Andrew Leigh

I spoke with Tim Lester on Breaking Politics today. A transcript is below.

TRANSCRIPT OF ANDREW LEIGH MP

‘BREAKING POLITICS’ WITH TIM LESTER

12 AUGUST 2013

E & O E – PROOF ONLY

Subjects: Election campaign, First debate, NBN, Costings, Peter Beattie.

TIM LESTER: Andrew Leigh, welcome into Breaking Politics.

ANDREW LEIGH: Thanks Tim.

TIM LESTER: How’s the campaign going?

ANDREW LEIGH: I’m loving it. I was out in Amaroo, in my electorate, yesterday – door-knocking, talking to people about the National Broadband Network. One bloke said he’d just gotten it hooked up, and he was enjoying using it to have better conversations with relatives overseas. Gotta say Tim, no-one came up to me and said “the real problem with the National Broadband Network is they’ve brought the fibre all the way to my home, and I wish they’d stopped it in the cabinet down the street,” but maybe Mr Turnbull meets people like that when he doorknocks.

TIM LESTER: Funny guy. Now all of the evidence is that at least nationally Labor, not by a lot perhaps, but is losing this campaign. Do you get any of that sense in the electorate?

ANDREW LEIGH: I don’t Tim. I get a real sense of optimism, and I don’t think - even in the electorate of Fraser, people are overly focused on polls. They’re thinking about the way in which the campaign will affect them. They’re judging parties based on policies – our carefully thought out education policy, Mr Abbott’s eleventh hour conversion to say “well I’ll have what he’s having.” Our record of investing in health, and Mr Abbott’s record of taking a billion dollars out of the health care system when he was health minister. So they’re the sort of fundamental issues my electors seem to be talking about.

TIM LESTER: Last night, Prime Minister Rudd took notes into the first of the major campaign debates, which seems like a pretty straight up and down contravention of rule number 15 if you go through the rules and check them out. What do you think happened there?

ANDREW LEIGH: Tim, I have no idea what goes on in these sort of debate rules, it's a kind of arcane insiders game - but I do think that the debate saw Mr Rudd clearly lay out the challenge for Australia at a time when the economy's in transition, with the number of jobs that the mining boom created in construction now starting to taper down. You've seen our forecasts for unemployment ticking up a bit, and that means important investments in education need to be sustained if we're to manage the transition into a more services, manufacturing based economy. You saw that positive story coming through from Mr Rudd; little more than the sort of slogans you've seen right through the campaign from Mr Abbott.

TIM LESTER: Mr Rudd also tried to suggest that the Coalition in government might change the GST. He suggested also, that the Coalition was 70 billion dollars awry in terms of its costings, both of which Tony Abbott says are absolute fantasy. Don't we have to accept Mr Abbott at his word on both of those things?

ANDREW LEIGH: Well Mr Abbott and his front bench team have been clear that they're reviewing the GST. Now Tim, why do you review the GST, if not to think about raising the rate or broadening the base? Or is he seriously suggesting his reason for doing the review is to change the name, or to bring it down? I mean, let's be honest, he's doing the review with an eye to raising it in the future. Why else would you do that review? On the Coalition's costings gap, $70 billion is Mr Hockey and Mr Robb's figure and if they want to debunk it, the way to do it is to bring their policies out of witness protection. Mr Robb repeatedly says that he's got nearly 50 policies sitting in his desk drawer. He says they've got covers, you know that's lovely they've done those cute little laminated covers for them, but if they're so good for the Australian people, why are they in Mr Robb's desk drawer rather than out in the open?

TIM LESTER: Well they've got a cover to say we haven't seen the Pre-election Fiscal and Economic Outlook, the PEFO document we expect to see tomorrow. So until now it's fair to say until they've got those numbers and can digest them, why would they put out all their policies with a bottom line costing?

ANDREW LEIGH: But they've had a series of treasury updates Tim - and as Martin Parkinson, secretary of the Treasury has said, the numbers in those Treasury updates are produced using the same methodology that tomorrow's PEFO numbers were produced by. I mean the original idea that the Coalition talked about in 2010 was that the first year after the election would be consolidation, second year would be policy development, and then the third year they would be out there selling their costed policies. But here we are now, four weeks to an election with a huge costings gap in the Coalition. $70 billion means $7000 for every Australian household in either reduced services or higher taxes. The Coalition's got to come clean, tell us what they're hiding, be honest about the cuts they'll make.

TIM LESTER: Be reasonable, when would it be fair from here to expect the Coalition to have a full costing of their policies with a bottom line?

ANDREW LEIGH: Tim, I think if this had been Labor in opposition, everyone would have expected to see that six months ago. So certainly, the costed policies cannot come soon enough. Mr Abbott can't do this sort of airy hand waving "oh I've already identified savings". I mean last week he's referred to savings that he has already spent. I've sat down and gone through his savings, they total $13 billion - the same amount as his tax cut to big miners and big polluters. He doesn't have savings to spare. His company tax cut, announced last week - $5 billion policy, is an unfunded policy. That's a serious challenge for the Australian people.

TIM LESTER: He does though, have a reasonable case when he says "well we want to introduce policies so they can each be discussed and considered, spaced out over an election campaign" so inevitably costings will tend to get pushed towards the back end of an election campaign won't they?

ANDREW LEIGH: But I think Tim, that's a serious problem at a time when we've had big revenue write-downs and when the choices for politicians are tougher than ever before. I mean when you talk about 2007 with the rivers of gold coming from the Mining Boom Mark I, maybe this costings debate wasn't as apposite as it is today. But right now, you have a situation in which budgets are tight, in which tough choices have to be made. If Mr Abbott's not willing to back tough choices like means-testing the private health insurance rebate, or saying to people who want an FBT tax break "show us a bit of evidence you're using the car for business use" then he has to find other savings. It's really important that he comes through and does that for the health of our democracy. Good policy isn't produced in smoke filled back rooms, it's produced in discussion in public and the Coalition's policies will actually end up being better policies the more public debate they're exposed to.

TIM LESTER: Do you welcome the return to politics and the introduction to Federal politics of former Queensland premier Peter Beattie, and do you think he might be a future Labor leader at a Federal level?

ANDREW LEIGH: We've got a leader, and I don't think he's going anywhere Tim. Certainly Mr Beattie though, is a man whose track record should be welcomed. Under him, Queensland's unemployment rate halved. Under Campbell Newman, Queensland's unemployment rate is going back up and that's because of policy choices. Peter Beattie chose to make Queensland ‘the Smart State’, to invest in education and technology infrastructure. Federal Labor's doing just the same, but the Coalition want to take a leaf from the current Queensland premier's playbook. They want to put in place a commission of cuts. They want to put in place significant cuts to public services but they're not going to level with the Australian people before the election about what they'll be. Do you think Campbell Newman would have been as popular at the last election if he'd told the people of Queensland he was going to get rid of teachers, fire fighters, nurses, police officers? I don't think so.

TIM LESTER: Andrew Leigh, we're grateful for your time today.

ANDREW LEIGH: Thank you Tim.

Media Release



In a win for one of Canberra's most important national institutions, a re-elected Rudd Labor Government would make gifts to the National Arboretum tax-deductible.

ACT representatives Senator Kate Lundy, Member for Fraser Andrew Leigh and Member for Canberra Gai Brodtmann said that this decision will encourage philanthropy to help build one of our great and newest national icons.

Already, generous Canberrans have contributed significantly to the major buildings on the arboretum site. It is hoped that this decision will inspire more donations to support the rest of the National Arboretum as well.

The National Arboretum opened in February and has been receiving 50,000 visitors a month, cementing itself as one of Canberra's greatest tourist attractions.

The Government’s decision to provide the attraction with deductible gift recipient (DGR) status through a specific listing in the tax laws will ensure the project gets much needed ongoing support.

The arboretum is home to an extraordinary collection of living trees, cultivated for conservation, scientific research and education, especially in regards to the impacts of climate change.

Australians who make donations of more than $2 to the arboretum will be able to claim the gift as a tax deduction.

The National Arboretum is a jointly funded initiative between the Commonwealth and ACT governments. The ACT Government has contributed approximately $50 million with the Commonwealth Government allocating $20 million as part of its centenary of Canberra gift to the people of the ACT.

Gifts will be tax deductible from 1 July 2013, however a legislative amendment will be necessary to give effect to this. Funding for this commitment is already included in the budget.

Here's my campaign media release issued today, pledging support for quality child care and early learning for the long haul:

Federal Labor MP for Fraser, Dr Andrew Leigh, was welcomed at a Braddon early learning centre today to sign a pledge committing to the work of the National Quality Framework (NQF) for childcare and early childhood education.

He used the opportunity to challenge the Federal Opposition to do the same.

“Labor’s record in child care is a proud one. Since 2007 we have raised the child care rebate to 50%, provided for better training and pay for workers and improved standards in centres with smaller child to carer ratios.  I urge my opposition counterpart to sign the NQF pledge also.”



The NQF started in 2012 and covers most long day care, family day care, preschool and outside school hours services. It aims, with reforms being phased in before 2020, to raise quality and drive continuous improvement.

“Labor is committed to supporting a higher qualified workforce and ensuring quality education and care is delivered while maintaining affordability for parents,” said Dr. Leigh.

“We know how important a child’s early years are. We want to attract and retain the best people to child care and early learning for all of the community’s benefit.”

The NQF pledge supports a Community Child Care Co-operative campaign for quality child care and education.

Acting Director at the Goodstart Early Learning Centre at Braddon, Jessica Dakin, was delighted the local member took up her invitation to visit the centre and commit to future support.

“It was great to have Andrew come and pledge his on-going support for the NQF reforms,” said Ms Dakin. “The children also enjoyed chatting with him.”

“Goodstart is committed to quality education and care for each child and is fully supportive of the reforms, and at Braddon we are always looking for opportunities to connect and share with our local community.”

After the first election debate, I locked horns with Shadow Finance Spokesman Andrew Robb about the government's plans for managing the economic transition, and the need for the Coalition to bring their policies into the sunlight.

My Chronicle column this month looks at fostering young leaders in the ACT.

Fostering the ACT's Young Future Leaders, The Chronicle, 6 August 2013

In public life, it’s all too easy to confuse leadership with power – to think that the only ones who exercise leadership are generals, judges, ministers and CEOs.

In fact, leadership is much richer and more diffuse. All of us have the ability to lead in our own communities. We’ve seen leadership from the community organisers who ran a successful campaign to provide Safe Shelter to the homeless; the coordinators in Volunteering ACT who join up volunteers to community organisations; the entrepreneurs who created innovation hub Entry 29; and activist Liz Dawson who has persuaded dentists to do pro bono work to give people back their smiles.

Leaders aren’t found on pedestals, they’re all around us.

That’s why I recently ran a workshop on leadership for high school and college students on the northside of Canberra. We talked about the issues people felt passionate about, practiced public speaking, and heard from social entrepreneurs Melanie Poole (who co-founded Vocal Majority) and Ben Duggan (who created Raising Hope).

I think the students enjoyed the chance to share their stories, try out some new skills, and hear from the guest speakers. I appreciated hearing their stories about overcoming fears, helping classmates, and even rescuing injured wildlife. At the end of the three-hour session, I left with a sense of energy and optimism about the positive work that these teens will go on to do in our communities.

In encouraging future leaders, one of the big challenges is to make sure everyone has their say. And when it comes to choosing our representatives in parliament today, the challenge is the same. At present, about half of all 18 year-olds aren’t on the electoral roll. Since my electorate of Fraser is the largest electorate in Australia (with over 133,000 voters) and has several university campuses in its midst, my guess is that there are probably more unenrolled young people in Fraser than in any other electorate in Australia.

Fortunately, the Australian Electoral Commission has recently switched its procedures to allow online enrolment (not the old-fashioned print-it-out-and-post-it-in approach). This means that it’s easier than ever to get on the electoral roll using your laptop, tablet or smartphone.

So if you know a young person who isn’t enrolled, please encourage them to go to www.aec.gov.au to sign up. Moreover, people don’t have to wait until they’re eligible to vote – they can sign up at age 16 or 17, so they’re ready to vote as soon as they turn 18. With an election just around the corner, there’s never been a better time to get on the roll.

Finally, I’m always keen to encourage future leaders. So if you know a young Canberran who’s keen on making a difference but doesn’t know where to start, feel free to suggest they email me. There are plenty of community organisations looking for support, and I’m more than happy to help connect them with one that would be suitable.

Andrew Leigh is the Federal Member for Fraser. His website is www.andrewleigh.com, his email address is [email protected], and he is on Twitter as @ALeighMP.

My op-ed in the Daily Telegraph today is on the importance of enrolling before rolls close on 12 August.

Don't miss your chance to decide country's future, Daily Telegraph, 9 August 2013

One vote can make the difference.

In the 1919 federal election, the seat of Ballarat was won by National Party candidate Edwin Kerby with 13,569 votes, defeating – by just one vote – Labor’s Charles McGrath with 13,568 votes. Had any one of Kerby’s supporters changed their mind, the result would have been different.

Tight elections aren’t just a relic of history. At the last election, five of my colleagues in the House of Representatives won their seats by less than 1 percentage point. Had they lost just 1000 of their supporters, the result would have gone the other way. And with fewer Labor MPs, Tony Abbott would now be celebrating his third year as Prime Minister.

This year, the rolls will close at 8pm on Monday 12 August. If you’re not on the electoral roll by then, you’re missing out on your chance to shape Australia’s future. Just about every political observer agrees that this election will be close. And yet too many Australians, particularly young Australians, are not having their say about the future of the country.

Right now, almost 1.4 million eligible Australians – close to 10 per cent – are absent from the electoral roll. By far the largest group of missing voters are young people: nearly half a million 18-24-year-olds are not enrolled. This means that one in two 18-year-olds, and one in three 19-year-olds, risk not having a say at the ballot box.

Australia is unusual among developed nations in having a system of compulsory voting. Introduced for federal elections by a private member’s bill in 1924, it slipped into legislation with little debate. Over the period between 1915 and 1942, all the Australian states and territories also adopted systems of compulsory voting. A few other developed nations (such as Belgium and Singapore) also compel their citizens to vote. But most do not.

Compulsory voting reflects the fact that with rights come responsibilities. Just as juries ensure that court decisions reflect society’s norms, and the census makes sure that we survey everyone, universal voting is the only way to guarantee that election outcomes reflect the views and values of all Australians.

By not enrolling to vote, younger Australians are sending a message to politicians that says: ‘please ignore our issues’. This is a worry because the younger you are, the more policy matters to you. Young Australians are more likely to be affected by increases in university funding and Austudy allowance; will get more use out of the National Broadband Network; and will benefit more from the safety net of DisabilityCare. If we act decisively on climate change, young Australians stand to get the most benefit.

Getting on the electoral roll has never been easier. Recently, I joined Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus at a demonstration of the Australian Electoral Commission’s new online enrolment system. In a few minutes, university students Charlotte Barclay and Karina Curry-Hyde signed up to vote on their iPads.

If you know someone who’s not enrolled, ask them to take a few minutes on www.aec.gov.au and sign up. Enrolment works on any computer, including tablets and smartphones.

Remember, choosing a government is the responsibility of all of us. Friends don’t let friends stay off the roll.

So if you’re an unenrolled 18 year old, imagine yourself sitting in an armchair in 2073, surrounded by loving grandchildren. When one of them asks ‘how did you vote in the great election of 7 September 2013?’, will you have an answer?

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

I spoke yesterday on ABC RN Drive with Waleed Aly & Arthur Sinodinos. Here's a podcast.

Transcript - ABC RN Drive with Waleed Aly & Arthur Sinodinos - 5 Aug 2013

Waleed Aly: Time to talk our political panel, two of our favourite politicians, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, Parliamentary Secretary to the Opposition Leader, previously chief of staff to Prime Minister John Howard. And Dr Andrew Leigh, member for Fraser, previously the parliamentary secretary to Julia Gillard when she was Prime Minister. Gentlemen, welcome back to the show.

I've got to say that I was very intrigued, that when you're not on our program, you guys are getting together, making all kinds of bets. This is scandalous behaviour. It's an interesting bet. You're looking at annualised real GDP growth which was 2.5 per cent, trend unemployment which was 5.7 per cent and average variable mortgage interest rates which were 6.2 per cent. And it seems to me that each of you is betting that if the other side get in, those indicators will get worse. Have I got that right Arthur?

Arthur Sinodinos: My recollection, my hazy recollection is that that is right. Not that I had drinks at the time. Yes, at the end of a convivial evening I thought it was not a bad bet. Andrew might remember better, he proposed the bet.

Andrew Leigh: That's right. The bet is settled based on December next year. My wager is if Labor is elected then those indicators will improve. If the Coalition is elected then a majority of those indicators will go backwards. Arthur's is the reverse.

Waleed Aly: A majority? Hang on. You're backing off already.... surely you mean all of them will go down?

Andrew Leigh: Oh well. I expect all of them to go down but the bet is a majority of the indicators, two out of three.

Arthur Sinodinos: Andrew was kind enough to agree it would be 12 months, December next year, rather than June next year.

Waleed Aly: But Arthur, you wouldn't have finished blaming the previous government for everything that's gone wrong by then, would you?

Arthur Sinodinos: We're expecting a surge of confidence when we come to office which will help unlock some of those high household savings and get business confidence up, and get people investing and get things cracking.

Waleed Aly: Yes, not doubt you are. Alright. Let's look at some specific policies. Two-hundred million dollars to save the car industry, Dr Andrew Leigh, that's come from your side of politics today. Why it is a good idea to be throwing more money at the car industry which has shown a history of taking our money and then leaving anyway?

Andrew Leigh: Well, we know that there are a lot of direct jobs in this sector Waleed, something like 50,000 direct jobs and then hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the car industry. And if you're thinking about industry assistance you really want to think about two things, the first being the spill-overs to other sectors and we know the car industry does a lot of research and development. So, you'd expect some spill-overs there. Also, the geographic concentration. Parts of Australia with a big car industry tend to be heavily reliant on that industry and so this is really important for people working in sectors, in the automotive sector,  just to have confidence that they will have opportunities in the future.

Waleed Aly: But we've given them money in the past and it hasn't saved their jobs.

Andrew Leigh: Well, it's certainly we've seen challenges for the manufacturing sector and that came particularly at a time when the Australian dollar was high. With the Australian dollar coming down, that' put the automative sector in a much more confident position. But also too, I think it's important that we have purchases of Australian cars by government. The Commonwealth is now purchasing the vast majority of its cars is Australian made cars. But you've got states and territories that are buying one in four Australian made cars. So that matters.

Waleed Aly: Arthur, what is exactly is the Opposition's policy on this. I know the Opposition has said it wants to wind back some of that additional funding but we don't yet have anything that approximates a figure, exactly how much the Opposition would be providing to the car industry, at least that I have been able to find.

Arthur Sinodinos: Let me go back a couple of steps. Some time back we'd indicated that a wind-back of 500 million which was not to take car subsidies back to where they were under the Howard Government, but approximately to that level because we thought the level of subsidies being provided at the time was sufficient and then, on top of that, there would be productivity commission review at some stage before there was any further assistance to industry to try and demonstrate some of the points that Andrew was talking about. What's happened since then is when Labor came in they had a series of programs that they ramped up, automotive subsidies. Some of those have since been cut back, and then more recently the fringe benefits tax changes had potentially quite a big impact on new car sales. We're talking around 1.8 billion, I think, being the cost of that measure. The government is now talking about an extra 200 million which is aimed principally at Holden but which really only, in a sense, is a very small off-set to this rather big change you've had recently because of FBT. It's actually quite a mess.

Waleed Aly: It sounds like you're playing off 1.8 billion against 200 million. But they are different things. The 1.8 billion is not money that is being taken away from the car industry and they are giving 200 million back. The 1.8 billion is income they will receive in tax by making sure the fringe benefits tax, as it is is applied more rigorously.

Arthur Sinodinos: But if you trace that income, it'll happen because they'll be less car sales, right.

Waleed Aly: No, that doesn't necessarily mean that at all.

Arthur Sinodinos: It's not a net... I'm trying to get away from this idea that this is somehow a net benefit to the car industry because it's not. You have see it in the context of this FBT decision recently. And to go back to your earlier point, which I think is the right point, what's happened over time is, even with the ramp up in subsidies, industry has been cutting back on employment. Even today, Kim Carr, the manufacturing minister still hasn't spelled out what the conditions are for the car industry to receive this 200 million and therefore what guarantees do you have that they'll be extra jobs or jobs maintained and we don't go down the route we've going down over the last couple of car assistance packages.

Waleed Aly: Can we go to the issue, what will happen in event of a hung parliament? Tony Abbott's been keen to talk about this. He was asked today what would happen in that. He said he'd stand aside and let Labor have the government benches basically.

Tony Abbott: The short answer is 'yes' because we want to deliver strong government. We want to deliver a decisive government that gets on with the job of building a better Australia. That's our business. Our business is a safe and secure Australia that builds on a strong and prosperous economy and we will not get that from a another hung parliament.

Waleed Aly: On the other side of it, Kevin Rudd was asked whether he would lead a minority government. his is what he said:

Kevin Rudd: If they're fair dinkum about this, that is we don't like Independents, we don't Greens, why do they preferencing them all over the country. They are doing this, I presume, in Dennison. We have double standards here. As for us, we're all about securing a majority government of the Australian Labor Party.

Waleed Aly: Andrew Leigh, that's a non-answer, I think you'd have to agree. What exactly will the Labor party do if there is a hung parliament?

Andrew Leigh: Well certainly if we look at the last few years, I think you can look at a minority parliament which has managed to get an awful lot done Waleed, whether that's putting a price on carbon pollution, creating disability care, better schools reforms, nearly 600 bills have passed through the House of Reps. I don't think anyone can look back at this minority parliament and say that it hasn't been a productive parliament. I think the point that Mr Rudd is making is simply if Mr Abbott believes that there shouldn't be Independents in the parliament, then it's odd to preference them on September 7, and refuse to deal with them on September 8.

Waleed Aly: He's not saying they shouldn't be there. He's just saying he won't do a deal in case of minority government circumstances. Am I to take from your answer that you will form a minority government if it comes to it?

Andrew Leigh: It would not be my decision alone, but my general view is that this minority parliament has been an effective one. Clearly governments would always prefer to govern in majority. If you look back over the last few years you see an Australia that is more prosperous, that has more jobs, that is a fairer nation than it was when this minority parliament began.

Waleed Aly: Arthur Sinodinos is it a good idea for Tony Abbott to opt out of the horse-trading that would go in in the event of a hung parliament given that that would encourage voters to go, well,  he has to win by a lot if he's going to be the prime minister and that's unlikely so I may as well vote for the other mob?

Arthur Sinodinos: Well I think it's in fact the reverse. He's trying to encourage people to vote for him on the basis that he won't have any truck with a minority government. He wants to be a majority government and I think he's making that pitch because frankly I think most Australians want a majority government of one complexion or the other. I don't think, as a country, we need to end up where we've ended up in the last three years. While I accept what Andrew is saying from his perspective from what he regards as the achievement of the parliament, I think if you go out there and ask the public what they want, they want more certainty, they want more predictability and that comes with having a majority government.

Waleed Aly: The other issue that was raised today was the carbon tax. Tony Abbott says his first order of business would be to get rid of the carbon tax. Gentlemen, is it really that important an election issue now that both sides of politics are now saying they are going to abolish the carbon tax? I'll start with you Andrew.

Andrew Leigh: Well certainly we've said we'll move to the floating period immediately and I think then we'll be in the same situation as 30 countries around the world using the most effective, the most efficient way of reducing carbon pollution which is simply to put a price on carbon pollution. That'll see, as we go to the floating price, we'll see the price come down from around $25 to around $6 a tonne. And, we’ll be linking in with the European emissions trading system which brings a sense of stability to it. This is just the textbook economic way of dealing with climate change, if you believe it's real as I do and I know Arthur does, then as John Howard said the most straight forward way of dealing with climate change is through an emissions trading scheme.

Waleed Aly: Arthur Sinodinos, do you think it's more efficient to deal with it by providing direct money from government to people who are going to do things that we think might reduce emissions?

Arthur Sinodinos: Very good point. The reason we've gone down this route is frankly we found there was resistance from the community to putting their hands in their pocket on this issue. If you go back and track peoples' willingness to pay and do something about climate change, you use the Lowy Institute poll as a measure all the way back to when the community reached a tipping point on climate change  in 2006-2007, it was clear that people were uneasy with the idea of putting their hands in their pocket.

Waleed Aly: Isn't that why you have leadership?

Arthur Sinodinos: Whether it's a carbon tax or whether it's in the form of a floating price, that's why we came up with direct action, because people were concerned about the cost of living and the government seems to be adding to the cost of living at a time when electricity demand was already being markedly effected by a ramp up in state investment plans which was raising electricity prices very significantly.

Waleed Aly: People are always going to be concerned by cost of living pressures, not least when politicians are constantly telling them they should be worried about cost of living pressures. Doesn't there come a point when you have to show leadership on this, look the electorate in the eye and tell them this is what has to happen? Like what the Coalition did with the GST?

Arthur Sinodinos: You have to take the community with you and sometimes you won't take them with you if you keep shouting at them to do something that they are unwilling to do. You've got to find a way around that. That's why Abbott came up with the formula he did and through direct action it keeps our options open. It gives up time to see how the world develops, what schemes occur overseas because, don't forget, this is one of the very few cases, if not the only case in the world, of economy-wide carbon tax or floating price, quite different to some of the schemes you'll find sprouting up in California, China, other places.

Waleed Aly: Just one final question to both of you. Asylum seeker policy was really everything in the lead up to this election campaign. Then today it hasn't been mentioned. Do you think we're done with that issue now as far as the public conversation goes and the election campaign is likely to go off onto different terrain. Let's start with you Arthur.

Arthur Sinodinos: I think the issue will continue to bubble away. The Coalition will continue to monitor what's happening with regard to PNG and Nauru. No doubt, we will talk about it further during the campaign. Yeh, it's been a major issue over a considerable time so I can't see that's it's going to fall off the radar completely. As Tony Abbott made clear in his pitch yesterday, he's going to be talking more about his plans for the future rather than just focussing on those particular issue which he has embraced (?)the last few years.

Waleed Aly: Final word to you Andrew.

Andrew Leigh: I agree with Arthur on this one. Asylum seekers are going to be an important debate for Australia but I hope that the debate that is going to be conducted over the coming weeks is a little more sober and bi-partisan than we've seen in the past. These are some of the world's most vulnerable people and I think we need to focus on compassion.

I think just one word of correction, a very rare mistake that Arthur made. Ours is not an economy-wide carbon price. It covers around 60% of emissions because it excludes agriculture and transport.

Arthur Sinodinos: I take your point on agriculture, that's right.

Waleed Aly: Yep. I think we can agree on that. The point about compassion is an interesting one. That seems the be the Greens' slogan.... We'll see how it unfold. Gentlemen, I look forward to speaking with you, hopefully in a week or so.... Thanks gentlemen.

TRANSCRIPT
BREAKING POLITICS WITH TIM LESTER (watch video)


Andrew Leigh
Member for Fraser

MONDAY 5 AUGUST 2013



TOPICS: First full day of campaigning, Political donations, School funding

Tim Lester: Kelly O’Dwyer, Liberal MP in the Melbourne electorate of Higgins and Labor MP here in Fraser, Andrew Leigh, welcome to Breaking Politics on our first election campaign edition. Kelly, first to you, how does it feel now that we’ve got a contest on?

Kelly O’Dwyer: Well, look I think it’s terrific that Kevin Rudd has finally named a date, and no longer are the union heavies and Labor hacks going to decide who the Prime Minister is, but instead, the Australian people will get a chance on the seventh of September who it is that they want to lead the nation, which team they have trust in to better build our economy and our country and we’re going to learn that on the seventh of September. I got off to a flying start last night, Reverend Tim Costello conducted a town hall meeting with me, Anna Burke and the Greens candidate for Kooyong, for a number of electorates getting together, and we had a packed town hall meeting. So it’s been busy for day one.

TL; Ok, and Andrew Leigh, your sense, when you heard the Prime Minister was on his way to the Governor General yesterday, delighted, or not.

Andrew Leigh: I share Kelly’s enthusiasm for the political process, Tim, and I would say to any young person, in particular, who’s not on the rolls, you’ve now got that seven-day window to sign up, and it’s so important that everyone has their say. This is an election which is about big choices for Australia, we’ve just seen Victoria sign up to the Better Schools Plan, so now four out of five Australian kids are signed on to that. Western Australia’s signed on to DisabilityCare so that now covers almost all of Australia and we’re seeing big reforms through the National Broadband Network, and through historic investments in roads and infrastructure going out across Australia, so it’s a big election, big choices for Australia.

Tim Lester: Not just sign up to get ready to vote, but the pressure is on from both parties to chip in, put your hand in your pocket and help fund the campaigns. How do you feel about that tendency in Australian politics, Kelly O’Dwyer, that the major parties are saying ‘help us buy our advertising and tell you how to vote?

Kelly O’Dwyer: Well look, democracy’s an expensive business, and we don’t have the union movement, or the industry superannuation funds to help contribute to our campaign, they contribute exclusively to the Labor Party, to the tune of multi millions of dollars so we do have to ask ordinary Australians to put their hand in their pocket, and happily for us, many of them do, not only in terms of putting their hands in their pockets but many of them also volunteer their time and we are very very grateful for that. They do it because they know it’s important for Australia, that we need to change direction dramatically, that this government, that it bleeding three billion dollars a week in only ten weeks since they last delivered the budget is making sure that Australia is totally trended in the wrong direction. That needs to change and that it what Australian will decide on the seventh of September.

Tim Lester: Now the implication I what you just said there is that the Liberal Party doesn’t do nearly as well from donors as the Australian Labor Party, yet that’s counter to Kevin Rudd’s message yesterday of near poverty against the Liberal Party, you need to help us otherwise… if you want us to win, what’s the truth as you see it, Andrew Leigh?

Andrew Leigh: Certainly Tim we know that the Coalition is being supported by tobacco companies, we haven’t taken their donations for nearly ten years now, a period in which the Coalition has taken $2 million from tobacco companies. I think that might be part of the reason that Mr Abbott mentioned the increase in tobacco excise in kicking off yesterday. We also know that big mining companies whose taxes Mr Abbott has also promised to reduce are disproportionately donors to the coalition, as are a big polluters, also a group that Mr Abbott has promised to cut their taxes. So there are these big vested interests in politics, but certainly I agree with Kelly that the lifeblood of politics is the people that help you out in the street. I’m very grateful to the volunteers who have spent many months working with me in our doorknocking, letterboxing, telephoning campaigns and will be out on the streets of north Canberra in the coming weeks with me.

Tim Lester: Kelly O’Dwyer, how much do vested interests, big vested interests have a say in the decision-making of the Liberal Party because they donate, the implication that Andrew was just making.

Kelly O’Dwyer: Well maybe Andrew’s talking from ALP experience because of cause the union movement has an incredibly big say in how the ALP operates, and the decisions that the Prime Minister ultimately makes. They have such a big say that saw them tear down one Prime Minister, and reinstall another. This is the truth of the Labor Party and how they operate, the union movement have got votes in pre-selection campaigns, they contribute money to those campaigns so they have an incredibly big say and we’ve seen quite a lot of union-sponsored legislation passed through the Parliament. But I think it’s also interesting to note that if you want to talk about where the ALP gets its money, it certainly gets its money from the Health Services Union, where we have seen huge scandals, not only in connection with a current sitting Labor Member of Parliament, but also with a number of leaders of the labour movement, people who have been president of the Labor Party only in the last couple of years so I think it is quite a strange accusation from Andrew Leigh, and all I would say to him is that you probably ought to look at the history of the Labor Party and the union movement and the grubby deals that have been done and you need to look no further than New South Wales Labor to know that it is a complete rat-infested nest.

Tim Lester: Just before we leave you on this issue, though Kelly O’Dwyer, specifically on the question of tobacco and its potential influence in Liberal Party policymaking, what do you say?

Kelly O’Dwyer: Well they have no influence in Liberal party policymaking, and to make that kind of accusation, and allegation is just dishonest.

Tim Lester: Ok, Andrew Leigh?

Andrew Leigh: Tim I’d much rather be supported by representatives of workers’ interests who are responsible for the eight-hour day, for annual leave, for a fairer, more family-friendly workplace, and for safer rates to keep our roads safer than to be receiving large amounts of money from tobacco firms, which are marketing basically the only legal product in Australia, that kills half its users if used as intended.

Tim Lester: Just to touch on policy before we leave you, the Gonski announcement re negotiations with Victoria over the weekend, Kelly O’Dwyer, what does it say that a Liberal state government has warmed to a deal with the Federal Government on education funding, has accepted the Federal Government’s formula this close to a Federal Election in spite of all the angst this might have caused federal Liberals?

Kelly O’Dwyer: Well it’s a completely different deal, I think that’s the first and most critical point to note, it’s not the Gonski deal, in fact, none of the deals that have been put to the states and territories are in fact  what Gonski recommended. Gonski recommended in his report, six point five billion dollars each and every year in new funding for schools. They have never once proposed that, so never have they been looking to implement the Gonski recommendations. They deal that they put initially to the states and territories cut three hundred million dollars of funding over four years to schools, they deal that they are now putting to states and territories is to increase some of the funding they’ve been doing special deals with each state and territory and we’ve said, well if you’re comfortable that you’re going to provide more money for schools that we would in fact sign up to that, and that’s what we’ve done.

Tim Lester: Andrew Leigh, what do you think it says that the Victorian and Federal Governments have managed a deal, right at the eleventh hour before we go into the election campaign caretaker period?

Andrew Leigh: I think It’s terrific that the Victorians have come on board with this Tim, we know the old school funding model is broken, everyone except Mr Abbott I think, understands that, and we’ve now managed to strike a deal that covers about eighty per cent of Australian kids, signing up five of the eight Australian jurisdictions, the independent sector and the Catholic sector, because I think people recognise that it’s time to have a funding model which is based on the needs of the students, which provides more money to remote, Indigenous and disadvantaged kids, and make sure that every Australian school can be a great school. But yet Mr Abbott has described this as a con, the same term he used to describe climate change. I just think it’s time he brought out an education policy maybe at the time he brought out a health policy, and was very clear about whether or not he was willing to put in this funding, and if so, how he’ll make the target saving to do it - because government is about choices.

Tim Lester: But he has brought out an education policy to the extent that he has accepted your funding levels, hasn’t he? I mean surely you welcome that?

Andrew Leigh: If Mr Abbott was signing onto the better schools plan rather than calling it a con, Tim, I’d be delighted to accept that, but it’s very unclear where Mr Abbott and Mr Pyne stand on this. They’ve spent the last couple of years trashing the school funding deal, standing by the old, broken funding system, which contains old grandfathering clauses from more than a decade ago and really not recognising that in making sure our school systems are run best in the world is the most important productivity measure we can put in place.

Tim Lester: Kelly O’Dwyer to close, perhaps you might tell us how you feel about what appears from the surface, at least, was quite a sharp about-face from Mr Abbott on education funding to accept Labor’s formula, at least in terms of funding, lock, stock and barrel.

Kelly O’Dwyer: First let me say, you did sound rather negative there Andrew, and I’d hate to think that you’re playing the politics of negativity there, but let me respond to the question that Tim just put, do we need to provide a solid stable funding level for schools to ensure that they can plan in security in the knowledge as to the funds that they have year on year, the answer to that of course is yes. The latest funding iteration that has been put by the government is very, very different to the first iteration and I think that Andrew should be very upfront about and be clear that this is very different to the first plan that was put to Australian schools, very different to the plan that was first put to the independent school sector, the Catholic school sector and the state school sector as well. That is why we have said we are comfortable with what has now put and we will provide the security that schools need to plan with confidence.

Tim Lester: Kelly O’Dwyer in Melbourne, Andrew Leigh here in Canberra, I look forward to discussions throughout the campaign.

Andrew Leigh: May it all be positive, Tim.

Kelly O’Dwyer: Terrific.

On Sky AM Agenda today, I spoke with host Kieran Gilbert and Liberal MP Steve Ciobo about the government's positive plans for managing the economic transition and the Coalition's reluctance to release properly costed policies.

My op-ed in today's Canberra Times looks at the impact of tobacco excise on reducing lung cancer deaths.

Coughers to cough up for coffers or excise the habit, Canberra Times, 2 August 2013

One of the most poignant emails I’ve received from a constituent read as follows:

‘My great-grandfather, grandfather, father and one of my uncles all died from smoking-related conditions. Each of the latter three died 20-30 years before the life expectancy for their generation. My father’s addiction contributed to two decades of poor health prior to his premature death, resulting in frequent periods where he was unable to work.

‘My siblings and I grew up in poverty, the effects of which are still evident, and the taxpayer bore the cost of his many hospitalisations as well as the cumulative years of income support our family depended on in lieu of employment. I say this so that you will understand my absence of sympathy for the “principle argument”, that tobacco companies have a right to make a profit from pushing legal drugs.’

I thought of this constituent with the announcement that the government will increase the excise on tobacco by 12.5 per cent each year over the next four years, with some of the money to be spent on building new cancer treatment facilities.

Few taxes are popular, but tobacco excise has been one of Australia’s most effective health policies. Since 1977, the share of adults who smoke daily has fallen from 37 per cent to 16 per cent.

One reason that tobacco excise is so effective is that higher prices particularly impact the behaviour of younger smokers – discouraging them from taking up smoking, or providing a stronger incentive to kick the habit.

We know the score when it comes to long-term smoking. The hacking cough, breathlessness, fatigue, chest infections and bloody phlegm.

We also know what happens when you stop smoking. Immediately, you smell better and your hair and clothes are no longer infused with the stench of stale smoke. In a week, most of the nicotine has left your body and your sense of taste has improved.  You gain so much more enjoyment from a meal or drink. An ex-smoker tells me she could finally drink herbal tea.

Medicos tell us that a month after quitting, better blood flow has improved your skin. People notice that you’re looking healthier. Three months down the track, your lung function has increased by 30 per cent. Suddenly walking and running become much easier.  One year without a cigarette and your risk of heart attack has halved. You’ve also got noticeably more cash in your pocket. Ex-smokers describe quitting smoking as the best thing you’ll ever do.

If tobacco had been discovered today, it’s unlikely that most developed countries would legalise it. Uniquely, smoking is harmful even in small doses. This makes it unlike other legal vices, which can be consumed in moderation. The occasional double whiskey or deep-fried Mars Bar won’t kill you – but as the ad says ‘every cigarette brings cancer closer’.

No other legal product – when consumed as directed – ends up killing half of its users. Smoking kills over 15,000 Australians every year, or about one person every half hour. It is responsible for the vast majority of lung cancer cases.

Increasing tobacco excise is a progressive health measure. The smoking rate is considerably higher for disadvantaged groups: 24 per cent among people living in disadvantaged areas, 47 per cent among Indigenous Australians, and 38 per cent among the unemployed. Smokers in these groups also consume up to a fifth more cigarettes than the average smoker.

Reducing smoking will help non-smokers. We know that smokers harm those around them—children who inhale passive smoke, or the one-in-six babies born to mothers who smoked while pregnant.

Tobacco excise isn’t the only way of reducing smoking. Last week, I launched the inaugural State of Preventive Health report on behalf of Health Minister Tanya Plibersek. The report notes the importance of social marketing campaigns in encouraging smokers to quit, and plain packaging in helping make cigarettes less ‘cool’. But it also notes that price matters, and that taxation has helped play a role in helping people kick the habit.

Increasing tobacco excise won’t be uniformly popular. But this is a rare instance in which raising a tax has a social benefit – not a social cost.

Labor stopped taking tobacco donations nearly a decade ago, because we believed it was wrong in principle. Let’s hope the Coalition – which still accepts money from big tobacco – can kick the habit. Then perhaps they will support a measure that will raise revenue and save lives.

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