Andrew Leigh

This morning I appeared on Sky TV with host David Lipson. Topics canvassed were cuts to the public service, the asylum seeker stand-off with Indonesia, MP entitlements and the Coalition's plan to repeal racial vilification laws. Here's the full transcript:

SKY AM AGENDA WITH DAVID LIPSON

SATURDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2013

David Lipson: Joining me in the Canberra studio by the shadow assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh. Thanks for your time today.

Andrew Leigh: Pleasure David.

Lipson: Let’s start off where we finished with Josh Frydenberg, the public service cuts. You’re a Canberra MP, how significant is the impact be on the Canberra economy. We knew this was going to happen but now it’s being put into practice.

Leigh: Well we knew it was going to happen David but it’s going to be pretty significant. Contrary to what Mr Frydenberg said, growth in public service numbers during Labor’s term in office matched population growth, the number of public servants per head didn’t change since the end of the Howard years. But what we have seen now is savage cuts; we’ve seen the incorporation of AusAID into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade being done in a terribly ham-fisted way. AusAID workers being brought into the DFAT atrium like cattle, made to stand on the ground floor while the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials look down and one of those DFAT officials mimed machine gunning those AusAID workers. Now were learning the new graduates for AusAID who had signed contracts with AusAID, and in many cases turned down other offers, in fact won’t have their jobs in February. So it’s being done in a terribly messy way -

Lipson: - that corralling is not the government’s fault, that seems to be a departmental issue doesn’t it?

Leigh: I think it ultimately does go back to the Minister, I think you need to recognise if you’re going to shut down an agency like AusAID and brutally incorporate them in to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade with no proper change management process, no looking after the employees, that’s really going to hit people hard. We are seeing in CSIRO up to a quarter of the workers whose jobs are in jeopardy. This is the organisation that invented the polymer bank note and wi-fi, and perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that a Government without a science minister wants to slash the CSIRO but it’s deeply disturbing none the less.

Lipson: The reason the Government is doing all this, and as I said they did say they would do this before the election, the reason they are doing it is to draw down the debt, to get the budget back into a decent financial position, because of the huge debt that was left to this Government by Labor.

Leigh: Huge debt is completely wrong David. If you look across the developed world Australia has one of the lowest debt levels. We took on that debt in order to save jobs. If you think we should have no debt, effectively someone who says that is believing we should have had higher unemployment in the crisis. So we have a modest level of debt, but if you want to bring it down you need to do things like keeping in place revenue measures. If you’re going to give a big tax break to millionaires and billionaires though the mining tax, if you’re going to give money back to big polluters by getting rid of the carbon price, if you’re going to insist on maintaining tax breaks for people with $2 million in their superannuation accounts, well then yes you’re going to have to hit middle and lower Australia hard. Public service cuts are just a part of that. They’re taking away the Schools Kids bonus at the start of next year, taking away income support payments - effectively a cut in the unemployment benefits. Inequality is going to rise under this Government and that’s a concern to many Australians.

Lipson: On the asylum seeker stand off on the coats of Java, the Government says the important thing is that the boats are stopped and they are stopping. There have been no arrivals this week, and I think there was none last week or one. Do you agree with the Government the important thing is stopping the boats?

Leigh: I think the Refugee Resettlement Agreement is having an effect as Labor said it would after we put into place. It’s a firm policy but our view was that if we accompanied it with an increase in the humanitarian intake that was overall a decent thing to do. The Coalition is cutting back on the number of asylum seekers and then throwing a veil of secrecy over asylum seekers – as they are in so many other areas of Government. Australians are frankly entitled to know if naval ships are being used to intercept asylum seeker vessels. They would have been told that under Labor. Just put the boot on the other foot, just imagine what Scott Morrison would have said if Labor in office had been refusing to release details of an asylum seeker stand-off on the high seas. These are our tax dollars that go to fund these naval vessels; we have a right to know how they are being used.

Lipson: The Government is reigning in MPs entitlements, or at least just tightening up the system, we don’t have the exact details yet, but do you welcome this move?

Leigh: I certainly do, I think the abuse of entitlements we’ve seen now with a quarter of cabinet having used taxpayer funds to attend weddings is a concern. One of the interesting questions for me will be whether these new rules will for example allow something like what Mr Abbott did of using taxpayer expenses to fly to attend a sporting event and a party-political fundraiser or whether perhaps a trip which just includes a sporting event and a fundraiser is off limits under the new rules. That will be a challenge he will face given that so many of his cabinet members are embroiled in entitlement misuse and that many members of the Liberal party are refusing to pay money back, Phillip Ruddock and Bronwyn Bishop refusing to pay back the costs of attending Peter Slipper’s wedding.

Lipson: Next week on of the first pieces of legislation that will be introduced, not just the carbon tax, but this legislation to repeal the racial discrimination act section that found Andrew Bolt guilty, what’s your view on that?

Leigh: The Prime Minister says this is about free speech but really this is about hate speech. Labor believes that hate speech ought to be banned. This is a provision that isn’t used very often but past cases in which it’s used for example include vilification of Jewish Australians, denying of the Holocaust and the vilification of an Indigenous woman. This is a provision which is I think is important to a tolerant and multicultural Australia. I agree with Colin Rubenstein when he says that this is important in maintaining tolerance and acceptance for Jewish Australians. Mr Abbott doesn’t believe in free speech under all circumstances - he’s a defamation plaintiff in the past. But somehow he thinks it’s okay for him to use the defamation law but for others not to have hate speech laws to use.

Lipson: Andrew Leigh we’re out of time, thanks for your time.

Leigh: Thank you David.

On Friday 8 November, I joined my friend Craig Emerson on his seventh 'Emmo Forum' to discuss what it means to be an economist and a progressive.

You can watch it on YouTube below, or download the podcast here.

I spoke today on ABC666 with host Adam Shirley about job losses at CSIRO, the organisation who helped invent wi-fi. The shift from natural attrition to voluntary redundancies represents a clear breach of the Liberals' pre-election pledge to only reduce jobs through natural attrition.

Here's a podcast.

Media Release

7 November 2013

COALITION SHOWING ITS TRUE COLOURS

Labor's Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh, says he is alarmed by the skewed priorities of the Abbott Government that slug the poor and favour the rich.

Assistant Treasurer, Arthur Sinodinos, said today "We need cuts across the board that reflect our policy priorities and by that I mean more focus on infrastructure spending as opposed to recurrent spending."

"So far cuts across the board has meant abandoning a tax break for low-income superannuants, cutting the School Kids bonus, reducing income support and slashing jobs in the public service,” said Dr Leigh.

“But cuts across the board exempts mining billionaires, millionaire parents and tax breaks for those with more than $2 million in their superannuation accounts.

"Labor does not object to governments doing a stock take. What we do have a problem with is the values and priorities of the Abbott Government which indicate that it is comfortable with taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

"As the saying goes, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. The only ones on the Coalition chopping board are low and middle Australia," Dr Leigh said.

"Prime Minister Abbott said on taking office that he will not let down ‘the forgotten families of Australia’. But he seems to have forgotten that they will bear the brunt of the government’s cuts across the board.

"The Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer must know that their policies will lead to greater inequality. I urge the Abbott Government to rethink their cuts across the board."

JOINT MEDIA RELEASE

Gai Brodtmann

Andrew Leigh

Kate Lundy

6 November 2013



ACT FEDERAL LABOR REPRESENTATIVES CALL ON ZED TO COME CLEAN AS GOVERNMENT'S NATURAL ATTRITION LINE COMES UNSTUCK

Member for Canberra Gai Brodtmann, Member for Fraser Andrew Leigh and Senator for the ACT Kate Lundy have called on ACT Liberal Senator Zed Seselja to admit that he has broken his natural attrition promise.

The three say that Senator Seselja’s pre-election promise that planned public service job cuts would be made through natural attrition alone is looking increasingly feeble, with the Canberra Times reporting this week that several departments have already offered post-election redundancies.

Senator Zed Seselja repeated throughout the 2013 election campaign that the Coalition would only cut jobs from the public service through natural attrition, not through redundancies:

[The Coalition has] “been good enough to put their policies on the table and that policy is to, across Australia, reduce the size of the public service by 12,000 through natural attrition. Now, my job should I be elected to the Senate will of course be to hold the Coalition to that promise that it will occur through natural attrition.” (4 July 2013, 666 ABC’s Drive with Adam Shirley)



“the Coalition has said through attrition across Australia that they’ll reduce the size of the public service by 12,000... it would be through attrition that they would reduce the size of the public service… The Coalition has announced a plan to make savings. They’ve been very clear about that, that it will come through natural attrition…We’ve got one party, the Coalition that grows the economy, that has announced a plan through attrition.” (9 July, 666 ABC with Louise Maher)

“Our policy is stated. The policy is that the public service through natural attrition will be reduced over two years.” (5 August, 666 ABC’s Breakfast with Ross Solly)

“I think the positives about it are the natural attrition and it will be my job if I’m elected to the Senate to hold an incoming Coalition to account on that… if you’re going to make savings you should do it through attrition…” (31 August in the Canberra Times)

The Canberra Times analysis released this week shows that according to the Public Service Gazette, only 251 public servants have left their jobs since the Abbott Government was elected some two months ago, 182 of whom received a redundancy package. This is around one-sixth of the departure rate required for the Government to meet its target of 6000 job cuts by the end of June.

Natural attrition is typically achieved with retirements and resignations. As predicted public servants are holding on to their jobs in an uncertain and insecure job environment.

Ms Brodtmann, Dr Leigh and Senator Lundy have asked Senator Seselja to come clean with Canberrans by answering the following questions:

Is the Government going to stick by its promise to only cut jobs through natural attrition, even if it means not meeting job cut targets?

1. Are the redundancies currently being offered in various departments part of the Government’s plan for 6000 job cuts this financial year, or are these additional cuts?


2. Will there be any forced redundancies, including in those departments affected by Machinery of Government changes?


3. Will the Government increase its public service job cuts target or introduce forced redundancies if the Commission of Audit recommends it should?

ENDS

This afternoon I issued a media release in response to the Government's announcement today it will shy away from a package of measures to prevent multinationals taking profits offshore.



6 November 2013

MEDIA RELEASE



HOCKEY GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO BIG MULTINATIONAL TO MINIMISE TAX

Shadow Assistant Minister, Andrew Leigh, says the Government has watered down Labor’s efforts to get multinationals to pay their fair share of tax.

“Labor’s rules were designed to stop profits being shipped overseas. The Treasurer’s amendments announced today will put less pressure on multinationals and more pressure on families.

“Labor’s rules would have swollen the budget by $1.8 billion but the Coalition’s amendments will only net $1.1 billion. That means there will be $700 million less in tax revenue and a reduction in services or higher taxes.”

“After railing against a so-called budget emergency, Mr Hockey is now presiding over a budget blow-out.”

“Mr Hockey’s cave-in to multinationals means that Australian families will pay more tax or get fewer services.”

“It means the Government’s Commission of Cuts will have to deliver an even more savage blow to families.”

“Australians understand that multinationals need to pull their weight,” said Dr Leigh.

ENDS

On 4 Nov, I joined host Kieran Gilbert and Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield to discuss the Western Australian election, Mr Abbott's selective appeal to mandate theory, Labor's democratic process for choosing a leader, and the split between the Liberal Party and the National Party over foreign investment.

On 3 November, I joined Sky Viewpoint host Peter Van Onselen to discuss economics, politics and the two big policy problems that keep me awake at night.

In my weekly video discussion for Breaking Politics I talked about the respected work of the Australian Electoral Commission and an expectation that within a generation it will adopt electronic ballots. Host Tim Lester also asked about same-sex marriage, climate policy and mandate theory. Here's the full transcript:

BREAKING POLITICS

4 NOVEMBER 2013

TIM LESTER: Western Australia is on course for an historic re-run of the 2013 senate election. To help us understand what's happening there and some of the other politics of the day, our Monday regular Andrew Leigh, the Labor Member for Fraser is in, and of course also Shadow Assistant Treasurer. Thank you for coming in Andrew.

ANDREW LEIGH: Pleasure Tim.

LESTER: Is there a need for a new senate election in Western Australia?

LEIGH: It'll be a matter ultimately for the Court of Disputed Returns to determine it. But certainly I'm concerned about the over a thousand West Australian voters who appear to have disenfranchised through this process. The Australian Electoral Commission is a great national institution. It's one that I'm immensely proud of. When I lived in the U.S. for four years I thought many times, what the U.S. really needs is an institution of the calibre of the AEC. But even great institutions sometimes make mistakes and I think it's telling that the last time something like this occurred was a hundred years ago and perhaps that's the place we'll end up, ultimately having another election in W.A.

LESTER: So, how serious is this mistake, losing 1375 votes?

LEIGH: I think it's deeply concerning and certainly Ed Killesteyn, the Electoral Commissioner, has spoken of his embarrassment at the error that's taken place. I don't believe that there has been any intentional foul play that's taken place. It's simply an error by the AEC's hard working staff. The question is, what's now practically the best way of dealing with the situation we find ourselves in.

LESTER: There's also questions going forward as to the best way for us to deal, handle, so many votes. Isn't this screaming for electronic voting in some form?

LEIGH: Electronic voting has certainly got its appeal Tim, not just for making sure that we keep track of votes, the speed of recount, but also making sure that we bring down the informal rate. One of the things that troubles me is that the informal voting rate as steadily crept up in recent elections. It's harder to make a mistake, even with a large number of candidates on the ballot paper with electronic voting. In fact, you can structure the systems so it's impossible to vote informally.

LESTER: So, would you recommend we now take a serious look at electronic voting?

LEIGH: I suspect it'll be something that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters looks into when the parliament resumes. Electronic voting is something that I'm sure we will have in 50 years’ time. The question is whether we have it in five years’ time.

LESTER: Or, whether we should have had in 2013?

LEIGH: There’s challenges with electronic voting Tim. There’s questions that you don't have the paper trail in place. There is a sense of security and stability that comes with paper ballots, this recent error notwithstanding. But I certainly think that the move towards electronic voting, an inevitability within half a century, has been accelerated.

LESTER: On balance, you’re a supporter?

LEIGH: I think it's worth exploring but I think you have to absolutely have to make sure that you get the data security issues right. Everyone's worst nightmare is internal software which is somehow able to tamper with results. We need to be absolutely sure that those machines are as secure as a paper ballot popped into a box as Australians have engaged in since federation.

LESTER: Right or wrong, Labor is about to take one hell of a pounding on carbon pricing, isn't it?

LEIGH: Our view Tim is that we ought to have a position which is grounded in science and getting lowest cost approach to dealing with the scientific problem that is climate change. We don't see climate change as a political problem, which is the way Mr Abbott approaches it. For Mr Abbott, you can go to the 2007 election promising an emissions trading scheme, advocate a carbon tax on national TV, then back-flip to say you don't even accept the science of climate change because it's ‘absolute crap’, then say that maybe you should have amendments to the CPRS Bill, then oppose it all together. He’s taking every possible position on carbon pricing, as Malcolm Turnbull says, he's a weather vane on the issue.

LESTER: Which is why I guess, I said right or wrong, from here to next July 1, the coming is going to bash you guys up on carbon. Every way you turn, they're going to saying, the Australian electors told you they did not want a carbon tax, and they're going to have a point.

LEIGH: Tim, the Australian electors voted for me in good part because I supported the evidence of the scientists and the economists. That's my own electorate and I believe that I have an ethical obligation to do after the election what I said I would do before the election. If I was to behave like a weather vane with my electors, I'd be no better than Mr Abbott, swinging with the political winds. We've just had the hottest summer of record, the hottest winter on record. We have to take action of climate change and the cheapest way possible. Mr Abbott's ‘soil magic’ Direct Action plan is not a plan that any serious economist believes can deliver results and start making a difference to bring down carbon emissions that can help to save the Great Barrier Reef in the way an emissions trading system can.

LESTER: So, are there any circumstances ever where you believe an Opposition after an election ought to change its policy based on the vote of the people? Is there no place for this idea of a mandate that we have?

LEIGH: A mandate simply says Tim that you should do after the election what you said you would do before the election. So, for example, a mandate says that when Tony Abbott went to the 2007 election campaigning for an emissions trading scheme he should have voted for one on the floor of parliament. A mandate doesn't say that when Tony Abbott went to the 2010 election opposing a mining tax that he needed to vote for a mining tax after the 2010 election. Indeed, he didn't. He voted against a mining tax even though Labor clearly had won an election campaigning for a mining tax. It is entirely appropriate that we do after an election what we said we'd do in the election campaign - not back-flip, not swing in the wind, not throw the science to one side and pretend, for the sake for our children and future generations that climate change doesn't exist. History would judge us very harshly if we did that.

LESTER: Right. So it sounds like you're saying there are no circumstances in which a new government can claim a mandate to force opposition to any issue to fall into line.

LEIGH: I'm sure there are instances Tim when an Opposition may choose to change its position after the election. We'll have sensible reviews of our suite of policies and we won't take to the next election precisely the same set of policies we took to the last one. But I think Mr Abbott is engaging bully-boy tactics and indeed his own writings after the 2007 election explicitly urged the Coalition then to ignore the talk of mandates. So Mr Abbott is a weather vane even on the issue of what mandate theory means.

LESTER: Is the High Court the right place for Australia to settle the same-sex marriage issue?

LEIGH: I don't believe so Tim. I think this is fundamentally a political issue and I think there's something cowardly in Senator Brandis running off to the High Court to attempt to strike down the ACT's same-sex marriage laws. I don't see two men or two women walking down the aisle as something which is so extraordinarily threatening to Australia that the Commonwealth needs to take the unusual action of a High Court challenge, a challenge that would normally be brought, if by anyone, by a private citizen. If he wants to challenge it on the floor of the federal parliament, he can bring such a bill. I certainly hope Malcolm Turnbull is right when he says that there would then be a conscience vote within the Liberal Party.

LESTER: Give us a quick read of what's going on politically here Andrew Leigh inside the Liberal and National parties on this issue. Where are they up to do you think?

LEIGH: Well, as I understand it, there are a number of people who support same-sex marriage within the Liberal Party party room – people like Kelly O'Dwyer, Malcolm Turnbull, Simon Birmingham – and they had their hands tied the last time the issue came before the parliament. They were forced by Mr Abbott to vote against their own conscience. The Liberal Party prides itself in being a party which allows people to vote their conscience. They ought to let people like Malcolm Turnbull vote in favour of same-sex marriage as indeed conservative leaders have done in New Zealand and in Britain over recent months on the basis that marriage is a stabilising institution which can be good for the fifth of lesbian couples who have kids in the home. We're going to have same-sex marriage in half a century's time Tim. That's an inevitability. The question is when we get to it. Mr Turnbull is clearly reflecting the position of the future. Mr Abbott the status quo of the past.

LESTER: Andrew Leigh, thank you for your time this morning.

LEIGH: Thanks Tim.

My Chronicle column this week looks at the issue of scarcity, as it applies to time, food and poverty.

Passionate About Poverty, The Chronicle, 29 October 2013

Consider three scenarios.

A busy academic misses deadlines on projects she had promised to complete months earlier. One day, she promises herself that she won’t commit to another project until the backlog is finished. The next day, she gets an offer to contribute a paper to a conference, and accepts on the spot.

A man is struggling to lose weight. He plans a low-fat diet, then joins some friends for dinner at a pub. Everyone else orders chips with their meal, so he joins them. At the end of the night, he figures the diet is ruined, so he might as well stop off at the petrol station for an ice cream.

A couple in poverty are trying to pay off their bills. They know what they should be doing: minimise expenses, pay off the high-interest loans first, and slowly get the finances under control. One month, they decide to get a payday loan to give them some breathing room. But soon the loan starts to snowball, and the debt load is bigger than ever.

In Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much, Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir make the point that time management, food management, and money management all share a common theme: when we’re facing scarcity, we sometimes make bad decisions. Drawing on a smorgasbord of research, they show that scarcity can lead us to place too much emphasis on pleasure now, even if it leads to regret tomorrow.

The solution, Mullainathan and Shafir argue, is to build a bit of ‘slack’ into our lives. They describe a hospital that was operating at full capacity, where emergency cases would throw the system into chaos – delaying scheduled procedures for hours. The solution, it turned out, was to leave one operating theatre empty, except for emergencies. This meant that emergency cases didn’t ripple through the system, and ended up increasing the number of patients treated by the hospital.

Among the problems that Scarcity explores, poverty is the one I’m most passionate about. I had it in my head when I spoke at an anti-poverty week forum organised by Kippax Uniting Church and chaired by Lin Hatfield-Dodds. Alongside the formal speakers (Andrew Barr, Richard Denniss and myself), we heard first-hand from West Belconnen residents Kyla McLean, Sienna Chalmers, Michelle Mayer and Glenn Thomson. Their stories about transport challenges, housing stress and school bullying reminded me of how complex poverty is.

As Mullainathan and Shafir point out, the difference between poverty and other problems of scarcity is that while you can take a day off from a busy job or a diet, you can’t take a day off from poverty. The answers to reducing poverty in Canberra aren’t easy, but we need to recognise that this can be a hard place to be poor. We need to tackle the challenges – such as icy winters and high house prices – with creative solutions. Because all of us are diminished by poverty in our shared community.

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