Andrew Leigh

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.

Last night, the Young Economists (ACT) hosted a debate on economic policy between Senator Arthur Sinodinos and myself. I regard Arthur as a friend, and so the discussion was much more in the nature of good-natured jousting than angry sniping. Thanks to a bunch of great questions from the floor, we covered tax reform, the future of manufacturing, fostering entrepreneurship, and improving the quality of education for the most disadvantaged. Here's a podcast of the debate.

But it seemed like a chance to have some fun, so taking a leaf from Stephen Koukoulas's challenge to Joe Hockey (thus far unanswered), I challenged Arthur to a modest wager. In my view, Australia's economic fundamentals are now pretty good. I think they could well improve under a re-elected Labor government, but expect them to sour if the Coalition is elected. Needless to say, Arthur believes the opposite.

The wager focuses on three indicators:

1. Annualised real GDP growth, most recently 2.5% (Mar 2013)


2. Trend unemployment, most recently 5.7% (June 2013)


3. Average variable mortgage interest rates, most recently 6.2%

If Labor is re-elected, I believe that a majority of these indicators will have improved by December 2014. Arthur believes that a majority of these indicators will have worsened.

If the Coalition is elected, I believe that a majority of these indicators will have worsened by December 2014. Arthur believes that a majority of these indicators will have improved.

The loser will donate $100 to a charity of their choosing (I nominated the Indigenous Reading Project).

Thanks to the Young Economists' Network (particularly Marcia Keegan) for organising the event.

SENATOR THE HON KIM CARR

Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research

Minister for Higher Education

THE HON DR ANDREW LEIGH MP

Member for Fraser

MEDIA RELEASE

31 July 2013

Nation’s most powerful computer switched on at ANU

Australia’s most powerful supercomputer, which also ranks as one of the largest in the world will enable scientists to gain new and valuable insights into issues of pressing national importance like climate change, water management and earth science.

Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr launched the new facility in Canberra today with Member for Fraser Andrew Leigh. Labor has supported the extraordinary machine with a $50 million grant under the Super Science Initiative.

Australia’s newest and fastest supercomputer is the centre piece of the new National Computational Infrastructure (NCI) facility at the Australian National University.

According to researchers at the University, it can perform the same number of calculations in one hour that 7 billion people armed with calculators could perform in 20 years. It has a capacity comparable to around 30,000 ordinary laptop computers working together as a single system.

The supercomputer is the result of the close collaboration between the NCI and Fujitsu.

The NCI will provide scientists with a number-crunching power of quadrillions of operations per second, and data storage measured in petabytes - which is millions of Gigabytes. It also features a high capacity data storage and cloud computing systems in a purpose-built, state-of-the-art data centre.

Launching the facilities, Minister Carr said the solutions to the big problems faced by Australia depend on scientists having the advanced digital tools to carry out their ground breaking work.

“This leap in computing power will give our researchers insights and solutions to problems at a rate far quicker than previously possible,” Minister Carr said.

“It keeps Australia at the forefront of global innovation and opens up new horizons for science and research.

“This supercomputer demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to providing collaborative world class infrastructure to improve research outcomes.”

Dr Leigh said the supercomputer was a national asset and one that would attract researchers from around the country and around the world.

“The amount of information available to researchers is rapidly increasing, and it takes a big computer to crunch big data. This supercomputer will allow researchers to solve problems that puzzle us today, and permit future teams of researchers to answer questions we haven’t even thought of yet,” Dr Leigh said.

Supported by the NCI partner agencies CSIRO, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Geoscience Australia, Intersect Australia and the Queensland Cyber Infrastructure Foundation, the NCI is a space for collaboration and a centre of supercomputing excellence that attracts scientists from around the world and the best and brightest in Australia.

30 July 2013

NATIONAL DINOSAUR MUSEUM AND YMCA OF CANBERRA WIN $161,093 TOURISM QUALITY FUNDING

Federal Government tourism quality funding of $76,668 for the National Dinosaur Museum in Nicholls and $84,425 for the YMCA of Canberra was announced today by the Federal Member for Fraser, Dr Andrew Leigh.

Dr Leigh said the National Dinosaur Museum would benefit from new display cabinets and a new waterproof shaded decking area for visitors to rest and enjoy the environment.

“The YMCA of Canberra will also benefit from important redevelopment that involves the construction of additional accommodation rooms, some with ensuite facilities, new bathrooms and additional office space,” said Dr Leigh.

“I congratulate the National Dinosaur Museum and YMCA of Canberra for strongly demonstrating their commitment to improving the tourism experience and thereby winning funding from this highly-competitive grants program,” Dr Leigh said.

This project is one of 89 nationally to share in a total of $8.5 million in funding under the 2013 Round of the Federal Government’s Tourism Quality (T-QUAL) Grants.

Minister Assisting for Tourism, Senator Don Farrell, announced the successful recipients for the 2013 T-QUAL grants round on 26 July 2013 at the Adelaide Convention Centre.

Senator Farrell said Federal Government investment of $8.5 million in the 89 projects was expected to leverage a total investment of almost $27 million.

“Through this program, the Government continues to demonstrate its commitment to improving the quality, productivity, and capability of the $41 billion tourism sector,” he said.

“T-QUAL Grants provide great support to help tourism operators, many of whom are small businesses, attract more visitors by ensuring products and experiences remain fresh, of a high standard, and support local economies and communities.”

The four-year T-QUAL Grants program aims to stimulate sustainable economic growth in tourism and is an integral part of the Government’s Tourism 2020 strategy to double the value of overnight visitor expenditure by 2020.

In the 2013 round, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia each had 15 successful recipients, with 12 in Victoria, 10 in Tasmania, 5 in the Northern Territory and 2 in the ACT.  Details of grant recipients are at www.ret.gov.au/tqual

MEDIA RELEASE



Senator the Hon Kate Lundy

Senator for the ACT

The Hon Andrew Leigh

Member for Fraser





26 JULY 2013

$16 MILLION FOR VOLUNTEERS

Community organisations in Fraser will share in $27,564 through the Australian Government’s 2013 Volunteer Grants program.

Senator for the ACT, the Hon Kate Lundy and Federal Member for Fraser, Dr Andrew Leigh, said nine organisations have been successful under the program and that the grants, which range between $1000 and $5000, will help volunteers meet the rising costs of running a not-for-profit organisation. The grants are:

• The Australian Capital Territory Blind Cricket Association for transport expenses;


• Another Chance Opportunity Shop for store supplies;


• Meals and Bread Program for food storage equipment;


• Ginninderra District Girl Guides for cooking and computer equipment;


• Lu Rees Archives of Australian Children’s Literature Association for computer equipment;


• Special Olympics ACT for office equipment;


• Diamantina Scout Group for kitchen and cooking equipment;


• Transplant ACT Committee for volunteer background screening checks; and


• UN Women Australia for computer equipment and training courses.

“The Rudd Labor Government recognises the invaluable contribution volunteers make to Australian society,” Dr Leigh said.

“They are the life-blood of our communities, but the increasing financial strains they are under makes it difficult for them to deliver the important services they provide to our community every day.

“Volunteers are our unsung heroes. They give up their free time, lend a helping hand and help build a stronger community.

“These grants will help community organisations to purchase much-needed equipment or as a contribution towards training courses, background checks and transport costs of volunteers with disability who are unable to drive,” Senator Lundy said.

“This is just one way the Rudd Labor Government can say thank you for the selfless work and commitment of Fraser’s volunteers.”

Through these grants, volunteers will be better equipped to assist those who are marginalised, disadvantaged or facing hardship remain connected to their community.

In Australia, more than six million people volunteer each year.

More information is available on the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs website at www.fahcsia.gov.au or by calling 1800 183 374

On 29 July, I spoke with host Lyndal Curtis and Liberal MP Craig Kelly about the fact that only Federal Labor has cut real spending (something that never happened under John Howard), why preventing asylum seekers coming by boat (and increasing the intake to 20,000) is the most compassionate response, and same-sex marriage.

JULIE COLLINS MP
Minister for Housing and Homelessness

ANDREW LEIGH MP
Member for Fraser

SHANE RATTENBURY
ACT Minister for Housing

MEDIA RELEASE
A $17 million boost to help tackle homelessness in Canberra

The Federal Labor Government and the ACT Government will invest almost $17 million of joint capital and recurrent funding to provide long-term, stable accommodation and support services to Canberrans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

Federal Minister for Housing and Homelessness Julie Collins and ACT Minister for Housing Shane Rattenbury announced the funding today during a visit to Our Place, a youth accommodation service in Canberra.

“I’m pleased that the ACT Government has signed up to the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness for 2013-14 and is also receiving capital project funding through our $43 million Development Fund,” Ms Collins said.

“This joint funding injection will support seven existing homelessness services and build a new housing facility in Gungahlin for some of Canberra’s most vulnerable people.”

Mr Rattenbury said the funding would help provide affordable housing and critical pathways out of homelessness for Canberrans in need.

“Once completed in December 2014, the Gungahlin Common Ground facility will provide homes for 40 individuals and couples.

“The Common Ground model helps to break the cycle of homelessness by combining a safe, sustainable home, with the support services people need to get back on their feet in the long term.

“Support will be targeted to people’s needs to help them address some of the underlying issues that can cause homelessness, such as mental illness, substance abuse, family breakdown and unemployment.”

Federal Member for Fraser Andrew Leigh said he was very pleased the complex had got the green light.

"There are no more passionate campaigners for social justice than those who've pushed for Common Ground Canberra, and it's an honour to have worked with them over the past few years to finally make this happen," Mr Leigh said.

“Close to shops, public transport and community facilities, the new complex will house a mix of people who will receive support to ensure they can keep their homes and get their lives in order.”

Ms Collins said the Federal Labor Government remained steadfast in its commitment to halve the rate of homelessness and provide supported accommodation to all rough sleepers who seek it by 2020.

“Through the transitional $320 million National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, we are working with the states and territories, businesses and community organisations to jointly reduce homelessness,” Ms Collins said.

“This will ensure critical services continue, as we work toward a longer-term response to homelessness.”

Since coming to office in 2007, the Federal Labor Government has invested a record $31 billion to help make housing more affordable and assist people to move out of homelessness.

29 JULY 2013

On 29 July, I spoke with host Kieran Gilbert and Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield to discuss the government's responsible economic management, the Opposition's refusal to submit policies for costing, and the whether opinion polls have any value.

TOPICS: Budget challenges, Coalition costings, election date

Note:                                     Due to time constraints, contributions from Mitch Fifield have not been transcribed.

Kieran Gilbert:                   This is AM Agenda, thanks very much for your company. With me now, Liberal frontbencher Senator Mitch Fifield and Labor MP, Andrew Leigh. Good morning to you both. Andrew, I want to start with you, with this pre-election economic statement. The cabinet meets today; Mr Bowen has reiterated the government’s commitment to return to surplus in 2016-17. If you are to do that, given the various reports about revenue write-downs, further revenue write-downs, even since the May budget, you really do have that balancing act between making cuts which could hurt growth and staying on that trajectory for a credible path to return to surplus.

Andrew Leigh: It’s a challenging time for the economy Kieran, you’re absolutely right about that, and we’re seeing the transition from that huge investment period in the mining boom which involved so many jobs in the construction phase, and now to a production phase where the amount of stuff we dig out of the ground and ship overseas will probably even go up, but the amount of jobs decreases because you’ve got a lot of the construction done. But with the dollar having come down a bit, that’s I think given manufacturers a bit of breathing space, and we’ll be looking to craft a set of policies that allow for that transition.

Kieran Gilbert:                   But in terms of making cuts so close to an election, that’s the difficult political balancing act here isn’t it?

Andrew Leigh: We’ll make responsible savings as we have in the past Kieran. I think you would have seen in the past things like means testing the private health insurance rebate, phasing out the old dependent spouse tax offset which paid people not to work…

Kieran Gilbert:                   The fringe benefits tax changes…

Andrew Leigh: I was just about to say the fringe benefit tax changes.

Kieran Gilbert:                   Which where there was quite a backlash is the point isn’t there?

Andrew Leigh: But I mean these are never easy decisions Kieran. I’ve just picked three that were opposed by the Coalition, but ultimately the reason that you make these savings is because we have to make sure that the tax system is serving people as well as it can, and a broadly based tax system makes sure we all pay our way. I just don’t think the FBT loophole was sustainable.

[…]

Kieran Gilbert:                   Andrew Leigh, Joe Hockey told me on this program on Friday that the Coalition will provide fully costed policies. He has said that they’ve been in consultation with the budget, parliamentary budget office, state governments where necessary. They’ve had full consultation on their costings. He did raise some concerns about the government’s pre-election statement and the subsequent pre-election fiscal outlook from Treasury. That’s fair enough isn’t it, given that he has said, regardless, he will have fully costed, transparent policies out there well in time for the election?

Andrew Leigh: Kieran, I’ll believe it when I see it. I think this is absolutely vital that we have a discussion about our contested set of policies. You will see Labor’s in the budgets and in the budget updates, and you’ll see us making hard decisions. To put some facts in response to what Mitch said, we have managed to cut real government spending, something the Howard government never did. But you’ve also seen from the Coalition now, a backing away from an earlier promise to put out their policies when the Pre-Election Fiscal Outlook was released. That’s worrying because at the last election, we saw the Coalition just do costings based on a team of accountants who were later fined for professional misconduct. So, given the $11 billion hole in the Coalition’s costings last time, given that they themselves have said they’re $70 billion back, we know they have to put in place some pretty stringent cuts just to pay for their, for example, tax cuts to big miners and big polluters. So we need from the Coalition now, more than ever, a commitment to transparency, we need them to come clear with policies. We still don’t have a health policy or an education policy from the Coalition, and we need them to do a little bit less bashing of senior public servants and a little bit more creative policy making. Because frankly, policy is generally made best in the open light of public gaze, rather than in back rooms, and then thrown out at two minutes to the election.

[…]

Kieran Gilbert:                   Andrew Leigh, I know that, and our viewers who watch this program regularly, would know that you don’t engage on the opinion polls. You never have throughout the years that you and I have discussed, you know, have been on this program, but you look at the polling in the last couple of days and Labor’s primary vote at 40. When does it become a predictable quantity in your view? Or do they not have any predictable worth at all?

Andrew Leigh: Kieran, you’d be completely right to slap me around the face with your iPad if the moment the polls started turning for Labor, I started saying you can believe them when I’d been saying the opposite previously.

Kieran Gilbert:                   No violence. There’s no violence on AM Agenda.

Andrew Leigh: Well that’s nice to hear. That’s good, but you know, I don’t rate the polls because I think they distract us from the sort of policy issues that Mitch and I care about a great deal. I do think if the Coalition’s keen on an early election, one way of advancing their cause would be to bring on their policies. If you want an early election, then bring out your health policy, bring out your education policy and bring your cuts out of witness protection.

Kieran Gilbert:                   Well I think both of you won’t have to wait too much longer on both those fronts, the election date or the policies. Andrew Leigh and Senator Fifield, thanks so much as always. Good to see you.

Andrew Leigh: Thanks Kieran, thanks Mitch.

On 24 July 2013, Andrew Barr MLA and I opened one of the largest affordable housing developments in the ACT, supported by the National Rental Affordability Scheme.

On behalf of Health Minister Tanya Plibersek, I launched the inaugural State of Preventive Health report.

Launching the State of Preventive Health Report 2013
Parliament House
26 July 2013

Thank you very much Louise [Sylvan]. Can I, of course, acknowledge we’re meeting today on the traditional lands of the Ngunnawal people, and pay my respects to their elders past and present. I want to acknowledge Louise, Ita [Buttrose], David [Butt] who is here representing Jane Halton, as of course I am representing Tanya Plibersek. So, where this might in a parallel universe have been the Jane and Tanya show, it’s instead, I’m afraid, the David and Andrew stand-ins. But, what you get when you ask a former economics professor to launch a report is, I’m afraid, an irresistible opportunity to talk about the economics of preventive health. Because this is – from an economics perspective – truly a fascinating area.

Fundamentally, the way in which I see preventive health is as a time inconsistency problem. You think of ourselves now, and ourselves in the future, and the challenge with preventive health is getting ourselves now to do the right thing for ourselves in the future. I’d wager that there’s barely an Australian around who thinks that they wouldn’t be better off in the future if they didn’t speed in their car; who thinks they wouldn’t be better off in the future if they ate a little better; if they exercised a little more, and if they didn’t smoke. We all know that in the long run those things are going to be better, but in the short run for so many of us the cream bun prevails over the salad roll, the great TV show prevails over going to the gym, and for about one-fifth of Australians, the cigarette prevails over giving it up. And so this fundamental time inconsistency problem is the one that preventive health seeks to address.

Now politicians, temperamentally, have to be optimists. So I want to talk today about two successes and one failure in the preventive health area. Let me start with the successes. Tobacco has been a great success of public health. As you well know, cigarette smoking only really gets going in the late 19^th century. It’s the Spanish and then the French who work out that tobacco will be consumed more readily if it’s wrapped in paper. (And you ask why French women don’t get fat; maybe the high smoking rates in that country have something to do with it.) So hardly anyone’s smoking at the start of the 20^th century, but by the end of World War II you’ve got about half the population in developed countries smoking. And then in recent years, we’ve seen that come down rapidly. There’s been a number of drivers of that, the biggest has been price. Tobacco taxes have, to a large extent, helped to bring down cigarette consumption.

But we’ve also changed people’s knowledge about the link between cigarette smoking and cancer. One of my favourite economic studies looking at this area asks the question “why do more Europeans smoke than Americans?”. The answer is that Americans are more likely to believe that smoking will lead you to an early grave. That’s true even if you survey non-smokers in those two regions of the world. So public health campaigns have made an enormous difference. And then recently in Australia, we’ve gone further. Not just the public health campaigns, not just the taxes, but also putting in place advertising bans and now our world first plain packaging laws – which former health minister Nicola Roxon had the privilege of taking to New York to speak to a global health convention about. So tobacco has been a success.

Another great success has been road safety. Road deaths as a share of the population steadily rose as the automobile became ubiquitous in Australia in the post-war decades. But they peaked in the late 1970s and been trending down since then. Regulation has played a huge part. You’ll occasionally hear people talk about getting rid of red tape and getting rid of regulation, and we should do that where regulations are unnecessary.  But we should also never forget that the regulation that mandated that all cars should have seatbelts and that people should wear them or face a fine means that thousands of Australians are alive today who wouldn’t have been were it not for that regulation. The installation of airbags in cars has also seen many Australian lives saved, and the regulation that saw us put in place random breath testing in the early 1980s, decades ahead of many other countries, continued to save lives. Road safety is a great preventive health story.

But there had to be a cloud to the silver linings, and that for me is obesity. As you know, obesity has steadily been rising for the better part of the last half-century. Up until about 1970, the health economists tell us, that rise was caused by a shift towards more sedentary jobs. The shift from agriculture and manufacturing towards service jobs, desk-bound jobs, increased overweight and obesity up until about the year of my birth. But for the last 40 years, the rise in obesity is largely a technology story. We’ve seen the rise of the microwave, which makes it easier to prepare hot meals at home. The technology of vending machines has been important in allowing Australians and people across the developed world to have access to cheap snack food. And we’ve seen big advances in packaging technology . Thirty years ago, if you wanted a scrumptious jam cake you had to buy the ingredients and make it yourself; now you can wander down to Coles or Woollies and pick one up for less than $5. Those advances have seen the price of food fall, but they’ve also seen an increase in overweight and obesity. Two thirds of us - now overweight and obese, a quarter of Australian children. So therein lies the challenge, that we’re seeing steadily rising rates of obesity and here we’re fighting big technological shifts.

Preventive health is, I believe, an area where we need not only soft hearts, but also hard heads. It is certainly true that relative to many other countries, Australia has underspent on preventive healthcare. But that doesn’t by itself tell us that we ought to spend more. A famous study, of which I’m sure you’re aware, in 2008 by Joshua Cohen and co-authors in the New England Journal of Medicine pushed back against US presidential candidates who had noted US underspending on preventive health. They catalogued a range of preventive health interventions and found that many of them didn’t pass cost-benefit test. And you’ll see here, right in this report, work by Alan Shiell reviewing a range of public health interventions and finding that only about 40 out of the 120 passed a rigorous cost-benefit test. So we need that rigour in working out which preventive health interventions can work, which are going to be most effective. In the area of obesity, randomised control trials tell us that surprisingly, one of the best dieting tips turns out to be small plates. That simple heuristic that tells us to fill up our plate means that if you can cut your plate size from 12 inches to 9 inches, you’ll actually end up eating a whole lot less. Not eating in front of a TV works too, but doesn’t have as big a bang for the buck in randomised trials. So we need that rigour, and it’s that rigour that is in this fabulous, readable report.

I’d also like to point out the importance of combining a preventive health agenda with a health equity agenda. Michael Moore said to me just before I stood up, “you are going to say a little bit about health equity from your new book Battlers and Billionaires aren’t you?” I wouldn’t have spruiked my own book, but since Michael’s asked me to, it seems churlish not to do so. The two statistics that scare me most about health equity are the fact that if you’re in the top fifth of the income distribution, you live on average six years longer than someone in the bottom fifth of the income distribution. Six more Christmases, six more years to spend with your family, six more years to spend enjoying great movies. And the other is that if you compare the top and the bottom of the income distribution, you’ve got a difference of seven teeth. The rich have seven more teeth than the poor, an income difference that shows with every smile. And there are some preventive health measures which are unambiguously targeted at closing the health equity gap, smoking leading among them. But not every preventive health measure will help to close the health equity gap, and one of the things I love about this report, is it talks about the health equity issues alongside preventive health issues.

This is also a great report because it talks about the international context. We see statistics from around the globe, and I understand that this is feeding in to the global action plan adopted by the World Health Assembly in May of this year. There’s going to be more of this in future reports, and I think it’s absolutely vital to plug in to the international context.

There’s also a discussion of the partnerships, because we know that preventive health even more so than other areas of health intervention needs to have partnerships. Whether that’s education, business, industry, researchers, celebrities – and there I’ve only named the categories into which Ita falls. This is a vitally important area and it needs to engage other professions. My wife Gweneth is a landscape architect who recently put on an exhibition at the Gallery of Australian Design, looking at landscape architecture and public health. Simple questions like “if you have a neighbourhood which has footpaths, does that better encourage people to get out and take a walk after work?” There’s so many other professions whose work feeds in to a preventive health agenda. This is, in some sense, the most broadly ranging area of the health system, and I commend the authors and the work of ANPHA in bringing together so many different strands of a vital health agenda.

It is my pleasure to officially launch the State of Preventive Health 2013 Report, and I look forward very much to reading subsequent editions.

• Read the report


• Listen to a podcast of my speech