TONY JONES: Good evening and welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones and answering your questions tonight: the Vice Chancellor of Sydney University, Michael Spence; Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, who stepped in at the last minute to replace her colleague Julie Collins, who's gone down with the flu; The National Director of GetUp! Simon Sheikh, who has returned to Q&A just three weeks after his dramatic live TV collapse. Thanks very much for being back.

SIMON SHEIKH: Thank you for having me.

TONY JONES: It's a pleasure. The author of What Makes A Good School, Jane Caro; and the Shadow Education Minister Christopher Pyne. Please give an especially warm welcome to our panel tonight. Q&A is live from 9:35 eastern standard time and simulcast on News 24 and News Radio. Go to our website to send a question or join the Twitter conversation using the hashtag that just appeared on the screen. Well, the first question comes from Alison Cooke.

BATMAN MASSACRE

ALISON COOKE: Thanks, Tony. In the recent massacre we've seen a direct link with violent crime and entertainment. Whilst the perpetrator needs to take direct responsibility, I am just wondering if you feel there's a larger responsibility for the entertainment industry in linking violence and you know, harming others with personal pleasure and entertainment.

TONY JONES: Michael Spence, let's start with you.

MICHAEL SPENCE: Yeah, I think, I mean obviously the people who commit these kind of massacres are unwell and that's the extreme case. The question is if it can have that kind of impact on them, what's the impact on the rest of us? What's the impact on our children? And I think you're right, the issue is not censorship but it is about the entertainment industry taking responsibility and taking responsibility for it not not being so dull. I mean let's face it, these violent movies just get more and more boring, as you predict the plot, as well as socially negative

TONY JONES: Does it disturb you that the Batman villains, typically the Heath Ledger Joker, for example, end up being the coolest characters onscreen?

MICHAEL SPENCE: It's never a good thing but good and cool is a problem that even Blake had. Remember - that even Milton had. Remember Blake said he was of the Devil's party and didn't know it. Doing good and cool is always really difficult.

TONY JONES: Nicola Roxon.

NICOLA ROXON: Look, I do think it's a worry. I think also when we're sort of one year on from the terrible massacre in Norway as well that really my concerns are more about gun control. I do think that this is a blind spot that America has for some reason. We know that if people were going to be violent if they were affected by films in that way but didn't have as ready access to guns they might cause harm but maybe not as much. So I do worry about it. Actually the research is not very clear. It's an area where sort of common experience, particularly as parents, doesn't seem to match with what the research yet shows us, doesn't show those links which seem obvious if you've seen kids play hour after hour after hour, particularly on violent video games, and I do think obviously parents have to supervise that a lot. That's sort of more the not just the film industry, I don't know if we can stop people making black films or creative films. I am not sure that that's going to achieve it, because there are always going to be people who are unwell and will react to something that others might find perfectly harmless and entertaining. I haven't seen Batman yet, so I don't know if I view it as harmless and entertaining.

MICHAEL SPENCE: But there is a ramping up in the conversation, isn't there, and there must be a point at which we say, okay, even if the jury is out in terms of the evidence, this is enough.

NICOLA ROXON: Yeah. Well, as I say, I think it's an area where researchers haven't really been able to show that link and you'd expect that maybe you would see more of that. So maybe that will come in the future. You just hope it's not too late for people to then make good policy decisions about how to maybe regulate it. But in my mind the biggest message is we've got to find a way for America to get rid of that blind spot about gun control.

TONY JONES: Simon Sheikh, what do you think?

SIMON SHEIKH: Yeah, Alison, to return to your question, I think what I'm fascinated by is looking at the coverage. Although it's early days, what I see is people talk about Heath Ledger's memory. They talk about the movie itself, as has been brought up tonight. One journalist even is reported to have said that this is Justice a natural thing, a natural disaster, akin to a natural disaster. That kind of suggests to me that in America there's this view that this is somehow uncontrollable, there's nothing they can do. The reality is this bloke didn't commit a crime right up until the point - right up until the point - where he started opening fire. That's just crazy. You know, it's obviously about gun control. It's obviously about ammunition control. Let's hope that in an election year in the US, they can actually get together and formulate some responses to this. I am not so sure they will, though, unfortunately.

TONY JONES: Christopher Pyne?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, I think everybody has a responsibility, Alison. I think the film industry definitely has a responsibility, I think parents have a big responsibility and community has a responsibility in setting an example for what they regard as reasonable entertainment. I think there is - there's violence and then there's gratuitous violence. One of the best movies I've seen in the last six months has been Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Now, it has violent parts of it but it's also a thriller. It's a great movie. I think a lot of the movies that you're talking about, that you're alluding to, gratuitous violence is not healthy for any community but people wouldn't make those movies if people didn't go and pay money to go and see them or take them out on DVD or see them on the internet. So, you know, I think the whole of the community has a responsibility. I think one of the good things that John Howard did was early in piece with his gun control legislation. I think took on a very powerful lobby. He was prepared to do it. He took a lot of flak from supposedly the Coalition's natural base but he went ahead with it and I think I agree with Nicola - here we are again Nicola...

NICOLA ROXON: Oh, no!

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I know, agreeing with each other.

NICOLA ROXON: It's so bad for both our images really.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I know.

SIMON SHEIKH: But good for politics more broadly.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: We'll never be asked on again if we keep agreeing with each other.

NICOLA ROXON: I know. I know. I determine to disagree with you at some point, Chris, tonight.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: But I think the United States and their approach to gun control, I think, is seriously wrong headed and I do believe that they should do something dramatic about the weapons on the streets in the US but I think the film industry has a big responsibility but, you know, parents can't just wash their hands. I have four children and, you know, they range from 12 to 4, and, you know, my wife and I have a responsibility to ensure that we think they're watching things that are appropriate for their age and maturity.

TONY JONES: Jane Caro?

JANE CARO: Well, you know, I think entertainment has to have villains in it and it has - I mean Shakespeare is - there's buckets of blood and things in thinks like Titan Andronicus.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Titan Andronicus. Snap.

JANE CARO: There you go. And I also have to say I'm agreeing with Christopher too...

NICOLA ROXON: Oh, no!

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: It's early days. It's very early days.

JANE CARO: ...on the John Howard thing, which was incredibly - that was one the best things he ever did, I think, as prime minister and what horrified me though was remember when he made the speech he actually wore a flak jacket and I think one of the things - and I am totally of the opinion that America is stark raving mad about guns. I believe the statistic, that I found on the internet anyway, was that there are 88.8 guns per every 100 citizens in America. That means you've got a populous that are armed to the teeth. Now, there are crazy people in every country. There are violent films being shown all over the world. But the number of these massacres and the regularity in which they occur is, in fact, greater in the United States than in any other country and I don't think they can continue for very much longer to make that disconnect and say, oh and it seems to be a debate they can't even have - they can't even mention. It was tragic to see Obama today, who went to Aurora to comfort the relatives and those people who escaped from this terrible - the survivors from this terrible event and he actually couldn't go to the memorial service because the Secret Service didn't feel that they were able to keep to protect him. They weren't able to at such short notice. Now, that's an appalling thing for a society to be facing and I don't think we can blame our filmmakers for it. I think we have to look much more about the fact there are violent films, crazy people. The difference in America is everybody's armed and that means the lobby group is armed. That makes them scary.

TONY JONES: Yup, let's move on. If you'd like to continue the discussion, check out the Q&A Facebook page. Our next question tonight comes from Joseph Ackland.

CLASS SIZES

JOSEPH ACKLAND: My question is for Senator Pyne.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I'm not a senator.

TONY JONES: He's not a senator.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Don't promote me.

TONY JONES: He's from the House of Rep.

JOSEPH ACKLAND: Right.

TONY JONES: He represents something.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Senators are very good people.

JOSEPH ACKLAND: No, definitely not. Senator Pyne, if you were a - okay, Senator Pyne, if you were a teacher, could you teach a class the size of this audience as effectively as a smaller sized class and, perhaps more importantly, would you want to work as a teacher if it meant teaching a class this size?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, there's no school in Australia that has a class size this size so - there are schools that have class sizes from about some schools sort of 15 right through to the very low 30s but typically in Australia in, say, Victoria, class size will be between about 20 and 22. So I wouldn't be asked to teach a class this size and if I was I would refuse to do so because trying to teach 200 12 year olds I have twins who are 12 - would obviously be quite impossible but my speech that I gave on Monday night - last Monday to the Sydney Institute about class sizes and teachers was essentially saying that in Australia, for the last 10 years, we've been obsessed about class size and being obsessed about class size, when all the evidence suggests that when you get down to 25 students, going a lot lower than that makes no dramatic difference and, in fact, is tremendously expensive, clouds the other issues in education like teacher quality, like parental involvement, like a robust curriculum. So what I was saying is, yes, class size is an interesting issue but for ten years we've been getting our class sizes smaller. We have spent 44% more on government education and 25% more on non government education and yet our student outcomes have gone backwards so class size should not be the obsession.

TONY JONES: Okay. Can I just interrupt you there? I mean you made that argument about the obsession with small classes. You said it was driven by the union movement. So I've got to ask you, is it your contention that larger classes equal fewer teachers and therefore less union influence?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No. Look, no, absolutely not.

TONY JONES: That's the clear logic of what you were saying.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, not really. I am not trying to have less teachers. I think the obsession about class sizes has been an obsession, and not a very helpful obsession. I'd be happy to have as many teachers...

TONY JONES: Is it a union obsession, as you said...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I think the Australian Education Union is obsessed about class sizes and has been for ten years and I think both state...

TONY JONES: And is that about having more teachers, in your opinion?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, I think it's about teachers having smaller class sizes and it's good for the teacher, it's good for the union. No, the point is whether we have more teach or less teachers or whatever is actually not the point. We need to have very high quality teachers who have been really well trained, who get good professional development, who get paid more, have better conditions and that would mean hopefully we'll get better student out comes.

TONY JONES: Jane Caro?

JANE CARO: Yes, I think the - I'm not sure anyone is particularly obsessed with class sizes but what I would say is that there are classes and classes and what we do in Australia really quite uniquely I think now in the Western worlds is we tend to concentrate our most disadvantaged students all in the same schools and our most advantaged student all in the same schools. So the problem with that is that a one size fits all measure on class sizes clearly isn't going to work. If you're teaching a class that is servicing kids from really disadvantaged backgrounds with high levels of behavioural and emotional difficulties, who come perhaps from chaotic households and are really - like years and years behind their peers in terms of educational outcomes, then you may need many more bodies in that classroom. What we desperately need is more literacy teacher, more reading recovery teachers, more support teachers for learning in those kinds of class rooms. I really don't care about the nice middle class kids like my own, who probably could have gone along and did in quite large classes on occasions. They're fine. They've got lot of cultural capital behind them. It's the kids that need that extra help. I mean, I will never forget being in a Sydney high school which had a disability unit and I was being shown around the school and the teachers in the disability unit came to me with tears in their eyes because they were being inspected by the department to see whether they could keep their teachers aides in the disability department unit and the teacher said to me, "If those aides are taken away from us, we will spend 80% of our day toileting our kids." No learning will happen at all. So it's not a one size fits all. It's which classrooms, with which kids need more support and that's where we need to be putting our energy and our money.

SIMON SHEIKH: The evidence - and the evidence backs up what Jane is saying here. If you look at the evidence out of America, which Christopher obviously ignores, what we find...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I actually agree with Jane Caro's comments so that was an unnecessary statement from you, Simon.

SIMON SHEIKH: Sure. Sure. Well, you would like would you like to see class sizes rise?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No. I have no - I think the obsession with class sizes is the problem. I think Jane is absolutely right. It's not one size fits all. It is horses for courses. So, for example, in Cape York they've done exactly the opposite and are having very good outcomes.

SIMON SHEIKH: And here is the evidence for class size reduction - here's evidence for class size reduction...

TONY JONES: Hang on, can we just hear what Simon's point is...

SIMON SHEIKH: Here's the evidence for class size reduction...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, he made an unnecessary attack on me, Tony.

SIMON SHEIKH: No. No. No. Let's demonstrate why. The evidence with class size reduction is that it works for two particular demographics. They are primary school students. They really benefit from class size reduction, as do students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Now, every parent in the country knows that you don't want class sizes going up. You don't want your student receiving less individual support. So, therefore, why are we having this debate? If nobody is saying let's increase class sizes then why are we having this debate.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: But here you are obsessing about class sizes again. The whole point...

SIMON SHEIKH: Because you raised it.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Every parent in Australia doesn't know that small class sizes produce better outcomes because, in fact, it hasn't been the case. In ten years we've reduced class sizes, we've increased spending on education and our outcomes are worse in 2009 than they were in 2000.

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: so your contention that everyone knows is not the case.

TONY JONES: We've got a couple of hands up down here. We'll try and get to them but let's hear from Michael Spence.

MICHAEL SPENCE: So what we've demonstrated is that class sizes aren't the only issue.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Exactly. Precisely.

MICHAEL SPENCE: Nobody would argue that class sizes were the only issue but it doesn't mean that they're not an important issue, particularly for groups.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: But they're not the only issues.

MICHAEL SPENCE: And the problem in Australia is educational inequality. It's at the bottom that our students are doing particularly poorly and they are people for whom class sizes are particularly important.

JANE CARO: Yes.

TONY JONES: Let's just hear from our audience. We've got two people with their hands up. We'll start with the gentleman on the right.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We keep hearing teachers being blamed with poor quality and so on. I have sat on a P&C in Queensland and the teachers' hands are tied with what they can and cannot teach. The Government tells them what and how to teach, which has caused the major problem with children unable to write and spell and so on. Isn't it time politicians stop blaming the teachers and admit that your policies just are not working?

TONY JONES: I'm going to take that as a comment. I'll just hear from the young lady next to you.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm an early childhood teacher, having...

TONY JONES: Sorry.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Sorry.

TONY JONES: No, the one in front then, go ahead. Sorry, I didn't realise you had your hand us, sorry.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm an early childhood teacher and I'm currently working in long day care. I've worked in primary school teaching kindergarten. Class sizes being smaller actually does make a difference for all children and until the teacher gets to know the children, how can they know if they will need more support? And usually by the time a teacher will build a relationship with the parents and get them on board to say this child needs testing for possibly you know, they won't say the child is autistic but this child needs this, this child has additional behavioural needs, this child may need toilet needs and funding just needs to happen for early childhood teaching birth to eight. So in my sector, where early childhood teachers and the educators who support them, they need to be paid so they don't keep leaving the sector and teachers in K to 2 need to be supported with smaller class sizes and, as Jane said and as Christopher said and all of you said, you need to just look at a case by case basis.

TONY JONES: Okay.

SIMON SHEIKH: Can I just quickly comment on early childhood education because I'm so glad you raised that. You know, the biggest return on investment for our education dollar is in the age bracket of 0 to 6. The biggest return on investment because you've got to actually teach our young people how to learn. When they get to primary school, they've got to have those basic skills about how to learn in the first place. What early childhood education also does is teaches our young people how to operate in the work force in these team based environments, because those soft skills you learn back then are crucial all the way through and so that's why I think it's time, as a society, we stop treating this early part of life as babysitting and really get into the issue of (indistinct).

JANE CARO: (Indistinct)

TONY JONES: Hang on. No, I want to hear from Nicola Roxon because the minister was trying to get in.

NICOLA ROXON: No, well, I was just going to say, I mean, I really think that all of these points just highlight that it's got to be a little bit of a balance. Everybody has got an opinion because everyone has been to school or their kids are at school or they're about to take their grandchildren to childcare. Everyone cares about this because it is actually key to unlocking all of our productivity for the future and we need to get it right. But I think that we've got to have a balance. We also want teachers to be able to have flexibility to really play to their strengths. Everyone uses and teaches differently but you've also got to make sure that you've got a core that is actually at an appropriate standard. So the rules about having a national curriculum is to make sure that you don't have treat great teachers in Victoria and terrible teachers in Queensland or fantastic teachers in South Australia and substandard in WA that means that, you know, no one will ever get to university or to a TAFE course. So I do actually think that people will like to go to extremes in this education debate but actually there's a sensible middle and I have to say I think our Government has been doing this by investing a lot more. We do want to make sure we don't have enormous class sizes. We want to give principals more autonomy. We want to pay teachers who are doing really well more money. Of course, we've been investing more in the university sector. It's across the whole spectrum and in child care...

TONY JONES: Okay. We're going to come to the funding issue in more detail in a moment.

NICOLA ROXON: But I was just going to say - but I was just going to say in child care is actually where we've made the biggest changes and interestingly it is contestable in the community whether those changes were the right thing to. Do but I think Simon's comments about investing where it matters most in those early years really do - are a defensible reason for trying to put more money into there.

TONY JONES: Okay. No, just before anyone goes on, that young lady has very patiently had her hand up there the entire time.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Yes, it's going to fall off.

TONY JONES: So go ahead.

QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm a high school student. I go to school every day and I quite often talk with my teachers. I see them struggle handling large classes and I've seen students struggle because the students who have lower knowledge levels, they struggle to keep up. While students who get through class easier are kept down. Don't you think that if you have smaller classes, you can separate them so that you can teach them on their levels with their learning styles and, if possible, have better quality teachers as well?

TONY JONES: Okay, Christopher Pyne, I'll just get you to briefly respond to that because it's back to you and it sounds like not only the union movement that is concerned about teachers and class sizes.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, Tony...

SIMON SHEIKH: Every parent in the country.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, Tony, you would think that small class sizes did have that effect but, in fact, for ten years now we've had small class sizes, we've had rising levels of investment and education and our outcomes have gone backwards. So clearly what I was saying last Monday was that class sizes are one issue but parental engagement, a robust curriculum, a high quality teaching, better teacher training, more mentoring and ongoing professional development are all just as important so...

MICHAEL SPENCE: What do you mean by better teacher training? What's your problem with teacher training at the moment?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, my problem with teacher training, Michael, and I know that you run a training course at Sydney University...

MICHAEL SPENCE: Quite right.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: ...is that the teachers being produced from our teaching colleges themselves are saying that they are not ready for practical teaching. The survey that I cited last Monday night at the Sydney Institute showed that in 15 areas most teachers who have come out of teacher college said that in eight out of those 15 areas they weren't ready and principals agreed with them and there's a -I'll give you a real life example. At one of our sandstone universities there's a bachelor of education going on right now which is four years and the students coming out of it are complaining they're not taught to teach children, young children, to read. Now, I would have thought more practicum, more practical involvement in teaching, more mentoring post study is a university's responsibility.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. No, Michael Spence has to respond to that then we've got a question on teacher quality.

MICHAEL SPENCE: What we know is that the teachers...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Never mind. You'll get a go in a minute...

MICHAEL SPENCE: What we know is that teachers with University training actually deliver better results in the class room. There's a lot of evidence that suggests that. What we also know is that nobody is ready as a professional at the point at which they leave university...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: That's why they need more mentoring.

MICHAEL SPENCE: ...with the skills that an experienced teacher or an experienced brain surgeon has. So a profession has to take a certain amount of responsibility for on the job training. The question is what's the university's responsibility, which is about teaching critical thinking. It's about making sure that teachers understand the way children learn. It makes sure that they have the appropriate psychological training. It makes sure, yes, that they have well supported practicum training and then that the Education Departments provide appropriate mentoring and professional development once they've graduated.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: But they don't.

JANE CARO: And something - hang on, something has happened...

TONY JONES: Okay. No, I'm just going to cut you off because we have a question...

JANE CARO: There is an apprenticeship program. It's happening.

TONY JONES: ...that we've been trying to come to on teacher quality. It's related to what we're talking about.

MICHAEL SPENCE: And it is. It is.

JANE CARO: It is but we can't talk about it.

TONY JONES: Hold on for one second. The next question comes from Susan Leitch.

TEACHER QUALITY

SUSAN LEITCH: Thank you, Tony. As a public school teacher of 34 years and now a deputy principal, I've observed how difficult it is to remove ineffective teachers from the system. They just get shifted to other schools. Couldn't we improve the quality of our new graduates by having a higher mark to get into education courses for one thing and also a rigorous interview before being offered a place to ensure the graduate is suitable?

TONY JONES: Jane Caro?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Hear, hear!

JANE CARO: The problem is that the university entrance mark is by and large dictated by the popularity of the profession.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: That's true.

JANE CARO: And the problem is that over a very long time we have been driving down the real pay of teachers and, worse than that, we've been talking teachers down for three decades. We have been slagging them off. If we'd set out as a society to do the most destructive thing, particularly for disadvantaged students, it would have been to destroy the morale of teachers over the last 30 years and we've been unbelievably successful at doing that. So that's one of the reasons why the university entrance score has fallen. However, my own daughter is a second year out graduate teacher from the University of Sydney and she's now undergoing her apprenticeship as a teacher because they come out of university after what will soon be a five year degree for just about, I think, every teaching student. So we're upping the qualifications quite considerably and they have to go through, as you would know as a deputy principal, a three year or up to five year accreditation process and it's onerous. Let me tell you, my daughter complains to me about it endlessly about putting together her portfolio. Now, we are doing that practicum in that way, which is very smart. The other thing is that there is an interview process for getting a job as a teacher. I watched it happen with my daughter and her fellow graduates but it is the Department of Education, certainly in New South Wales, that does those interviews and targets the top graduates and, in fact, parents don't know this but, in fact, it's much harder to get a permanent position in a public high school, certainly as a new graduate, than it is to get one in a independent school at the present time. So, in fact, our new graduates are often the most exciting...

TONY JONES: You're going to have to wind up this answer, Jane.

JANE CARO: ...and dynamic and creative people in our schools. I hate the term quality teachers. We have teachers.

TONY JONES: Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. Nicola Roxon, I want to come to you and the point - well, one of the main points being made there was it's very hard to get rid of teachers that aren't very good.

NICOLA ROXON: Well, I was just going to say I think it goes to the point and probably as deputy principle you're really focussed on this, of what sort of role the principals can have in shaping the school that they are running. I'm a Victorian and my electorate is very mixed: some quite affluent areas, some very, very poor areas and a lot of ethnically mixed areas. So the schools I visit are vastly different and the principals are vastly different and you really see the different approaches that they take being able to have an enormous impact on the teaching staff and I think that you end up actually having an interview process that works by stealth and I'm sure this is the same in other States, putting people on the short term contract, seeing how they work out, then putting them onto the permanent staff, so at the front end taking a bit more care. I think it's hard for those long serving staff. Every state says they've got some small number of people that really should not be returning to teaching. But I have to say, I'm with Jane. I mean I've been massively impressed in the school that my young daughter goes to. New graduates teaching in her first couple of years have been absolutely outstanding but they have this really strong professional support around them, principals committed to them doing ongoing education, literacy mentors that come in. What worries me and what Chris was saying I do think ties into this, is that parental engagement. If you relying on that to help your school run then unfortunately you, I think, get stuck in a cycle of disadvantage. The schools that have the parents with the least social capital are the ones that are least able to provide that extra support for teachers and extra parents reading in rooms and extra support at home and it worries me if we were going to change our education system in some way to depend on that when so many parents and communities don't have actually the same access to educational role models at home.

TONY JONES: I just want to hear from Christopher Pyne first on this. Sorry about that. Christopher Pyne, do you want to go on the very - the heart of that question, which is should principals have more power to rid themselves of ineffective teachers?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Yeah. Well, just briefly, because I know a lot of people on the panel want to comment on this, the more principal autonomy in a school the better. The more opportunities that principals have to shape their teaching staff the better. There's some real life examples. In Cape York, which was a place of great educational disadvantage, the more autonomy that's been given to principals in schools in Cape York the much better the outcomes have been for students for the actual people who should be at the heart of our concerns in education, which is young people. In Western Australia, where they've introduced independent public schools, they've given principals and their bursars and deputy principals much more power to shape their curricular and extracurricular activity, their teaching staff and governing councils more power, they are getting better results. In my view, one of the primary objectives of any Federal Government and hopefully if we're lucky to become if I'm lucky to become the Education Minister, one of our primary objectives is going to be driving principal autonomy much further than even Labor has made in its baby steps.

NICOLA ROXON: I was going to say you've haven't - I was going to say you haven't supported steps we've taken, which I think has been surprising if it's a big passion for you.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: We've have. We've supported principal autonomy. No, we've always supported - we support principal autonomy and have so passionately.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right.

SIMON SHEIKH: Can I...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: And we will do so because you're right...

TONY JONES: Okay. Yes, you can.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: ...in every staff room there is a percentage, no matter how small, of teachers who are not necessarily pulling their weight and the survey I quoted last week showed that nine out of ten teachers said it didn't matter how hard they worked they didn't think they'd get any acknowledgement or recognition for it in school and seven out of ten teachers said that no matter how poorly other teachers worked there was no penalty for it.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Now, that is sapping confidence in the teaching profession.

TONY JONES: I'm going to have to hear from the rest of the panel. Simon and then Michael.

SIMON SHEIKH: That point about acknowledgement is important. I think we have also got to be concerned about how we retain our teachers because we have got to both keep people at the chalk face and we've got to keep people in the profession. In most States in this country, and I find this pretty alarming, you reach your maximum salary, unless you go into administration, just ten years in. You've got 30 years of teaching ahead of you. Thirty years of teaching and yet there you are reaching your maximum salary. So clearly there's an issue around pay that I think we need to get right to the heart of as well.

TONY JONES: Michael?

MICHAEL SPENCE: I wouldn't want people to think that education degrees are necessarily low ATAR degrees. Our bachelors degree in primary teaching, for example, has a minimum ATAR of 90 and that's because we have a very large cohort. But a lot of the cohort is actually with ATARs over 95. Teaching is still a profession that attracts the very able because people are passionate about seeing young people flourish. But Simon is right that the current career structure rewards good teachers by taking them out of the class room and gives local autonomy to people who aren't necessarily trained with the management skills to run schools and to think and with the HR support, for example, to run schools. So what we need to do is think about what it means to have appropriate principal training and support and to find rewarding career paths, including appropriate remuneration, for people who want to stay in the class room and keep teaching.

NICOLA ROXON: Keep teaching in the classroom.

TONY JONES: Well, appropriate remuneration brings us to the funding question. We have a question on funding. It's from Ricky Campbell-Allen.

GONSKI REVIEW

RICKY CAMPBELL-ALLEN: Australia's education system lags behind other OECD countries like Canada, where students from all backgrounds are given access to really high quality education. When will we focus in Australia on a new funding model that gives all kids a chance?

TONY JONES: Nicola Roxon, the new funding model you have sort of sitting around gathering dust is the Gonski report. It has a funding model attached to it.

NICOLA ROXON: Well, it's not sitting around gathering dust. This is actually something our Government commissioned, which is the first time in decades there's been a serious look at what it is that we need to do to fund education for each and every child across the country properly, let alone for our young adults and people who might want to go back to further education but to make sure that we can meet that need that is clearly there. It has made some pretty substantial recommendations and I must emphasise that they're recommendations for us as a Federal Government, they're recommendations for State and Territory governments as well, and they're recommendations that cover the public system, the Catholic and the independent system.

TONY JONES: Can I just interrupt? The lead story on the front page of the The Australian today claims the government plans to go ahead with key Gonski reforms and increase spending to schools by $6.5 billion. Can you confirm that?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: A year.

NICOLA ROXON: Well, you can't believe everything that you read in the papers. I think that on this occasion the newspaper might have got a little bit ahead of itself. The Government has got a little bit more work to do and this week at COAG it's one of the topics - an important topic for discussion along with the National Disability Insurance Scheme and others. So we do have to, in our federation, make sure that we've got some of those partnerships in place but our Government before the end of the year will be responding to that really important work.

TONY JONES: The Gonski report says the extra funding needed to provide a high standard of education in our schools is $5 billion extra per year. Do you have the money?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: In 2009 that was.

TONY JONES: Are you prepared to go that far because that is what your own report says is necessary?

NICOLA ROXON: Well, it is a lot of money but it is not just this audience here and the panel that think that education is important. We all know, as country, it's vital so we've got to make funding available for key priorities and you've seen us do that in other areas that we've identified.

TONY JONES: Can you make $5 billion a year available?

NICOLA ROXON: Well, we can't make $5 billion a year available by me just saying it tonight but if we work through it properly and respond as we will before the end of this year, about the funding...

TONY JONES: So but is that the actually aim? I mean, I know you can't click your fingers and bring up $5 billion tonight but in a couple of weeks time the Cabinet is going to be sitting and considering precisely this issue?

NICOLA ROXON: Well, last I checked this actually isn't the Cabinet table so I won't be making decisions for the Cabinet here on your show tonight, Tony. The point I'm making is we've actually done all the ground work to get the right principles, to get that advice. We have to do the work to find and carve out the money in the Budget to be able to do this in the future and we need to do it in a way where we can actually support it with enough teachers and enough staff so there's a phase in time that is going to be needed.

TONY JONES: There's quite a lot of hands up in the audience and we'll just come to this young lady down here but first I will get Christopher Pyne to respond to the funding issue. If you do end up in government, you will have possibly the Gonski funding model already in place. Will you continue funding at the high levels that Gonski has suggested?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Tony, there's, look, absolutely no possibility at all that the Government will implement the Gonski review at $6 and a half billion a year for four years, which is $26 billion of new money. No possibility.

TONY JONES: That wasn't even suggested by the report in the newspaper.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No. No. Sorry, it is.

TONY JONES: That was a suggest of $6.5 billion new funding

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Annually. Annually.

TONY JONES: It didn't say in the newspaper annually.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, it is annually because it's a quadrennium funding model. So it's four years at $26 billion of new money.

TONY JONES: The newspaper didn't nominate a time period. That's all I'm saying.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, well, I can tell you I've read the Gonski review. It recommends $5 billion a year in 2009 terms over 12 years in fact.

MICHAEL SPENCE: That's correct.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: So $26 billion minimum, $113 billion maximum. Planning education funding around that amount of money is like planning your household budget around wining Powerball. It is utterly unreasonable. It will not happen. So the expectation...

TONY JONES: Unless...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Nicola - Nicola...

TONY JONES: Are you saying that the Australian Government, one of the most - and the Australian economy, one of the most affluent in the world, could not afford to increase spending for education by $5 billion a year?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, every State has rejected it. Every Labor and Liberal State has rejected it. Tasmania, Western Australia, Queensland today, Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia have all rejected putting any of that kind of money into the Gonski review. So the Gonski review is a fine body of work, which has an enormous price tag, and Nicola has done a fine job at making clear that she hasn't committed to that amount of money tonight. The truth is with the Government trying to hang onto a wafer thin surplus of $1 and a half billion, this audience and the television audience should not be under any illusions...

NICOLA ROXON: But, Chris, you haven't...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: ...that amount of money is not available and the Coalition is not committing to it.

TONY JONES: Our questioner still has her hand up. I'll come back to her.

NICOLA ROXON: I was going to say but can I just ask a question?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: We're not committing to it because it's not possible.

NICOLA ROXON: Because, I mean, we get asked whether we're going to do it as Government and I reply as best I can. You get asked if you're going to do it and you way we're not going to.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, I tell the truth.

NICOLA ROXON: So the question is...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: The Coalition is not committed to $6 and a half billion a year under the Gonski review.

NICOLA ROXON: And will you...

TONY JONES: What about $5 billion a year?

NICOLA ROXON: And will you tell...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, we're not committed to it.

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

NICOLA ROXON: And will you tell the audience about your cuts?

SIMON SHEIKH: Well, actually the question for the Coalition is will they cut education because they've got...

NICOLA ROXON: I was going to say, what about the cuts that you've already announced?

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, we're not in government. I tell you what we will do...

MICHAEL SPENCE: The point is that we are a...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I'll tell you what we will do...

MICHAEL SPENCE: We are a wealthy country. We have mineral resources...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, you've got $6 and a half billion, Michael, do you?

NICOLA ROXON: (Indistinct).

MICHAEL SPENCE: We have mineral resources. We have agriculture. We have a fine tradition of education and a very bright population and it's in that third one that our future is.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Yeah. Yeah, but I just don't think...

MICHAEL SPENCE: So the question is, Christopher, are you going to invest...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No. No, we're not committed to $6 and a half billion dollars. I'm being clear. I'm being absolutely clear, no.

TONY JONES: But $6 and a half billion, let's be clear about one thing...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No.

TONY JONES: $6 and a half billion, the figure in The Australian with no time period attached to it. $5 billion is the...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, that's what it is, it's an annualised figure.

TONY JONES: $5 billion is the figure that you are talking about.

JANE CARO: But there's something else - there's something else...

SIMON SHEIKH: You know, Tony...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, we won't commit to $5 billion either.

JANE CARO: Can I just - can I just cut through that...

NICOLA ROXON: But Chris has already announced the cuts...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: We haven't got the money.

JANE CARO: Can I just cut through money for a second. We all know, everyone with half a brain knows Australia is not going to invest the money it should in its most disadvantaged children. Are you kidding us? Nobody in the public education sector actually expects anyone in politics to put the money that's needed into helping those kids in the poorest and most disadvantaged classrooms. I tell you what we would be grateful for: any bloody extra at all! You've no idea what difference a little bit of money would make. Honestly, $10,000 a year to most public bloody public schools in disadvantaged year areas would make a huge difference to them.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right.

JANE CARO: (Indistinct) Now, and the other thing...

TONY JONES: Okay. No. No. No. Not the other thing.

JANE CARO: But there's a formula that' important.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Jane for Prime Minister.

JANE CARO: It's the formula that's important, not just the money.

TONY JONES: Okay, let's go back to our questioner. She still has her hand up.

GONSKI REVIEW - FOLLOW UP QUESTION

RICKY CAMPBELL-ALLEN: So I think the discussion is the wrong one when it's about the price tag.

JANE CARO: Exactly.

RICKY CAMPBELL-ALLEN: Because, really, the figure that's out - you know the figure that - you can debate the figure but the figure that is out there represents 15% of school funding in 2009. So it is money that we could find if we put it as our top priority. The bigger question is how we spend that money and what it's spent on and that that actually reaps results.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Hear, hear!

RICKY CAMPBELL-ALLEN: So the underlying question that I have to the panel and particularly to Shadow Minister Pyne is at its heart Gonski was addressing educational disadvantage. How does your Government, if you do get into government, plan to address educational disadvantage, both through funding and also broader measures beyond teacher quality?

TONY JONES: Okay, Chris, if we can have a quick answer on this because we've got a few other issues.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: It's a big question and I've been told to be quick. I agree with you. I don't think it is about the money. I think education is not just about dollars. We spend tens of billions of dollars on education every year. 3.6% of GDP is spent on education. In the OECD average it's 3.8%. That is school education. So money is not the issue. The issue here is...

TONY JONES: Can I interrupt there? Are you saying you can actually do quality education cheaper than what this Government is doing it?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I'm not suggesting we're cutting education at all.

JANE CARO: We are third lost lowest (indistinct) in the OECD on public education. The third lowest.

NICOLA ROXON: You have. You've already announced cuts.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: What I'm saying - I was asked the question. What I'm saying is that the current education system is sclerotic. We are focusing on the wrong things. There's tremendous red tape and bureaucracies in our schools. Teachers are spending far too much of their time on so called transparency and accountability and I've heard more of it again today in the paper. Teachers want to teach. Principals want to be principals and run their schools. Governing councils and parents want to get involved but they're not encouraged to do so. So we have to change the culture of our schools. Where we've seen things like principal autonomy working, quality teaching working, robust curriculum working, we should be doing that across the board, not focusing on the dollars all the time.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right. Okay. All right.

MICHAEL SPENCE: (Indistinct) Why are they alternatives?

TONY JONES: Let the rest of the panel refer to this. Go ahead, Michael, briefly.

MICHAEL SPENCE: Why are these things alternatives? Yes, teacher quality is important. Yes, more funding is important.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, have you got $6 and a half billion?

MICHAEL SPENCE: No, but you do.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, we don't. No, we don't. No, we don't.

MICHAEL SPENCE: Yes, you do. Yes, you do.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, we don't.

TONY JONES: Can you just...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Nicola doesn't have $6 and a half billion.

TONY JONES: Okay, can you just - can you just let him complete his answer?

NICOLA ROXON: If you let some of the others comment we'd probably (indistinct).

TONY JONES: Sorry, he listened to your answer, which was longish.

NICOLA ROXON: Yeah.

MICHAEL SPENCE: Over a long period of time investment in education is this country's future and needs to be ramped up.

NICOLA ROXON: Absolutely.

MICHAEL SPENCE: All of the rest of the things you've talked about also need work but, for example, universities - I will raise university funding. We get 37% at the university from the government. That is less than we got before the Second World War. It's one of the lowest amounts of time...

NICOLA ROXON: It's a lot more dollars, the percentage that you get (indistinct).

MICHAEL SPENCE: But it's one of the lowest percentages that we have had in our history and it's less than you give to private schools.

JANE CARO: Yes.

MICHAEL SPENCE: Australia does not spend the amount on education that its future demands, that its wealth entitles it to or that is globally competitive.

TONY JONES: Okay, I'm going to interrupt because we've got another question that we have from David Elsing? Where is David? There he is.

NATIONAL CURRICULUM

DAVID ELSING: Thank you, Tony. Mr Pyne, what would the Liberal Party do with the national curriculum if they came to power? Given that according to most Conservative commentators it is a tool of Marxist social construction, written by an ex communist member, that leaves out content on Australia's western and Anglo-Celtic tradition especially in relation to civics, history and the Judo Christian ethic.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, I agree with most of that criticism of the current national curriculum offerings. I mean it is getting better.

TONY JONES: What, you agree it's a Marxist social construction?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, I think it's is...

SIMON SHEIKH: Far out!

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, I think it has a - no, no. I mean - I know I'm on a pretty left-wing panel.

NICOLA ROXON: Can I just declare we officially disagree now, Chris?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I'm on a pretty left-wing panel but...

SIMON SHEIKH: You mean you're not a Marxist?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Let me agree with - let me be specific. I think the national history curriculum fundamentally misses the point of teaching our young people why Australia is as it is today, which is because of our history of Western civilisation and our Judeo Christian ethic, yes. I know that's not a fashionable thing to say on the Q&A audience but it is true and I do think the national history curriculum was certainly written by an ex communist and I think the first offering was very left-wing, I wouldn't describe it as Marxist but I think, yes, it doesn't necessarily reflect the kind of country we are. There isn't really a national curriculum by the way. Most states have not signed up to the national curriculum. Julia Gillard said, "We've done it." It was one of the big ticks she gave herself at the last election. New South Wales has no intention of signing up to the national curriculum. My view is the national curriculum should have aimed at being a national consistency. School age time should have been similar. School holidays should have been similar. Basically, broadly, what students did each year should have been similar. In some states, like mine, the national curriculum will be an improvement. I'm not sure that will be case in Victoria and New South Wales.

TONY JONES: Okay. All right.

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

TONY JONES: I've got to hear from Nicola Roxon on this first.

NICOLA ROXON: I mean I just think that you've had an extraordinary amount of time today to be able to talk about your topic and portfolio.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Sure. They questions seem to be to me.

NICOLA ROXON: No. No. No. That's fine. The criticism I make is most of what you've said is actually mostly a diversion on the core issues facing education. All of the questions do come down to a range of funding issues, some key issues that we've been investing in about the quality of teaching, making sure we do get everything from childcare through to university funding and TAFE and schools in between right and you haven't put forward any of the things that you would actually do. Now I know the questions, fair enough, them not coming to me. I'm not the Education Minister. But we've actually really been able to make some key differences in this area that we're proud of. I reckon if you want to be the Education Minister you've got to actually be able to tell us and the audiences or the audience how you would actually make it better and make a difference because I don't accept - I am not promising today that we can instantly produce the $6.5 billion but actually we've done a pretty damn good job of finding money to prioritise things like the national disability insurance scheme when everyone said you're not going to be able to do it. It costs too much money and we are starting to roll that out. So people are saying the same thing. You're not going to be able to find the money.

TONY JONES: That's because it's already cost you a lot of money (indistinct)

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

NICOLA ROXON: Of course, but I mean the point - but the point...

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

NICOLA ROXON: The point I'm making is you can make priority choices. There will be difficult work that we still have to do, which is why I'm not making an announcement here tonight, about how you fund and how you phase in but actually government is all about priorities and education has always been one of our government's priorities.

MICHAEL SPENCE: David Gonski is not a Marxist.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: But, Nicola...

JANE CARO: No, not at all.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: He didn't write the history curriculum. The question was about Stuart Macintyre.

TONY JONES: All right. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: The question was about Stuart Macintyre, not about David Gonski.

TONY JONES: There are so many questions and they relate to other issues. We received quite a few questions, for example, about the contentious new changed plan at Sydney University. Here is two of them. The first from Ben Eldridge.

VALUE FOR UNI FEES

BEN ELDRIDGE: Thanks, Tony. Hi, Michael. My question is, as a student at your university, particularly over the last semester, I have watched my class sizes grow massively. I've had limited access to facilities, such as the library, due to the renovation and all that kind of stuff and I've had any lectures and effectively my learning experience disrupted by student and staff protests. Why should I pay more money for university?

TONY JONES: And before you answer that, we've got a second question on this subject and it's from Tom Raue, the Vice President of the Sydney University's Student Council.

SYDNEY UNIVERSITY CUT-BACKS

TOM RAUE: Yeah, Michael Spence, you recently attempted to ditch hundreds of staff at your University in order to improve efficiency. Do you see universities as places of higher learning and free thought or simply as businesses like any other where the bottom line is king?

MICHAEL SPENCE: Yeah, I mean, I think both of them are important questions. Let me take the second one first, Tom. The difference between a university and a business is we have no shareholders. We're not trying to make a profit for the purpose of paying shareholders what you call the bottom line. What we're doing is making decisions about priorities that we have in spending the limited resources of the university. One of the things that's been clear over a long period of time is that our university, like all others in Australia, has significant infrastructure problems; $385 million in backlog repairs and maintenance. Part of what we're doing is cutting our cloth and that raises a different issue that the first questioner raised that is also really important. One of the things about the funding model is that class sizes are inevitably going to be different in different bits of the university, partly because some subjects are significantly underfunded and there's been pressure - and this is the point that the base funding review made - there's been pressure on class sizes in particular areas as universities have tried to cross subsidise disciplines like medicine that loses $30,000 a student or like vet science or like dentistry, that are subjects that our community really needs for supply or professionals. What we're trying to do at the university at the moment is balance out some of those inequalities between disciplines but I admit that at the moment in our university, like in all in Australia, there are real things to work on. I hope the library improvements are worth it.

TONY JONES: Is it clear yet exactly how many staff you plan to let go because it was in the hundreds initially and seems to have gone down? Is it still in the hundreds?

MICHAEL SPENCE: Was it the hundreds, Tony? Where did you read that? Did you read that in the same newspaper...

NICOLA ROXON: Not that same paper?

MICHAEL SPENCE: That's right. It's 60. It's 60 out of 3,100 academic staff. It's a big deal. It's 60 people's jobs. It affects teaching in some particular subjects but the process was a process that took into account its impact on teaching and in particular on whether or not there'd be any impact on class sizes.

TONY JONES: Well, we'll come back to Tom Raue, our questioner, in a minute. Simon Sheikh?

SIMON SHEIKH: The fundamental challenge we face here is that we're corporatising our universities. Now, when you have a look at a university, if you're an administrator like Michael is, he has to look at that and say, well, where's my largest costs. The largest costs for almost every university in this country is still the staff base, so there may look. You know, let's get rid of the casual teachers teacher, let's get rid of the markers. Problem is you then have your best and brightest academics spending less and less time doing what we want them to do and that's research and teach not get stuck in these administrative questions. Now, there are some moments in life, some moments in public policy, where if you spend just a little bit more you get the gold plate version. You spend just a little bit more and you unlock the value of what you have already spent. So my view on this is that while I'm not sure about some of the changes Michael is making my view is that it really shouldn't be just up to him. We should be funding our education system more broadly, more adequately, so that we can unlock those returns on investments in the Asian century, a century where our skills an skills based economy is going to be absolutely crucial.

NICOLA ROXON: But we have got some...

TONY JONES: I'm just going to go back to our questioner, Tom Raue down there. I just want to get your response to what your vice chancellor has said.

TOM RAUE: Well, yes, I agree that the university is quite different to a business in that we don't have shareholders, which is why I'm so perplexed that it is being treated, as Simon said, as though it is a corporation, as though it needs to be dealt with by this neoliberal logic.

MICHAEL SPENCE: But, Tom, if being treated like a corporation means that you look after the money so that we don't go broke, then we're like a corporation. But what we're in fact doing is balancing really difficult decisions about what you do about ageing building stock, what you do about increasing class sizes, what you do about all these pressures on the system and in the meantime we deliver an education that is, by all the metrics and by all the standards, world class.

NICOLA ROXON: We've got a couple of...

TONY JONES: Sorry, go ahead just briefly.

NICOLA ROXON: I was just going to say we've got a couple of really good, I think, news stories in the university sector, despite some of these pressures. We've got more students than ever before and we have one little gem that I think it's really important, because we're very proud of it and it's made a different to a lot of people's lives, is we actually have an increasing number now of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds getting into university. Like a 24 or 5% increase since we came to government. Like, in five years that's a quick turnaround and our investments are actually making it possible for people that never could have gone to university before to get a good education. So whilst we've got to balance some of these things and there are pressures in universities, that's actually something really good that Australia is doing.

JANE CARO: Isn't it sad, though, with a kick arse economy of the western world and all we're talking about in anything to do with education is how we can save money.

SIMON SHEIKH: What about after the mining boom?

JANE CARO: We're out of our minds. We're out of our minds.

TONY JONES: Let's move on along. We haven't got much time left. Our next question is on a completely different subject. It's from Louise Stephan.

DRUNKEN BEHAVIOUR

LOUSIE STEPHAN: Thanks, Tony. My question is to the whole of the panel. What can we do as a society to reduce the acceptance of drunken behaviour in public as people just having a good time or just celebrating in the Aussie way? Does this not need a strong focus by government as it has done with smoking?

TONY JONES: Nicola Roxon, we'll start with you. Brief answers here, if we can.

NICOLA ROXON: Yeah. Look, yes, I think it needs leadership by government and that's why we've been involved in things like running the campaign 'Don't turn a night out into a nightmare.' Of course our alcopops tax that was a particular problem for young people and antisocial behaviour but I think it actually has to be more than governments. If it's only government it fails because you get - you know, there's the government lecturing us. We've got to do our bit in the regulatory space but you also need society to be prepared to tackle it and that's happened over a long time with tobacco that, you know, has no redeeming features.

TONY JONES: Is it even imaginable that one day a government in Australia will treat alcohol as a dangerous substance in the same way that it treats tobacco?

NICOLA ROXON: I don't think it's unimaginable. I think it's quite a long way away. I think there's a hierarchy of risk. We know there is no safe amount of smoking. Increasingly we know that there's very low limits of safe drinking particularly if you're young, obviously none in you're pregnant and I think we're learning more and I think in the future we may find growing links as our researchers are starting to with cancer and other things. At the moment the bigger problem is the anti social behaviour and it's what could really help communities say we've got to take some responsibility for this, whether it's university students, high school students or others.

TONY JONES: Well, actually, let's go to the university. Michael Spence, obviously you have had your own very serious issues on campus.

MICHAEL SPENCE: We have.

TONY JONES: Thirty students suspended from St John's College earlier this year because of alcohol fuelled riotous behaviour, let's put it that way.

MICHAEL SPENCE: And I agree with Nicola. It's not about lecturing people. It is actually about changing public perception. In relation to the smoking issue, it was actually people like Simon Chapman in our public health department and 'Bugger Up', you know the billboard advertising utilising graffitists against unhealthy promotions that, when I was in my 20s, turned it from being cool to not cool to smoke and it was a decided moment in the social history of Australia that was led, not by governments but by the people that you said at the beginning, Tony, had all those influence in the movies. It was the bad guys changing their mind and I think the interesting question is how do we as educators and how do public health professionals mobilise the public response that there is at the moment to saying actually some of this is just not acceptable?

TONY JONES: Have you considered campus drinking bans?

MICHAEL SPENCE: We do have not the campus drinking bans. We do have...

TONY JONES: Have you considered them is what I...

MICHAEL SPENCE: No, we have not considered them because they haven't worked in the places where - prohibition wasn't a huge historical success, Tony, if you'd like to know.

TONY JONES: Simon Sheikh?

SIMON SHEIKH: Well, you know, I mean not to point out the obvious but I guess I'd be the youngest person on the panel and when I still head out for a drink or two...

NICOLA ROXON: You're the only one that's fainted on the panel!

SIMON SHEIKH: Thanks for bringing that up again. Not as a result of a drink.

NICOLA ROXON: No, of course.

SIMON SHEIKH: I'm still alarmed at what I see is an extraordinary over-consumption of alcohol. I'm worried when I see bartenders clearly serving people who they shouldn't but I also see solutions working in Newcastle. For example earlier lockouts, earlier closing times, transport options. That's exactly what we've got to do here in Sydney, where we've got a problem in Kings Cross, but some of these things we can do quickly. The broader challenge is, I think, how, as parents, we introduce our alcohol. Too many parents, I think in Australia, are still drinking too much around their children and I think we should take a good, hard look at ourselves.

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

TONY JONES: We're almost out of time. We've got one question on a completely different subject, I think it's fair to say, to close the program. It comes from Alice Neal.

THE "V" WORD

ALYCE NEAL: It's Alyce, but yes. Why should vagina not be openly stated in a TV ad? It is not a swear word in any way, unlike some of the worst words in the English language that refer to female genitalia. If penis was used in a similar context, does the panel think that it would have attracted the same amount of hysteria? If so, why?

TONY JONES: Nicola Roxon?

NICOLA ROXON: I think it's a good ad, you know. It's naming things as they are. You know, instead of those ads I can remember when I was growing up where the woman was horse riding and swimming in her white swimsuit and going skiing. You think what was that ad? You have young boys saying, oh, I want to do that. That looks fun. No, actually that was an ad about tampons. But would you have known? So good on them for being prepared to call it what it is.

TONY JONES: But what is it about the word vagina that people find offensive?

NICOLA ROXON: I don't know. I do admit, because I have a seven year old, that front bottom is slightly more popular in our house. But I think calling body parts by their correct name is good for children, not at a ridiculously young age but at an appropriate time they've got to know what their body is called and not be embarrassed by it.

TONY JONES: Jane Caro?

JANE CARO: Oh, for goodness sake, let's call a vagina a vagina. Look, 52% of the population carry one around with them all the time! And all those children we're so worried about protecting in case they hear the name of this particular body part are actually getting a really silly message and I'm sorry, Nicola, but I think front bottom sends that kind of message that it's, oh, it's dangerous! It's explosive or it's disgusting. You know, it isn't. It's a part of the human body and it's the most extraordinary part of the human body. It's where all of us appeared from and without one we'd have an awful lot of trouble being here. So let's celebrate our vaginas. Girls, let's go out there and declare vagina from the roof tops.

TONY JONES: Christopher Pyne.

SIMON SHEIKH: Hard to top that one, Christopher.

TONY JONES: It's a unique opportunity for a vagina monologue.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, it was definitely a vagina monologue. Look, I have four small children and, you know, I have two boys and two girls so vaginas and penises are a big part of our household so I'm completely relaxed. I haven't seen the ad. I think it's perfectly fine. No worries.

TONY JONES: Michael Spence?

MICHAEL SPENCE: I understood the issue was that it wasn't blue liquid? Is that right? That it was slightly more graphic than that.

JANE CARO: A red liquid (indistinct).

MICHAEL SPENCE: I suppose what I'd say is there is some things that are a part of your body that do happen all the time, are all the - but you don't necessarily want on your telly as you're eating your supper in the evening.

JANE CARO: Vagina?

TONY JONES: It's just a word.

MICHAEL SPENCE: The word is not a problem. The word is not a problem but the broader ad was pretty graphic.

SIMON SHEIKH: You know, Tony, the good news here is that...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I haven't seen the ad.

JANE CARO: It isn't.

SIMON SHEIKH: The good news here is that prudes are always on the wrong side of history. As we develop - as we develop we get more and more used to...

MICHAEL SPENCE: Are you calling me a prude, Simon?

SIMON SHEIKH: No. No. I am not calling you on the wrong side of history.

MICHAEL SPENCE: I am the vice chancellor of a very liberal university, thank you very much.

SIMON SHEIKH: No. No. You are. It's a great university but...

MICHAEL SPENCE: It is a great university.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Far too liberal, in fact.

SIMON SHEIKH: But the things we've got to - far too liberal, wow!

MICHAEL SPENCE: Too many Marxists.

SIMON SHEIKH: The thing we've got to do is...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: There'd be a few Marxists hiding in your university, Michael, I'm sure of that.

JANE CARO: If you're not a Marxist at university, there's no hope for you.

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS TALK AT ONCE

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: We'll find them.

TONY JONES: Sorry, is that some sort of promise?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, I never make a promise I can't keep.

TONY JONES: It's an empty threat.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: It's a joke, Tony. Seriously.

TONY JONES: Final word to Simon. He's just got to complete his answer.

SIMON SHEIKH: Just that the more we use the word the more we'll get over it and that's exactly what we've got to do and that's exactly what we've done tonight. I think this is a record for the ABC so thank God for that.

TONY JONES: It's definitely a record for you for staying on your feet for the whole show. All right. That's all we have time for. Please thank our panel: Michael Spence, Nicola Roxon, Simon Sheikh, Jane Caro and Christopher Pyne.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: What a way to finish.

TONY JONES: And our best wishes for a speedy recovery, of course, to Julie Collins. Now, next week, with the nation focussed on the Olympics Q&A will turn to sport with Australian swimming legend and triple Olympic gold medal winner Shane Gould; multi-gold medal wheelchair racer Louise Sauvage; soon to be captain of the Australian Rugby Team, the Wallabies, David Pocock; tennis champion turned member for Bennelong John Alexander; and the sports loving Minister for Workplace Relations Bill Shorten. Until next week's Q&A, goodnight.