Transcript - Two Chrisses - ABC 891 - 24 May 2010

SUBJECTS: Broken promises; National Curriculum; SACA; Bedford Industries, One Nation

Abraham: Now Chris Pyne the Tony Abbott in seven thirty land little encounter last week, how terminal is that for Tony Abbott where he's affectively told people that most of the time I'm not telling the truth...

Pyne: Well it's already passed into political history that interview, it's a week old and nobody is talking about it, nobody raised it with me in my electorate...

Abraham: Well I'm talking about it now so just indulge me, I'm a bit slow. It's not an issue anymore, it won't bob up in election advertising, nobody's thinking about the fact that most of the time he's not telling the truth

Pyne: Well he didn't say anything like that actually but the last people in the world that could criticise Tony Abbott about truthfulness would be the Labor Party. They have 47 so far, broken promises since before the last election and I think that's probably why Kevin Rudd...

Abraham: But I wasn't asking you about that...

Pyne: Kevin Rudd said nothing about this very subject because he has no credibility on it, so you ask me was it terminal for Tony Abbott, my answer to that is not at all, not even close. Our main opposition won't be bothered raising it because their level of truthfulness is zero and what he said was that when people are talking there is a certain level of truthfulness attached to that in comparison to when they are writing and it's just common sense

Abraham: And do you apply that same standard to yourself?

Pyne: It's a simple statement of common sense, people knew exactly what he meant and the reality is that Tony Abbott is a straight shooting politician who is fair dinkum with the electorate and I think they appreciate his honesty...

Abraham: But when you're doorknocking I'm sure you don't hand people a written statement or when you're supermarketing, and when you talk to them you're being truthful, we would expect nothing less form you...

Pyne: The election will be a choice between Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott, in terms of truthfulness people have long given up on Kevin Rudd's promises and believability. The greatest moral challenge of our time, the Emissions Trading Scheme has simply been flicked, the promises he made before the last election about the cost of living he made virtually no attempt at all to actually keep them. I am very happy to fight an election on truthfulness when I'm comparing the broken promises of Kevin Rudd with Tony Abbott's fair dinkum style. I think they would be very foolish to go down that track which is why they ignored the interview last week because they knew they had no credibility on it.

Abraham: What do you think Chris Schacht?

Schacht: Well I was in Australia last week when he said it and I just scratch my head because Tony Abbott seems to be in a land where these sort of bubble thoughts keep coming out and the problem for him is, it keeps giving a different impression about just what he stands for and what his style is and what his attitude is towards being the alternate Prime Minister, and if he did get elected Prime Minister it shows something that is indescribable to me in the way in which he's acting, the way in which he's communicating, and it's not the first time he's said some odd things around the place and I just think that damage is not being done by the Labor Government or the Labor Party or anyone else, it's being done to Tony Abbott by Tony Abbott. People are gradually working out we don't know what he stands for, we're going to put up taxes to pay for parental leave and then he says he won't support other taxes now does he support tax increases or doesn't he? The ETS that Chris Pyne just mentioned that the Government has deferred for a year or so is simple, they couldn't get it through the Parliament, the present Liberal majority, almost majority in the Senate, the Government can not get it through the Parliament, so it has to be deferred hopefully after a discussion takes place after Senate numbers change after the next federal election. Some of these issues that we're breaking promises on are because the opposition parties in the Senate won't let The Government carry what they promised to carry at the election, but that will be debated at this coming federal election.

Abraham: But what about the general principal...he's only speaking, he was only unwise enough to verbalise what everyone knows anyway, and what most politicians concede is that they play fast with the truth when it suits them...

Schacht: I was listening to that interview, I saw the interview replayed on the 7:30 Report and I saw the one he did on Neil Mitchell's show in Melbourne and it seems that he gets into a different zone consciousness at times Abbott, where you're not sure, I'm sure the Liberal Party say the same thing, we're not sure what he's going to say on anything and this is very destabilising internally for the Liberal Party. If you're a Shadow Minister you'd hold your breath every time he appeared because you wouldn't be quite sure what angle he was going to take, what focus he was going to take. Are they in favour of tax cuts, are they in favour of increasing taxes, is he being rolled by his own shadow ministry? There is a difficulty Abbott is creating for his own party here...

Abraham: Julie from Broadview as we talk to C1 and C2 at thirteen past ten on the Two Chrisses, good morning Julie...

Caller Julie: Good morning Matthew and the Two Chrisses...

Abraham: Now you want to raise an issue of blind or vision impaired students?

Caller Julie: Yes I do, this year we are going to have the National Curriculum rolled out in this country and blind children currently have an expanded core curriculum on top of that and I'm wondering what's going to happen with that is that going to be embedded in all of the subjects?

Abraham: Maybe we'll put that back to you Chris Pyne, are you aware of that? You're Shadow Minister for Education...

Pyne: I am aware of that and I can say to you that when the National Curriculum was being proposed first by the previous government and now implemented by the current Government we made quite a song and dance in the opposition about ensuring that there was room in the National Curriculum for different methods of teaching and different curricular to be taught, and Julia Gillard after we held this up in the Senate for some time finally agreed for things like the Reggio Emilia teaching methods and the Waldorf teaching methods and of course teaching in particular schools like Jewish schools to be allowed as part of the National Curriculum and that would also pertain to particular methods for students with issues of blindness, so yes my assumption is that will be catered for and if it's not the Government will have to very quickly change it's position because obviously we have to make sure everyone has access to the National Curriculum.

Abraham: you'd have to say though, they would wouldn't they accommodate...

Pyne: Well you'd be crazy if you didn't

Abraham: Out of all the criticism you'd level at the Government I don't think you'd accuse them of not trying to accommodate people with disabilities in that way

Pyne: Although you know, sometimes the Government has made some quite fundamental mistakes or dropped some big clangers simply because they've been overlooking all aspects of their policies and I'm hoping we can talk about one of those later on in the program to do with the supported employment

Abraham: We'll talk about that now, Chris Schacht

Schacht: Well it's obvious that if any government didn't have a National Curriculum arrangements for people with disabilities, well I think any government of the day would be in for a bit of a hiding in the media, in the public and I can't imagine that not happening and on this issue of the National Curriculum. Using my sporting hat through volleyball, ten days ago I was at a forum in Melbourne looking at an introduction of a whole range of new policies coming out of the Crawford Review, the new funding for sport, one of the issues the Crawford Review raised which state ministers and federal ministers for sport want is an appropriate level of sporting activities for physical fitness for students in the National Curriculum so the health of Australia for the future is dealt with...

Abraham: Is there anything else we want to put into the National Curriculum? You want to put volleyball in there no doubt....

Schacht: No, no, you misunderstand what we want to do is to ensure that the National Curriculum there is appropriate time for physical activity so that children, it's not compulsory you have to play a particular sport but there should be appropriate teaching of physical education so that our children are kept reasonably fit and in the long term that's good for the health of the nation and reduces the health costs, so that is just one of the issues why the National Curriculum is no very very important and it should be above in my view , an argument above partisan politics between Labor and Liberal, it's an issue for the whole country...

Abraham: The Two Chrisses C1 and C2, Chris Pyne and Chris Schacht you're in China so I'm not sure if you've checked your emails but Ian McLachlan sent out an email to SACA members to clarify what he said had been recent inaccurate speculation regarding SACA's debt, and his argument I think was effectively during the 2 year prior to the western grand stand SACA have completed nearly 50 million dollars in capital works and has not problems in providing capital and servicing the borrowings incurred. If the joint venture between SANFL and SACA goes ahead it's been agreed by all parties that SACCA will be paid eight five million dollars about in recognition of the assets. How does that sit with you that explanation, Kevin Foley has said a debt's a debt's a debt I think...

Schacht: My wife forwarded onto me that email in China of Mr McLachlan's statement because I am a member of SACCA and I'm also a member of Football Park and I have to say I'm a little astonished that even as a SACCA member, more importantly as a taxpayer that Mr McLachlan would expect that the taxpayers of South Australia and Australia would pay eighty five million dollars. The thing I can't work out from his figures, already the State Government has given fifty million dollars cash to build the western stand and ten days ago a senior figure in the federal Government of Australia said that they've already paid twenty of the twenty five million dollars that was promised by both Labor and Liberal federally before the last federal election. So they've already received forty five million dollars on a stand that was going to cost eighty or ninety odd million dollars and they're still in a debt of eighty three million? Something here is not adding up, the previous assets that were built have been used by the members to the advantage of the members and the running of the cricket ground and I just find this a very hard set of figures and a taxpayer, and again I make the comment I agree we should put cricket and football together at a rebuilt proper international stadium at Adelaide Oval, but the only way this can be done properly is for the State Government to use it's constitutional power and step in and say we own the land on which the Adelaide Oval is built, we're going to take it over and have an independent management authority to build it on behalf of all South Australian's, not just SACCA and football organisations. I can't work out how we still owe eighty three million dollars, that's SACCA, when they've already received forty five million dollars on a stand that was supposed to cost ninety two million dollars, these figures don't add up to me, I may be wrong, there may be something I'm missing, but from the statement I can't see how they add up...

Abraham: Well he's certainly not available to answer questions along those lines we've been trying for well over a week now, Chris Pyne..

Pyne: Well I do think there is an unhealthy obsession creeping into C1's relentless attacks on SACA and Ian McLachlan and I don't understand why C1 is so obsessed with pursuing SACA, I hope it's not some anti-establishment thing that he's got a bee in his bonnet about. I don't know all the ins and outs of all the figures to do with the oval, I know that if Ian McLachlan says that SACA is worth eight five millions dollars as part of this deal, then SACA is handing over a very important asset as part of the deal and the SACA members should be quite properly recompensed for it by having a true reflection of what SACA has built there over the last many many decades..

Abraham: But hasn't SACA built that largely with taxpayers money? In other words, if you're handing over an asset and that asset is half of tax payers money and the other half is debt, it's not much of an asset is it? So if I'm going to give you my house, by the way don't worry about it, it's fifty million dollar house and there's a fifty million dollar debt on it but here's the house.

Schacht: Absolutely Matt that's dead right.

Pyne: Well I don't agree with that, I think you're applying different standards to SACA than you're applying to other institutions and organs of government ...

Abraham: But you could apply a very similar argument to SANFL that they're rattling the can on this and they want everything but the kitchen sink thrown in as well.

Pyne: But we don't seem to spend any time criticising, C1 spends no time criticising SANFL. Obviously he goes to the SACA AGM's, gets to ask his question and because they don't answer it how he wants it he thinks he can pursue it on radio every Monday. The State Government for example borrows overseas against the so called assets that they own which includes all the schools in South Australia, so does that mean those schools are about to be handed over to the debtors we would hope not, or the creditors we would hope not, but of course the SACA oval is worth a substantial amount of money but I'm not here to defend SACA, it's not a Federal Government issue my point is that there's quite the obsession with attacking SACA and I hope it's not an anti-establishment thing. There are many average South Australian's who are members of SACA who love the Adelaide Oval and should not be the centre of a political witch hunt from C1.

Schacht: Can I just say that I have publicly commented at the AGM last year of SACA that yes I could turn up as a member of SACA and ask questions like any other member where as I criticise SANFL that no football follower of the Crows or Port Adelaide can go and ask directly questions of the SANFL management of Football Park or anything else because there is no structure to do that at all, and I have strongly criticised SANFL in the past, I have written articles apart from being on this program but the point is it is a federal issue Chris because your party and my party both promised twenty five millions dollars to help build the western stand, that means federal taxpayers money..

Pyne: But are you against redeveloping the oval or...

Schacht: I am not against redevelopment, in fact I want to go further, I want the site built with a stand that has a twenty first century stand with a retractable roof with cricket, football and all other major sports particularly international can use so it can be a stadium that has got a commercial future as well as one in which the people of South Australia can enjoy. The best place to build it is to rebuild on Adelaide Oval and what SACA has already done has fundamentally changed the cricket oval anyway so I think the only way out of this is for the State Government to take control of it and do it on behalf of all South Australian's and I wouldn't want cricket or football to runt hat oval by itself because the rules they've had in the past, you're just not confident they'd do it well enough.

Pyne: Well I think the last people we want owning and running Adelaide Oval is the incompetent state Labor Government that we have in South Australia. I couldn't think of anything worse than putting some of those Minister's in the state government in charge of the Adelaide Oval, what makes you think Government does things better than the private sector? Why do you always assume in the Labor Party that if the Government runs it, somehow it's going to be run efficiently I meant the opposite is true. Government is part of the problem, not the solution.

Schacht: I would rather a Liberal State Government for a statutory authority run re a built Adelaide Oval than allowing a mixture of conflicting sporting associations to do it, I would actually think no matter how bad a Liberal Government is in South Australia you would do it better, and believe me this is on land owned by all the people, it's the parklands, it's not owned by SACA it's owned by the State Government leased through the Adelaide City Council to SACA, therefore there is a legitimate reason for State Government to take control of it and I would rather have a Liberal government run it whenever there is one than as I say have conflicted sporting associations brawling over it.

Abraham: Let's go to Kevin from Seaford, hello Kevin.

Caller Kevin: Chris Pyne, if I remember correctly it was Tony Abbott I think, it might have been his father or some other guy and there was a little group of people called The Australians for Honesty in Politics? Now I recon you might know that because I think you might have been a staffer for him then, Parliamentary Secretary or something I don't know, I'm just asking a simple question. Was he or was he not a member of a group called Australians for Honesty in Politics?

Abraham: Well, do you remember that Chris Pyne?

Pyne: ...I've been in Parliament longer than Tony Abbott I've certainly never worked for him as a political staffer and I certainly don't remember any such group that Tony Abbott or anyone lese was a member of. I could be wrong, but if it did happen well it's faded into the recesses of my political memory and I apologise for that...

Abraham: That's fair enough now you do want to talk about the freeze in funding for disability employment, now we've spoken to Bedford Industries about that, Chris Pyne I'm not sure if you want to take it any further...

Pyne: Well I'm actually concerned about this thing that has slipped through in the budget which is a freeze on the amount of money that the Federal Government is paying to people in supported employment, and when we're talking about supported employment we're talking about people who work for places like Bedford Industries, we're talking about people with an intellectual and sometimes physical disability who are supported in employment and I think we're all in South Australia very well familiar with Bedford Industries. In the budget, the Government has put a freeze on increasing their funds each year that means they won't have had an increase in three years and that will cost Bedford Industries two hundred thousand dollars, money they'll have to find from elsewhere, this is at a time the Government has a low emission assistance for renters program worth a hundred and thirty six million dollars, and that program was axed last year in August so it doesn't actually exist but it was allocated in the budget a hundred and thirty six million dollars so what on earth is that money doing where is it going, and at the same time they've effectively cut funds for people with disability. They will say that we haven't taken money away but the point is the cost to Bedford Industry has increased over the last three years by at least twelve percent and yet there has been no increase this year in funds to match those that Bedford are paying, now who is going to be paying for this? Is it the families of people with disabilities, will they have to shed staff, I can't believe the priorities of Government that says on the one hand we care for people with disabilities on the other hand they don't they freeze their funding while they've got a hundred and thirty six million dollar slush fund for a program that doesn't exist

Abraham: Now just finally Chris Pyne, Kevin of Seaford his memory is pretty good because according to one article here that I think was in the Financial Review Thursday July 22, 2004 Page 4, Health Minister Tony Abbott has been cleared of allegations that he breached electoral laws by not disclosing donors to a fund to fight Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, the fund was called Australians For Honest Politics Trust Fund and it looks like it was set up by Mr Abbott and a few others...

Pyne: Well anybody that wanted to fight Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party has my support and it was quite successful because One National has basically disappeared from view, as has Pauline Hanson and I think that was not a positive part of our political environment for a very long time and I'm glad it's gone...

Abraham: But you did have a group called the Australians for Honest Politics?

Pyne: Well I don't remember the details of that...

Abraham: A trust fund...

Pyne: ...but thank you for reminding me of them, but in terms of fighting One Nation good luck to them so they should have fought One Nation, I did too and I didn't preference them ever.

Abraham: Chris Pyne Thank you and Chris Schacht thank you for joining us from China.

Schacht: I'll be in the studio next Monday I look forward to it.

Pyne: Wonderful.

ENDS