can achieve the exact same targets as Labor, a 5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We can do it in the same timeframe but we can do it with direct action and with incentives rather than the money tube which is the Government's policy". Now, if they want to keep going down that track, good luck to them but I think they'll find that a very hard sell.

KELLY: We're running out of oxygen in there, Chris Bowen...

PYNE: ...it's a bit warm in here too...

KELLY: ...so is there any oxygen left in this debate? Would Labor still be happy to go to another election on the issue of Climate Change or is Christopher Pyne right and the Australian people have changed their view?

BOWEN: Christopher's got more front than [unclear] to pay him due respect and you have Harris Scarfe in Adelaide...

KELLY: ...where John Martin's used to be.

BOWEN: There lies the ability to run two conflicting arguments with a straight face. That's something that Christopher's well-known for and we pay him due respect for that. This is a placebo from the Opposition. This is a placebo from an Opposition which is now dominated by Climate Sceptics and Climate Deniers. This will have very little, or no impact on Climate Change of the environment. Now Christopher says everything's changed since Copenhagen. Well, if everything's changed since Copenhagen, has President Obama gone back and said we no longer need an Emissions Trading Scheme, we no longer need a cap in trade? Has Japan said they're no longer going down the road of a cap in the Emissions Trading Scheme? Has anyone said that? Has Europe they'll rip up their Emissions Trading Scheme that has been in use for some time? Of course they haven't. If Christopher and Tony Abbott's scheme was so good and really going to have an impact on Climate Change don't you think Peter Shergold would have recommended it to the previous Government? In fact he did the opposite, he recommended an Emissions Trading Scheme. And he also said that certain things in this policy would not work. Now if things have changed since Copenhagen you would see things have changed and being reflected in policy changes around the world. Now the political dynamic might have changed since Copenhagen and Tony Abbott might say that Climate Change is crap but most people believe it so they've got to have a policy. What they've come up with, is a Climate Sceptic's placebo. Something they think might work politically but which they know will have no impact and will...that is the argument we are pressing and we are more than happy to have that debate and are more than happy to argue that through an election campaign.

KELLY: ...in weeks ahead, we won't zoom in on one policy as much as we have, but it's a policy that was just released yesterday and I think it was important to zoom in on it. Just before we go, Christopher Pyne, you're the Shadow Education Minister. Another big policy released was the Government's MySchool website. Just briefly, did the Government kick a goal with that?

PYNE: The Coalition initiated the NAPLAN testing and the Government is publish it. We believe that publishing information for parents is good but it needs to be coupled with giving parents something to do about the information that they now have. That's why we need to give principals autonomy, why we need to give Governing Councils independence in public schools in the same way that non-Government schools have autonomy for principals and independence for Governing Councils. It's not good enough to publish these facts and figures and create a culture of complaint and create an opportunity for people to see they have problems without supplying any solutions. The solution is to give more autonomy and power to parents and schools. I don't think the Government will come to that. They're only going to publish the results without doing anything about the results. I think that, therefore is a failure. On its own the MySchools website is a good idea but it needs more.

KELLY: Did you look up your own school?

PYNE: Indeed, my school did very well under the MySchools measure and my children are at my old school so I'm very impressed. The fourth, one's not there yet, and so very glad that that did well.

KELLY: Chris Bowen, did you go on?

BOWEN: I had a look and, like Chris, my daughter goes to my old school and it's done quite well. A wonderful public school in West Sydney so look, the Opposition when they were in Government talked about more transparency, more information and we're actually doing it.

PYNE: Look, the rhetoric!

(ends)