Transcript - Two Chrisses ABC 891 - 16 Feb 2009

Abraham:

Chris Pyne, he's at Lake Alexandrina doing a little study of his own on the Lower Lakes and Chris Schacht is at Melbourne airport ...

Pyne:

Good morning Matthew and good morning David and good morning C1 (Schacht) wherever you are off to

Bevan:

Now, Chris, what are you doing down at Lake Alexandrina?

Pyne:

Well as you all, hopefully, know I've been pursuing the issue of the Murray Darling for most of my 16 year political career and was one of the very first people to call for the constitutional powers over the Murray Darling to be given exclusively to the Commonwealth - an issue upon which C1 and I are in heated agreement. And I wanted to come down and have a look at the Lower Lakes myself I thought this would be an opportunity for me to have a little bit of personal research and the effect on the community so I'm spending the day here and seeing what needs to be done and what could be done and how bad the situation is.

Abraham:

What do you make of the remarks of Aurelio Vidmar and his disparaging comments about Adelaide. Is that just a coach at a heated press conference letting off steam or is it a pretty sad thing to say about a city that's been supportive of Adelaide United?

Pyne:

Well, I would describe it as the passionate response of a committed sportsman who is deeply disappointed in the outcome of the finals in Melbourne on the weekend. And we don't mind a bit of passion in sport or in politics - so I don't it should be held against Aurelio Vidmar. He's a very good coach. The Adelaide Reds have been taken to the top of the international market in the last couple of years under Aurelio and it's a most peculiar thing to have said, but we all sometimes say things that we regret in a moment of passion and I think he was passionately upset with these results on the weekend

Bevan:

Christopher Pyne you've been under a bit of pressure I couldn't imagine you ever coming out and saying, 'well a bad election result, that's because Adelaide's a pissant town...'

Pyne:

Well Aurelio is a second generation Adelaidean so obviously he has a high regard for this wonderful city. I'm sure there were many opportunities for him in his soccer career to leave Adelaide and not come back but he has chosen to come back and I think we should be pleased that he has. I'm sure he regrets those remarks and I doubt very much that we'll see a repeat of them.

Schacht:

Well I have to say I haven't heard his remarks, and it didn't make the BBC service, compared with the real tragedies that have been going on in Australia in the last week, so I reckon I'd be very cautious in making any comment about what he described as Adelaide. I agree with C2 that Aurelio is a great coach. He's done a great job with the Adelaide United Football Club, taking them to a new level around Asia and all of that, and so I won't make any further comment about his remarks on Adelaide until I see them ...

Abraham:

Fair enough. No one wants to offend Aurelio. We mustn't offend Aurelio.

Schacht:

Put it this way: if he is actually raising issues about how Adelaide has got to think of its future, even if he apparently might have used some very strong words, I don't think that's a bad debate to have from time to time, and I don't think people in Adelaide should be too upset, even if someone uses apparently very blunt and risqué language. If it creates a genuine debate that we talk about the future of our city and our state ... but I don't want to go any further. I haven't seen his remarks.

Bevan:

We'll move on then to another issue: Chris Schacht what do you make of Nick Xenophon's deal that he cut with the Federal Government to accelerate buybacks which would have happened over four or five years? A lot of the money we're told, the Federal Government has now promised to bring forward, so that buybacks should be happening in the next year or two. Otherwise they would have been spread over a longer period of time. Now the Premier was clearly a bit miffed by all of this because when he negotiates a deal with the Federal Government this is a major breakthrough. When Nick Xenophon takes that same agreement and accelerates it so that the money will be produced even sooner, Mike Rann is questioning this, saying, 'well maybe it's not real water, maybe it's just paper water, how much of it will actually result in a benefit for the Lower Lakes?' So it's ok when he does it but he's very questioning when somebody else does it

Schacht:

Well I did read the story at the end of the last week on the Internet and I have to say first of all, I was more than somewhat astonished that the Liberal Party and the Coalition voted against the whole package and then put Mr Xenophon into play as the hero. I cannot, for the life of me, think why the Opposition if they don't like the Bill, just abstain from the vote, make it clear they disagree with it, abstain and therefore the Independents don't get into play, because the Labor Government would have carried through the Senate with the Liberals abstaining. But to oppose it outright and let Nick Xenophon become a hero? I can't work out the politics of that for the Liberal Party and the Coalition and also it might be good for South Australia and I don't know the detail of what he got through. I just say, if the Liberal Party consistently say, 'no' absolutely to legislation after legislation that the means the two independents get the chance to cherry pick a victory after victory, then the Liberal party are mad.

Bevan:

Now that's interesting; you're a former Labor Senator. Explain to us the significance of an abstention. That's not the same as voting against something - the government does not have an absolute majority in the Senate but if somebody abstains that vote is treated differently from a rejection.

Schacht:

Yes. There are 76 senators. Labor has about 30. The Liberals have about 36, so if 36 of the Liberals and the National Party as well: if 30 of them abstain, Labor Party would win the vote, 30 votes to the two independents, and maybe one or two Coalition Whips who stay in there that means it's carried. But then at the same time, the Liberal Party - if they disagree with it, make it very clear they do not support it but they then don't allow an Independent to absolutely dominate and in South Australia for the Liberal Party's point of view, it's going to make them harder for them to defeat Xenophon and get a third senator as it is for the Labor Party.

Abraham:

And even the Greens have got some action - I think Bob Brown has got some remediation work for the Lower Lakes and even some bike paths...

Schacht:

Yes, and they negotiated that in the lead up to it and did it in a much more sophisticated way ...

Abraham:

So, you're saying that the Liberals set up the impasse and then don't get any political benefit from it?

Schacht:

They get an absolutely political disadvantage that in South Australia Nick Xenophon is seen as a hero at the expense of Labor and Liberal, because of the Liberal party tactic which is just to me unbelievable.

Bevan:

Christopher Pyne what do you make of your own party's tactics?

Pyne:

The truth here is that the Liberal Party position on this spending spree package of $42billion has been clear for the last two weeks. The outcome for South Australia in my view is a good one - I welcome Nick Xenophon's bringing about a bringing forward of spending on the Murray Darling and the Lower Lakes. I think that is a good outcome as a South Australian. As a Liberal, what I see is a good benefit for our state. Now, whether Nick Xenophon achieves that or somebody else, to me it's not important and I don't think it's important to the public. I hear what C1 says about all the political aspects of it, but I don't think the public count that for one jot. The truth is, and Nick Xenophon admitted it himself on the 7.30 Report last Thursday night, he would not have been able to bring about an improvement to the treatment of the Murray Darling unless the 36 Coalition, Liberal and National Senators had also voted against the package. So, of course Nick Xenophon couldn't have achieved that on his own.

Abraham:

But, even you, here you are even your language is crediting him with the achievement, which is very generous of you, I mean...

Pyne:

Well, to be honest...

Schacht:

This is astonishing...

Pyne:

[unclear] to be honest, who cares

Schacht:

this is astonishing

Pyne:

I mean, who cares? What's important is that a good outcome for the Murray Darling. Now, what Nick Xenophon has achieved is not dramatic but it is an improvement. It's money that we had been calling as Liberals to bring forward for some time. But we're not in government, we're in Opposition.

Abraham:

I hear Chris Schacht spluttering at Melbourne Airport

Pyne:

The biggest losers out of this are Penny Wong and the Labor Party.

Abraham:

Chris Schacht?

Pyne:

Penny Wong has not been able to bring about what Nick Xenophon and the Liberals have brought about: she's been neutered by her party. The Liberals and Nick Xenophon voting together were able to achieve something for the Murray Darling [unclear]

Abraham:

Ok, well let's get, before you get into the, Chris Schacht?

Schacht:

Well look this is astonishing. If it's such a good deal, if now the Liberals are saying it was such a good deal what Xenophon got, why didn't they, the Liberal Party, led by Chris Pyne, a senior Shadow Minister, go to the Labor Party as the bill was being prepared in the House of Reps and negotiate that they put that proposal forward?

Bevan:

Well hang on Chris Schacht, let's take this a step further. If it's such a brilliant deal, why didn't the South Australian Senator who runs the system, Penny Wong, think it up herself?

Schacht:

I'm just saying

Bevan:

I mean you're hoisted on your own petard Chris

Schacht:

No, I'm not hoisted on my own petard

Bevan:

No wonder both parties, no wonder people are disenchanted with both parties

Schacht:

I'm just saying is that Chris Pyne said that a good outcome was achieved. The tactical operation of the Liberal Party in Opposition in the Federal Parliament in the Senate, they are boosting the independence, even at their own disadvantage. If it is such a good deal, Chris Pyne should have gone and the Liberal Party Opposition because the two major parties will always negotiate a lot more sensibly

Pyne:

Hang on. Kevin Rudd made it absolutely clear

(Schacht interjecting)

Pyne:

Hang on! The truth is that Malcolm Turnbull offered last September to negotiate with the government to bring about a response to the global financial crisis. Now, Kevin Rudd for some reason refuses to talk to Malcolm Turnbull, maybe he's intimidated by Malcolm Turnbull. I don't know. But he doesn't speak to Malcolm. Malcolm repeated this offer last week and the week before, saying 'sit down with us and negotiate'. Labor instead, said 'here's our package, you've got 45 minutes to respond', Tuesday week ago.

So of course what Chris Schacht is suggesting is completely and utterly unrealistic. Labor made it completely clear they would not negotiate with us. What I am saying is that as a South Australian member of the House of Representatives, I'm pleased that the Liberals and Nick Xenophon together- they couldn't have done it without each other, and Nick Xenophon admits that - his one vote couldn't possibly have brought about anything, but with the 37 Coalition votes we were able to cause Labor to do something for the Murray Darling, they brought forward some spending. That's a good thing. We'd been calling for that as Liberals for a long time. The real tragedy here is why didn't Penny Wong bring this about herself as the only South Australian Cabinet Minister for the last few months

Abraham:

Chris Pyne at any time in the run up to this, did the Liberal Party, did Malcolm Turnbull say 'we're not going to pass this legislation unless there's some accelerated spending on the River Murray?'

Pyne:

We said, that we would sit down with Kevin Rudd and talk about our [unclear] response to this crisis and make some suggestions of our own. Now [unclear] detail

Abraham:

But publicly

Pyne:

No ... the details of what that would end up being of course is a moot point, because Kevin Rudd refused, point blank, to talk to Malcolm Turnbull. But -

Abraham:

Ok, let's bring up Chris Schacht now, he's groaning in the background

Schacht:

There are two points: one: did at any stage the Liberal Party negotiate and talk to Nick Xenophon before he voted about doing a deal between those two, to sort out if the Liberal Party believes what Xenophon thought was so good, did they go to talk to him, leading up to the bill being voted on in the Senate, to say, 'on this issue we'll vote together?', and finally, even when Xenophon put his proposal forward that was accepted by the government, the Opposition still voted against it in the Senate. They still voted against it, even now Chris Pyne is saying that it's a very good deal for South Australia. The Liberal Party in the Senate still voted against it at the death knock

Abraham:

Ah, ... is that true, Chris Pyne, is that correct I'm sorry?

Pyne:

The South Australian Liberal Senators have no point voted against Nick Xenophon's amendments to the package. They abstained. So in fact, Chris Schacht unfortunately, because he's been overseas he wouldn't know those particular details.

Abraham:

But isn't that what he started saying though? that this is the key point?

Pyne:

No. The key point here is that Kevin Rudd's package is ineffective, inadequate and we believe won't work. We offered to work with them to make it work. Nick Xenophon came along with his one vote and said, 'well I can stop this package and I get some amendments that will be good for South Australia'. As a South Australian I'm saying, [unclear] Liberal or Labor or whatever, what I'm saying is that I'm glad the Coalition, because of our position on this package, managed to bring about something useful for South Australia. What I find amazing about C1's position is that if he's seeing this all through the parlour game of politics.

Schacht:

[unclear] this is about the parlour game of politics, that's what we're in Chris. The point is, [unclear]

Pyne:

Can't we [unclear] improve our [unclear]

Schacht:

The Liberal Senators may have abstained in the committee stage on the particular clauses of what Xenophon finally put up. Did those same Liberal Senators abstain at the end of the second reading of the bill or the third reading, or the second reading? Did they still vote 'no'? and I believe [unclear] still voted 'no'.

Abraham:

Chris Pyne?

Pyne:

Well I don't know the answer to that, because we're sort of getting into the arcane machinations [unclear]

Abraham:

Wait...

Pyne:

The point is I know that when Nick Xenophon's amendments were put, Mary Jo Fisher and Alan Ferguson and Cory Bernardi and Simon Birmingham and Nick Minchin, my understanding is that they did not vote against those amendments. The point is ...

Abraham:

No, but whether they voted, continued to vote against the rescue package is something we'll check on if you don't know, but that's ok. Now Fred ...

Caller Fred:

Good morning. Chris Schacht was correct. Why didn't the Liberal Party ask two of their senators to vote for the bill for more water? And it keeps Nick Xenophon out of the limelight. I can't for the life of me understand their political nous.

Abraham:

Chris ... interesting. If Senator Wong is saying that it will make a difference, she was being quite candid but methodical in her statements this morning, but I think she did say that there would be an improvement. It does make you wonder if the Murray is a priority, why they needed Nick Xenophon to prompt them to do that

Schacht:

Well that's a good question. I haven't seen what Penny actually said, but clearly in the broader picture, Xenophon has played the issue very well, and he has since the day he got elected, and I have said on your program endlessly that at the next State and Federal election in South Australia the number one issue will be water, water and water. And on the basis that the Federal Labor Government should go a step further, and on this Chris Pyne and I agree, the Federal Government take complete control of the basin so that we don't end up with more of this debate, this trying to one up each other - whether it's Nick Xenophon, Chris Pyne, Chris Schacht or the Labor Party or the Liberal Party

Bevan:

Chris Schacht you've also warned all parties against going early at elections and there is talk over the weekend that we might have an early federal election. Does that worry you?

Schacht:

In my view, the only justification for the Federal Government to go early is if there is a double dissolution trigger, and that would mean you'd bring both houses out together. Otherwise you would have only a house in the near future, the rest of this year there'd be only a House of Reps election and no Senate election and you'd still be left with the same numbers in the Senate. So if you call an early Federal election without it being a double dissolution election with a justifiable issue I think any government is running into problems ...

Caller Gerald:

I just think a lot of those are sick and tired of the politics. We're told Xenophon's story. I mean C1 and C2 have gone on a whole lot of distraction this morning about it. The bottom line is what have we actually got different to what we had before? We've got money that's been brought forward out of a package that was, back in the Coalition's time, $10billion, there may be some accelerated buyback; that depends on water flow, on the market and everything else. [unclear] ... we thought when Nick started this debate he was going to get some money from the crazy $950 we were all going to buy a plasma with. None of that changed; what we got was just some money maybe brought forward

Abraham:

Let's go to Chris Pyne: many of our listeners this morning are enjoying the galahs... Chris Pyne?

Pyne:

There're White Sulphur Cockatoos. There aren't a lot of ducks on Lake Alexandrina for obvious reasons. Now, there's been a lot of things in the last five minutes while I've been waiting patiently for a turn, but I think Fred from Modbury missed the point - the Liberal Party was opposed to this package from the beginning because we don't believe it's effective. We think it's intensely bureaucratic, we think it's poorly directed and we would prefer to see a different response to crisis, so we weren't going to have two or three of our senators popping out of the chamber in order to see the package pass. We were against the package and so the idea that suddenly we were going to sort of spend a few people out to make sure the package had passed misses the point. We were never going to support this package because it's the wrong package. It won't achieve the outcome that it's promised. In terms of an early election it wouldn't surprise me at all if Kevin Rudd tried to rush to a sneakier election this year, because he doesn't want the public to discover that we're now $200billion in debt, that we have massive budget deficit and that we've spent $74billion in the last 12 months ... at the global financial crisis. We've spent $74billion for no good outcome. So of course they're going to try and have an early election if they possibly can and the public should be awake up to that.