Andrew Leigh

At the start of the week I spoke with Fairfax Media's Breaking Politics host Chris Hammer and Andrew Laming about what's making news, including speculation the still secret Audit Commission report has recommended making it harder for Australians to be eligible for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. Here's the full transcript:

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

TELEVISION INTERVIEW
BREAKING POLITICS - FAIRFAX MEDIA
MONDAY 10 MARCH 2014

SUBJECT/S: Pension age; Commonwealth Seniors Health Card; Relaxing media laws.

HOST CHRIS HAMMER: At just what age should Australians be able to retire and what age would they be able to access the old age pension? At the moment that age is 65 but in a few time, by 2023 it will rise to 67. Now there's speculation the Government may raise it again to 70. Joining me to discuss that and other issues, in the studio is the Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Labor member for Fraser in the ACT, Andrew Leigh and from Brisbane, the member for Bowman, Andrew Laming.

Andrew Laming, good to see you. Where are you this morning?

ANDREW LAMING: Well I'm down at my local quarry where I was hoping to show off a vigorous economy but at the moment there are no customers, so you'd just have to trust me.

HAMMER: Okay, very well. To the topic at hand, Andrew Laming can the Government defend or should the Government even be looking at raising the pension age to 70?

LAMING: Well Chris, we're certainly looking over a decade ahead now, so it's pretty hard to predict what living standards and expectations will look like then. But I think it's important that the Government, given the history of the pension age, continues to debate about where an appropriate age setting should be. I'm glad that's not a topic too hard to the Coalition to discuss and look ultimately we are, as a health expert I know, slightly fitter and slightly better able to contribute to the economy and Andrew Leigh would admit, that the longer keep people in the workforce the better it is for Australia's long term future.

HAMMER: Andrew Leigh, we are living longer. It does make sense?

ANDREW LEIGH, SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER, SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION: I certainly agree on the importance of participation Chris. But you've got to remember there are two key ages. There's the age that people can access their super which is 60 and the age people get the pension which will eventually be 67. The Government is only focusing on the latter of those ages and that's of course the time at which manual workers get their pension. And so, to say to manual workers, 'look you're going to now have to wait ten years longer than more affluent people who've got money in superannuation' and doing that in an environment where you know that manual workers, sometimes their bodies just give out, say if you're a bricklayer. We also know that low-income Australians die younger. So, it doesn't seem particularly fair to be pushing out the pension age for people who do hard physical labour and who in many cases die at younger ages.

HAMMER: Andrew Laming, this is a good point isn't it that someone, a wealthier person can retires and access their super at 60 and a pensioners has to wait much longer, maybe up until 70, especially given that superannuation is subsidised by the Commonwealth's tax system?

LAMING: Two points there Chris. Obviously with every year that passes, more and more Australians will have super. The second point is that I am very sympathetic to Andrew's point about people who really have broken down lower backs at the ends of their career and we have a disability support system for that and an excellent Medicare system for that as well. But keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of people at 65 are currently able to continue to keep working if they choose to. I'd certainly support a sympathetic look though at those who are physically unable to keep working. I know that most people in public life would.

HAMMER: So, you're saying essentially, we shouldn't be looking at the pension to support them but some kind of bridging disability allowance to get them to pension age?

LAMING: Well, I didn't want the debate to be derailed by our clear vision for people with bad backs not being able to work. That shouldn't undermine our pension debate. Those people do need all the health care possible. They also can obviously alter jobs in many cases so they can continue working but in less physical capacity. But all of these things are not beyond the width of government services. We just have to make sure that if a nation can support a slightly older retirement age, that that debate occurs -

HAMMER: Okay, to another somewhat related issue, and that's access to the Seniors Health Card. The Government is looking at reforming that, perhaps indexing it to the CPI. The big concern is who is and who is not eligible and whether superannuation payments should be considered in that means-test. Is the Government considering knocking a fair group of people off the seniors health card?

LAMING: Well it is kind of speculation that you see in the media first. I'm really completely in the dark. Obviously tinkering with these kind of thresholds do represent significant savings but any government needs to be mindful that it will affect a substantial amount of people who are right on the threshold and often are least able to be able to afford out of pockets in health care which we know are climbing. So it's a very sensitive issue. Of course I can't confirm and deny anything. I don't even know what discussions there are pre-budget but it's pretty important people hold their health care cards and value them that they need to make that very clear to government that they want to keep them.

HAMMER: You may not know what the budget committee is considering but as a health care expert you'd know on one hand how valuable seniors health cards can be to some of your constituents. On the other hand you'll also know how much costs are growing in that sector, like in the BPS. Is there pressure to reform... is the system we have at the moment sustainable?

LAMING: I think every discussion starts with 'it's not sustainable'. But we need to remember that health is an extremely complex economic system and very briefly, Tony Abbott was the person who pioneered a range of these safety nets that have been very effective and continued by Labor. That includes the extended Medicare safety bet for out of pocket. There are ways around this but I think a simple debate around health care card indexing is tinkering at the edges but has longer term effects than does eligibility changes. We'll just have to wait and see Chris.

HAMMER: Okay, Andrew Leigh, your view on this?

LEIGH: Tony Abbott's been, I think, a little tricky on this one. He was asked yesterday at a news conference whether or not he would change eligibility for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card and he said quite carefully that the Coalition was committed to indexing the thresholds. What he didn't rule out was changing the definition of income in such a way as to ensure that many Australians were no longer eligible for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. That's a live option on the table and I think that will make many Australians concerned.

HAMMER: But isn't it necessary to have it as a live option on the table given those increasing costs in our health system?

LEIGH: If the Government wants to make a case for excluding a large number of senior Australians from a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card then they need to come out and argue that case strongly. We found in government something like, for example, limiting the private health insurance rebate and excluding some of the most affluent Australians from that rebate, that we were able to win that public debate, and in the end we saw there was none of the drop-off in private health insurance coverage that had been predicted. I think that if the Coalition wants to make an argument, well [it should] go out there and make it with vigour and passion and be honest with the people who are going to miss out as a result of the change. But don't do these sort of Nixonian word games where you're asked if you'll change eligibility and you say you'll stick to your commitment to indexation. Australian people are smarter than that.

HAMMER: Okay. Let's move on, finally to media laws. Andrew Leigh, first, is this the right time to be relaxing media laws in Australia? Malcolm Turnbull has made the point that there is far more diversity in media access in Australia now, particularly in regional areas because  of the Internet.

LEIGH: Malcolm Turnbull is fond of floating thought bubbles and I think his main focus yesterday was on making very clear to Rupert Murdoch that his reference to a 'demented plutocrat' had nothing to do with him. When it comes to media laws, I think the view that now we've got the Interweb, we can just throw away all our media regulations, is a little too glib. Labor brought out the Convergence Review which discussed many of the ways in which these platforms are moving together but you need to have a carefully thought out proposal to put before the Australian people, not simply float thought bubbles on Sunday morning talk shows.

HAMMER: Andrew Laming, the Internet is certainly becoming more widespread. People are accessing different types of media. Yet, it is premature to talk about relaxing these kinds of media rules. Wouldn't it be better sometime in the future?

LAMING: Chris, I'm pretty open minded about relaxing media ownership rules but I don't think the Internet is really the excuse. People who most need diversity of news but often can't access it are those in regional Australia. They'll be a very keen eye on those parts of the country where people want locally produced news and local content where possible. The bigger picture is that I enjoy at least having two providers of diverse news and I like to be able to get that on all the different channels. I can remember back to 2009 was Kevin Rudd was named 'Man of the Year' and it felt like there were no friends in the media anywhere for the Coalition. But times change. You're not always loved by the media but I think if there are at least two voices then there's a chance of some diversity and you wouldn't want to see that lost in any part of this country.

HAMMER: Your concern about news sources in regional Australia wouldn't allow the merger of big metropolitan owners with regional media drive that kind of localism in regional areas down even further?

LAMING: There's no doubt you can have localism even with a single owner, so it all depends on what the drive is by the owner themselves and then what local content can be supported by both providers, local news and investment in local areas. Ultimately you'd like some people working in local and regional Australia so you can report on it... [audio breaks up]. I just want to make sure that when you turn your TV or radio or open a newspaper there's more than one available. It's really a practical test at the time not really one for blanket decisions right now at national level.

HAMMER: Okay gentlemen, thanks for participating this morning.

LEIGH: Thanks Chris.



ENDS



MEDIA CONTACT: Toni Hassan 0426 207 726

On 10 March, I spoke on Sky AM Agenda about mooted eligibility changes for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, and media regulation thought bubbles.

Last night I spoke in the Parliament about how Australia's  first independent charities regulator is providing an important service to consumers and donors. Scrapping the Australian Charities and Not For Profits Commission will make members of the public more vulnerable to charity scams.

DR ANDREW LEIGH: In November last year police in Mackay alerted local residents to a scam that was taking place. Residents around Andergrove in the southern suburbs reported people doorknocking, posing as collectors for Autism Queensland. They were attempting to get bank details from vulnerable residents. Autism Queensland had no collectors in the area.

This story of scammers posing as charitable collectors is sadly not an isolated incident.

Last month, ABC's 7.30 uncovered a children's education charity which had received nearly $1 million in donations but could not or would not say where some of those funds have gone. In other developments, scammers targeted Australian households last year with emails asking people to donate to phony bushfire appeals.

I am passionate about standing up for consumers and I know my friend and colleague the shadow parliamentary secretary to the shadow Treasurer is too. If we are to stand up for the interests of consumers then we need an organisation that will report dodgy dealings by charities, and that organisation is the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.

In its first year, the compliance team at the ACNC received and assessed 202 charity related concerns, an average of 17 a day—not bad for an organisation whose public profile is just beginning to rise. Eight of those cases, according to the ACNC, involved investigations of serious matters of fraud and governance, including one case involving allegations of serious mismanagement and fraud at a charity where a husband and wife were directors on the charity's board. As the ACNC review noted:

The couple took over the charity initially with the support of the members and existing board. However, many members cancelled their membership following the couple's increasing abuse of their position within the charity.

If we are to ensure that we have a strong charitable sector, we need a strong ACNC to which complaints can be directed.

The analogy here is with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, which underpins investor confidence and ensures that investors can put their money into firms knowing that there is a basic set of rules and an agency to which problems can be reported. The government, for its own heavily ideological reasons, wants to scrap the ACNC.

There is not only that; they are still committed to getting rid of the statutory definition of 'charities'. That is right: the government would currently prefer to go back to case law from the 1600s to determine what is a charity rather than having a simple, straightforward definition. Do we want to return to a set of laws that were drafted before flight, before cars, before electricity and before the telephone? It seems very strange to go back to a set of laws that predate the industrial revolution to define 'charities'. I call on the government to back off and to support the statutory definition of a charity.

I call on the government to engage with the charitable sector, who overwhelmingly have supported the ACNC. After all, the ACNC came out of a Productivity Commission review. It has been backed by four out of five charities in surveys. Tim Costello has said:

The commission is actually working for us and it gives the public confidence, it underpins the consumer benefit to charities.

Carolyn Kitto, with the charity STOP THE TRAFFIK!, has written to my office in the following terms:

The ACNC is a dream come true for small charities. We don't have the range of expertise needed to manage the ATO and ASIC, we do not have the time to do compliance for many different groups, nor can we easily stay on top of changes in regulations. The ACNC has cut the red tape dramatically.

As you would expect, given that the ACNC has a red tape reduction and reporting directorate. A government committed to tackling red tape should be a government that is proud to support the ACNC. It is an idea that originated with Prime Minister Howard and ought to enjoy bipartisan support.

My Chronicle column this month is about swimming.

Summer's Over But it's Still a Great Time to Swim, The Chronicle, 4 March 2014

In almost every Tim Winton novel, there comes a point where the main character has to escape the problems of life, and dives into the water for a swim. The strokes come painfully at first, but after a while, the characters find a rhythm. By the time they leave the water, they’re physically tired and emotionally cleansed.

While my troubles are a good deal easier to solve than Winton’s characters, I can’t help identify with his love of the water. Few things mark summer for me like diving into the crisp calm of a pool on a scorchingly hot day. There’s a sense of leaving the heat behind, and allowing the water to envelop you. Whether you’re a mellow breaststroker, a furious butterflier, or a plodding freestyler, the discipline of a good swim is a rare delight.

Unlike my friend Chris, who can happily start the day with a 5 kilometre swim, my time in the water is restricted to a couple of dozen laps. But as a way of staying fit through summer, it beats sweltering runs. And there’s something beautifully egalitarian in a sport that doesn’t need any more equipment than a pair of togs and a set of goggles.

Canberra is fortunate to have a suite of good pools. They range from the older ones in Woden, Dickson and Civic to newer structures at the AIS and Belconnen. In Forde, a purpose-built centre caters to learn-to-swim classes. In Gungahlin, a new 50 metre pool will open in May 2014. Personally, I love the older ones, like Dickson pool. It opened in the 1960s, a decade that also saw the inauguration of the Harold Holt Memorial Swimming Pool in Glen Iris, Victoria. If there’s another nation that would honour a drowned Prime Minister with a swimming pool, I’d like to know about it.

For my three boys, swimming is a marker of their confidence. I love their sense of pride when they first manage to swim a metre on their own, when they jump in from the side without holding your hands, and when they decide they can make it without the foam noodle. I want them to respect the water, to learn to master it, but also to delight in the freedom of water to escape the heat, and the satisfying ache in your arms afterwards.

Summer may be over, but there’s no reason the swimming has to stop. If you’d like to improve your swimming, my team and I have put together a list of resources. For those thinking about lessons, it includes contact details of swimming schools – including for adults who’ve never swum before. For casual swimmers, we’ve listed local pools and their opening hours. And for people like Chris who are keen to test their limits, we’ve compiled details of local swim squads.

Here's the list. Hope to see you at the pool.

Andrew Leigh is the federal member for Fraser, and his website is www.andrewleigh.com.

On 21 February 2014, I took part in a panel discussion at the Perth Writers' Festival on Australia's economic future. The other panellists were Ross Garnaut, Mike Nahan, Andrew Burrell & Scott Ludlam. The chair was Carmen Lawrence. The conversation was subsequently broadcast on ABC Big Ideas.

I spoke in parliament on a bill relating to tax, superannuation and health, and took the opportunity to talk about Labor's legacy in these areas.

Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Bill 2014, 4 March 2014

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House is of the opinion:

(1) that the government has made clear its intentions of creating a two tiered system of health care by hitting vulnerable Australians with extra out-of-pocket costs while considering further cuts to payments and support;

(2) that savings generated under this Bill must be reinvested to enhance health care affordability and universally accessible health care for all Australians; and

(3) that it was an Australian Labor Government that revolutionised health care in 1983 with the establishment of Medicare and will always defend the right of every Australian to universal, affordable and high quality health care."

The Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 before the House goes to matters of taxation, superannuation and health care. They are matters with which Labor are strongly familiar, as the party that laid down many of the key foundations for our tax, superannuation and health-care system. We think typically of John Curtin as being the Prime Minister who brought the troops home to save Australia against the opposition of conservatives of the day. But as John Edwards's splendid book Curtin's gift also points out, one of the great enduring legacies of John Curtin was uniform income tax, a centre of Commonwealth power that is the substance of its fiscal policy effectiveness and which gives the Australian Commonwealth a unity of purpose through the taxation system. Labor is also the party that created universal superannuation and expanded universal superannuation - again, over the objections of conservatives of the day. Labor therefore support schedules 1 and 2 in the bill, which go to penalties for promoters of schemes that result in the illegal early release of superannuation funds and penalties for contraventions relating to self-managed superannuation funds.

Making sure that promoters do not engage in schemes which undermine the contributions made by working Australians to their superannuation is fundamental to a rigorous superannuation scheme. Labor support schedule 2, which ensures the integrity of self-managed superannuation schemes. Labor is the party of superannuation.

By contrast, the Prime Minister said in this place on 25 September 1995:

'Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.'

The Prime Minister even said at a press conference on 23 March 2012:

'We have always as a Coalition been against compulsory superannuation increases.'

By contrast, Labor is proud to have put in place a system which ensures that working people can retire with dignity, a system which makes sure that working people have a nest egg available for them at retirement. So Labor is supporting the superannuation aspects of this bill.

Labor also supports schedule 4, which adds the National Arboretum Canberra Fund and the Prince's Charities Australia Limited as specifically listed deductible gift recipient funds and extends the existing listing of the Bali Peace Park Association Inc. As a member representing the great city of Canberra, I add my support to the National Arboretum for the work that it has done. It is an extraordinary facility which is there for generations to come. The building of an arboretum is a classic intergenerational gift because small trees planted today may only be enjoyed by children and grandchildren. The National Arboretum is a place where Canberrans enjoy recreation, public events and weddings—the Margaret Whitlam Pavilion having become one of the most popular wedding venues in Canberra. I commend the many volunteers and donors who have worked together to make the National Arboretum such a success.

The bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to phase out the net medical expenses tax offset by the end of 2018-19 income year. From income years 2013-14 to 2018-19, that tax offset will be subject to transitional arrangements. This was a recommendation that flowed from the Henry tax review. The Henry tax review recommended that NMETO be removed for several reasons. These were that it does not provide assistance when the expenses incurred as claimed at the end of the income year; it is claimed by an individual but assessed on a family basis; it is inequitable for individuals who must incur the same cost as a family in order to make a claim; and that low-income families with higher out-of-pocket medical expenses cannot claim the offset because of insufficient tax liability. In the jargon, NMETO is not refundable and so is in that sense regressive.

It was a Labor proposal to phase out NMETO and Labor stands ready to support sensible tax reforms. It is absolutely vital that we have support in this House for an ongoing and sustainable healthcare system. I spoke at the start of my speech about Labor's role in building the tax system and the superannuation system, but it is Medicare which is, perhaps, one of Labor's great achievements. In an article in 2011, Bill Bowtell, in the journal Voice, told the story of the creation of Medicare. He pointed out that in 1969 Medibank was a crucial factor in securing the great swing to Whitlam Labor and to propelling Labor to power in 1972. It was, as Mr Bowtell put it, 'a simple, bold and deeply radical reform'.

The coalition's refusal to pass the Medibank legislation in the Senate helped to bring about the 1974 double dissolution and Medibank's eventual introduction in mid-1975 helped precipitate the constitutional crisis of that year. Labor maintained its commitment to Medibank, reworking it into what is known as Medicare. That work, done so painstakingly through the years of opposition, ensured that Medicare was an even better system than Medibank by the time of the 1983 election. Mr Bowtell argues that, at that election, Medicare was perhaps the only policy agreed on unanimously by the political and industrial wings the ALP and across its factions and the branches. The commitment to Medicare had been painstakingly built over almost 15 years between the 1969 and the 1983 elections. The speed with which Medicare was introduced after the 1983 election meant that the scheme could commence operation on 1 February 1984, after the legislation being passed through in the late 1983.

But conservative opposition to Medicare continued, as indeed it did to superannuation. <CLOSE UP>The coalition advocated the repeal of Medicare at the 1984 election, at the 1987 election, at the 1990 election and at the 1993 election. It is staggering to think that a little over 20 years ago, if a coalition government under John Hewson had been elected, Medicare would be gone. Indeed, the only substantial commitment made by John Howard after taking on the leadership was to accept the Medicare system in its entirety. It took from 1969 to 1996, nearly a generation, for Medibank and Medicare to pass from a mere idea into an established order. It is a great lesson for long game policy reformers about the amount of work that must be done, the public advocacy that must be put in, to bring about these landmark reforms.

All of us on this side of the House are committed to seeing a Medicare system that stands the test of time. We are enormously proud of Medicare and many of us on this side of the House are worried when we hear the Minister for Health floating thought bubbles on health reform that seem to suggest a lack of commitment to the Medicare system and to maintaining the strength of primary health care.

We know when we look at the international statistics that Australia has to do better on primary health care. When a person goes into hospital it is an extremely expensive exercise, so we need to ensure that our primary healthcare system works as well as possible. We on this side of the House are proud defenders of Medicare. We support the substance of this bill today—indeed, we wrote the substance of this bill. We are proud to support a strong income tax system, a strong superannuation system and a strong Medicare system and we will fight for that inside this House and outside.

I spoke in parliament today about a bill increasing tobacco excise.

Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2014 & Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2014, 4 March 2014

A few years ago I received an email from a constituent about why we should support efforts to reduce smoking rates. The constituent wrote:

‘My great grandfather, grandfather, father and one of my uncles all died from smoking related conditions. Each of the latter three died 20 to 30 years before the life expectancy for their generation. My father's addiction contributed to two decades of poor health prior to his premature death, resulting in frequent periods where he was unable to work. My siblings and I grew up in poverty, the effects of which are still evident, and the taxpayer bore the cost of his many hospitalisations as well as the cumulative years of income support our family depended on in lieu of employment. I say this so you will understand my absence of sympathy for the ‘principled’ argument that tobacco companies have a right to make a profit from pushing legal drugs.’

This bill is a progressive health measure. While the national smoking rate is around 17 per cent, it remains considerably higher for disadvantaged groups: 26 per cent among people living in low socioeconomic areas; 34 per cent among Indigenous Australians; 38 per cent among the unemployed. Smokers in these groups also consume more cigarettes, around 15 to 20 per cent more cigarettes than the average smoker.

This bill also has particular benefits for regional Australia. Smoking rates in regional areas are twice as high as in the cities and people in the bush have higher death rates from lung cancer, heart disease, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This bill will help non-smokers. We know that smokers harm those around them; children who inhale passive smoke, or the one in six babies born to mothers who smoked while pregnant.

Smoking kills over 15,000 Australians every year. Put another way, for every hour that we spend debating this matter in the chamber, two Australians die of smoking related causes. On one estimate, smoking costs Australia $31 billion a year; it is responsible for 84 per cent of lung cancer cases in men and 77 per cent in women. We know the score when it comes to long-term smoking: the hacking cough, the breathlessness, the fatigue, the chest infections and bloody phlegm.

We also know what happens when you stop smoking; immediately you smell better and your hair and clothes are no longer infused with the stench of stale smoke. In a week, most of the nicotine has left your body and your sense of taste has improved. You gain much more enjoyment from a meal or a drink. One ex-smoker told me that she could finally enjoy herbal tea after she had quit smoking. A month later, better blood flow improves your skin and people will notice that you are looking healthier. Three months down the track, your lung function will have increased by 30 per cent; you have your breath back—so much air available and you can finally feel it reaching right into your lungs. Suddenly walking and running become much easier. One year without a cigarette and your risk of heart attack has halved. You will also have noticeably more cash in your pocket. Ex-smokers describe quitting as the best thing you will ever do.

If tobacco were discovered today it would be unlikely that most developed countries would legalise it. Uniquely, smoking is harmful even in small doses. That makes it unlike other legal vices, which can be consumed in moderation. The occasional double whiskey or deep fried Mars bar will not kill you but, as the ad says, 'every cigarette brings cancer closer'.

The Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2014 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2014 amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to increase the rate of excise and excise equivalent Customs duty on tobacco for a series of four staged increases of 12.5 per cent commencing on 1 December 2013.

The bills also index the rate of excise and excise equivalent customs duty on tobacco to average weekly ordinary time earnings, instead of the consumer price index. The last CPI indexation occurred on 1 August 2013, and the first AWOTE indexation occurred on 1 March 2014, reflecting the unusual historical circumstances of the government being able to adjust excise rates and then come back to the parliament for ratification of those changes.

The measures implement policy that was announced by the former Labor government in the 2013-14 budget and then the 2013 economic statement. The former Labor government announced those policies in order to reduce smoking rates in Australia, to reduce the scourge of cancer to which I referred in my opening remarks. The effects in practical terms—so those listening to proceedings are aware of their effects—will be a 12.5 per cent increase on 1 September 2014, 1 September 2015 and 1 September 2016. The increase will mean an increase in excise from 0.36c to 0.40c per stick for cigarettes, and that per-stick excise applies to cigarettes with a tobacco content up to and including 0.8 grams per cigarette. In pack terms, that is $8.04 in excise in a pack of 20 cigarettes; or $10.05 in a pack of 25 cigarettes. In international terms, if we look at excise tax as a share of the average price for the most popular brand of 20 cigarettes, the tax share according to a 2013 WHO report in Australia was 51 per cent, but in other countries it was higher: in France, 64 per cent; United Kingdom, 62 per cent; Ireland, 60 per cent; New Zealand, 61 per cent. So, in international terms, Australia's tax regime will remain appropriate.

I move:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that:

(1) tobacco continues to be the world's leading preventable cause of death;

(2) in government, Labor implemented measures to reduce smoking, including plain packaging; and

(3) the National Party continue to accept donations from tobacco companies."

Mr Briggs interjecting—

I find it passing strange, Deputy Speaker Kelly, that the minister at the table is unacquainted with second reading amendments. I do encourage him to put the standing orders on his bedtime reading list.

Labor ceased accepting tobacco donations in 2004. We took a principled stance. Our view was that it was not appropriate for a serious political party to continue to take tobacco money. Since 1999, the Liberal Party has accepted more than $3 million in donations from big tobacco.

I pay tribute to those Liberal MPs who spoke out against that practice—for example, Russell Broadbent, Mal Washer, Liberal candidate Bill Glasson and Liberal Premier Colin Barnett encouraged the Liberal Party to change their policy on donations. Eventually, the Liberal Party kicked the habit, as the former member for Gellibrand might have put it. There was a final whopping donation, as has been recorded by the 2012-13 AEC returns: in 2012-13 Philip Morris donated $107,040 to the Liberal and National parties, including $45,000 to the Liberal Party's federal branch and $25,000 to the National Party's federal arm. Philip Morris also made a donation of $6,100 to the Liberal Party division in the seat of Hindmarsh, where Steve Georganas, not supported by big tobacco money, was ultimately defeated; and $10,660 for the seat of Sturt, held by the Minister for Education. At the last election, members opposite in the seats of Sturt and Hindmarsh were assisted by big tobacco money. Big tobacco assisted the Liberal Party in Hindmarsh and Sturt in particular, but also across the board by virtue of the donation to the federal Liberal Party.

This is a coalition government, so it is absolutely worth recognising that the Liberal Party's coalition partner, the Nationals, has not kicked the habit. National Party federal director, Scott Mitchell confirmed in February that the National Party would continue to take donations from big tobacco. Mr Mitchell said: 'Our position has been that it's a legal product; they're legitimate businesses'. Returns lodged with the Electoral Commission show over $350,000 has been donated by big tobacco to the National Party.

It is a concern when we see the government shutting down the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, a body which played a vital role—until its pre-emptive closure—in combating the scourge of binge drinking and of substance abuse. Evidence-based policymaking ought to be the bedrock on which all parliamentarians in this place stand. But too often those on the other side of the House have been shutting down the voices of experts, whether it is the Climate Commission or the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, there has been an attack on expert evidence which, I believe, is regrettable.

I do commend Liberal Party members opposite for their decision to cease taking money from big tobacco—nine years too late, in my view, but it was a good decision by those opposite. I am sure they will be speaking about the principled decision that the Liberal Party has made, but I would encourage them to speak to their National Party colleagues and to encourage the National Party to follow other major political parties in Australia and take a principled stance and no longer accept money from big tobacco.

This bill enjoys bipartisan support. It will increase tobacco excise and is aimed at reducing the scourge of smoking. We on this side of the House are pleased to see the government legislating it. Reducing smoking rates is an issue that all members in this House are committed to. Nobody in this House wants to see young kids taking up smoking. But we need policies in our political parties that will back what we are doing here in the parliament. It is a vital issue of principle. It is an issue of conscience for the National Party, and I urge them to kick the habit.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Craig Kelly):  Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Thistlethwaite:  I second the amendment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:  The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fraser has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form, 'that the amendment be agreed to.' The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

I spoke in parliament today about the Youth Connections program, delivered in the ACT by Anglicare, which faces the prospect of cuts this year.

Youth Connections, 3 March 2014

I rise today to applaud Youth Connections, a national youth education program which is delivered in my electorate by Anglicare and to urge the federal government to continue to fund it. At this stage it is uncertain whether there will be funds beyond this year for the Youth Connections youth education program to continue. Youth Connections is designed to keep young people engaged in high school. It offers a flexible service which keeps them in school and on the road to meaningful and decently-paid work.

Take the story of Alice. When Alice moved with her family to Canberra at the age of 12 she found it difficult to make friends at school. She was bullied severely and eventually stopped going to school. Suffering from depression, she started taking harmful drugs, ran away from home and fell pregnant. She found safe shelter in a refuge. Faced with the prospect of becoming a young mother, Alice sought help from Youth Connections. She joined the program, and they provided essential baby items, helped to transport her to medical appointments and—after the birth of her daughter—assisted with domestic violence issues and court proceedings.

Alice persevered and graduated with the Youth Connections program, and then enrolled in a Certificate IV in Youth Work. Evaluations show the program is successful and Alice's story helps to inspire young people.

Education matters, whether it is school, higher education or on-the-job training in a gap year—as with my intern for this week, Tom Russell-Penny, who is with me today. I urge the government to continue to fund Youth Connections—a program whose evaluations are strong and whose stories are powerful.

I spoke in parliament today about the new report rating Canberra as Australia's most liveable city.

Liveable Canberra, 3 March 2014

The member for Canberra and I have long known that this is Australia's most livable city, but a new report from the Property Council has provided statistical evidence to back up that fundamental truth.

Opposition members interjecting—

Dr LEIGH:  I appreciate the calls of support I received from my own side on this. Canberra is a city that enjoys greater levels of sporting participation and greater levels of community activity. Canberrans are more likely to volunteer their time, more likely to donate their money and more likely to be part of a community group that gives back to their society.

Canberra is a city where you do not have to burn a litre of petrol to buy a litre of milk. People can enjoy the experience of suburban living without the traffic congestion that is difficult in some of our other cities. A typical Sydneysider with a full-time job spends 13 days a year sitting in their car. A typical Canberran with a full-time job spends just eight days a year sitting in their car.

This city is one which I believe all members of parliament should be proud. It is not just another city; it is our nation's capital. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of parliament to feel a sense of pride in our nation's capital with the school groups and community members who visit us here.

I spoke in parliament today on a motion relating to Australia's literacy and numeracy performance, and funding for schools.

Australian Educational Performance, 3 March 2014

I thought I would start with a quiz: ‘Joe had three test scores: 78, 76 and 74, while Mary had scores of 72, 82 and 74. How did Joe's average compare with Mary's?’ You are not responding immediately, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that the answer you have in your head, as other members do, is that both Joe and Mary have the same average. This question was asked on successive tests in Australia from 1964 to 2003. In 1964 88 per cent of students answered correctly; in 2003 just 68 per cent answered correctly. A fifth of students who were able to answer it in the 1960s could not answer it in the early 2000s.

Behind this motion are a truth and a falsehood. I want to focus on the truth first, that Australian literacy and numeracy performance has failed to rise over a very long run, a much longer time frame that even discussed in the motion. Work that Chris Ryan and I published in the journal Education Finance and Policy found a small but statistically significant fall in numeracy from 1964 to 2003 and in both literacy and numeracy from 1975 to 1998. Work that Chris Ryan published in the Economics of Education Review last year looked at the change in PISA scores from 2000 to 2012. It found that mathematical literacy fell at the top of the distribution and reading and literacy fell throughout it. It found that declines in school performance were most marked in private schools. Work that Chris Ryan and I have done on teacher aptitude, which was referred to by the mover of the motion, also found declines in literacy and numeracy of new teachers relative to those within the same class. From 1983 to 2003 the share of teachers in the top fifth of their class halved and the share of teachers in the bottom half of their class doubled.

That is the fundamental truth of this motion, but the falsehood is that money does not matter. To see that falsehood we know you need only look at the previous Liberal Party speaker's speech, where he finished by pledging an increase in funding on behalf of the Tasmanian Liberals in the next election. Money is not a guarantee of better outcomes but it is a necessary condition for better schools. That is why under Labor in government we not only brought down the Gonski review but also put in place national partnerships which see literacy and numeracy coaches in so many of Canberra’s most disadvantaged schools. We put in place the MySchool website which those opposite had talked about for many years but had never been able to deliver. And we put in place unprecedented investment in school infrastructure, which has improved educational outcomes. For example, at Amaroo school in my electorate classroom partitions allow team teaching and allow teachers to share skills.

So nothing in the research body supports a broken funding system, a system which was always designed to be a temporary arrangement in the early 2000s but which was backed by the now education minister as recently as a year ago. The education minister has in the past described it Gonski report as ‘Conski’, and it appears to me that he has not made his way through it. That is indicated by the strong focus on school reform that you see within the Gonski report itself. Chapter 5, Building Momentum for Change, include sections focusing on the great teaching profession, empowered schools, developing and sustaining innovation and engaged parents. We need to focus on this suite of school reforms alongside fixing a broken funding system.

As Amanda Ripley notes in her new book, The Smartest Kids in the World, making education systems work is a confluence of factors. It requires great teachers, engaged parents and a funding system which supports school reform. All of those things were in place under the former government, and I am disappointed to see that the opposition is allowing states to take money out of schools as fast as the federal government puts it in, rather than making a guarantee that no school will be worse off under the National Plan for School Improvement.