Andrew Leigh

I spoke in parliament today about some optimistic and inspiring stories of youth social entrepreneurship and volunteering.

Youth Activism, 14 March 2013

I rise to speak about three examples of inspiring youth activism. This morning it was my pleasure to meet some of the Oaktree Roadtrip youth ambassadors. These are a group of young Australians who are travelling the country aiming to gather 100,000 names of Australians who support the movement to end poverty, a movement that will show public support for increased foreign aid—as this government has been delivering. I particularly enjoyed spending time with the Canberra Roadtrippers, having farewelled them from Canberra only on Saturday at the Australian National University. Since then, they have travelled to Western Sydney, to Eden and to Cooma and they are back hitting the road again tomorrow. They will be part of a great movement to bring an end to extreme poverty.

I particularly want to mention the Canberra Roadtrippers: Abbi Ho, Adriana Clarke, Alice Zhu, Allayne Horton, Caitlin Thomas, Ben Duggan, Grace Ephraums, Heather Quienell, Jackie Grinsell-Jones, Jess Niven, Jono Pyke, Karen St George, Kate Anderson, Keyta Slattery, Leigh Moran, Matthew Montieson, Miranda McMahon, Natasha Chabbra, Niahm Nicol, Penny Slater, Pramilaa Shivakkumar, Rashmi Bangalore, Sarah James, Sami Shearman, Siobhan Linehan, Tara Crafter, Tess Cole-Adams, Tooba Faridi and Virginia De Courcy.

Last night it was my pleasure to attend an event put on by the Foundation for Young Australians. The Foundation for Young Australians is a national, independent, non-profit organisation dedicated solely to young people. Its hallmark is, as put in its mission statement, being 'relentlessly optimistic about all young people and their ability to be enterprising'. Among the initiatives run by the Foundation for Young Australians are: Change It Up, which is aiming to inspire the potential of bright young people in regional and rural Australia; High Resolves, which is aiming to ensure that Australians finish school and are inspired to be global leaders; the Impact (Youth Indigenous Leadership Program); Young People Without Borders; and Young Social Pioneers. We heard speeches by Jan Owen, Indigenous leader Benson Saulo and social entrepreneur Nicole Gibson. I am particularly impressed by the work being done by the Foundation for Young Australians and by its great enthusiasm.

Staying on the theme of enthusiasm, it was my pleasure this week to meet The End of Polio campaigner Michael Sheldrick. He is a frequent visitor to this building who has spoken with many members and senators about the campaign to end polio, and his campaign has been acknowledged in private members' motions in this House. With him was Akram Azimi, who is the Young Australian of the Year. Mr Azimi has an extraordinary story. He arrived in Australia 13 years ago from Afghanistan as a refugee. He told me the story of being chosen as a refugee to come to Australia and he thinks that it was perhaps just a chance comment he made about Charles Dickens in the asylum-seeker interview which separated him from the many children who did not get to come here. Since arriving, he has topped the tertiary entrance exam scores among his classmates and he is setting up programs to help disadvantaged remote Indigenous communities and to mentor young Indigenous people in the Kimberley region. It is his enthusiasm and optimism that, to me, symbolises the great refugee story and the story of how refugees make Australia so much stronger.

I also acknowledge work being done to support youth Indigenous enterprises by the Snow Foundation here in the ACT which supports, among others, One Disease at a Time, run by Sam Prince; No Sweat Fashions; Volunteering ACT's SPICE Program in which Rikki Blacka is instrumental; and the ACT Social Enterprise Hub. On 4 April, I will be convening the second social entrepreneurs’ breakfast in my electorate office—an opportunity for young social entrepreneurs in Canberra to get together, exchange ideas, and talk about some of the challenges they are facing and how together we can work to boost social entrepreneurship and volunteering in the ACT. These groups of young people are just some of the many inspiring Canberrans working together to change the world for the better.

I spoke in parliament today about the late Channel 9 journalist Peter Harvey.

Peter Harvey, 13 March 2013

There is no better known sign-off in the Australian media than 'Peter Harvey, Canberra'. It has resonated down through the ages. It has shaped so many Australians' knowledge of politics and of this city, Canberra. Canberrans, or people who have recently moved to Canberra, will often choose to use Peter Harvey's unique pronunciation of Canberra to define our city. It is just one mark of the man, just one mark that he left in a decades-long career covering Australian politics in journalism.

He started as a cadet at the Sydney Telegraph. He covered the Vietnam war, the Dismissal, the fall of Marcos and the Gulf War. He covered Australian prime ministers from Menzies to Gillard. And for much of that career, from 1975, he was part of the Channel 9 family, dealing with the irascible and innovative Kerry Packer in all his various phases, and reporting on a vast range of stories. His two children, Claire and Adam, have followed him in the great tradition of journalism. He is also survived by his wife, Anne, and his grandson, Rory.

Claire Harvey wrote in the Daily Telegraph on 3 March an extraordinary obituary to her father of which she should be greatly proud. It included wonderful stories about Peter Harvey, including his devotion to rock music. She writes that his devotion: '… had always been more about Dr Dre than Andre Rieu. From The Boss and Freddie Mercury to Architecture in Helsinki and Eminem; he loved it all.'

Including, she points out, Lady Gaga. She said that Peter Harvey was not just a political journalist, he also loved covering fashion week, Mardi Gras and the Easter show: '… if it was fun and full of razzle-dazzle, he wanted to be there.'

She writes about Peter Harvey bucking her up after criticism from politicians and recalls his favourite metaphor: 'The dogs may bark, but the caravan rolls on'—a good life motto for all of us in this place, I think. Claire Harvey tells the story of how, as a young journalist, Peter Harvey was sent to find Sir Frank Packer's escaped dogs in Bellevue Hill and how, as a 40-year-old political correspondent, he found himself down on his hands and knees in the backyard of Kerry Packer's Canberra home measuring out space for a helipad. She writes about Peter Harvey's great sense of enthusiasm—how he would read them Roald Dahl books, acting out all of the voices. One can only imagine what it would be to be a child being read stories by Peter Harvey's baritone.

In reporting from Old Parliament House, Peter Harvey played as part of a lunchtime tennis tournament—a reminder that, while this new place may be a little more spacious, parliament has lost some of the informality and collegiality that marked the pre-1988 parliament. Claire Harvey also recalls what it was like when Peter Harvey reported from Vietnam. Apparently the advice he was given at the outset was: 'Go and get the loudest Hawaiian shirt you can find and make sure your notepad is always on display. You want to look like a journo.' There was never a risk that Peter Harvey would look like anything else. He was a unique and valued part of the Canberra landscape.

At the end cancer took him, as it does so many Australians; but Claire Harvey writes that her father's experience was the opposite of that written about by Christopher Hitchens in his book Mortality. She talks about how, in her words: 'We had a long, sweet, precious goodbye. Everything was said. We had great conversations about memories and the future. Dad cracked bad jokes…"Every day's a great day…Be of good heart, darling."'

He lived a life of which many Australians would be proud and he passed away at the end with nothing left unsaid; an extraordinary life and an extraordinary career. Australia is the poorer for his passing but the better for having known him.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

I spoke in parliament today on a bill enabling the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Royal Commissions Amendment Bill, 13 March 2013

As previous speakers on the Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2013 have noted, child sexual abuse is one of the hardest topics to speak about, particularly for those of us in this place who are parents. An account by Patricia Feenan titled Holy Hell gives some sense of the scale of the trauma. Ms Feenan writes about the abuse which occurred to her son Daniel which was perpetrated by their local parish priest, Father Fletcher. She writes:

‘Father Fletcher visited our family a lot and we were very active in his church. John' — her husband— ‘did his accounts and I did everything from sewing the buttons onto his black shirts to taking communion to the elderly. He took a particular interest in Daniel, recruiting him as an altar server. People were always drawn to Daniel. He had a sweet nature, an angelic face and shining eyes.’

And then she writes about how, when Daniel was 14, his behaviour started to change. He started binge drinking. He was arrested for drunk driving. Then one day the two of them argued when he was drunk. He walked out and she followed. She found him on a trailer beside the tractor with a noose around his neck. As Patricia screamed, Daniel jumped.

She supported his weight until somebody else came, and then, wanting to help him, called Father Fletcher. Father Fletcher told Patricia to send Daniel over to see him, saying he could spend the night there. Of course, Daniel returned more distressed than ever.

Eventually, they found out that it was Father Fletcher who had been perpetrating the abuse on Daniel, and then, finally, when asked why he did not go to the police earlier, Daniel said: 'Because it started when I was 12.' Apparently, the abuse that Daniel suffered was so distressing that an employee of the Department of Public Prosecutions asked to be taken off the case. Patricia talked about weeping bitter tears when hearing what had happened to Daniel, about the harm that had been perpetrated on him and the pain and the indignity that he had suffered.

Other victims eventually came forward when the case went to trial in 2004, one because Fletcher asked the family for a character reference. When Fletcher finally suffered a stroke and died in 2006, his funeral was attended by 34 priests. Patricia's story is a reminder of how horrendous these crimes are that the Royal Commission will be investigating.

To give another account, Albert John Abel, a perpetrator of child sexual abuse, was sentenced to three years imprisonment after attacking a 12-year-old boy in the Charlton Boys Home in Glebe. He was working at the boys' home run by the Anglican Church and had begun abusing his victim in 1959 and continued over subsequent years.

There were some insights provided into how child sexual abuse can occur in institutions through the ‘Forgotten Australians’ exhibition, known as Inside: Life in Children's Homes and Institutions, which ran at the National Museum of Australia. I was fortunate to be taken through that exhibition by Hugh McGowan, one of the forgotten Australians. He ended up in institutional care after being born to a single mother in Scotland. She gave him up to a boys' home in Glasgow. He said one day the children were asked if they wanted to go to Australia. Hugh was 12 at the time and he initially agreed, but then he changed his mind and told the man known as the 'cottage father' in Glasgow that he did not want to go. He says he still remembers the reply: 'Too bad; you're going.' Hugh told me that there was a lack of warmth. There was tough physical labour, corporal punishment and sometimes even sexual abuse, though he himself was fortunate to escape that. And he said that the worst of it was that, even at the harshest of times, there was never a father to gently put his arms around you.

There were videos in that exhibition of young children at Bindoon in Western Australia doing dangerous jobs like blacksmithing and tiling. A hand-drawn map of the layout of Bentleigh Children's Home in Victoria showed red crosses where terrified children would hide to avoid abuse. An official sign from another home told visitors that they were not to hold the babies.

Ryszard Szablicki says that, some time after he left the Melbourne orphanage where he grew up: 'I heard people standing singing around a cake that had candles stuck in it. I did not even know what was going on.' He did not know what a birthday cake and birthday candles were because, as another boy said of the institutions, only 'intermittent humanity was provided'.

As then Prime Minister Rudd said in 2009 when he offered a national apology to the forgotten Australians:

‘… whatever I might say today, the truth is, I cannot give you back your childhood. … But what I can do with you is to celebrate the spirit that has lived within you over the decades.’

This inquiry, which also follows on from the 2004 Senate inquiry into the Forgotten Australians and the 1999 Forde inquiry into institutionalised abuse, will provide an opportunity for victims of institutionalised sexual abuse to tell their stories.

The Royal Commission will have an extraordinarily tough job ahead of it. But I am confident that the commissioners who have been chosen will do a first-rate job. It will be led by Justice Peter McClellan, who chaired the Sydney water inquiry and worked on the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia. Other commissioners include: Bob Atkinson, the former Queensland police commissioner; Justice Jennifer Coate, who has served as a magistrate and County Court judge in Victoria, including for five years as President of the Children's Court; Robert Fitzgerald, who has served as a commissioner for the Productivity Commission and has expertise on commerce, law, public policy and community services; Professor Helen Milroy, a consultant psychiatrist with experience in child and adolescent health; and former Western Australian senator Andrew Murray, who brings tremendous experience as a member of these key Senate inquiries into children's experiences in institutional care.

The bill has two main purposes. The first is to enable the president or chair to authorise one or more members to hold a hearing, and that will allow for more efficient distribution of work between commissioners where it is appropriate to do that. These will be authorised member hearings. Evidence taken of this kind will form part of evidence for the inquiry as a whole and it will allow the inquiry to take more evidence than would otherwise be possible.

The second main purpose of the bill is to introduce measures that will facilitate people directly or indirectly affected by child sexual abuse and related matters in institutional contexts to present their account to a commissioner in a setting that is less formal. The bill refers to this as a 'private session'. It is important that those affected by child sexual abuse can share their experiences in appropriate ways, recognising the trauma and the special support needs that are required.

This is of a piece with courts having changed the way in which victims of sexual assault can give evidence. Recognising the trauma that sexual assault entails, to give evidence in a regular court is still a horrendous process that victims of sexual assault must go through but that process is better now than it was in decades gone by, thanks to changes that have been made in the judicial process. I regard the changes that this bill will make to the Royal Commissions Act as being of a similar nature.

In closing, it is difficult to speak of child sexual abuse without acknowledging the issues around suicide. In the context of those who might be listening to this debate, and recognising the trauma that is entailed in this, I thought it would be appropriate to acknowledge the work done by Lifeline Canberra, and particularly the work that has been done by their marketing manager, Matt Heffernan, in putting together this weekend's Lifeline Canberra Bookfair. Lifeline Canberra has been operating in the ACT since 1971 and the book fair is their major fundraising drive. This weekend, the jewel in their sales will be a first edition of Keynes's The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, which I am sure the Treasurer will be greatly attracted to. Lifeline is also supported by a range of generous sponsors: The Good Guys in Canberra, FM104.7, FM106.3, Leader Security, Canberra Cavalry, SERVICE ONE Members Banking and Tidy Temple Yoga. They meet significant needs—Mr Heffernan informs me the number of calls to Lifeline Canberra is up 58 per cent over the past year—and so it is important that they receive strong community support.

Like many other members I am wearing a Lifeline badge today, recognising the national body’s 50^th anniversary today. It is possible, as we have a substantial community conversation about institutional child sexual abuse, that will prompt further calls on social service agencies over the course of the coming years. I am sure Lifeline will be ready to step in, but we too need to be ready to support it. I commend the bill to the House.

On the Sky Showdown program, I spoke with presenter Chris Kenny and Liberal MP Jamie Briggs. Topics included why media laws needs to keep pace with changing technologies and the Coalition's attempts to keep their cuts secret from voters.

On Breaking Politics yesterday, I spoke with Tim Lester about the Canberra Centenary, the Western Australian election result, and the Australian economy. You can watch it here.

I spoke in parliament today on a bill to help ensure that all Australians have their say in the democratic process.

Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill, 12 March 2013

This is the third bill on which I have spoken regarding reforms to the administration of our electoral system. I have a great passion for expanding our democracy. That passion is shared by a great number of electors in Fraser. At last count, we had 131,000 electors in Fraser. That compares to an average of 94,000 electors per electorate at the last election. Mine is either the largest or the second largest electorate in Australia, and I welcome more people onto the roll in the ACT.

Before this bill, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill and the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Protecting Elector Participation) Bill introduced important amendments to enhance voter participation and update the electoral roll. We have introduced this suite of changes because, unlike our conservative counterparts, we understand how crucial inclusion and participation are to our system of democracy. That passion for expanding access to democracy is centuries old. It goes back to the times when William Wentworth, a conservative, campaigned to maintain the property qualification for voting. It goes back to those conservatives who stood against expanding the suffrage to women in Australia. It goes also today, in Queensland, to those members of the Queensland LNP who are campaigning to get rid of compulsory voting. At every turn you see progressives wanting to expand the franchise and conservatives opposing the expansion and wanting the shrinkage of the franchise.

This is fundamentally part of a fair go. I want people on the electoral roll regardless of how they vote because I believe the very act of participating in our democratic process is an important one. I will often urge young people who are interested in politics to get involved in political parties. It is great if they want to get involved in my political party, but if they want to get involved in another political party that too is a good thing.

This bill introduces administrative procedures to assist the Australian Electoral Commission in producing a more inclusive electoral roll and timely processing of postal vote applications. That will include bringing forward the date to dispatch voting materials for postal votes. It will include allowing the Australian Electoral Commission to receive certain information from the Taxation Office for enrolments and updating enrolments. In themselves these are small steps, but they are part of that bigger story of democracy, civic engagement, inclusion and using the role of government to strengthen our great democracy.

Today is Canberra's birthday. It is appropriate to acknowledge the words of Walter Burley Griffin, who said that he was designing a city for a nation of ‘bold democrats’. Bold democrats should want everyone to participate in our electoral process, and that means administrative amendments that expand the franchise.

The number of eligible voters who are not on the electoral roll has risen significantly since 2001. Without the administrative changes introduced to enhance electoral procedures and voter participation, on average 10,000 eligible voters per electorate would have been unable to cast their votes later this year and to exercise their right to elect their political representatives.

There are only a dozen or so nations around the world that have compulsory voting. We have compulsory voting because we believe that with rights come responsibilities, that it is the responsibility of everyone to have their say in the democratic process. Indeed, as a Centre for Independent Studies report pointed out a number of years ago, getting rid of compulsory voting would lead to a bias in those who remain. In which way would it bias? It was quite clear from the authors, Derek Chong, Sinclair Davidson and Tim Fry, that getting rid of compulsory voting would advantage the conservative side of politics and it would do so not in a fair manner because those who voted under voluntary voting would be unrepresentative of the Australian population as a whole. As a social laboratory for the world, we have been a world leader in implementing compulsory voting and it is a good and important reform that ensures inclusion. It ensures that those of us in this place are an accurate representation of the political views of the Australian people. Voluntary voting would breach that guarantee.

In opposing these reforms, the opposition is again demonstrating a preference for political gain over the national interest, the democratic interest, of all Australians, over the right to vote and the right to ensure that our parliament is representative of the population as a whole. Why won't it support these amendments? Part of the answer is in a November 2011 radio interview from the opposition leader. He said that only the right kids should stay on at school beyond year 10. He said, 'It's all very well and good keeping kids at school past year 10 but they've got to be the right kids.' It appears here that that is the approach the opposition is taking to electoral reform: 'We want voters but only the right sorts of voters.'

The coalition attempted to block a bill that would make it easier for Australians to vote by lowering the provisional age at which young Australians can register to vote. When that bill came before the House in 2010 the member for Eden-Monaro correctly stated, 'I think that Tony Abbott needs to explain to the Australian people why he does not want to make it easy for them to enrol and vote in the forthcoming election.' We know the answer, as the member for Melbourne Ports has pointed out. Statistically, it is likely that, as you increase the number of younger people on the rolls, they will not be natural supporters of the coalition.

The principle here is the principle of expanding the franchise. We need more civic engagement. And that is in the face of a decline in civic engagement. In my book Disconnected, I charted not only the collapse of Australian political party membership right across the spectrum but also a decline over recent decades in the share of Australians casting a valid vote. What do you have to do to cast a valid vote? You have to do two things. You have to show up to the polling booth and not spoil the ballot paper. Despite an increase in education levels in Australia, we have seen a decrease in the share of electors casting a valid vote, with now a tenth of the citizenry effectively failing to participate in the poll, either by not turning up or by spoiling the ballot paper. In that environment it is absolutely critical that we expand the democratic process, that we ensure that more and more people can get engaged.

It was somewhat surprising recently to see defence of an inclusive democracy and election system coming from an unlikely source in Queensland. In January this year, the Newman government released a discussion paper that raised the prospect of scrapping compulsory voting in state elections. Clive Palmer responded to the proposal with the following tweet:

‘Qld govt plan to scrap compulsory voting shows it's panicking about loss of support. Compulsory voting a feature of our democracy.’

And in a media release he made the perfectly sensible point:

‘The more people who participate in a democracy the better and it is good for the whole country if citizens accept the responsibility to vote.’

If you want to see a preview of what Australia might look like were the Leader of the Opposition to move to this side of the House then you only have to look at the Newman government in Queensland. It is, frankly, a shame that some of the LNP in Queensland do not understand, as it turns out Mr Palmer does, that participation in the democratic process is essential to a fair society.

Minister Gray argued earlier this year that Australia's electoral system should not be changed for the sake of protecting partisan political interests. He correctly identified concern about the increase in informal voting and the need to address this. While I am not sure Minister Gray would regard Clive Palmer as being his natural ally, the point is indeed clear. As the minister has said:

‘Our system has delivered stable government and a custom and practice which means voters at federal elections are most likely to know how to … make their vote count. Voting systems should not be changed for short-term partisan advantage.’

The Australian Electoral Commission received over 800,000 postal vote applications at the 2010 election. It is an increasingly popular way to cast a ballot. This bill will amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act to remove the requirement for a prepoll ordinary vote applicant to complete and sign a certificate. The Australian Electoral Commission will be assisted in processing the applications for postal votes by bringing forward by one day the dispatch of postal voting materials. The bill clarifies that prepoll voting can only commence on the fourth day following the declaration of nominations. In addition, a small amendment to the Taxation Administration Act allows certain personal information collected by the Australian Taxation Office to be received by the Electoral Commission. This information, obtained from a credible government source, will enable the commission to update the electoral roll so that it is as inclusive as possible, demonstrating a commitment to ensuring that as many Australians as possible can have their say in our great democracy.

The progressive tradition of supporting democratic participation is a fundamental Labor value. Labor believes that every Australian should have their say in the future of Australia. We are committed to ensuring that everyone who is eligible has a say in the nation's future, because we are the party of democracy and of the franchise. The right role of government is to protect the rights of Australians to put their mark on the ballot paper and make it possible for them to do so. The right role of government is to ensure that we get those estimated 1½ million voters who are off the electoral roll involved in elections. That comes from fundamental values which are not just Labor values; they are Australian values: equity, fairness and participation. People who are voting for the first time should be encouraged to get on the roll. That means all of them—not just what the Leader of the Opposition might call the right voters but all voters.

These administrative changes are part of a larger story, a story central to Australia. They are part of an Australia which has always believed in inclusion, civic engagement and democracy. It is an Australian tradition which does not look at politics through a partisan lens and recognises that we must always welcome greater participation and ensure that those who move are able to stay on the electoral roll, that young Australians are encouraged to join the electoral roll and that new citizens are able to join the electoral roll. It is always a great pleasure and a privilege to speak at citizenship ceremonies, to speak to people who are joining the Australian project for the first time. I often say at those ceremonies that the new citizens are now part of a larger Australian project, a project which stretches back generations. It is not just a project run by politicians; it is the job of all of us to leave Australia a little better than we found it. The way in which new citizens so often look to do that is by getting on the electoral roll and getting involved in elections.

These democracy-enhancing reforms are fundamentally about ensuring that movers, young Australians, new citizens and, frankly, those who are just a little bit forgetful do not get left out of our great democracy. Just because you forget to update your details to the Australian Electoral Commission it does not mean that you should be left out of having your say in our nation's future. Australia's democracy is too important to be left to a subset of Australians. The job of Australia's democracy falls on all of us, and that is why we must do all we can to expand the franchise. I commend the bill to the House.

I spoke today on a bill to give the ACT Assembly the power to set its own size.

Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill, 12 March 2013

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2013 today, the 100th birthday of Canberra. This morning we had a re-enactment out the front of Parliament House of the ceremony of the laying of the foundation stone. I have here the program for that ceremony, which was held on 12 March 1913. Today's ceremony aimed to shadow that historic ceremony of 1913, when sheep greatly outnumbered the residents of Canberra. The ceremony this morning acknowledged the rich history of Canberra—not only the political heritage but also the social tapestry of the city. I was very pleased today to hear the member for Stirling speak so warmly of the city that I have the honour to represent in the federal parliament.

Walter Burley Griffin said that he was designing a city for a nation of ‘bold democrats’. To borrow a phrase from Seamus Heaney, I have always thought of Canberra as being the kind of place where hope and history rhyme. In the centenary celebrations, Canberra has been given an opportunity to celebrate but also to remember much of our history. Historian David Headon has produced a series of centenary booklets and centenary director Robyn Archer has made sure that history has been interwoven into the celebrations.

We have also taken the opportunity to invest in the city of Canberra. The Australian government has contributed $20 million to the development of a visitors centre, a children's play space, ceremonial gardens, an events pavilion and an events terrace at the National Arboretum. In building the National Arboretum, we really are reaching out to the generations to come, because arboretums often involve planting saplings that will only become great trees once we have shuffled off this mortal coil.

There is also an opportunity for communities to come together. One of my regrets about today is that I am missing out on the street parties that are being held throughout my electorate. The parties in Lyneham and Hackett in particular are ones that I would have looked forward to attending. They are in fact going on at this very moment. They are bringing together communities to have a bit of fun and enjoy their history.

One of my contributions to the celebrations has been through the celebrity suburb name competition, which involves thinking about who or what your suburb might have been named after if you had particularly wicked ancestors. For example, Cook might have been named after Master Chef, Dunlop after tyres, Latham after Mark Latham, Reid after Chopper Reid, Russell after Russell Crowe and of course Scullin after the Oarsome Foursome.

This is an extraordinary city to live in and to represent. Ours is the bush capital, where you can look up and see hills from inside a shopping centre. There are plenty of cockatoos and magpies and, yes, even galahs. When the scoping party visited Canberra in August 1906, a newspaper reported wrote: 'A deep breath of the air is like a draft of champagne.'

Federal parliamentarian King O'Malley turned Canberra's chilly climes to his advantage by saying: ‘I want us to have a climate where men can hope. We cannot have hope in hot countries.’ A sentiment, I am sure, thought of by many a pub-goer to King O'Malley's Irish Pub in Civic on a cold winter's night.

Canberra is Australia's sporting capital. We have the Australian Institute of Sport and a plethora of great sporting teams—the Comets, the Brumbies, the Raiders, the Capitals, Cavalry, Strikers, Knights, Lakers and GWS. But we also play more sport than people in other parts of Australia. Four out of 10 Canberrans play an organised sport compared with three out of 10 for the rest of Australia.

Canberra is Australia's ideas capital. Wi-fi was invented at CSIRO. Our most recent Nobel laureate is Brian Schmidt, the ANU researcher who won a Nobel Prize for his research on the expanding universe. We also have ideas generated by the public servants, such as HECS, Medicare, universal superannuation and plain packaging. We have social entrepreneurs in Canberra who are inspirational for the rest of the country.

We are also the country's history capital. We are not the oldest city in Australia but we are the only capital city in Australia named after the traditional owners rather than one of the white interlopers. All around us the nation's history is the local geography for Canberra—suburbs from Deakin to Curtin, Scullin to Chifley. In fact, the only one you feel sorry for is Prime Minister Gorton, the only Prime Minister to make Canberra his home after retirement but who missed having a suburb named after himself because the planners wanted to avoid confusion with 'Gordon'.

We are also Australia's social capital. Walter Burley Griffin wanted ours to be a community with 'great democratic civic ideals', and I think he would be pleased to know that Canberrans are more likely to volunteer than people in other parts of Australia and more likely to donate money to a charity. They are more likely to trust others and to join community organisations. Part of that is not just the fact that Canberrans are, on average, a touch better educated and a touch more affluent than the rest of Australia, because even when you compare like with like you see that Canberrans are more civically engaged than people of similar demographics. I think it is something to do with the urban design—the fact that in Canberra you do not have to burn a litre of petrol to buy a litre of milk; that you can live in the suburbs but walk to local shops. That means, for example, that a Sydneysider with a full-time job spends 13 days a year commuting—13 24-hour days just sitting in the car. A Canberran with a full-time job spends eight days a year commuting. That is an extra five days a year to spend with friends and family, playing an organised sport or getting involved with family and the community.

That is not to say that we should not work to improve Canberra. I do commend the member for Stirling for his bipartisan support for this bill. This bill is a recognition of the work that is being done by ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher appointing an expert reference group to review the size of the ACT Legislative Assembly. That expert reference group comprised ACT Electoral Commissioner Philip Green, who is the chair; Anne Cahill Lambert; Meredith Edwards; John Hindmarsh; and Louise Taylor. This expert review will look at the number of electorates and the number of members per electorate.

I have put a submission into that inquiry because I believe that it is important first and foremost that the assembly be able to set its size, as state parliaments can already do. The ACT assembly, now into its third decade, has proved itself the decision-making equal of any other parliament in Australia and I believe ought to be able to set its own size.

The workload of ACT parliamentarians is significant indeed. A standard rule for the size of an assembly body, if you look across parliaments around the world, is an assembly size of about the cube root of the population it represents. So, for example, if you take Australia's population—23 million—the cube root of 23 million is 284, not far off the 226 members of the Australian parliament. If you take New South Wales, for example, the population is seven million. The cube root of seven million is 191 and the New South Wales parliament has 135 representatives—in the ballpark of what the cube root rule would lead you to expect.

But if you apply that to the ACT's population—375,000—you get an assembly size of 72, four times larger than the current assembly. Put another way, you can ask the question: 'If you had an assembly of 17 people, what population size should it represent?' The answer is about 5,000 people, about the population of Palmerston, one of the suburbs in my electorate.

That may sound ridiculous, but if you look to Norfolk Island, for example, it has a nine-member assembly serving 2,000 people; Wreck Bay in my own electorate, with a population of 200, has a community council of nine people. So the ACT assembly is almost uniquely small for the workload that it deals with. Its current 17 MLAs are particularly hard working. I would particularly acknowledge the numerous mobile offices run by Chris Bourke, Mary Porter, Mick Gentleman and Joy Burch; the doorknocking work of Yvette Berry; and the hectic public speaking schedules of Katy Gallagher, Simon Corbell and Andrew Barr.

It is tough to be an MLA in the ACT for two reasons. The first is that the number of people they must represent is large. The second is the number of issues are vast, because there is no local council here, unlike, say, the Northern Territory or Tasmania. The work of the assembly ranges from everything from schools to garbage collection. The result of having a 17-member assembly is that government members who are in the ministry can hold between four and six ministries. These are exceptionally high workloads and they are replicated among the shadow ministers.

It is also worth pointing out that not only does the assembly represent a very large number of people for its size but that it is also true of federal electorates. My own electorate of Fraser now has 131,698 people on the electoral roll. That is either the largest or the second largest of any of the 150 members in the House of Representatives. At the last federal election the average number of electors per electorate was 94,000. But at current rates of population growth it does not look as though the ACT will receive a third seat in the House of Representatives. That then expands the workload on the ACT's House of Representatives members. We deal with a considerable number of local queries and I believe that the representation of the ACT population would be improved were we to have a larger assembly.

The assembly size is for the assembly, but my own view is that increasingly the assembly to 25 MLAs—five electorates each returning five members—is the minimum that ought to be considered. That would be is still well below the ratio of members per population that other states and territories have. In fact, it would only provide a level of representation comparable to 1989, when the Territory first attained self-government. I do think that the Territory, were it to go to only 25 members, should do so in conjunction with a commitment to steadily increase the assembly size as the population of the ACT grows. I think that would be appropriate, given the extremely large workload of the assembly.

So while I commend my assembly colleagues on the hard work, I do hope that there will be bipartisan support for this. I was very pleased to hear the member for Stirling speaking of the federal coalition's bipartisan support. But I am aware that there are always temptation to play politics with this. I can see the temptation that the ACT Liberals may face, where they decide that they can run some sort of cheap, populist line of saying that they are going to vote against extra politicians. While it might be in their immediate political interest, it would not be in the long-term interests of the ACT, and I do urge them to place those long-term interests first.

In closing, I make mention of a great Canberran, CEO of the ACT and Region Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Chris Peters. Chris passed away on 27 February this year. He had a ready smile, a generosity of spirit and a willingness to engage in public debates on matters large and small in the ACT. His commitment to building this great city, I think, will live on beyond him. He is known as a great advocate for business in Canberra, and having great advocates for business—as I know the member for Canberra is and as am I—is so important to ensuring that this diverse city does well in its second century.

I commend the bill to the House.

I spoke in parliament today about higher education reform (thanking Michael McCormack at the outset for filibustering long enough to let me get out of the chair and over to speak!).

Higher Education Support Amendment (Further Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill, 12 March 2013

At the outset, I acknowledge the comments of the member for Riverina, who has demonstrated his passion for his constituents with his ability to speak for an appropriate length about an issue of importance to him and to the chamber.

I was pleased when I was an academic at the ANU to work alongside Bruce Chapman, one of the architects of HECS, who put in place a truly world-leading piece of policy. It is easy to forget now that HECS, now known as HELP, has become so much part of our social fabric. The notion of income-contingent loans was one in which Australia was stepping out as a world first. Milton Freeman mentioned the notion of income-contingent loans in the 1960s but it was Professor Chapman who really picked it up, put flesh on its bones and suggested it as a way of ensuring two big things.

The first was, because a student receives a private benefit as well as the public benefit from a university education, they should contribute a little bit back into the public purse. University education boosts earnings significantly, and HECS, now HELP, recognises that private benefit. But, secondly, it was the recognition that we needed to expand the sector. We needed to ensure that university education was not something just for elites but was attainable for all Australians. The only way of getting those additional resources into the sector was to ask students to give a little bit back.

So now, when we look at policies in which Australia is leading the world I think we should also look to the HELP policy—a policy which has proven its worth and is now being adopted by a suite of other countries around the world. The UK, Germany, Israel, Thailand and Chile are all adopting or considering adopting the HELP policy. I suspect that will be the case down the track with policies such as plain packaging of tobacco and putting a price on carbon pollution—we are moving with other countries in the world to put in place policies that future generations will thank us for. What we are doing with this policy is ensuring that the thresholds are indexed at appropriate levels. When HECS was originally introduced, repayment did not start until you reached average weekly earnings. That was based on the simple notion that you should not have to pay back your HECS debt until your university education had begun to pay off in earnings for you. When the Howard government came to office, that model was changed and the repayment thresholds were brought down substantially. I am pleased that now the HECS repayment threshold have been restored so that they are around average weekly earnings.

This bill is a part of a major university investment by this government. Since Labor has come to office there have been more than 150,000 extra Australians studying at university and total funding for the sector has been increased substantially. At the Australian National University, just to pick one of the many excellent universities in my electorate, there has been an increase in enrolments from 6,350 students to 7,086 students, significant investment in education and significant investment in improving access to youth allowance and the quality of student learning and living areas through our investment in housing. That matters, because high-quality university accommodation improves the learning experience.

Recently, we had the ANU alumni awards recognising extraordinary alumni. I acknowledge Alumni of the Year joint recipients Anne Gallagher and Martin Parkinson; Vice-Chancellor's Special Commendations Adam Ford, Danny Bishop and Chris Duffield; International Alumnus of the Year Cheong Choong Kong; Young Alumnus of the Year joint recipients Sebastian Robertson and Jennifer Robinson; Student of the Year joint recipients Katrina Marson and Ray Lovett; and Student of the Year finalists Aditya Chopra, Julie Melrose and Georgia Majoribanks.

In closing, I also note some important reforms being put in place by the government in teacher education courses. This government recognises that it is important to improve the academic aptitude of new teachers. When I was at the Australian National University I did work with Chris Ryan looking at the academic aptitude of new teachers and those entering tertiary education, and what we found was deeply disturbing. From 1983 through to 2003 the share of teachers who were in the top fifth of their class for literacy and numeracy had halved. Over the same period, the share of teachers who were in the bottom half of their class had doubled.

So we had seen a fall in the academic aptitude of new teachers from the 70th percentile to the 62nd percentile, and we had seen a fall in the academic aptitude of those entering teacher education courses from the 74th percentile to the 61st percentile. It is a development that had also been seen over that period in the United States and it is a development that concerns this government. Literacy and numeracy does not guarantee you are going to be a great teacher but, all else equal, we want those who are at the whiteboard to have strong literacy and numeracy skills themselves. So, as the minister has announced, we will be putting in place literacy and numeracy testing, a more targeted admission process for teaching courses and more assistance to help all teachers over every stage of their career, recognising that there is no more important job in Australia than teaching students, particularly disadvantaged students. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the house.

On Sky AM Agenda, I spoke with host Kieran Gilbert and Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield about the Western Australian election, Labor's strong record of reforms, and Canberra's Centenary.

MEDIA STATEMENT
Andrew Leigh MP
Labor Spokesperson on Coalition Costings
Member for Fraser
12 March 2013

The Australian people have a right to see the Coalition’s costed policies, said Labor Spokesperson on Coalition Costings Andrew Leigh.

In a doorstop interview this morning, Opposition frontbencher Scott Morrison said “we’re obsessed with putting our plans and policies to the Australian people to ensure that if we are elected later this year we are ready to hit the ground running”.

“If the Coalition’s policies are as good for Australia as they claim, they shouldn't be hidden in Andrew Robb’s desk drawer”, said Dr Leigh.

“The fact is, the Opposition are obsessed with keeping their policies secret. That’s because they know that filling their $70 billion costings gap will require radical cuts – equivalent to stopping Medicare for four years or cutting the pension for two years.

“The Opposition aren’t even sharing their policies with each other. That’s why the Opposition Leader has had three positions on WestConnex in a single week; why Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey disagree on how much they will cut household assistance; and why Mr Hockey and Mr Robb cannot agree on their revenue gap.

“Providing costed policies to the Australian people is a fundamental issue of openness and honesty. If the Coalition cannot level with Australians about their cuts, why should Australians trust them to govern in the national interest?”

ENDS