Andrew Leigh

THE HON ANDREW LEIGH

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

THE HON BERNIE RIPOLL MP

SHADOW MINISTER ASSISTING THE LEADER FOR SMALL BUSINESS



MEDIA RELEASE



Abbott’s axe to hurt small business at the worst possible time



Business is unhappy with the Abbott Government’s plans to cut the loss carry-back scheme and the instant asset write-off.

This week the Abbott Government will vote to axe tax breaks for Australian small businesses introduced by Labor.

“Mr Abbott is taking an axe to a tax break for small business,” said Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Dr Andrew Leigh.

“By reducing the thresholds available under the small business asset write-off regime from $6500 to $1000, Mr Abbott is adding complexity and compliance costs for small businesses.”

Under Labor’s plan companies can carry a tax loss back and receive a refund by claiming a tax offset against the tax they had previously paid – known as a loss carry-back tax offset.

“The Government needs to explain why it is increasing costs and red-tape for small business,” said Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business, Bernie Ripoll.

”How can they promise to reduce $1billion of red tape, then makes cuts that increase red tape and compliance costs for small business?”

“This is just another example of the Government’s rhetoric not matching up with its actions.”

“Australians running small businesses are quickly learning that they did not get the government that they were promised.”

The Australian Industry Group (AiGroup) and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) told a Senate Inquiry that scrapping nearly $4 billion in tax concessions will increase compliance costs and reduce investment returns at a time when small business needs all the help it can get.

“We do not support the repeal of the loss carry-back provisions and we do not support the proposal to reduce the small business asset write-off threshold."



“The proposal to remove the instant write-off facility for small business will have a material impact on them and will decrease investment at the time it is needed most.” - Dr Peter Burn, AiGroup



And support retaining the Instant Asset Write-Off by saying:

“It relieves business of all the paperwork, it reduces the costs they have to pay their accountants and gives them more time in their  businesses-less money to the accountants and more money for reinvestment” -  Dr Burn



“We do support the retention of the instant asset write-off provisions and the provisions relating to carry-back of losses, which are measures that support small business.”  - Mr Peter Anderson, ACCI



The Senate Economics Committee is due to release its report on the MRRT repeal bills on Monday.



Sunday, 1 December 2013

MEDIA RELEASE



RESIDENTS URGED TO THROW A STREET PARTY THIS SUMMER

With summer now officially here, Federal Member for Fraser Andrew Leigh called on Canberrans to get out and party this season by having their neighbours around for a street party.

“Street parties are a great way to reconnect with neighbours and get to know one another,” said Andrew Leigh.

“The festive season provides a perfect excuse to have the street around one weekend afternoon for drinks and a bit of fun.

“It’s easier than you think and a great way to build community spirit. Simply pick a date, print a short invite and walk them around to the neighbours. And thanks to the magic acronym BYO all you have to do is provide the venue.

Street parties can also be held at a local park or in the street itself provided its safe.

“To make it even easier I’ve put a template invitation on my website (see below) to use or adapt.”

“Knowing your neighbours makes life easier when you decide to replace the fence, host a noisy party, or hit a cricket ball into their yards. You’re also less likely to get burgled if your neighbours know you.”

Over the past two decades there’s been a noticeable drop in the number of neighbours Australians feel able to ask favours from or neighbours they can simply drop in on.

“Street parties are a bit of fun and good way to build social capital in our suburbs.”

Sunday, 1 December 2013

--

INVITATION

We’re holding a summer street party to celebrate the season and get to know the neighbourhood.

Our address is: _______________________________

Time: _______________________________

Date: _______________________________

RSVP by phoning: _______________________________

Please bring something to eat or something to drink.

We look forward to seeing you there.

MEDIA RELEASE



ABBOTT GOVERNMENT PUTS LOCAL PROJECTS AT RISK

Local organisations are at risk of losing thousands of dollars in Commonwealth funding because of the Abbott Government cuts to the Building Multicultural Communities Program.

These grants were awarded under proper procedures and were fully funded in the 2013-14 Budget.  All successful recipients were notified of their successful application for funding and were expecting that funding to be released.

“Funding to community organisations in my electorate of Fraser is being cut by the Abbott Government,” said Andrew Leigh.

“These are organisations that empower communities to embrace the benefits of multiculturalism and maintain cohesive and socially inclusive neighbourhoods.”

“This is about supporting multiculturalism and organisations that are the backbone of local communities. Supporting racial equality should be above politics,” Dr Leigh said.

Local organisations that are at risk of losing funding include the Gungahlin Jets (planning a facility upgrade), Spielwelt German Parents Association (scout hall and preschool upgrade in in Belconnen) and the ACT Migrant and Refugee Settlement Service.

Dr Leigh said that Departmental officials are informing local organisations that their funding is now under review, despite the fact that the Government tabled the list of approved grants in the Parliament this month.

“There is no reason to cut these grants. They were awarded under proper procedures and were fully funded in the 2013-14 Budget.”

“Kevin Andrews is the Minister with responsibility; he should immediately release these funds without delay to these deserving organisations and let them get on with the job of serving our community.”

Saturday, 30 NOVEMBER 2013

[caption id="attachment_5311" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Bill Shorten with Ainslie Primary students in Canberra yesterday (image - Fairfax Media)"][/caption]

This morning, ahead of what will be a heated meeting between the Federal Education Minister and his state and territory counterparts, I issued this media release urging the Government to think again about its school funding broken pomise:

MEDIA RELEASE

ANDREW LEIGH CALLS ON ABBOTT TO GUARANTEE NO SCHOOL IN FRASER WILL BE WORSE OFF

Tony Abbott has this week broken his promise to match Labor when it comes to school funding.

“This is an outrageous breach of the trust of the Australian people,” Member for Fraser Andrew Leigh said.

“This move shows that this government is not the government they said they’d be.”

My AFR op-ed today looks at proposals to raise the pension age to 70.

Not everyone can work till they’re 70, Australian Financial Review, 27 November 2013

In 2009, the federal government raised the maximum rate of the single age pension by $1600 a year. The next year, Australia’s poverty rate fell by one-fifth.

Few social policies are as tightly targeted as the pension. The decisions to means-test it in the 1930s, and asset-test it in the 1980s were vigorously contested. But they have ensured that this vital part of the social safety net goes where it is needed the most.

Over the past week, there have been calls to increase the pension eligibility age from 67 to 70. Yet those advocating this change seem to have forgotten that low-income workers are more likely to do jobs – like childcare, construction and hairdressing – that involve tough manual labour.

It’s quite a different thing to expect an accountant to carry on their desk job until age 70 than to demand a bricklayer do the same. Sure, there will always be some manual workers who will enjoy working into their seventies. But not everyone in a physical job will want to work until 70.

Not only do low-wage jobs tend to wear out your body faster, but the people who do them tend not to live as long. In a study that Sydney University researcher Philip Clarke and I published in the journal Economic Papers in 2011, we found that the richest 20 percent of the population live on average six years longer than the poorest 20 percent.

Full-rate pensioners tend to be poorer than other retirees. So setting the safety net based on average life expectancy misses the fact that someone who relies on the age pension will not live as long as the typical Australian.

As Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman wrote of a proposal to increase the US social security age: ‘So you're going to tell janitors to work until they're 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.’ Given that Australians can access tax-free super payouts from age 60, is it really fair to make the poor wait until 70 to get the pension?

Andrew Leigh is the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, and his website is www.andrewleigh.com.

This afternoon I welcomed locals with NBN Defenders as part of  a National Broadband Network Day of Action. They presented me with a copy of the largest online petition this country has ever seen.

It urges the Abbott Government to abandon its broadband policy that uses fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) technology in favour of the superior fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) option championed by Labor. The quarter of a million people who've signed the petition feel strongly, as I do, that the FTTP NBN will serve Australia’s long-term interests much better and deliver a more reliable network with faster speeds.

Latham resident and accountant Nikki Douglass handed me a box with the 270,000 signature petition collected through the website change.org.

“This is the most critical infrastructure project facing Australia right now and the public wants to see an increase in the amount of fibre-to-the-premises being rolled out,” Ms Douglass said.

"We’re sending a strong message to Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that he needs to start listening to the Australian people.”

Today’s delivery is just one of dozens taking place with MPs in their electorates around the country.

In my regular discussion on Breaking Politics with Tim Lester about issues shaping the news, I spoke about potential GST reform for online purchases and the Abbott Government's adoption of a new position on Israel at the UN. I also caution against a Grattan Institute plan to delay access to aged pensions.

TRANSCRIPT - ONLINE INTERVIEW

BREAKING POLITICS – FAIRFAX VIDEO

MONDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 2013

CANBERRA

SUBJECT/S: Israeli settlements, Age/Nielsen Poll, GST and online purchases, carbon pricing, pension age.

TIM LESTER: The Abbott government appears to have made a contentious, but largely unreported change in a critical foreign policy stance in recent days. Has it reduced Australia's opposition to some of the most contentious of Israeli activities in the West Bank, including the construction of settlements? Every Monday Breaking Politics is joined by Labor MP from Canberra, Andrew Leigh. Welcome in Andrew.

ANDREW LEIGH: Thanks Tim.

LESTER: Tell me, what worries you about Australia's foreign policy approach to Israel and the Palestinians at the moment?

LEIGH: As a good friend of Israel's, I believe Australia should be committed to a two-state solution. That means that we need to ensure that Israel maintains the adherence to international norms which are so vital in bringing about a two state solution. There's a thing called the Geneva Convention, we've had it for more than 60 years, that says that if you're an occupying power, you shouldn't deport people out of the territories you occupy or transfer new people into it. But we've seen occupied settlements going up 70 percent in the first half of this year, compared to the first half of last year. That was deplored under Labor, sitting with the vast consensus in the international community as being illegal against international law. But now the Coalition has back-flipped on that and voted with just eleven countries against 160 countries that believe that Israel should adhere to international law.

LESTER: Now we know the Jewish lobby in Australia has a deal of political influence. It works for that influence. What does this tell you about what pressure they may or may not be putting on the new Government?

LEIGH: I think this is very much about adhering to Israel's long-term interests as Ben Gurion put it, Israel can be a Jewish state, it can be a democratic state or it can be a state covering all of greater Israel, but it cannot be all three. For a two-state solution to work, Israel needs to adhere to international norms. I think Australia's position in international arenas should always be encouraging Israel to abide by international norms and looking at that two-state solution down the track.

LESTER: The state and federal treasurers meet this Wednesday and on their agenda, among other things, will be a lowering of the GST threshold well down below the $1000 for things we purchase online and whether they should attract the Goods and Services Tax. What position do you take on whether we need a far greater application of GST to what we buy online?

LEIGH: Labor's always up for a sensible conversation about tax reform, but the threshold was set at $1000 because the cost of collection for low value parcels tends to be pretty high. I think it's also vital that we don't just think about the cost of collection on the public servants collecting the tax, but also as individuals forced to inconvenience of phoning up and giving credit card details, or having to personally go in an collect a package that would otherwise have been delivered to them. If we don't put any value on that, we can end up raising taxes which are smaller than the inconvenience to which we're putting citizens. That's not good economics.

LESTER: And is that a real danger here?

LEIGH: The estimates I've seen suggest, for example, that if you lower the threshold from $1000 dollars to $500 you might increase total revenue by something in the order of $20 million. There's debates around this, but that's an estimate that doesn't even take into account the cost to the additional time wastage of you and me having to go and pick up a parcel that we might have otherwise had delivered to our home.

LESTER: What about the position of the retailers who want us to still go out and visit the shops and buy in the traditional way and are disadvantaged they feel in this regard?

LEIGH: I think the threshold is simply a function of the fact that the cost of collection to customs officials and individuals isn't zero. If there was no hassle in collecting it, well you wouldn't have a low value threshold. But the situation retailers find themselves in isn't just driven by the low value threshold, it's also driven by the high Australian dollar and by new retailers setting up online selling things, for example, like shoes which 10 years ago we would have said were the kind of thing that could never be effectively sold over the Internet.

LESTER: Okay, the post-election time is never a completely happy time for the party that lost, but today's opinion poll is surely a bit of a boost for Labor's morale?

LEIGH: I've got to say Tim, there's days when I'm tempted to breach my regular rule of saying that opinion polls don't have much predictive power, but I should hold fast to what I believe which is that good parliamentarians spend their time talking about issues, not about polls. A bit like a first Ashes win in a five game series, this is a bit of a fillip to the team, but it's a long series we're playing and certainly we will need to maintain that sense of discipline that we've had over the last few weeks. It's entirely possible the government will get its act together, will manage to repair the problems in the relationship with Indonesia, will find somebody better suited to run the immigration portfolio, will begin to lift the veil of secrecy. They've had, let's be honest, a lot of stumbles over these last few weeks, but Tony Abbott's a formidable parliamentarian and could easily right his ship.

LESTER: Okay, what does this say for Bill Shorten and the early indications on how the public are going to take him as a leader and a potential prime minister?

LEIGH: I think Mr Shorten is engaging very effectively with Australians, talking about the issues that matter not just in the here and now, but for the long term. The debate we have around carbon pricing for example saw Bill talking in the House of Representatives about getting this issue right for our children. I think that's the sort of leader he is. I think he's somebody who thinks long-term, who wants to engage with people effectively and somebody who I think enjoys a lot of respect, not just from Labor people, but in the broader community.

LESTER: The poll tells us that the public believes Labor ought to get out of the way in terms of the carbon tax, and allow the government to rescind it.

LEIGH: But as you, yourself pointed out, talking on NewsRadio this morning Tim, there are swings and roundabouts in that poll. There's certainly a recognition among Australians that we need to take serious action on climate change and acceptance that Mr Abbott's soil magic scheme just won't cut it, that what we need is the most effective and efficient way of dealing with climate change and that's an Emissions Trading Scheme. That's why you've got the Australian Industry Group backing an Emissions Trading Scheme, thirty countries around the world, California moving to emissions trading. Even the Chinese, a nominally Communist country, are more in favour of using the market to tackle climate change than the nominally free-market Liberal and National parties.

LESTER: And you remain quite firm, quite convinced that Labor will hold to its line of a price on carbon and not back the scrapping of the scheme in total?

LEIGH: It just wouldn't make any sense to do that Tim. It wouldn't be in the interests of this generation, and certainly not the interests of future generations who'll pay a higher cost if Australia doesn't do anything now on emissions. It' s pretty embarrassing to me to see our negotiators playing a blocking role in the international debates, where previously they played a positive, constructive role. It's a ‘little Australia’ vision that I think the Abbott government is projecting to the world with cuts to the refugee intakes, the cuts to foreign aid, the boat turn back policy and the shutting down of climate change talks. I don't think it's in accord with the big heart of Australia that Mr Abbott should represent.

LESTER: Andrew Leigh, this possibility of shifting the retirement and superannuation eligibility ages out to maybe 70 or even beyond, do we really need to work till we're 70 plus?

LEIGH: One of the things that surprised me Tim about the Productivity Commission report on the pension age was how little attention it gave to the fact that the poor live for fewer years than the rich. Some of the work when I was an academic economist I did with Philip Clarke estimated that the richest fifth of the population lives six years longer than the poorest fifth. So that means if you push out the pension age to 70, effectively you're telling poor people that they can get the pension later, knowing full well that they're going to die earlier. As Paul Krugman put this in the context of the US social security debate, it's a bit like telling janitors they have to wait till 70 to get the pension because lawyers are living longer. We have to recognize the equity issues inherent in this, and I'm frankly surprised that a high calibre institution like the Productivity Commission hasn't focused on that aspect.

LESTER: They've botched this, in a sense, if they didn't factor in that difference have they?

LEIGH: That's too hard a critique. Our Productivity Commission is a high calibre outfit, and I've got great respect for the lead author on this project. But I do think that if you miss the equity dimension on this, then fundamentally you're not doing your constituents a good service. If there is a six year difference in life expectancy between the rich and the poor then taking the safety net and moving it up three years just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, particularly in a world in which the superannuation preservation age is stuck at 60.

LESTER: So does the retirement age need to stay put? Stay where it is?

LEIGH: I think that would be the sensible proposal Tim. I think 67 for the social safety net makes a lot of sense. You know, if you're a lawyer and you're going to live a long life, then your job isn't particularly physically demanding, maybe you might retire at 70 but if you've been working as a cleaner doing back-breaking work, then telling you that you have to continue to do that job until 70, knowing that on average you'll die at a younger age, doesn't seem good policy to me.

LESTER: Andrew Leigh, thank you for coming into Breaking Politics today.

LEIGH: Thank you Tim.

This morning I spoke with Mark Parton about the impact of DFAT's takeover of AusAID and the prospect of the Abbott Government having to compensate ditched and devastated public service graduates. We also discussed carbon policy with the Coalition's repeal package due for defeat in the Senate. Here's the 2CC audio.

2cc Breakfast 22 Nov 2013

I spoke in parliament in the final few minutes of the House debate over repealing the carbon price.

It is my pleasure to follow the member for Dawson in this debate—somebody who I think exposes the real truth at the heart of the coalition's opposition to an emissions trading scheme. That opposition is not because they accept the science and dispute the economics. It is fundamentally because those opposite do not accept the science of climate change. The member for Dawson has been very clear about that. He thinks that 97 per cent of the world's scientists are wrong and he, instead, has the truth. I argued with the member for Canning on Twitter but eventually, about 20 tweets in, I just had to let him go because—

Mr Christiansen intervening -

I stopped the Twitter battle with the member for Canning at a certain point when I finally got bored, but he was taking on the Bureau of Meteorology. They are now, of course, responsible for the Bureau of Meteorology, but the member for Canning disputes the bureau's finding that Australia has just experienced the hottest summer on record, the hottest winter on record and is on track to experience the hottest year on record.

The time for political games is gone. If this House does not take serious action on climate change we are kicking it off to future generations, and those generations will pay a higher cost than we will today. Future generations will look very dimly upon this government that took away an effective, efficient way of reducing Australia's emissions and replaced it with an expensive, ineffective hodgepodge of measures. Ross Garnaut was asked about this on Lateline the other night. He said of direct action that it would be considerably more expensive and that getting rid of the carbon price has a significant negative impact on the budget. The impact on the budget of getting rid of the mining tax and the carbon price is, between them, $17 billion, which must be paid by higher taxes on workers. That is what those opposite believe. They believe the tax burden on polluters and mining billionaires should be lower and the tax burden on workers should be higher.

I was listening before to the member for Eden-Monaro with his economic views and I have to say I was thinking at the time of that great Chris Caton quote when a range of eminent Australian economists were asked their view on carbon pricing and 86 per cent strongly supported carbon pricing over direct action. As Chris Caton said, anyone who believes direct action is economically more sensible 'should hand his degree back'.

When the Leader of the Opposition was confronted with similar evidence—a survey of the Australian Conference of Economists showing a vast majority of economists in favour of carbon pricing—he said that maybe that was a comment on the 'quality of our economists' rather than on the quality of our policy, to which Joshua Gans responded that maybe it just said something about the quality of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Hunt interjecting—

We have the honourable member interjecting here, who wrote his very thesis on a tax to make the polluter pay but has been willing to throw good economics out the window to score political point! This is no small issue for this parliament. The cost of dealing with climate change will only rise. As the developed country with the highest level of per capita emissions, that cost will fall on future generations. This government is doing deep, deep damage to the country by getting rid of an emissions trading scheme and replacing it with a scheme which we know to be far more expensive.

We have had those opposite making claims that they have Nobel laureates supporting them. The member for Flinders named a series of Nobel laureates who supported direct action, but of course when contacted, those Nobel laureates had no support for the member for Flinders. Why? Because Nobel laureates like other economists recognise that a pricing system is the best way of dealing with climate change. There are plenty of economists who support climate change, but no credible economists that support direct action. It is more expensive, less effective and a punishment to future generations who will pay the price of this government's short-sighted decisions.