Andrew Leigh

Back in October 2011, I launched the ‘Mapping the Northside’ project to develop a people’s map of my electorate.

Belconnen Arts Centre displayed a 3m x 2m map on their wall, where people could come in and locate their favourite places in Canberra’s north – the federal electorate of Fraser that I have the privilege to represent. Belconnen Arts Centre also facilitated information sessions at Gorman House Arts Centre, Gungahlin Library, and at their own location in Emu Bank, Belconnen. Local professional artist Maryann Mussared was on hand to help with the creative process.

Popular locations included local universities, mountains, popular walking spots and community facilities such as John Knight Park in Belconnen and Gungahlin Skate Park.  We turned this into a Google Map of people’s favourite places.

I’ve now joined forces with design students from the University of Canberra to put some of those key places into an infographics map. The range of options and different ways of showing key northside places was incredible and I was impressed by the students’ creativity.

You can have a look at the different ideas the students came up with at the links below. My favourite was Michelle’s, and this will appear in my next community newsletter.

What do you think?

• Daniel


• Dilshan


• Riley


• Jessica


• Mollie


• Kate


• Amy


• Michelle


• Jessica (Coffee Map of Canberra – scroll down)


• Kierah

Many thanks go to Ben Ennis Butler, the University of Canberra, Belconnen Arts Centre, Gungahlin Library and the Gorman House Arts Centre for their support on this exciting project.

I'm speaking at Per Capita in Melbourne next Wednesday, on the topic of liberalism and the ALP. Details here, and below.

Reform Agenda Series: The Future of the Left in Australia: Embracing social liberalism?, with Andrew Leigh MP, 5 December 2012
Please join us in Melbourne for this Reform Agenda Series event featuring guest speaker Andrew Leigh MP, Member for Fraser.

Prior to entering Parliament, Andrew was a Professor of Economics at the Australian National University. Has has a PhD in Public Policy from Harvard, and has written extensively on economics and social policy. At this forum, he will be discussing why the ALP should embrace the legacy of liberalism - egalitarianism, minority rights and open markets; with a response by Dennis Glover, Per Capita Fellow, speechwriter and political columnist. This will be followed by an open Q & A session.

Venue: Corrs Chambers Westgarth - Level 36, 600 Bourke Street, Melbourne
Date: Wednesday 5 December 2012
Time: Light refreshment served from 10.30am. Forum 11.00am - 12.00pm
Cost: This is a free event

To RSVP for this event, please email Allison Orr on a.orr<AT>percapita.org.au or call 02 9310 5000.

I spoke in parliament yesterday about social entrepreneurship in Canberra, discussing a breakfast meeting with social entrepreneurs and the Ben Donohue Walk and Run for Fun.

Social Entrepreneurs, 27 November 2012



On 16 October this year I held a breakfast meeting with a small but passionate group of local social entrepreneurs: Bradley Carron-Arthur, Courtney Slone, Katrina Marson, Melanie Poole, Tony Shields and Ben Moody. The aim of the breakfast was to bring together these social entrepreneurs to share their stories, experiences and their ideas for solving some of the challenges they face. I hope in the future they can act as a brains trust for one another and for other budding social entrepreneurs. Their projects range from coordinating volunteers and boosting mental health awareness to improving Australia's international development efforts. I would like to thank them for their ideas and their efforts to assist those in need and for helping to build social capital. Social entrepreneurs are people who take an idea and with passion and persistence bring to fruition enterprises that assist those in need.

Last year Forbes magazine celebrated the work of social entrepreneurs by having the first top 30 social entrepreneurs list. Helen Costar of Forbes magazine wrote that social entrepreneurs 'unlike millions of us who recognise some kind of a problem, feel a pang of hopelessness and move on' set about fixing the problems they see in the world.

One great example of social entrepreneurship in my electorate is the Ben Donohue Run and Walk for Fun. Now in its eighth year, the Ben Donohue Run and Walk for Fun is one of the largest fun runs in the region. On 4 November 'team Leigh' joined a record 2,400 people for the six kilometre circuit around Lake Ginninderra. This year we were pleased to help the run and walk raise over $55,000.

Since its inception, the Ben Donohue Run and Walk for Fun has donated over $350,000 to its nominated charities: the Council Support Council, Ronald McDonald House Canberra and Make a Wish Australia. It has greatly helped families affected by cancer through the most difficult time and brought hope and joy to the lives of seriously ill children. I pay tribute to Ben's extraordinary parents Peter and Robin Donohue who organised the first event just months after Ben's passing. They really are social entrepreneurs that exemplify what can be achieved by those who set about fixing the problems they see.

Finally, I recognise the members of team Leigh who joined me on the Ben Donohue fun run: Kate Reid, Liesel Hickman, Shane Drumgold, Nathan Lambert, Gus Little, Emily Murray, Michael and Paul Hiscox, Alice Wade, Michael Petterson, Kurt Steel, Alice Crawford, Ethan Moody, Shobaz Kandola, David Mathews, Victor Violante, Megan Ponder, Brenton Sloane and the indefatigable Claire Daly from my office, who recruited and organised this year's splendid team.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/_xbwC1RiqRY

I spoke in parliament twice yesterday about asylum seekers, and the importance of reducing drownings at sea and treating refugees with dignity.

Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures), 27 November 2012

The issue of migration and of refugees is one that is particularly close to my heart. I spoke in my first speech in this place about my mother's parents, a boilermaker and a teacher, who lived by the credo that if there was a spare room in the house it ought to be used by someone who needed the space. I remember as a little kid, eating at my grandparents' place and spending time speaking to migrants, some of them refugees—from Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Cambodia and Sri Lanka.

I also told a story that still brings a lump to my throat about an art competition run as part of Refugee Week, where the first prize went to a Karen Burmese woman who had woven a traditional crimson tunic. She was missing her homeland so much that she had made a loom by taking the mattress of the wooden bed base and using the slats as a loom to weave a traditional Karen tunic. That story for me sums up the extraordinary courage and ability of Australia's refugees. It is why you will never hear me referring to refugees as 'illegals'. It is why you will never hear me using phrases like 'boatpeople'.

It was of course Australia's own Doc Evatt who was a key drafter of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which says in Article 14(1): 'Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.' And that is why there is nothing illegal about seeking asylum from persecution.

But what we have to do in this place is to find a set of policies that will end the sheer horror of drownings at sea. There have been over 1,000 drownings of asylum-seekers at sea over recent years. What that has meant is that, on the best estimates I have seen, about four per cent of those who have tried to get to Australia by boat have drowned doing so. It is a death rate which must give pause to anyone who simply says, 'Let everyone come.' There is nothing humane about a policy that says if you can take a leaky boat and make it to the shores of Australia you get to stay here as a refugee. To me that is a fundamentally inhumane policy.

We have got into this situation, in part, because of changes in technology. If you go back 20 years, you needed a somewhat more experienced sailor in charge of a fishing vessel to have a chance of making it from Indonesia to Christmas Island. The GPS has changed that. With a GPS device you can actually put a 15-year-old kid in charge of a fishing boat and he has a reasonable chance of making it to Christmas Island. It has meant that more people have attempted the dangerous journey and it has meant we have seen more drownings at sea. That in turn has meant, as the member for Chifley said, that we need to rethink our policies. Like him, I see no shame in that. The greatest shame is to pursue a set of policies that are ineffective; you need to adopt policies that will stop drownings at sea. It is the old Keynes line: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?'

It is those stories of drownings which have seared themselves into my consciousness. The late, great Senator Peter Cook chaired the SIEV X inquiry, an inquiry that was looking into an incident where at least 70 children drowned; at least 200 adults lost their lives. The member for Chifley, although he did not mention it in his speech, was one of those who were on the parliamentary inquiry that investigated the Christmas Island disaster, a disaster after which 30 bodies were recovered, including four juveniles and four infants. Another 20 were missing, presumed dead. There have been others. Some of the worst of those were where vessels were simply lost at sea, where everyone on those vessels perished.

Like the member for Chifley, I believe that the most effective way of reducing the flow of unseaworthy vessels, and the risk to those aboard them, was the Malaysia agreement. The Malaysia agreement was one which, as the Houston panel noted, was ‘vitally important’. I still support that agreement. I still hope for the day that those in the opposition will support an arrangement that would provide the clearest possible message to those considering getting onto leaky boats: don't do it, because you will be returned to one of the largest asylum-seeker camps in our region.

The 'no-advantage principle', the rock on which the Houston report is grounded, is a clear principle but it is more difficult to implement through measures available to us through the use of Nauru and Manus islands and bridging visas in Australia. Far more effective would be an agreement with Malaysia.

One of the chief arguments raised against returning refugees to Malaysia is that Malaysia is not a signatory to the refugee convention. That is an issue raised by those opposite. It is also an issue that is frequently raised with me by local Labor Party branch members. I had to smile when the member for Cowan suggested that somehow my speaking in this debate was a way of securing my preselection, because I can promise you there is deep disquiet among many of my branch members on this issue. The argument I would make to them and that I would make today to the House is that we must see the refugee convention in its historical light. We must recognise the way in which that document was drafted and we have to recognise that some of the aspects of the refugee convention are difficult. Indeed, the member for Cook himself said that the refugee convention 'no longer reflects the practical reality'. It is a document which was drafted to deal with the flow of refugees in the aftermath of World War II.

The result is that we now have three groups of countries in the world when it comes to the refugee convention. We have developed countries with the ability to patrol their borders who are happy to sign the refugee convention. We have developing nations which receive few asylum seekers—for instance, Somalia or Iran—and are willing to sign. But there is a third set of countries—such as India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia—who are reluctant to sign. These are countries situated close to refugee sending nations who recognise that, were they to sign up to the refugee convention, they would be obligated to take, house and resettle all of the refugees with genuine claims who came over their borders. That is simply impractical for some of these countries to do. Pakistan, as of the end of last year, had 1.7 million refugees. For these developing countries the cost of processing asylum seeker claims, let alone the cost of meeting education, health and housing obligations, would be prohibitive. The cost is what prevents them from signing the refugee convention.

You do not have to take my word for it. In April 2007 the Malaysian foreign ministry's parliamentary secretary told the news outlet Malaysiakini that it would not officially recognise refugees since 'the government is of the opinion that if Malaysia becomes party to the convention, considering its strategic geographical location in the region, it would be a drawing factor for refugees to come to Malaysia'. It is for that set of reasons that the Malaysian government has not signed the refugee convention. Malaysia is a party to many international agreements. The reputation of the Malaysian government has been done a deep disservice by those on the other side of the House in the context of the asylum seeker debate.

It strikes me that there is little consistency in the coalition's opposition to the Malaysia agreement based on Malaysia not having signed the refugee convention. The Howard government used Nauru to process asylum seekers at a time when Nauru was not a signatory to the refugee convention. The opposition would have boats turned back to Indonesia, a country which has not signed the refugee convention. I think what is demanded of all of us in this debate is a practical approach which recognises the reality of asylum seeker flows. GPS technology means younger and younger skippers are crewing boats. We need to work with non-signatory countries. Rather than being bound to a policy which has more people drowning at, we need to recognise the geopolitical realities as to why the Malaysian government does not sign the refugee convention.

The government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Houston report. Those recommendations include working through a managed regional system. That approach is grounded in the Bali process, of which Australia is a core part and recognises that, around the world, there are around 42 million internally displaced people and asylum seekers—nearly twice the population of Australia. It is never going to be possible for Australia to resettle all of those who would like to seek asylum in Australia. Our best contribution will come in working regionally and finding approaches which have a reasonable sharing of the burden across countries which are willing to settle refugees. That is a classic role Australia has played—a middle power diplomacy working cooperatively with countries in our region. I commend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister for their work in the East Asia Summit and their constant advocacy of good policy in the region and cooperative policy with those around us.

When I last spoke in this debate I said that I hoped the refugee intake would one day be increased to 20,000. I am now pleased to be able to welcome that increase to 20,000 places which has occurred through the Houston report. I believe that Australia can, and should be able to, settle more refugees. I am very proud of the organisations in my own electorate of Fraser who do such good work with refugees. They are committed to rolling out the welcome mat to people who have been assessed as genuine refugees and helping them become a strong part of the Canberra community.

In closing, I would also like to acknowledge Sarah Staege, a temporary migrant to Australia, who is in the gallery today with three of her colleagues. This indicates the benefits of migration to Australia.

Matter of Public Importance - Asylum Seekers, 27 November 2012

On 18 October 2001 an Indonesian fishing boat left the port of Bandar Lampung. There were 421 people on board, including at least 70 children. The boat was 20 metres long and four metres wide, so people were tightly packed on board. The next day, about 70 kilometres south of Indonesia, the boat encountered heavy seas, took on water, listed violently to one side, capsized and sank within an hour. There were life jackets on board, but none of them worked. As a Senate committee chaired by the late, great, Senator Peter Cook concluded, there were at least 70 children aboard when SIEV X sank. Only three survived. Two hundred adults also lost their lives. This was the precursor to many more deaths at sea over the next decade.

We are where we are today because Australia, as an island continent, is a dangerous place to journey to. We are where we are today because the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is a document largely drafted in the aftermath of World War II to deal with what weree by today's standards relatively moderate asylum seeker flows across land. We are where we are today because Australia faces a unique challenge. Four per cent of those who take boats to get to Australia perish on the seas attempting to do so, so our policies need to be targeted at stopping those deaths at sea.

There are those in both houses who have served on the SIEV X inquiry, and there are other parliamentarians who have served on the Christmas Island inquiry. We have just heard the Minister for Justice speaking movingly about some of the more recent tragedies that have occurred. I believe that in this debate there is no compassion in a policy which says that, if you can take a leaky boat to Australia and make it, then you can stay. I do not think that that policy is a compassionate one. I do not think that that policy is one which aligns with the value of the Labor Party, a party that I am privileged to represent in this place.

What we have done through putting the Malaysian agreement before this parliament—an agreement rejected by an alliance of those to the left and to the right of us—has been to try and ensure that we do not create incentives for people to make the dangerous boat journey here. That Malaysian agreement was struck down by the High Court and legislation to enable it was unable to pass through this parliament. We then found ourselves in a position where a productive exchange of letters over the Christmas break last year between the opposition immigration spokesperson and the government immigration spokesperson was stymied when the Leader of the Opposition became involved. It became almost absurd. The member for Cook was asked at one point: 'If the government were to adopt all of your policies, would you support them?' and he could not even say yes to that. So, as an attempted circuit breaker, this government asked three distinguished Australians—Angus Houston, Michael L'Estrange and Paris Aristotle—to come up with a report which would look at how we could prevent those tragic drownings at sea. When the Houston report came down, the government immediately announced we would follow its recommendations. All we have unfortunately seen from those opposite is an attempt to try to play politics with one of the most difficult issues in Australian public life.

There are three facts that I do not think have received significant discussion in public commentary on this issue. First, the humanitarian intake in Australia has been increased by 45 per cent to 20,000 places. I called for that in a speech at the end of last year and was extremely pleased when it was adopted. That is 45 per cent more people who are able to enjoy the high-quality humanitarian settlement process in Australia. Subject to economic circumstances, that will be increased to 27,000 places in the next five years. That cements Australia's position as the leading resettlement country globally on a per capita basis, according to United Nations data.

Secondly, Australia has been a world leader in how we provide those settlement services. I am enormously proud of the charities—some of them religious, some of them not—in my electorate of Fraser who work hard with newly arrived refugees. In some cases this will be a young Afghan boy who has lost his parents or whose parents have not joined him here and who is struggling to learn English and fit into the local community.

Canberrans have accepted refugees from Sudan, and many of them are making a great contribution to our city. In fact, I was pleased to start the day playing a game of basketball outside Parliament House with the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the member for Chifley, Senator Lundy and a range of parliamentary staff. We were playing against the Big Bang Ballers—a phrase not best said 10 times quickly—a group run by Pierre Johannessen in Canberra. Pierre works with at-risk youth playing Saturday night basketball. Many of the youth who join in are migrant youth or refugee youth. The Sudanese blokes on the other team certainly ran rings around me. But it is testament to the Canberra community that we are able to work on that resettlement so well.

Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, told 7.30 on 13 February this year:

'Australia has received 750,000 refugees until now. Australia's one of the most successful, if not the most successful resettlement program in the world with a large number of people being successfully integrated in the Australian society.'

We provide English language support, case management, torture and trauma counselling, funding for migrant resource centres, and cultural orientation programs.

The third thing that you do not hear often in this debate is that the average length of time spent by asylum seekers in detention facilities has decreased. It decreased from 277 days in November 2011 to 93 days in June 2012. The government is reducing the amount of time that people spend in detention.

In re-opening the Nauru and Manus Island facilities, we are also providing external scrutiny, something that never existed when the Howard government was in power. Amnesty International has recently brought down a critical report on the Nauru detention centre. The government does not agree with all of the findings in that report. But it is important to note that that report would not have been possible under the Howard government. Next week I understand the member for Cook is travelling to Nauru—again, something that would not have been possible under the Howard government.

That internal scrutiny is important to me as somebody who believes that it is important to deter people from making a dangerous boat journey, but we must also treat those who make that journey with dignity and compassion. You will not hear me, as the member for Cook and the member for Stirling said, describing as illegals those who come as asylum seekers. It is not illegal to seek refuge in another country. You also will not hear me attempting to have it both ways on the refugee convention.

In speaking on the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 shortly before question time, I discussed some of the circumstances that determine why a country signs or does not sign the refugee convention. I find it passing strange that the opposition is willing to turn boats back to Indonesia, a dangerous attempt which could endanger not only the lives of asylum seekers but also naval personnel, and also something which is odd given that Indonesia is a non-signatory country. We believe that it is important to recognise that circumstances have changed since the refugee convention was signed and to find an approach that is humane and compassionate.

I spoke in parliament yesterday about the government's reforms to address problem gambling.

National Gambling Reform, 27 November 2012


May I start with a story from an email sent to me by one of my constituents, Gary Hatcliffe. He wrote to me as follows:

'My name is Gary Hatcliffe. The pokies have taken away the past 25 years of living for me. Some would say I had a choice; unfortunately, the addiction overpowered my logical thought processes. As a result, I have just completed 7 months of live-in rehabilitation and I now reside in a half-way house in Canberra. Eight months ago I was destitute in Melbourne (having hit rock bottom once again) and I was going to kill myself.

'I have, only just this weekend, opened up the third meeting of Gamblers Anonymous in Canberra.'

He finishes up his email:

'PLEASE KEEP UP YOUR GOOD WORK FOR POKIE REFORM. MY LIFE WILL FOREVER BE AT RISK UNTIL MY ACCESS IS TAKEN AWAY FROM ME. I envisage, down the track with the mandatory pre-commitment and a nationally regulated card system, to be able to ban myself from using any machine in Australia. This will allow me to still be social and go into a club with friends, have a meal and a couple of drinks, and know that I cannot use the pokies because I will not have access to a 'pokie' card.

'Warm regards,

'Gary Hatcliffe.'

Mr Hatcliffe's story is sadly all too common across Australia. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald last year noted the phenomenon in St Johns Park Bowling Club where at 2.30 on a Sunday morning the club starts handing out $100 notes. In order to win those $100 notes gamblers need to swipe their membership cards at a reward centre and wait. The article went on to talk about other incidents and other factors that ensure that gamblers are unable to take themselves out of the zone, unable to stop, reflect on how much they have spent and decide whether they want to stop playing. It pointed out that the machines in St Johns have an attendant button—a sort of room service so pokie players do not have to leave their machines to get a drink. The practice is banned in Victoria but popular in New South Wales.

The article tells the story of a tense Fijian woman, aged about 70, who tells the journalist:

"I've lost $400 tonight,'' she says, snorting involuntarily each time she smacks the machine and chases her losses. ''I lost $3000,'' she adds, snorting again, before locking eyes back on the spinning reels, too distracted to explain.

A counsellor by the name of Wendy who works with problem gamblers in that part of Australia says:

'Once they are on that machine, the world could blow up around them, and they really wouldn't notice.'

She goes on to say:

'Often people will say to me: 'I looked up and, oh my God, I've been there for five hours. I didn't eat anything, I didn't drink anything, I didn't go to the toilet.''

And then I will ask them how much money did they put into the machine and they'll go: 'I don't know, I was just feeding it money.'

A player named Yvonne from Wentworthville says:

'Your mind stops, you don't think.'

The article finishes up with the story of Toai Thi Nguyen, an illiterate 55-year-old Vietnamese mother of four who racked up debts of $28,000 to loan sharks through her gambling and found herself eventually succumbing to the threats of the loan sharks. She flew to Vietnam, where a gun was held to her head. She returned with 10 kilograms of pseudoephedrine, used for making ice, and was intercepted by Customs. She is now serving five years in jail for this.

A Parliamentary Library FlagPost article by Amanda Biggs noted that the prevalence of problem gambling is highest in low socioeconomic areas of Australia. It noted, for example, that in Greater Dandenong the average weekly income is $426 and pokie losses are $1,110 per adult. By contrast, Boroondara has an average income of $836 a week and average losses of $153 an adult. So this is very much a social justice issue. This is an issue where those of us who care about the most disadvantaged in Australia are compelled to act.

I found it surprising that the member for Menzies was saying that it is not appropriate for the federal government to step in here, that this is an area where we ought to respect states rights—whatever that means. As a representative of the ACT, I could not help thinking: is this the same member for Menzies who introduced a private member's bill to override the rights of the territories on the issue of euthanasia? I think it might be. I think it might be the very same member for Menzies. So, when it suits him, he is happy to come into this place and use federal authority to override other jurisdictions, but, on an issue that he does not think is appropriate, he will not do that.

I think in this case it is appropriate to have a national approach. It is a national approach that is grounded in behavioural economics. The great thing about precommitment is that no-one is forced to do anything. You are simply asked to set your limit. That limit that you set can be as high or as low as you want it to be. All we are doing with mandatory precommitment is allowing people to keep the promises that they make to themselves. We are allowing people to set a limit and to have the club assist them in sticking to that limit. We know—as the stories I read out this evening illustrated so powerfully—that people get in the zone. They walk into a club or pub intending to spend no more than $200, and they walk out scratching their head wondering where the $500 went. They chase their losses. They lose track of time. They lose perspective on how much they are willing to gamble. All mandatory precommitment does is that it ensures that people set that number and that the clubs help them stick to it.

Here in the ACT, a trial of mandatory precommitment will be taking place. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, has set up a Trial Oversight Committee that includes representatives from ClubsACT, the Tradies, the ACT Council of Social Service, the ACT Club Managers Association, United Voice, the Australian Institute of Family Studies and the ACT and Australian governments. That committee has been welcomed by participants in this debate. The CEO of ClubsACT, Jeff House, has said:

'Whilst there is a large body of work that needs to be completed before the trial can commence, the establishment of this Oversight Committee is a key step in the timeline which will allow us to make some initial progress on completing that body of work. I look forward to continuing to work with Minister Macklin and her department.'

I commend Mr House for the constructive way in which he and his members have worked with this government. I know the same is true of ACT clubs that are outside ClubsACT. I welcome the constructive way in which the ACT Minister for Gaming and Racing, Joy Burch, has worked. She has said, for example:

'A trial of mandatory pre-committment in the ACT will build on the substantial reforms already underway in the ACT.'

That commitment to evidence based policymaking is a hallmark of this government. I am very pleased that the Australian Institute of Family Studies and their head, Alan Hayes, have been actively involved in thinking through the way in which the ACT trial will operate and thinking through the best way of evaluating this.

I want to go to something that you often hear from those opposite—that, because Queanbeyan clubs are not affected by mandatory precommitment, such a trial would automatically fail. The thing about this criticism is that it fundamentally misunderstands what mandatory precommitment does. With mandatory precommitment, the government does not set a cap on what you can bet; it asks you to set your own cap. Those opposite suggest that people will flee to Queanbeyan in order to avoid the cap. You do not need to do that. If you think at the outset that you want a higher limit, you set that higher limit yourself. That is the thing about mandatory precommitment. We are helping you to keep the promise that you make to yourself. If you say that you want to stop when you spend $200, we help you to stop when you hit $200. So people are not going to flee to Queanbeyan as a result of this.

What is going to happen is that we are going to help them break out of that zone in which people end up spending more than they intended to, they go beyond their discretionary income and they start spending money that was intended for food, groceries and the kids. You hear some of the most horrendous stories around the impact of problem gambling. One that sticks in my mind is of a little boy who says: 'Dad, could we get a pokie machine at home so Mum can stay at home with us and gamble here?' Those sorts of stories about families that are torn apart by the impact of problem gambling are stories that ought to impel us in this House to act.

The bill that is before the House will ensure that all gaming machines are part of a state-wide precommitment system, and that they display electronic warnings, by 2016—recognising that small venues will need longer implementation time lines. New machines, manufactured or imported, from the end of 2013 will be capable of supporting precommitment. We are placing a limit on ATM withdrawal of $250. And we are making sure that these changes are implemented in conjunction with stakeholders. There will be a Productivity Commission review in 2014 that will assess the progress of the measures.

I am often surprised when those opposite say that we need more evidence on this, because we have a substantial body of evidence, the most important of which is the Productivity Commission's report on problem gambling. What we need to do now is to take the steps to implement that report.

I am pleased too that we are going to see an Australian Gambling Research Centre that will be run as part of the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Under the leadership of Alan Hayes, the Australian Institute of Family Studies has become a premier policymaking body across social and economic policy. It will be an important part of making sure that we assess the ACT trial and that we continue to evaluate what we are doing in this area.

The government's reforms are grounded in the notion of what Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler have called libertarian paternalism—that is, we ought not to impose on people any more regulation than is necessary. The thing about libertarian paternalism is that those opposite ought to like this because it is libertarian, because you set the limit yourself. If you want that limit to be $10,000 a month, that is the limit you can set. If you want it to be $200 a month, that is what you set. The paternalism comes from something that you impose on yourself. The paternalism is your ability to say: 'I've got a self-control problem. Don't let me go past what the family's discretionary budget allows. Don't let me spend more than I want to, when I get into the zone at three o'clock in the morning with drinks coming to me and without the perspective of where gambling ought to be in my life.'

The story of Gary Hatcliffe that I told at the outset is one that all of us in this place should bear in mind. Mr Hatcliffe is aware of his challenges. He is aware of his own self-control problem. He is aware that it is only through mandatory precommitment that he will be able to go into a club and enjoy a drink with his mates without again getting caught in the zone.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/kTGkCp8bapQ

I spoke in parliament yesterday on the passing of my most famous constituent, Bryce Courtenay.

Bryce Courtenay, 27 November 2012



A little over 12 months ago Paul Keating told Leigh Sales during a Lateline interview:

'Well, it's all about telling the stories. You gotta be able to tell the stories, I think.'

Today I pay tribute to one of our greatest ever storytellers. Australian author Bryce Courtenay lived in the suburb of Reid in my electorate, a few kilometres from my electorate office. Last week he died of stomach cancer, aged 79. He was a prolific author. In his 23 years of writing he wrote 23 books—almost one a year. I say 'almost' because the only time he missed his annual deadline was last year. He was upset by this even though the arthritis in his hands were so severe he could only perform two-finger typing.

As somebody who has a couple of books with my name on the spine of them I can only marvel at a man almost 40 years my senior who worked 12 hours a day, six days a week, for months on end to tell us his stories. I remember once reading a book about fiction writing which said that if you want to be a good fiction writer you have to be at the desk every day: some days the muse will come and sit on your shoulder and you will write beautiful prose, while other days the muse will not come and nothing will come out. But you have to be there, otherwise the muse will turn up and you will be off somewhere else.

Bryce Courtenay was there day in, day out, waiting for the muse to land on his shoulder and produce those wonderful stories. Great storytellers like Bryce Courtenay can inspire us. They fill us with vision and sometimes even tell us things we do not want to hear. Bryce Courtenay's power to tell a compelling story saw him sell more than 20 million books worldwide—nearly a book for every Australian. He wrote 12 of the most borrowed books in Australia's public libraries. It is estimated that one in three Australian households have a Bryce Courtenay book on their bookshelves.

What was it about Bryce Courtenay the man and the writer that so enthralled us? I believe it was his ability to tell stories about the strength and triumph of the human condition. His own life was testimony to that. It is hard to read The Power of One or April Fools' Day without being touched by how he spoke to us on this eternal theme. In The Power of One he wrote:

'The power of one is above all things the power to believe in yourself, often well beyond any latent ability you may previously have demonstrated.'

These are powerful words from storyteller who could reach out and grab the heart of the reader.

Bryce Courtenay, like all of us, was very much human—a man with his own imperfections—and he showed us through his life and his writing that we should not hide from them; the imperfections and hardships of life are what makes a story worth celebrating. Two weeks ago Bryce Courtenay posted a final message on YouTube to his readers. Here is part of what he said:

'Well kids, here we go. The book coming out this year, Jack of Diamonds, is my last book. It is my last book because my use-by date has finally come up, and I've probably got just a few months to live. I don't mind that—I've had a wonderful life—but part of that wonderful life has been those people who have been kind enough to pick up a Bryce Courtenay book, and read it and enjoy it and buy the next one, and be with me in what has been, for me, an incredible journey.'

He paused before continuing:

'All I'd like to say is, as simply as I possibly can—'

with his voice now starting to break—

'thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.'

I say here to Bryce Courtenay that it is we who should thank you. Vale, Bryce Courtenay.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/rINF5qcvOxE

WIN News covered my call for Canberrans to tell me they want to work in the mining industry. They also interviewed a local construction worker who has struggled to crack into the industry.

Ross Peake also covered the story in the Canberra Times.

You can email Andrew.Leigh.MP {at} aph.gov.au or call 6247 4396 to let me know you're interested in working in or around the mines so I can encourage the companies to come to Canberra and provide more information.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/H0p4m2fNsZk

Plenty of young Canberrans want to be a part of the mining boom but aren't sure how to go about getting a job there. If you're interested in working in the mining industry, email Andrew.Leigh.MP {at} aph.gov.au or call 6247 4396 to let me know. With enough people interested, I'll host information sessions on working in the mining industry.

MEDIA RELEASE

Andrew Leigh MP

Member for Fraser



WHO WANTS TO WORK IN THE MINING INDUSTRY?



Andrew Leigh, Federal Member for Fraser, today asked Canberrans to let him know if they want to work in the mining industry.

According to the 2011 Census, only 94 people who usually live in Canberra are employed in the mining industry.

“I’ve had some young Canberrans tell me they’d like to work in the mining industry to try and save some money to buy a house and start a family.

“As Canberra is located so far away from the mines, it’s difficult to get information about how to apply for jobs in the industry,” said Dr Leigh.

Dr Leigh invites people looking for a job in the mining industry to email Andrew.Leigh.MP {at} aph.gov.au or call 6247 4396 and register their interest.

“There are so many jobs available in the mining industry for people of all different skills, such as construction, hospitality and engineering.

“The right role for a local representative is to help people live their dreams. That’s why I support campaigns to attract people to visit or move to Canberra.

“In the same spirit, it’s why I’m keen to help Canberrans who want to break into the mining industry. I’ll be letting the mining companies know about local interest in jobs.

If there is sufficient interest from the local community in mining jobs, Dr Leigh intends to host information sessions.

“I encourage everyone who wants to know more about working in the mining industry to call or email to register their interest so that we can encourage recruiters to come and see the talent available right here in Canberra,” he said.

I moved a private member's motion in parliament today to recognise the importance of Eureka in the Australian national story.

Eureka, 26 November 2012

DR LEIGH: To move—That this House:

(1) recognises that:

(a) the Battle of Eureka:

(i) was a key moment in Australian democracy;

(ii) called for basic democratic rights, including broadening the franchise and removing the property qualification to stand for the Legislative Council;

(iii) inspired subsequent movements in Australian history, including female suffrage and the Australian Republican Movement; and

(iv) demanded changes to make mining taxation more equitable, with the revenue to be spent on improvements to local infrastructure; and

(b) the importance of the Battle of Eureka is to be commemorated by the Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka in Ballarat, partly funded by the Australian Government in recognition of its national significance; and

(2) encourages all Australians to remember and respect the Battle of Eureka by:

(a) visiting the Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka to learn about the history of the Battle of Eureka and its effect on modern democracy; and

(b) flying the Eureka Flag on 3 December each year in its memory.

Three hours after midnight on the Sabbath morning of Sunday, 3 December 1854, a winter and spring of discontent erupted in a short and dirty skirmish atop the gold-led diggings known as Eureka on the western outskirts of the Victorian town of Ballarat. The colonial authorities had sent troops from two British regiments, supported by the Victoria police—296 men, all told, against a tottering stockade defended by some 150 miners of the Ballarat Reform League. The miners protected a hand-sewn flag bearing a design of the Southern Cross, beneath which they had each sworn an oath ‘to stand truly by each other, to fight to defend our rights and liberties’. The bloody scrum described as the battle for Eureka lasted for fewer than 15 minutes. Six men of the colonial forces and 22 miners were killed. One hundred and fourteen of their Reform League comrades were imprisoned in the Ballarat lock-up and the flag was torn down. In the following months, 13 miners charged by the state with high treason were unanimously acquitted by citizen juries. All bar one of the political demands of the Ballarat Reform League were granted within 12 months. The first bill for the universal enfranchisement of men in the Australian colonies was passed by the Victorian Legislative Council in 1857.

Today I have pleasure in welcoming to the House John Moloney and Richard O'Brien from the ACT branch of Eureka's Children. Eureka's Children fosters the memory of Eureka and the principle of Australian democracy. I thank Mr Maloney for his recent reminder that the battle for Eureka is now an indelible part of the Australian narrative. It ignited the struggle for Australian female suffrage and continues to inspire the Australian Republican movement. The accusing memories of Pemulwuy and Yagan bear witness that this was not the first time in Australia colonial history that a rebellion had been led in defence of a people. The smug orchestrators of the Rum Rebellion proceeded and succeeded in their coup d'etat, while the dead convicts at Castle Hill can attest to the first revolt of white men against the wickedness of colonial authorities.

The Eureka protesters were mostly not Australian citizens as we understand the concept. Only two of them can be said to have been Australian-born. Black and white Americans, Jamaicans, Italians, Swedes, Scots, Jews, Dutch, French and Germans participated in the Eureka protest, with Asian Australians being the only conspicuous absence. But, like the convicts at Castle Hill, the overwhelming majority of miners at Eureka were Irish. They were led by Irishman Peter Lalor and were easily motivated by Irish distrust of English overlords. Yet, out of the gun smoke and mist, the story that emerges does make the battle for Eureka unique in Australian history, a story that cannot be found in any paragraph before or since, a story that was and is an outstanding flare in our democratic consciousness. Until that summer dawn in 1854, no Australian political movement had claimed or defended the democratic freedoms that we today, in this House, understand as the self-evident bedrock of our society.

A month before the battle, 10,000 miners had assembled on Bakery Hill and voted into existence the Ballarat Reform League. The league immediately passed a resolution and with it vaulted across an Australian political Rubicon. The resolution declared, 'It is the inalienable right of every citizen to have a voice in making the laws he is called upon to obey, that taxation without representation is tyranny'—the first explicit demand of Australia's unfranchised for the rights of political recognition and the responsibilities of political representation. The founding resolution was swiftly developed into a charter calling for full and fair political representation based on universal male suffrage, an end to the property qualification for members of the Victorian Legislative Council, so vigorously defended by the conservative forces, salaried members of parliament, voting by secret ballot, and a shorter parliamentary term. In Australia's short history that charter is unique, the original affirmation of the democratic expectations of an Australian citizen. I acknowledge the work of Taimus Werner-Gibbings, who has assisted me with this speech, the advocacy of Peter FitzSimons in his excellent book on Eureka, and my co-authors David Madden, Macgregor Duncan and Peter Tynan, with whom I co-authored a book called Imagining Australia, which featured the Eureka flag on the cover.

Deputy Speaker, I hope this debate will be bipartisan. Robert Menzies said that Eureka was 'an earnest attempt at democratic government'. He repeatedly wove Eureka into his speeches and we should all be proud of the Eureka story.

I spoke in parliament today about outgoing Productivity Commission chairman Gary Banks.

Gary Banks, 26 November 2012

Canberra economist Gary Banks AO is stepping down after 14 years of service to the Productivity Commission. He was the Productivity Commission's inaugural chairman and he was the executive commissioner of its predecessor, the Industry Commission.

The Productivity Commission and its predecessor bodies have done important work for major Labor reforms, whether that was tariff reform in the 1970s or competition reform in the 1990s. During Mr Banks’ term as chairman, the Productivity Commission has brought down important work on aged care policy, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and on carbon pricing. The Productivity Commission has also done critically important work on school reform and on reporting Indigenous disadvantage.

Of course, the Productivity Commission has clashed with governments. Under the Howard government the commission pointed to widespread claims of inefficiency and waste in health care. They criticised the lack of a uniform national approach in forestry, fisheries and waste disposal. They spoke about the inefficiency of stamp duty and the need for a carbon price. And it has to be said that the Productivity Commission has on occasion said things with which this government has disagreed. That is in the tradition of frank and fearless advice, a tradition that Gary Banks upholds well. I wish him the best in his new work heading up the Australia and New Zealand School of Government.