Andrew Leigh

Published in today's Daily Telegraph is my opinion article on how Joe Hockey is using a massive Reserve Bank capital injection in an irresponsible attempt to make his performance as Treasurer look good.

HOCKEY BORROWS COSTELLO ATTACK

The Daily Telegraph

Thursday 31 October

In the final rounds of the AFL, a team with no chance of making the finals will sometimes be tempted to play more poorly in order to get a better draft pick the next year. It’s called ‘tanking’, and it’s against the rules and spirit of the sport. When it looks like teams are deliberately underperforming – as in the famous Carlton versus Melbourne match at the end of the 2007 season – the result is frankly a bit embarrassing to watch.

And so it is with this year’s budget deficit. As anyone who’s been awake this past five years knows, the world has gone through the greatest slump since the Depression. Rather than drastically cut government spending – and damage economic growth – the federal Labor government chose to save jobs. Consequently, we have national debt equivalent to a bit over one-tenth of our annual income: one of the lowest levels in the developed world.

Yet for the past few years, the Coalition has focused its attention not on the 200,000 jobs saved when the Global Financial Crisis hit, but creating a farcical idea that Australia has a ‘problem’ with ‘debt and deficits’. Any serious economist would tell you this type of claim is just codswallop.

But from doing press conferences in front of a ‘debt truck’ to giving speeches about a ‘budget emergency’, the Coalition has left no fear campaign untested in their crusade to scare Australians about the state of the nation’s public finances.

Now that they’re in government, the game continues. Last week, Treasurer Joe Hockey provided the Reserve Bank of Australia with a cool $8.8 billion for its reserve fund with a flick of a casual afternoon press release. Justifying such a massive sum, Mr Hockey blustered ‘It's money that should have been allocated by the Labor Party in government but they didn't… Despite the warnings, they didn't do it and they should have done it.’

The exact opposite is true. Six months ago, Treasury advised the Labor Government that to give the RBA a capital injection could ‘risk undermining the credibility of the RBA as an operationally independent institution’.

$8.8 billion is a massive sum – more than the federal government spends on the army, childcare or housing. Because Australia has to borrow the money, Treasurer Hockey’s ill-advised decision will cost you, the taxpayer, around $1 million a day just in interest payments alone.

So why would Mr Hockey borrow more money to give the RBA a capital injection they don’t need?

First, because he wants to put himself in a position where he can get large dividends from the RBA in future years. As respected economic commentator Stephen Koukoulas has pointed out, the Howard Government took out an average dividend from the RBA of $3 billion a year, after accounting for inflation. By contrast, the Labor Government took out an RBA dividend of $1.5 billion in real terms. Mr Hockey clearly wants to go back to the days of the Howard Government, which in real terms extracted twice as much from the RBA than Labor.

But the second purpose of Mr Hockey’s strategy is to make the 2013-14 deficit look as bad as possible. Right now, he’s piling unnecessary costs onto the budget like a business owner who’s just sold his company and knows that the buyer will pay the bills.  The secret of Mr Hockey’s economic management is that he doesn’t care about debt, and is only worried about deficits when he can’t blame them on someone else.

Despite inheriting one of the best-performing economies in the developed world, Mr Hockey wants to cast Labor as the villain in his pantomime play.  Although he became Treasurer just one-quarter of the way through the year, Mr Hockey doesn’t regard the 2013-14 tax year as his responsibility. He thinks it’s in his political interests to make the current budget outcome as bad as possible.

Again, this is a move straight out of the Costello playbook. In 1996, the Howard Government confected a story about a ‘$10 billion black hole’, by adding up every possible spending program that Labor might have implemented – including some that had been rejected by the Keating Government. The ‘$10 billion’ number was a fiction, but with enough repetition, it caught on.

Today, Treasurer Joe Hockey is playing the same political games as Peter Costello. Step one: attack Labor’s legacy. Step two: appoint big business leaders to a Commission of Audit. Step three: cut programs that middle Australia depends upon (like the Schoolkids Bonus) and hike taxes on low-wage workers (one in three will pay higher superannuation taxes). Step four: deliver tax cuts to magnates.

But just as AFL fans are quick to smell a team that’s tanking, Australians are too smart to be fooled by Mr Hockey’s political diversions. If you’re a coach who’s taken over a quarter of the way into the season, you’d better step up and start leading. You can’t go into the big game blaming your predecessor.

This is the full version – the article as published was slightly abridged.

This morning I spoke with Radio National Breakfast's Political Editor, Alison Carabine, about my contributing essay in the revised and expanded version of Mark Latham's Not Dead Yet: What Future for Labor? The book published by Black Inc. hits bookshops today and sets out areas for continued reform and renewal.  Here's the podcast. The transcript is below.

TRANSCRIPT

ABC RADIO NATIONAL BREAKFAST

WEDNESDAY 30 OCTOBER 2013

TOPIC: Labor future

FRAN KELLY: It's nearly two months since the ALP's heavy loss federally and the ideological battle for the future of the party is underway. A new book out today titled Not Dead Yet is a collection of essays by some of Labor's best and brightest thinkers. And that includes the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh. The Canberra-based MP makes a strong pitch to his colleagues to reject Tony Abbott's style of negativity when it comes to Opposition. And, in a bid to democratise Labor he also proposes large scale plebiscites to select candidates and other important party positions. Andrew Leigh is in our Parliament House studios and he's speaking with our political editor, Alison Carabine.

ALISON CARIBINE: Andrew Leigh, good morning.

ANDREW LEIGH: Good morning Alison.

CARABINE: There is a certain arrogance that underpins your essay. You open with the bold deceleration that Labor Governments do more, Labor is the party of ideas and reform, but by contrast the Coalition is the defender of the status quo. Considering the election result it would appear that voters embraced the status quo much than they do ideas and reform.

LEIGH: I think Alison that's to confuse electoral success with policy achievement. Fundamentally the broad contours of the Australian story, over the last century or so, are those of a succession of Labor achievements. And whether that's putting in place the Snowy Hydro Scheme, whether it's opening up the economy, whether it's indeed bringing the troops back in World War Two to defend Australia, or the achievements of DisabilityCare and finally solving the Murray Darling Basin mess, those too were Labor reforms. I think that reflects the fact that ours is a party which is founded on the notion that government has an important role to play in improving the country. Conservatives are far more often comfortable just defending the status quo.

CARABINE: You won't achieve much policy success from Opposition. So the question is 'where to from here?'. In your essay, you set out three possible strategies for the party. The first goes to negativity. You say this is the most predictable path for Labor to take. It did work a treat for Tony Abbott. But you're not recommending it for the ALP. Why not?

LEIGH: Alison, if you think of politics as being Coke and Pepsi, then when the other brand pursues a successful strategy you should ape that strategy. But politics isn't like that because I believe that fundamentally Labor plays an ideas-based role. I think for us to pursue a pure strategy of negativity would be to negate our very reason for existing. Our role in Opposition needs to be a role of composing as well as opposing. It needs to be a role of carving out policy space and using that time also to develop the next set of reforms for the next Labor government.

CARABINE: You are of the view that negativity crowds our policy development for the next term of government. The 24/7 media cycle doesn't help either and in this new media landscape. You have identified rather David Attenborough-like, a new sub-species, that is, the back-bencher as rottweiler, can you explain what you mean and also maybe name some names.

LEIGH: [Laugh] I'm not sure I'd go so far as naming names. But I think there is a sense in which backbenchers follow the mould that their leader lays out. So, when Malcolm Turnbull was leader you saw a plethora of Liberal Party backbenchers looking to put creative ideas and opinion pieces into newspapers. When Mr Abbott became leader, with a very focused negative strategy, you saw backbenchers tripping over themselves to come up with a witty put-down of Julia Gillard of Kevin Rudd. I think that it's important that Labor doesn't go down that trajectory. One of the great Labor achievements of course is Medicare but we sometimes forget how quickly the Hawke Government put Medicare in place. They had Medicare up and running 11 months after the 1983 election and that's because they didn't waste time during Opposition. They'd spoken with the interest groups, they worked out precisely how Medicare would work and they hit the ground running when they won office in 1983. I think there's a good lesson in that for today's Labor Opposition.

CARABINE: Your preferred model for Labor Opposition what you describe as 'open Australia' - Labor embracing open markets, free trade, immigration and multiculturalism, support for social liberty and equality. Your agenda borrows heavily from small 'l' liberalism. Do you think Vladimir Lenin got it right when he said the ALP should be renamed the Liberal-Labor Party?

LEIGH: Well even a stopped clock is right twice a day and I think Lenin was right about that. I think ours is definitely a party of markets and multiculturalism. My colleague Chris Bowen has put this extremely articulately in the book that he put out earlier this year. We'll of course always be the party of egalitarianism, the party that tackles inequality and believes in a fair go. But on top of that I think we also have an important role to play, defending the role that markets have, whether that's in the Murray Darling Basin or dealing with climate change. Or indeed, just in raising prosperity across the board.

CARABINE: You also put in your essay the case not just for more open policy making but also open party structures. You've caught the current fever that's going around to democratise the party. You've taken it to a new level. You want not just rank and file ballots for delegates at party conferences and also for all senators. But you also want electorate-wide plebiscites. In what circumstances would they be warranted?

LEIGH: Well I believe that it's important that we look at the extent to which the party structures remain democratic. I think if we've got strong party membership, allowing party members to select candidates and delegates is actually a pretty effective strategy. But where that party membership has dwindled down too far to a point where it just can't be reasonably claimed to be representative, then I think opening things up to a broad plebiscite of the electorate makes sense. There's a sense in which that's a small 'l' liberal reform as well,  a reform in the spirit of openness which I think is in the best of the Labor tradition going back through Gillard, Hawke, Keating.

CARABINE: Andrew Leigh, you also think it's time for Labor MPs to be given the opportunity to cross the floor and not face expulsion from the party. Is that one area where you would concede the Liberals are more advanced in their thinking than Labor?

LEIGH: Well, the Liberals have a sort of funny rule where they try and hold people as tightly as they can but if they lose one then there's no sanctions. I think that's actually not much more advanced than the Labor position which says we will hold our candidates in all circumstances except if it's a conscience vote. What I'm advocating is what the British Labour Party calls 'a three-line whip' in which different votes are categorised as being [either] extremely important - so they're underlined three times; reasonably important - underlined twice; or what is now a conscience vote and then the whip would be underlined once. That allows a little more flexibility in particular votes. There would still be strongly binding votes. There's no question that if you're voting on the budget then that has to be a three-line whip. But it allows an additional gradation to what we have at the moment and moves us from the system of conscience votes which are really just restricted to those with religious overtones. They reflect a divide that was appropriate to a Labor Party of the 1950s but I don't think necessarily of the Labor Party of the 2010s.

CARABINE: Well just finally and briefly, is it easier for you to go out on a limb and make such bold recommendations since you're not a member of a faction. You're one of only three Labor MPs who are non-aligned. Does that help?

LEIGH: I think there's many people who are having these conversations within the Labor Party today. I mentioned Chris Bowen who's in a faction. Jim Chalmers, as well, has made thoughtful contributions. Clare O'Neil has written a terrific piece for The Age recently and I know that Melissa Parke and Lisa Singh have been advocates for change. So there's thoughtful conversations taking place - with an important respect for our traditions and our history, for the valuable role that unions have played in the party and for the recognition that we want to move cautiously - but that this is a good time for having a conversation for what Labor stands for and where we go.

CARABINE: Thanks so much for coming in and having that conversation on Radio National Breakfast. Thank you Andrew Leigh.

LEIGH: Thank you Alison.

FRAN KELLY: Andrew Leigh, shadow assistant treasurer speaking with Alison Carabine, our political editor in Canberra. And the book Not Dead Yet: What Future for Labor? It's released today. It's published by Black Inc. and Andrew Leigh's essay also has a few ideas about what Labor should be thinking about in terms of asylum policy and climate change.

I have a chapter in a new Black Inc book on the future of the ALP. Here's an extract, plus the endnotes (for anyone who's interested in that sort of thing).

Labor must continue to follow road of openness, The Australian, 30 October 2013

Labor must never forget that our brand is not interchangeable with that of the Coalition. The two parties play fundamentally different roles in the Australian political system. Labor’s role is to take the initiative, to defend those whom life has treated unfairly, to carve out an activist role on the global stage. By contrast, the Coalition parties are defenders of the status quo, more likely to be heard supporting vested interests than those on the margins of society, and largely untroubled if people turn off politics entirely. Australian politics isn’t Coke versus Pepsi. To become a Labor version of Mr Abbott’s Opposition would be to repudiate the essence of what our party stands for. Labor must continue to be the party of ideas and reform.

There are three possible futures for federal Labor. The first is negativity. One lesson that will inevitably be drawn from recent Australian political history is that the way to win office is by denigrating the government, while minimising your policy differences with the party in power.

Negativity corrodes the sense of hope, idealism and common purpose that is so vital to being a successful parliamentarian. It also crowds out policy development. If your sole focus is on demonising the government, then the hard-heads will argue that putting forward your own ideas will only distract from the main task at hand. Yet we know from history that carrying out policy development in the full light of public scrutiny tends to make for better results.

The second possibility is ‘closed Australia’. During the twelve decades since Labor’s founding, our party has been wrong on immigration for longer than we have been right. It took Gough Whitlam’s leadership of the ALP finally to put the party’s worst racist tendencies to bed. A similar story applies in the case of trade.

The pressures of economic nationalism are never far from the surface. While the 1996–98 electoral term saw federal Labor operate as a unified and effective Opposition, it was also a period in which the party too readily distanced itself from the economic reforms pursued by Hawke and Keating. As Lindsay Tanner noted of this period, “Labor has continually offered support to disgruntled producer groups at the expense of consumers. Every time we do this, we take another small chunk out of our economic credibility.”

Advocates of a closed Australia come in different flavours. Some oppose imports, migrants and foreign investment. But more commonly, people advocate raising the walls in just one or two domains. Some want higher tariffs but more migrants. Others demand less foreign investment but support more aid. And there are those who believe we should have a smaller population but take more refugees. Whether the “closed Australia” model comes in part or as a whole, this is not a strategy that should tempt the ALP.

The third and best approach for the ALP is to embrace the record of openness that has been the hallmark of Labor at its best. Whether through support for individual liberties or belief in open markets, social liberalism has a prominent place in the story of the Australian Labor Party. This is an approach that is particularly appealing in light of the Liberal Party’s steady abandonment of small-L liberalism. To adapt a US quip, theirs is a LINO Party – Liberal In Name Only.

Labor will always be the party of egalitarianism. Too much inequality can tear the social fabric, threatening to cleave us one from another. In also taking on the mantle of social liberalism, Labor states our commitment to open markets as the most effective way of generating wealth.  A commitment to social liberalism would also pledge Labor to an open and multicultural Australia.

Over the past six years, Labor has many policy achievements of which we can be proud. On the international stage, we won Australia a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Our economy grew from the fifteenth-largest to the twelfth-largest in the world, productivity ticked up, and inflation and unemployment remained low by historical standards. We moved to cap carbon pollution, and struck an agreement that allowed the Murray to flow again.

Openness may be the right road for Labor, but it is not the easy one. After losing government to what Anthony Albanese has tagged “the Noalition,” it will be painful for Labor in opposition to adopt a more positive approach. Perhaps some of our supporters will argue that the real reason Labor lost the 2013 election was that we did not embrace economic nationalism across the board. But if Labor is to serve its core mission – of raising living standards, spreading opportunity and encouraging diversity – then we should pursue openness in our policy settings and our party structures.

Andrew Leigh is the shadow assistant treasurer. This is an edited extract from Not Dead Yet (Black Inc).

On ABC666, I spoke with host Adam Shirley about Labor's continued commitment to putting a price on carbon pollution through an emissions trading scheme. Here's a podcast. The transcript is below.

Adam Shirley: Andrew Leigh is the  Shadow Assistant Treasurer and also the Member for Fraser,  Dr Leigh good after afternoon to you this afternoon.

Andrew Leigh: Good afternoon, Adam, how are you?

Shirley: Very well thanks. You support removing the Carbon Tax and replacing it with a trading scheme.  If Labor helps remove the tax, the Government will not introduce a trading scheme, so no price on carbon in that scenario.  Correct?

Leigh: Well, Adam, you're talking about a hypothetical there my .....

Shirley: A likely hypothetical I would argue.

Leigh:  My view is that we should do after the election what we said we would do before the election.  Which is to move a year earlier from the fixed price period into the floating price period.  Now every emissions trading scheme typically has a fixed price period. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the one the Greens voted down  in the Senate, that had a one-year fixed price period and the current scheme has a three-year fixed price period.  All we said in the election is let's make that fixed price period two years rather than three years.

Shirley: Mm

Leigh:  So there seems to be a little bit of a storm in a teacup going on today, because what's been reported is exactly what we said in the election.  We think the fixed price period should finish a year earlier. That's got some advantages: it allows Australia to get emissions abatement on the European market, to cap our pollution but to do so at a lower cost.

Shirley: But in effect Labor will assist the Government in removing a price on carbon.  Is that a fact because there will be no ETS under the Prime Minister, under Prime Minister Abbott?  He has said that pretty clearly.

Leigh: Adam, we will do in the Parliament what we said we would do in the election, which is to support moving from the fixed price to the floating price a year earlier.  We are not going to go out there and support getting rid of the cap on carbon pollution altogether.  That wouldn't make much sense, particularly when the alternative that Mr Abbott is putting up is a Direct Action plan that hardly any serious economist thinks will do the job.

Shirley: So is Labor's, I guess, want to remove the Carbon Tax conditional on an ETS staying in place?

Leigh: That's right.  We believe, we believe that we ought to move away from that fixed price period and go to the floating price.  But Labor has been committed to an Emissions Trading Scheme for the best part of the decade.

Shirley: We know the Government, the current Government will not support an ETS, so where is the way out here?

Leigh:  Well, I believe that they ought to see the light on that.  Their Direct Action Plan is being bagged left, right and centre, and justifiably.  If you want to do the job via Direct Action, the Grattan Institute thinks that you need $100 billion and as Malcolm Turnbull has pointed out, the greatest virtue Direct Action has to recommend it is that it is easily dismantled.  This isn't a good economic policy, it's not a good way of dealing with climate change.  If Mr Abbott wants to deliver what he pledged of getting rid of a ‘carbon tax’, then he should do that very precisely.  He should move away from the fixed price period and go to the floating price. But why would you get rid of the cap on carbon pollution when electricity emissions are already down 7%; when 4 out of 5 industrial energy users say that a carbon price has had a significant impact and when the Climate Institute says that the carbon price has had an ‘undetectable impact’ on the nation's overall economic performance.

Shirley: Andrew Leigh, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Direct Action, the Government  has consistently said that's its plan - they said it in the lead-up to the election; they've continued that theme afterwards. Labor appears to again be modifying its position on the carbon price.  Is this because your party is more interested in focus groups and polls than maintaining a consistent policy on climate change?

Leigh:  Adam, the question as you have phrased it is misleading to your listeners.  You can do better than this.  What you need to be clear with your listeners is that Labor is saying nothing more now than we did before the election.

Shirley:  The effect of getting rid of the Carbon Tax will not be what you were saying prior to the election, because the Government will not support an ETS.  That is a fair point, is it not?

Leigh:  No, it's not, Adam.  What we've said is that if the Government wants to move away from the carbon tax and to an emissions trading scheme, then we are happy to support that.  But we have not said that we are happy to scrap the carbon pricing mechanism altogether - to get rid of the cap on carbon pollution.  Labor has been committed to emissions trading.  We have voted for it consistently in the Senate, including in 2009 when the Greens and the Liberals voted it down.  We will continue to be committed to carbon pricing because it's  the most efficient and effective way of dealing with climate change.

Shirley:  I guess my question is what will happen, what will happen if the Government is not committed to an ETS, as seems likely.

Leigh: Well that will be a matter for them to negotiate with other parties to try and find a majority for a scheme which is going to be much more expensive to households; and do much less for the environment; which runs out in 2020; and has no long-term plans for abatement;  which is best thought of as 'soil magic', ironically from a party which has already been committed to markets.  If you are committed to markets, if you are a small-l Liberal as the Libs claim to be, then you ought to be committed to an emissions trading scheme, because it is just the most effective and practical way of getting the job done.

Shirley: So as far as you can see, Dr Leigh, is it likely that Labor will push to remove the Carbon Tax and push for an ETS when it comes time for a vote in Parliament.

Leigh:  Adam, that is, that's always been our policy to move from a fixed price carbon price to an ETS in the long run.  We said we would do that after 1 year when we came up with the first plan.  When we came up with this plan, we said we'd do it after 3 years; and earlier this year we said we'd actually make that a 2 year period.  The precise time period, fixed price period is not a critical question.  What you want to do....

Shirley:  Why isn't it a critical question?

Leigh:  Because there's no great science over how long you want the fixed price period in place.  The fixed price period gives business certainty as you begin to introduce the emissions trading scheme.  But the floating price gives the critical cap on carbon pollution and allows you to link in with the international markets.  It allows you to achieve lowest-cost abatement because this is a global problem, and so a tonne of carbon abated anywhere in the world has the same impact on the environment.  But an emissions trading scheme is just the right way of dealing with carbon pollution.  That's why you are seeing cities like Shenzen in China moving to an emissions trading scheme.  In fact it's likely that by 2020, China will have nation-wide carbon trading markets.  It's kind of ironic, right,  you've got a nominally communist country moving towards emissions trading with a nominally free-market Liberal and National parties prefer a command and control system in Direct Action which is much less effective than what the Chinese Communist party is supporting.

Shirley:  Dr Andrew Leigh, I think it is the first time I've spoken to you since you got the Shadow Assistant Treasurer gong, one of my guesses, I think, if memory serves correct.  Thank you for speaking to us on 666 Drive this afternoon.

Leigh:  Thank you Adam.

Shirley: Thanks a lot.  Dr Andrew Leigh there, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Member for Fraser on 666 Drive, this afternoon.

This morning, I spoke with Tim Lester about some of the stories making news today: surveyed economists rejecting the government's Direct Action policy to limit climate change, the unwelcome prospect of Australia Post delivering Centrelink services and Tony Abbott's uncouth comments in a Washington Post interview. Here's the transcript:

TRANSCRIPT

BREAKING POLITICS WITH TIM LESTER

MONDAY 28 OCTOBER 2013

Subjects: Centrelink and Australia Post, Direct Action, Foreign Affairs.

TIM LESTER: Has the Abbott Government found a viable way of saving money by shifting the front office operations of Centrelink to the control of Australia Post. It's likely to cause plenty of discussion in politics this week. Labor MP Andrew Leigh, the member for Fraser here in the ACT, joins us in the Breaking Politics studio to discuss this and a few other issues on a Monday. Andrew, welcome in, appreciate your time.

ANDREW LEIGH: Thank you Tim.

LESTER: Is it a good idea to the front office operations of Centrelink and put them in Australia Post outlets?

LEIGH: Tim, the work that Centrelink does is pretty high level work. It's not simply dispensing payments. It's working through the appropriate payments for someone at a time of crisis in their life. People come into a Centrelink office after having lost a job, after having experienced a family breakdown and some of the clients have mental health issues. It's a time of great vulnerability and that's why Centrelink officers are trained professionals. The notion that they could simply be lining up in an Australia Post office, dodging through the stands of calendars and express post envelopes misses what Australia Post does. It's the kind of thing you would expect from a Government that's just gotten rid of the income support payment, effectively a cut to payment for unemployment benefits to now say now to some of the most vulnerable Australians including those with mental illness, just go the Australia Post Office instead.

LESTER: So you see a real danger in mixing these two?

LEIGH: I think some of the most vulnerable Australians will be hurt by this Tim and I think that, unfortunately, it seems to be so much of a pattern with this Government. Taking away the Schoolkids Bonus, taking away income support payments, giving more money to millionaires to have families, giving big tax cuts to mining billionaires. It's the wrong philosophy for an Australia founded on the 'fair go'.

LESTER: The Government faces criticism this morning in Fairfax Media publications at least that it seems an overwhelming number of economists believe that the direct action plan to reduce carbon emissions will not be nearly as effective as the current plan, the market based plan that the Labor Government put into place. Does this surprise you?

LEIGH: It's not a great surprise Tim. We saw this in a survey of the Australian Conference of Economists a couple of years ago. As Chris Caton said in response to the survey today, any economist who believes the 'command and control' system of Direct Action is going to be a better plan ought to hand in their degree. I notice of the 35 economists, there are only two that support Direct Action. One because he doesn't believe that humans are causing climate change and another because he doesn't believe Australia should do anything about it and therefore thinks that Direct Action is the right plan to achieve that goal.

LESTER: It's kind of like asking a dairy farmer, 'Is cheese a good thing?', isn't it. Economist to comment on whether they like a market scheme as opposed to an essentially a non-market scheme was always going to deliver this kind of an answer, wasn't it?

LEIGH: As much Tim as if you ask scientists the scientific question whether humans are causing climate change. The overwhelming majority will say 'yes'. Economists have been studying ways of efficiently spending taxpayer dollars in order to achieve the best outcome. The problem with Direct Action is it costs more and it does less. Every serious economist will tell you that and it has again been replicated in the survey today. That's why Labor put in place a market based mechanism and it's why we've argued so strongly that Australian households cannot afford 'direct action'. Instead they need a cap on pollution.

LESTER: And yet for all this, there's a great deal of political pressure on Bill Shorten and Labor at the moment to bend to the apparent will of the Australian people at the last election and let direct action come into being, scrap the market system. How is Labor handling the pressure at the moment?

LEIGH: We went to the last election saying that we would get rid of the carbon tax, that fixed price period, go straight to the floating price, straight to the scheme that puts a cap on pollution, something Direct Action doesn't do, and to the scheme that's cheapest for Australian households. I don't think we would well serve our voters to say to the people who elected us, knowing we were campaigning for a cap on pollution, that we no longer believe that Australia ought to cap its emissions and that we now think it's okay to slug households $1300 each for the expensive and ineffective direct action plan.

LESTER: You must be seeing some dissent in Labor ranks on this question, this must put some Labor MPs under a deal of pressure?

LEIGH: After elections you'll always have good robust conversations about where the party is going and it's wise to take a moment to take stock.

LESTER: And this has been a good robust one?

LEIGH: This has been a robust internal conversation. But I think the overwhelming majority of my colleagues back the cap on pollution, back the notion that Labor ought to continue to campaign for dealing with climate change in the most effective way and not behave as Mr Abbott describes himself as a weathervane on climate change, blowing whichever way the political winds will go.

LESTER: Now, Mr Abbott has told The Washington Post that the previous government, the government of which you were part was 'wacko', among other things. There's a number of people saying he shouldn't have said it to a foreign media organisation, certainly not the in the U.S., but at least he's consistent in his language isn't he? He's not telling one story in Australia and another abroad.

LEIGH: Mr Abbott will always be a political strategist first and a statesman second. You can never imagine Robert Menzies going overseas after beating Ben Chifley and saying to an international audience that Ben Chifley's Government was ‘wacko’. Menzies and Chifley had a big battle over nationalising the banks but Menzies and many other conservative leaders have been of the kind that they feel that when we go overseas we need to behave in statesperson-like fashion. Don't forget that Prime Minister Gillard received a standing ovation when she addressed Congress. I used to work for the late Senator Peter Cook and he had a saying: "When we go overseas, we're 'Team Australia'". We carry a sense of national interest with us first and we leave behind the partisan games. I just wish Mr Abbott was able to take Senator Cook's advice.

LESTER: What's the danger though from Tony Abbott doing what he's done? What's the negative effect? America's one of the world's most robust democracies. It knows politics and it knows the game of politics. It's going to recognise what's going on here, isn't it?

LEIGH: We had a scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, Norman Ornstein, saying that he thought U.S. audiences would find this pretty shocking; that in the United States there is a tradition of respect to one's predecessor and a sense that it is important we show a sense of unity for Australia. Let's face it on the objective indicators Australia under Labor did extraordinarily well, whether it's the OECD’s Better Life Index, the UN's Human Development Index, whether it's our robust growth at a time when other economies are shrinking or whether it's our low debt levels relative to the rest of the world - objective indicators suggest Australia is doing very well. So it doesn't help to have the leader of the nation going overseas describing previous governments as 'wacko'.

LESTER: What does it tell about Tony Abbott and his style and his suitability for the job?

LEIGH: Well Mr Abbott has always struggled with the statesman's role. You saw this on those moments before the New Zealand Prime Minister addressed the parliament, in the moments before the U.S. President addressed the parliament, where both Prime Minister Gillard and Mr Abbott had opportunities to make remarks. Prime Minister Gillard made broad statesperson-like remarks. Mr Abbott couldn't help injecting a note of partisan politics, a little partisan dig at the other side. He seems to forget that he has become prime minister now and that actually it is in his interests and very much in Australia's interests for him to try, for once, to rise above the partisan fray.

LESTER: Andrew Leigh, we're grateful for your time on Breaking Politics. Thank you for coming in today.

LEIGH: Thank you Tim.

History was made today with the passage in the ACT Assembly of the momentous Marriage Equality Same-Sex Bill.  My congratulations to my ACT Labor colleagues and all those who helped make this win happen.

MEDIA RELEASE



Andrew Leigh

Member for Fraser





TUESDAY 22 OCTOBER 2013

Andrew Leigh welcomes milestone ACT same-sex marriage law



Federal Labor Member for Fraser, Andrew Leigh, has congratulated his Australian Capital Territory colleagues for the successful passage today of the trailblazing Marriage Equality Same-Sex Bill.

“The irony is that this bill is only possible because the Howard Government amended the federal Marriage Act in 2004, restricting it to cover only heterosexual marriage.

“As a result, today’s ACT bill simply fills in the gap – allowing same-sex marriages by ACT couples.”

Dr Leigh said the federal Attorney General’s plan to challenge the ACT law in the High Court is “mean-spirited”.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says states and territories can’t pass laws on marriage. In fact, until the 1960s, marriage was principally a state and territory matter.

“A High Court challenge like this is extremely unusual, and would normally come from a private citizen, not the federal government.

“This legal challenge is a diversion from what is fundamentally a political issue. If the Abbott Government wants to try and quash this law, then same-sex marriage should be debated in the federal parliament with the Liberal Party allowing its members a conscience vote, not binding them as it did last time around.”

Dr Leigh urged Australian conservatives to look to their friends in Britain and New Zealand where same-sex marriage has been passed by conservative governments.

“I am reminded of the words of conservative Maurice Williamson who said during the debate in Wellington ‘I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill right now… The sun will still rise tomorrow…You will not have skin diseases or rashes or toads in your bed. The world will just carry on’.”

“What the ACT has done is simply allow two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage.  It isn’t going to weaken heterosexual marriages like mine. This is going to make us stronger as a society.

“George Brandis calls himself a small-L liberal, but I’m concerned that one of his top priorities is to attempt to tear up ACT same-sex marriage certificates. Instead, Senator Brandis should be celebrating with the many same-sex couples in the ACT who can now wed their loved ones.” said Dr Leigh

ENDS

Returning to an important theme, I spoke to Fairfax Media's Tim Lester about carbon policy, arguing that the ALP has a mandate to champion an emissions trading scheme. We also discussed today's Deloitte Access Economics report and the Coalition's proposed commission of audit which, I am concerned, will try and balance the budget off the backs of the poorest. Watch the video or read the transcript below.

Breaking Politics with Tim Lester – Fairfax Media



MONDAY 21  OCTOBER  2013



TIM LESTER: Labor's shadow ministry meets today as questions emerge about how united the opposition is in the position put by new leader Bill Shorten, that is that it will oppose the repeal of the Carbon Tax. Two names have been mentioned as likely dissenters - Mark Bishop, that's the senator and Nick Champion in the lower house. We're joined each week on Breaking Politics on a Monday by Andrew Leigh. Welcome in Labor member for Fraser in the ACT, and now Shadow Assistant Treasurer. Congratulations on the role.

ANDREW LEIGH: Thanks Tim.

LESTER: On to the question of Carbon. Do you believe there is a split now emerging in Labor ranks on whether to try to hold the line on the Carbon Tax or not?

LEIGH: Well Tim, there's always going to be some diversity of opinion in any sensible political party but we have a strong policy that we took to the 2007, 2010, 2013 elections and for which I believe we have a mandate. And that's that a price on carbon pollution is the cheapest and most effective way of combating carbon pollution. We just had the hottest Australian summer on record, and the hottest Australian winter on record. We know that we get more extreme weather events as a result of climate change so we can't be playing politics with this. We need to identify the most effective strategy and fight hard for that.

LESTER: Okay, the pressure has just begun on Labor really. There is a long and very brutal political game, you would think, being played here to put pressure on the Opposition to buckle and to give in to what looks like the demand of the last election. Are you sure Labor can hold out through all of the turbulence it's likely to face on this issue over the next year or so?

LEIGH: Well you're right to refer to it as a political game Tim because the Coalition has put up repeal legislation for the carbon price which will then be replaced with - well we don't know, because they haven't shown us the legislation for Direct Action. We know why that is. If we go to a member Mr Abbott's cabinet, Malcolm Turnbull has said very clearly that direct action is a policy whose chief virtue is that it can be easily dismantled. It's more expensive on households. When we brought in a carbon price, we cut taxes on workers, we raised taxes on polluters. Mr Abbott thinks the best way to fight climate change is to raise taxes on workers and cut taxes on polluters. That makes no economic sense whatsoever, and I think if 2010 taught us anything, it's that maintaining our policy integrity on the issue of climate change is absolutely vital.

LESTER: Now I mentioned two names out of 86 because they're mentioned in the morning press and The Australian, Mark Bishop and Nick Champion. Do you think that dissent to Labor's position is that small in the 86-member caucus, or might it be much bigger?

LEIGH: Well, we have a strong policy position on this Tim. It's in our party platform. It's in what we took to the last election and I think my colleagues are fundamentally united around the view that putting a price on carbon pollution is the most sensible way of dealing with climate change, and united also in the notion that Mr Abbott's ‘soil magic’ Direct Action plan just won't work. It will cost households too much.

LESTER: Labor could not back down on this?

LEIGH: I believe that this is the right policy for us to be pursuing. It's the policy that we have held continuously for the best part of a decade, and it's a policy which is shared by every serious scientist and economist, not just in Australia but around the world. You're seeing countries now moving to price carbon. China will likely move from its emissions trading pilots in big cities to a nationwide emissions trading scheme by 2020.

LESTER: Okay, all of that said, you would expect some discussion on this in the shadow ministry today.

LEIGH: Sensible parties have discussions about important issues Tim. But, would you really want Australia - the country with the highest per capita emissions of any developed nation to be running in the opposite direction from the rest of the world on how to deal with climate change? To be taking the ostrich approach, sticking our heads in the sand and saying that maybe if we don't do anything, it will be alright. Direct Action can't solve this problem; carbon price is solving it already.

LESTER: Deloitte Access Economics says that achieving a sustainable surplus for government is becoming a herculean task, given rising costs faced in a few very big cost areas. Are they right?

LEIGH: Balancing a budget is always tough Tim. You saw in the last budget for the first time, as I understand it in Australian history, a drop in real spending.* Now that was tough. We had to make hard decisions such as phasing out the baby bonus, tough decisions around getting rid of the dependent spouse tax offset, and changing the structure of fringe benefits tax. We got attacked by the Coalition on all of those things, but they allowed us together to reduce total spending without, I think, hurting the most disadvantaged. The Coalition now want a commission of audit which is going to be balancing the budget off the backs of the poorest, which is going to probably be recommending harsh cuts on social services following in from the Coalition's planned policy of ripping superannuation money away from three million of the lowest income earners in Australia. You don't have to do that if you keep the mining tax Tim. But they went to the election promising that Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart would get a tax cut through the abolition of the mining tax and so they're putting mining billionaires ahead of battlers.

LESTER: You think that the audit will be that brutal?

LEIGH: Certainly the indication that we get from say, the Queensland Commission of Audit is that this is really a ‘commission of cuts’ hitting the most disadvantaged. If you want to boost productivity, then you want to look at why you would be paying millionaire families $75,000 to have a child and why you'd get rid of a mining tax that was the central recommendation of the Henry Tax Review. Good economic policy isn't three word slogans and populist politics, it is the hard work of listening to experts and implementing good reforms, and I just don't think the evidence is that you'll get that out of the commission of audit the Coalition's proposing.

LESTER: A large news survey suggests that 27% of Australians believe that government can almost always be trusted. That was 48% four years ago. There has been a remarkable drop in trust of our Federal Government if this survey is right. Why?

LEIGH: Trust in politicians is an issue I'm pretty passionate about Tim. I wrote a book in 2002 called The Prince's New Clothes - Why Australians Distrust their Politicians. I co-edited it with David Burchell.

LESTER: Seems they trusted us more than, than they do now.

LEIGH: It does, it does and look let's be clear, even then our publisher thought the problem was so bad that they put a picture of one dog sniffing another dog's backside on the cover. So if things are declining still, then that's a real concern. Frankly it's more of a concern for my side of politics than for the conservatives. Theirs is a party that can live with a distrust of politics because they don't believe that government has a powerful role to play in making a difference in the lives of Australians. I do. That's why it's a Labor government that brought in place DisabilityCare, a Labor government that's worked to transform Australian schools. So trust in politics is a Labor issue and it's one that I want to work to try and redress.

LESTER: It's also Labor's problem isn't it? Because that slump in trust from 2009 to 2013 has happened under a Labor government with Labor promises about the carbon price and other commitments, budget surplus, at issue. So Labor has to shoulder a fair bit of the blame doesn't it?

LEIGH: Well we had a minority parliament and we had the most negative opposition leader in Australian history, and an opposition leader who is relentlessly negative rather than focusing on ways of finding consensus and building a better Australia…

LESTER: So it’s Tony Abbott’s fault?

LEIGH: I think Mr Abbott does bear a fair degree of responsibility for it, and as an economist, let me give you some empirical evidence for that. Look at the consumer confidence numbers broken out by party. As soon as Mr Abbott becomes leader, confidence in the economy - which is surely not a partisan issue - starts to tank. The partisan gap that opens up under Mr Abbott is bigger than under any other opposition leader. So, he did a very good job of attacking government as a whole, but I think we now need to work on rebuilding. That's why I think Labor in opposition shouldn't follow the negativity playbook that Mr Abbott set down. We need to be an opposition of ideas, as well as holding the Government to account.

LESTER: Andrew Leigh, great to have you back at Breaking Politics. Thanks for coming in.

LEIGH: Thank you Tim.

* Andrew should have said ‘nominal spending’. In 2012-13, real government spending fell 3%, and nominal spending fell 1%.

This morning I was a guest of AM Agenda on Sky News. I joined Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield and television host Laura Jayes to discuss the morning's headlines with subjects including disaster relief, climate change, a commonwealth commission of audit and asylum seekers.

TRANSCRIPT

Sky News AM Agenda with Laura Jayes



MONDAY 21  OCTOBER  2013



LAURA JAYES: Let's go to our panel now and the Assistant Minister for Social Services, Mitch Fifield, and the new Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh, congratulations to you. First Mitch Fifield, looking at this situation, can you tell us what kind of payments are available for bushfire victims; what kind of assistance they can expect from the government here?

MITCH FIFIELD: Sure. Well, the Australian Government Disaster Relief payments are in operation and that's a thousand dollars to eligible adults and $400 for eligible kids. That's being made available to people whose homes have been destroyed, whose homes have been damaged or who have sustained an injury. In parallel with that are joint commonwealth/state disaster arrangements which make provision for food, clothing, [and] accommodation. People who have queries, who want to know what's available should get in contact with the Commonwealth Department of Human Services who are acting as the lead Commonwealth agency on the ground in those areas.

JAYES: I understand that the eligibility payments have been changed when it comes to federal assistance [for] from those who've had their home destroyed or severely damaged. To those who have been cut off or their electricity has been cut off from their homes, they're no longer available, eligible for these payments. Is that correct?

FIFIELD: There's a range of categories which can be activated for any emergency. The decision that the government has taken is to initially provide assistance to those who have been directly and immediately affected by way of [their] home being damaged or destroyed. As the situation develops the Government will continue to assess the situation.

JAYES: Andrew Leigh, this is a change from Labor policy. These payments still going to the most effected.

ANDREW LEIGH: They are going to the most affected Laura. But I would urge the Government on this case, be a little more generous to open up that payment category to people who've been unable to access their home in the previous 24 hours. The trauma that comes from being cut off from your home, I know that for many of these Blue Mountains residents, whether they're living in evacuation centres at the moment and the challenges you face with kids. I think that's an appropriate use of taxpayer funds. So, I hope that the government does change that decision there because I'm a little concerned by the reports I read in the paper today about challenges for families accessing payments.

JAYES: Okay, we'll move on to some political policy areas and one thing that has been bubbling away is the Carbon Tax issued. This will be considered by Shadow Cabinet today, no doubt. You've also accused Greg Hunt of playing politics with climate change. What do you mean by that?

LEIGH: Well, at the moment what we've seen from the Coalition is a bill to repeal the carbon price but not a bill to put anything in its place. So, what they want to do is they want to scrap the measure that's already working to reduce at lower cost than we anticipated and replace it with, well, we don't really know. I mean as Malcolm Turnbull pointed out a couple of years ago the chief virtue of Direct Action is its ability to be easily dismantled if one decides to that climate change isn't real. But after the hottest winter on record which followed the hottest summer on record I think it's very clear that climate change is happening. Humans are causing it. We need to deal with it in the cheapest possible way.

JAYES: Do you point to this bushfire situation as an example of climate action in action?

LEIGH: I don't think any particular event can be traced to climate change, but we do know that climate change is going to cause more extreme weather events and more of those extremely hot days. We've seen that in the weather records in Australia just over the past year.

JAYES: Mitch Fifield, the Direct Action plan, this is certainly an area that Labor is trying to shift the debate from Carbon Tax to focus on the Direct Action plan. Do you see weaknesses here for the Government?

FIFIELD: Look, it's only, Greg Hunt outlined before the election, in fact, two elections back, the broad outline of our Direct Action plan and further detail of that will be presented by the Minister. But you're right Labor are trying to deflect to another subject because they don't want to talk about the fact that they introduced a Carbon Tax. They don't want to talk about the fact that the electorate comprehensively repudiated the fact that they introduced a Carbon Tax, despite the fact that former Prime Minister Gillard said that she never would and that Labor never would. What's entirely unclear at the moment is what Labor are going to do when the Carbon Tax repeal legislation hits the parliament.

JAYES: Andrew Leigh, there seems to be a split within the party at the moment. WA Senator Mark Bishop, just the latest, saying that Labor should let this legislation go, go through. Nick Champion was the first after the election to say that Labor should abstain in the Senate and shift the fight to Direct Action. What do you think the party should do?

LEIGH: Well Laura, certainly Mr Abbott has been a weather vane on climate change but I don't think we ought to. Just because the Prime Minister has held every conceivable position on this issue...

JAYES: Do you accept that not everyone's on board?

LEIGH: I think this is a challenging issue as things often are after an election. But our party policy is very clear. Pricing carbon is the most straight forward way, the cheapest way. And if you go to the Direct Action, frankly, what that's doing is to cut taxes on polluters and raises taxes on workers...

JAYES: Should Labor go to the next election then promising to reinstate a ETS?

LEIGH: We've just had an election. I don't think we're about to sit here laying out our policies for the next election but I can tell you is that our policy is very clearly that pricing carbon is the cheapest way of dealing with climate change. Households can't afford Direct Action. It's just too expensive.

FIFIELD: Labor's policy is anything but clear. Andrew's saying it's clear but are they going to support the Carbon Tax repeal legislation. Simple question - ‘yes or no?’ Mark Bishop is someone I've got a great deal of respect for and he has made it clear that Labor should heed the message from the election and that is to support the repeal of the Carbon Tax. Labor can't say their position is clear until they give us an answer on that.

LEIGH: Have you ever said you had respect for him before this very moment now Mitch? Is it just the fact that he...

FIFIELD: Well, actually as fond as I am of you, I have frequently expressed my admiration in the Senate for Mark Bishop. He is a quality Senator.

JAYES: Just the last question on this Andrew Leigh. It hasn't been clear over the last week, you'd have to say. There's been debate publicly and both privately I understand. So, when Shadow Cabinet meet, you do expect a fight over this? There are some within Labor who just want to let the legislation go through and there are some who want to fight it all the way to the election.

LEIGH: We'll have reasonable discussions on this and other things Laura and I've got strong respect for people like Nick and Mark who take an alternative view. But ultimately you ask me my view and that is that pricing carbon is the right reform. It's the reform that Labor has been committed for the 2007, 2010 and 2013 elections. I think we ought to stick with it because it’s the cheapest and most effective strategy.

JAYES: Okay. Andrew Leigh, Mitch Fifield, don't go away. After the break we're going to look at this commission of audit and also the issue of asylum seekers.

(Commercial)

JAYES: Welcome back. Andrew Leigh and Mitch Fifield join me on the panel this morning. Mitch Fifield, first to you, the commission of audit. The terms of reference are due to signed off by cabinet tomorrow, as I understand it. There are also reports this will look at structural saves than short term budget saves. Is this the right way to go? And is this a change from what was promised at the election?

FIFIELD: The commission of audit and its terms of reference will be released in the near term. We've always said that the purpose of a commission of audit was to look at how to make government as efficient as possible. How to ensure that taxpayer dollars get the maximum value and that remains the case. The scope and the terms of reference, we'll see when they're released.

JAYES: Andrew Leigh, what will also be signed off on in cabinet is the repeal legislation for the Mining Tax. This is one of Tony Abbott's promises in the first 100 days of government. We've been kind of sidelined by looking at the Carbon Tax and focusing on that but what will Labor do here when it comes to that legislation?

LEIGH: It's a great irony isn't it Laura? You've got the Coalition running a commission of audit where they are trying to find savings by cutting services to the poorest Australians and then you've got them sitting there signing off on mining tax repeal which is going to give huge tax break to some rich mining billionaires. Put those two together, if you didn't get rid of a profit-based mining tax you be able to pay decent wages to childcare workers. You wouldn't have to rip away superannuation...

JAYES: But the Mining Tax under Labor didn't raise as much as was forecast so...

LEIGH: Well, the Commonwealth Treasury has in its forward estimates, I think it's around five billion dollars in mining tax revenue. That's not trivial when you're talking about the sorts of cuts that the Coalition is looking at making to services that affect the most disadvantaged.

JAYES: Mitch Fifield.

FIFIELD: Well, we've got to come back to the fact that the MRRT was a confidence sapping and therefore job destroying tax.

LEIGH: How? It either raises no money or it saps confidence, come on.

FIFIELD: No, you can. It did cause pause for foreign investors in relation to Australia. You do have options when you are a foreign investor as to which country you put your money into. So, it did hit confidence. It did hit the certainty in terms of the policy environment in Australia and that's damaging. And perversely, it also raised, and I think the technical economic term is, 'stuff all money', um, and yet the previous government managed the unique feat of spending money that hadn't actually come in. So, it's not a good tax. We will get rid of it and Labor should support that.

JAYES: Are you confident the Government will be able to achieve a surplus earlier than what Labor has promised, because there are reports this morning that in fact, Deloitte Access Economics has put out a report saying reaching a sustainable surplus will be a herculean task with growth below trend. Is this something to government should be sticking to. Is this just playing politics with it or is it something you can absolute commit to?

FIFIELD: We're not playing politics. We'll do what we always have to do after we form government and that is repay Labor's debts.

JAYES: That's a hell or high water promise?

FIFIELD: Well, we've got to get the budget back under control. We've got to get the budget onto a sustainable footing. Government has to live within its means and that's what we've got to do.

JAYES: Andrew Leigh, this report would suggest that, well, below trend growth until 2015. There's certainly a job ahead for the Government?

LEIGH: It's pretty concerning isn't it Laura? Let's remember why we have a profits based mining tax. We had a tax review done, headed by Ken Henry. Its major recommendation was that the best way of taxing minerals is to make sure that when the world price goes up, Australians actually get a share of that increase in price. If you scrap the mining tax, and go back to the old royalties’ regime, you're basically saying if the iron ore price goes up tenfold, Australians enjoy none of that benefit. I don't think that's fair, and it's certainly not fair when the government is looking at cutting back superannuation to low income Australians.

JAYES: I just want to turn to the asylum seeker issue now, Mitch Fifield. The was concerns raised yesterday by Tony Burke that the way in which we are getting information on the number of boat arrivals and what happens on Manus Island, well it is creating a culture of secrecy and a culture of cover up that could lead to incidents down the track, in ten years or so, where you see more issues like we did see with Cornelia Rau and Vivian Alvarez. Do you see any of those concerns and how can they be alleviated?

FIFIELD: Yeah, look there's no culture of secrecy or hiding of information. There's...

JAYES: Perhaps though it's not timely in the way journalists and the Australian public are getting information. The incident on Manus Island for example, we got an update yesterday late, but it did take a number of days to source clarification as to what actually happened.

FIFIELD: Well, Scott Morrison and the commander of ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ are doing very comprehensive weekly briefings and where there are other incidents on occasion, where additional information is warranted and needed, then that's provided and that's the case with the Manus Incident of a few days ago so the objective here is to make sure that every tool that the government has at its disposal to beat the people smugglers and to destroy their trade is deployed and the government will be upfront about what's happening, but look we're...

JAYES: And are these policies starting to work? Is that what we're seeing in the reduced number of boat arrivals?

FIFIELD: Well, I'll leave it to Scott Morrison to provide commentary as to the efficacy of the particular measures, but the early signs are promising.

JAYES: Andrew Leigh, are the boats starting to stop and is it due to the new government's policies or the previous Labor government?

LEIGH: Well, we were already seeing a decline in boat arrival numbers before the election Laura, but really under the Coalition only two things have changed. You've seen a removal of the regular updates when boats arrive, a new veil of secrecy has descended over the department, and then you've seen Mr Morrison's insistence that all boat arrivals be referred to as illegals - as though the real problem with Australia is that our public culture wasn't hostile enough to refugees already. But frankly, those measures aren't going to have an impact on boat arrivals. The towing back of the tow back policy after Mr Abbott visited Indonesia I think, has made clear that really what you've got are the settings put in place under our government with the refugee resettlement agreement.

JAYES: Tony Burke claimed yesterday that it was the PNG resettlement plan, in part or mostly that has seen in a decline in the number of boats. Do you agree with him?

LEIGH: I do. It's a very firm message that we're sending to people smugglers. It's a very clear one. Don't get on a boat. Don't risk the lives of yourself and your children because you do you won't be resettled in Australia. Its impact was, I think, to avert drownings at sea and we thought to allow us to take more refugees but the Coalition's cut back.

JAYES: Mitch Fifield, I'll quickly get your response to that.

FIFIELD: It needs to be remembered that it was Labor in government who dismantled offshore processing in the first place and said it was immoral to do and then, in the face of reality, had no option but to start to implement, some, not all, some elements of our policy.

JAYES: But they fixed it though.

FIFIELD: Look, they, Labor didn't fix it because they didn't put in place all the previous elements of our policy which we are setting out doing.

JAYES: Okay, Mitch Fifield, Andrew Leigh, we will have to leave it there.

LEIGH: Thanks Laura. Thanks Mitch.

FIFIELD: Thanks.

JAYES: Thanks for joining me this morning.

Yesterday, my federal ACT colleagues and I issued a media release condemning the Abbott Government's plan to cut public service job at an extraordinary speed in coming months.

20 October 2013

COALITION TO CUT A PUBLIC SERVICE JOB EVERY HOUR

Federal Labor representatives in the ACT say Coalition policy costings provided on Friday would send a chill up the spine of Canberra public servants.

The Parliamentary Budget Office Post-election Report confirms details of the Abbott Government's plans affecting the Australian Public Service (APS).

The APS will be reduced by 6,000 staff in the nine months to June 2014. That's one public service job lost every single hour until the end of the financial year. A further 6,000 jobs will go in the two years after that.

Four agencies are exempt from the cuts – Australian Customs, Australian Federal Police, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and Australian Secret Intelligence Service. Only serving military and reservists are exempt in Defence.

“This confirms that thousands of public servants in the Defence Department in Canberra face uncertainty,” said Gai Brodtmann.

“We now know where the cuts won't come from, but we don't know yet where they will come from, how they will be delivered and what impact they will have on frontline services” she added.

Andrew Leigh said, “It's hard to believe the speed and severity of the cuts won't erode public services.”

“We have already heard how Centrelink call centres, hit by staff cuts, are struggling to meet customer needs. This disproportionately affects low-income Australians needing tailored support.”

The PBO notes that its findings are of “low or medium reliability” because of the data available to it.

“The savings are difficult to forecast because it relies on who leaves the APS and when,” added Dr Leigh.

“We can only assume that these cuts are not motivated by wanting to trim waste, but by Prime Minister Abbott’s disdain for Canberra and ideological opposition to the public service,” said Senator Kate Lundy.

“Since Prime Minister’s Abbott’s election, I’ve been calling on him to come clean with the detail of his planned public service cuts,” Senator Lundy said.

“The Abbott Government seems to be operating under a cloak of secrecy. Canberrans deserve to know how these 12,000 job cuts are going to be delivered, and what further cuts the Abbott Government has in mind.”

My op-ed today discusses the flaws of Direct Action - as outlined by a prominent member of Cabinet.

Put the heat on Abbott, The Australian, 21 October 2013

Australians just experienced a winter of discontent; the hottest on record.

We are bracing ourselves for a shocking summer. It has been too hot in NSW to even continue property-saving hazard reduction. Climate change is a clear and present danger to the nation.

This is no time to be playing political games on climate change. But, alas, Environment Minister Greg Hunt seems to be doing just that: putting up repeal legislation without a detailed alternative plan to tackle climate change.

The Coalition's vague Direct Action policy will do less and cost more than a carbon price. It's hard to find a serious economist who will argue otherwise.

In May 2011, Malcolm Turnbull pointed to the flaws in Direct Action: "Liberals reject the idea that governments know best. Schemes where bureaucrats and politicians pick technologies and winners. Doling out billions of taxpayers' dollars is neither economically efficient nor will it be environmentally effective."

Turnbull later described Direct Action as having the "virtue" of being easily terminated.

"If you believe climate change is going to be proved to be unreal, then a scheme like that can be brought to an end." Not much consolation after the hottest 12 months on record.

My colleague Mark Butler was spot on when he said last week that the legislation the government would present to the parliament in November was simply duplicitous:

"(It) presents parts which he (Greg Hunt) thinks are attractive to the parliament very quickly and leaves those bits which he knows have failed over three years to attract one single significant supporter from the climate science or the economics field."

In 2009, Turnbull wrote: "It is not possible to criticise the new Coalition policy on climate change because it does not exist. Mr Abbott apparently knows what he is against, but not what he is for." Today the same is true. Just as they have played "hide the boats" and "hide the ministers", the Coalition is now playing "hide the legislation".

Negativity and secrecy were hallmarks of the Coalition in opposition. Not much has changed in government.

Coalition members should remember that a mandate means people who campaign on a platform should vote that way on the floor of parliament. For example, the Coalition took a carbon pricing plan to the 2007 election, so failed to recognise their mandate when they voted down carbon pricing in 2009. What a mandate does not mean is that parties should abandon their election pledges if they lose.

Sure, Mr Abbott's life would be easier if my Labor colleagues and I turned into rubber stamps, but that's not how democracy works. Mr Abbott should instead focus on the approach for which both parties have a mandate: ending the fixed price period on July 1, 2014, and moving immediately to an emissions trading scheme.

If he did that he could still claim that he had "axed the tax", but we would be left with a low-cost alternative. Instead, households will end up paying thousands of dollars a year to pay polluters: in a bizarre command-and-control scheme that won't do the job.

Andrew Leigh is the federal member for Fraser. www.andrewleigh.com