Transcript - Radio National Breakfast - 27-09-10

SUBJECTS: Deputy Speakership; Labor's broken election promises; Pairing arrangements

Fran Kelly: Tony Abbott has promised a kinder, gentler Parliament in this new paradigm but now he's being branded a wrecker by the Labor Government. The Manager of Opposition Business in the House is Christopher Pyne; he joins you also in our Parliament House studio, Christopher good morning

Christopher Pyne: Good morning Fran

Kelly: Can we just discuss the wrangling over the Deputy Speaker's job and vote; the Government has approached Alex Somlyay for him to be Deputy Speaker, do you think it was appropriate for Labor to approach a Coalition member directly for the job?

Pyne: Look it's never appropriate for one political party to attempt to suborn a member of another political party but Anthony Albanese did so, tried to.....

Kelly: Well he offered him a job is that suborning?

Pyne: Well put the shoe on the other foot, if Tony Abbott had approached a member of the Labor Party and asked them to switch sides and provide support to the Coalition in the House of Representatives people would see that as a straight out attempt to suborn a member of the Labor Party, so it's no different for the Labor Party to try to attempt to suborn one of ours, and happily Alex Somlyay saw it for what is was in the end and withdrew from it. Initially of course Alex had thought that the deputy speakership was going to be part of this agreement that we reached with the Government, and it was, of course the Coalition said it wouldn't pair the speaker because it is unconstitutional in our view and many other people's views and that changed the debate. I think Anthony Albanese in his attempt to gain political capital out of embarrassing Tony Abbott and the Coalition, which is what he thought he was doing, may have jumped the gun and lost Alex Somlyay in the process.

Kelly: Ok so what about Alex Somlyay for the job of Deputy Speaker now it's not loaded up with all those expectations and controversy, I understand the Coalition still wants that job of Deputy Speaker; would Alex Somlyay be a good candidate for the job?

Pyne: He'd be a very good candidate for the job of Deputy Speaker and he has the opportunity if he wishes to stand for that job today in the Liberal Party room, I understand he's decided not to, but if he had become the Deputy Speaker without any qualifications or strings attached he would have made a very fine Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately was the Government wanted was to circumvent the constitution by acquiring Alex Somlyay to for go his vote in the Parliament and support the Government on no confidence motions, and of course he is a great member of the Coalition so as he was elected a member of the Coalition he elected to not proceed with what was quite patently an attempt to circumvent the constitution and suborn a liberal member of Parliament in the process.

Kelly: So the Coalition has pulled out of that part of the agreement, the parliamentary reform package that said the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker would basically pair each others votes so they would cancel out any loss of numbers, but you still want the Deputy Speaker's job - why should you get that given you've junked one part of the agreement, why should Labor stick to the other part of it?

Pyne: Well Labor has walked away from the proposal in the agreement to have the Speaker from one party and the Deputy Speaker from another.

Kelly: Only after you walked away from the pairing agreement.

Pyne: But there is no constitutional bar to the Deputy Speaker being from another party other than the Labor Party.

Kelly: No but it was part of the deal. I mean normally the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker come from the governing party, don't they?

Pyne: Well there are about twenty parts of the deal, Fran. And one part, the pairing of the Speaker, is in the Coalition's view unconstitutional. But that doesn't mean the other parts shouldn't be abided by. The Government has walked away from the Deputy Speaker being from a party other than the government, if the Speaker's from the Government.  And it's also walked away from a suspension of standing orders being required before the recommittal of a ballot because of an inadvertent absence of a member

Kelly: What does that mean then? What's the effect of that?

Pyne: Well the effect of that is that the agreement signed between the Government and the Coalition was that if a member inadvertently missed a vote because their taxi was late or whatever and that was quite clear that the vote would be recommitted in the House of Representatives for another ballot that day after a successful suspension of standing orders. The Government has walked away from that part of the agreement. So let's not have any moral high ground posturing from Julia Gillard or Anthony Albanese about whose word can be trusted. They've walked away from the agreement yesterday on the Channel 9 Program and, of course, they also walked away from their commitment not to introduce a carbon tax. They've also walked away from their commitment not to expand the Curtin detention centre or to build the Scherger detention centre. And they've walked away from their commitment to release all the costings of all the Building the Education Revolution projects and school halls. So let's not have any of this cant and humbug from Julia Gillard and Anthony Albanese.

Kelly: I think it's fair to say that a change of position on policies is different to what was agreed with the parliamentary reform package.

Pyne: But they've also changed on the parliamentary reform package.

Kelly: I think what people want to know as we go into how this Parliament is going to run, and you're going to have a part to play in that. Can you give us a clear idea before it starts what the rules are when it comes to pairing the vote of say a Government member who has to be absent for one reason or anther. What will the Coalition consider a bona fide reason for absence?

Pyne: Well there are a suite of bona fide reasons for people to be granted pairs. Obviously things like pregnancy, so Tanya Plibersek is clearly going to be paired because she is having a baby in the very short term and we all wish her the best with that. Death is obviously a good reason for a pair Fran.

Kelly: Sure, what about reasons like, you know, your father's 90^th birthday or your kid's school play is on? I mean in the past there was a fair bit of lenience because it wasn't such a critical issue. What kind of, you know rules, ruler will the Coalition put across this now? How hardline will you be?

Pyne: Well, Fran, it is a different parliament. It's a 75-74 parliament assuming that there's no pairing of any speaker or deputy speaker. And therefore, we are in an entirely different set of conditions and the way people have understood the parliament in the past is going to be completely turned on its head. And one wouldn't want to underestimate how vastly different managing a parliament of 75-74 for is from managing a parliament with a very clear majority.

Kelly: Do you think it might take a little more flexibility and lenience, not the other way around?

Pyne: There's a lot of people who believe that members of parliament should be in the House of Representatives when parliament is sitting; that they shouldn't be traipsing around the country or around the world on embassy events and so forth. Now, I'm not going to flag on your program the Coalition's plan with respect to pairing. Obviously we will be sensible and people with a very good reason to be paired will be paired. But people without a good reason won't be paired.

Kelly: Ok. You say it's going to be a very different kind of parliament, no doubt about that. In his public pitch for power - and it's well documented now, during the negotiations with the independents, your leader Tony Abbott said, "I think we can have a kindler gentler polity. The spirit of parliament has been needlessly confrontational, especially over the last three years." That suggests he thinks it should be less confrontational. Will you promise now to drop needless confrontation and deliver a gentler kinder parliament?

Pyne: Fran, there should never be needless confrontation. The Government should be held to account. The Opposition should hold them to account, that's its job. If the Opposition decided to not hold the Government to account, we would not be doing our job. The losers would be the taxpayers of Australia. Five and a half million people voted for the Coalition on 21 August. They expect us to not turn around now and say, "Let's make this bad government work better." The truth is it is a bad government that's going from bad to worse. Julia Gillard is making Kevin Rudd look like a paragon of virtue in comparison to her handling of the Prime Ministership. We've seen the ditching of promises on the carbon tax, citizens assembly, border protection.....

Kelly: Just to be clear on that, lots of governments have core and non-core promises. This is not the first government that's changed its position on a policy.

Pyne: Look, Fran, surely the media can't be pretending that saying before the election, "My Government won't introduce a carbon tax and by the end of the month saying, "We will introduce a carbon tax" is somehow a small nick in the battlefield. The truth is this is a massive breach of trust with the Australian public. Either the Prime Minister told a bald faced lie or she's now simply trying to dissemble after the election and get out of what at the time she thought was a genuine promise. You can't have it both ways. Certainly, circumstances sometimes change for minor policy issues of a government, but the introduction of a carbon tax is a pretty significant issue and not one that you can just brush under the carpet as though it's mere dandruff on your shoulder.

Kelly: Christopher Pyne, thank you very much for joining us.

Pyne: Pleasure.

ENDS