Andrew Leigh

On 25 June 2013, I spoke with Sky host David Speers and Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos about the government's proud record on jobs, pricing carbon and creating DisabilityCare; and the future reform agenda on education and innovation.

On ABC Radio National Drive program, I spoke with host Waleed Aly and Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos about party leadership, temporary migration, and asylum seekers. Here's a podcast.

TRANSCRIPT – ‘BIG IDEAS' RADIO NATIONAL DRIVE WITH WALEED ALY
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
24 June 2013

Topics:                         Leadership, 457 visas, immigration.

Waleed Aly:                        So Parliament has resumed for the final sitting week before the election and again, or should we say still, three years after Julia Gillard became Prime Minister and just three months out from an election, we’re talking about whether or not she’ll survive as leader. She was speaking to the media in Canberra today, she said she absolutely still has the support of Labor MPs to remain PM.

Julia Gillard [CLIP]            This issue was settled in March by the Labor Party. This week, what I’ve achieved is better schools for our nation which means a better future for our nation. That’ll be my focus. Now, you may choose to focus on something else but that’s exactly what I’ll be focussed on.

Waleed Aly:                        Mmm, and so it went. The leadership is still the story. She may not want it to be, but it is what’s dominating news coverage and it’s what all of her colleagues are talking about. So to discuss the politics and the policy during this election year, we’re joined once again by the men that we’ve dubbed our shining knights of politics the Parliamentary Secretaries of the Opposition Leader and the Prime Minister respectively, Senator Arthur Sinodinos and Dr Andrew Leigh. Gentlemen, thank you. Welcome.

Arthur Sinodinos:             Thanks mate.

Andrew Leigh:                  Thanks.

Waleed Aly:                        Good to have you with us again. Andrew, I’m going to start with you because I suppose that’s the thing that you have to do today, isn’t it? Why are we still having this conversation about leadership?

Andrew Leigh:                  Well Waleed, I’m just here to answer the questions. You’re the one who’s asking them.

Waleed Aly:                        Well, yes -

Andrew Leigh:                  - so I guess I could naturally throw that back to you.

Waleed Aly:                        Ah come on, let’s be honest about this. If I did not ask you it would be a ridiculously strange omission because so many of your colleagues want to talk about it, and want to talk about it with journalists off the record.

Andrew Leigh:                  I’m sure there are people who are interested in petty gossip. I’ve got to say there’s more petty gossip in this building than any other building I’ve ever worked in. But I’d much rather be having a conversation about health policies, about education policies, about the National Broadband Network. I was out doorknocking in Kaleen in my electorate on the weekend and I’ve got to tell you that inside the so-called beltway the issues that people are talking about are not the stuff of gossip and speculation, but they’re actually ‘how will policies affect my day-to-day life?’…

Waleed Aly:                        No doubt.



Andrew Leigh:                  Which can be the impact of the National Broadband Network policy the Government’s got, or the Coalition alternative.

Waleed Aly:                        No doubt that’s true, but how can you have a policy conversation when you’re not exactly sure who is going to be the Prime Minister the next day, and then what they are going to do with the policies that are on the table.

Andrew Leigh:                  Kevin Rudd said there were no circumstances in which he could see himself returning to the leadership.

Waleed Aly:                        He said he believed -

Andrew Leigh                    - I take him at his word.

Waleed Aly:                        Ok, so I’m going to take it from you right now, if all of this is just petty gossip you can guarantee me on air, right now, that nothing is going to happen that even approximates a leadership challenge between now and the end of the week.

Andrew Leigh:                  Yes. Julia Gillard is going to lead us to the next election.

Waleed Aly:                        Is that the same thing as saying there is absolutely nothing to this, and there will definitely not be a challenge of any description?

Andrew Leigh:                  That’s certainly my understanding from talking to colleagues.

Waleed Aly:                        Ok. What does this look like from the other side of politics, Arthur Sinodinos? I mean, broadening this about a bit, you’ve seen some leadership in your time on your side of politics as well, this is the sort of thing political parties do, although this time it seems particularly self-wounding this close to an election.

Arthur Sinodinos:             What I find interesting about this, Waleed, is that it’s gone on for so long. As you say, the older you get, you probably see more leadership contests than, you know, than eating hot pies, but I’ve never seen a process in which a party wants to put itself through so much agony for so long and in the end, for what? I mean, I don’t see any philosophical or ideological issues at stake here to say that this is a great fight for the soul of the Labor Party. I mean, maybe Rudd has some different ideas about the role of the unions in running the Labor Party perhaps, or whatever, but I can’t see that there are any differences between the two protagonists. So apart from that personal angst around who is the Prime Minister, it’s hard to see why we have to go through this. In the Liberal Party, to be honest, it would have been settled a while ago and basically it would have been settled on the numbers on the polls; that’s the cold, hard reality. It’s all about arithmetic and I can’t see why they’ve put themselves through all this agony. From our point of view as an opposition it’s a funny situation because we are quite happy to go on policy because there’s all sorts of stuff we can attack the Government on and we can talk about our own stuff but everybody keeps getting derailed by this leadership stuff.

Waleed Aly:                        We’ll come to those things in a moment. But, I mean, there was a lot of tortuous conversation around in 2007 when there was a suggestion that Peter Costello should have taken over from John Howard. This just seems a little bit more dramatic, but in essence is it really any different?

Arthur Sinodinos:             Well I think there were a couple of times during 2007 when change was contemplated but was never consummated,  but I’ve never seen anything as drawn out as this. And, as I say, it really is a bit of a distraction from other things. And where I disagree with Andrew is I think the public see what is going on and think there’s too much focus in Canberra by the Government on themselves and not enough on the issues that affect me.

Waleed Aly:                        Well to be fair, Andrew’s trying hard not to talk about it today, so he can hardly be…

Arthur Sinodinos:             And he is and I give him credit for that but the fact of the matter is something is going on because the journalists are not making this up.

Andrew Leigh:                  I think Arthur has nailed it in saying the big differences are not within parties; they’re between them. And the differences, much as we get on well, the ideological differences that separate Arthur and I are the much more interesting question here. Historians to come will probably look at the role of fast-paced media technology in affecting the stability of leadership in the modern age. I think there’s a reason why parties have more leaders in the years since 2000 than they did in say, the 1950s and 1960s. But that doesn’t change the core role of people like Arthur and me which is to talk about ideas and values, to have a good contest about the kind of Australia we want to be living in.

Waleed Aly:                        And it doesn’t also change the role of your colleagues who are keeping this stability, or this instability, alive; Kevin Rudd among them. And the fact that he will not answer the question unequivocally when it is put to him about what his intentions are, and he says things like, ‘I will do anything it takes to stop Tony Abbott becoming the next Prime Minister’, and that causes an invitation to interpret this to suggest that he’s undermining Julia Gillard, and he would know that. Do you have a message to him as your colleague?

Andrew Leigh:                  Mr Rudd has in fact been unequivocal and he has been parsed and diced with the skill of those old Kremlinologists who used to look at the words coming out of -

Waleed Aly:                        - Well you’re not giving him much of a compliment if you think he doesn’t understand the consequences of his inexactitude.

Andrew Leigh:                  I’m actually reading the same comments as you, Waleed, and I take them pretty unambiguously.

Waleed Aly:                        Ok. We’ll see how just unambiguous it is. Let’s go to some policy issues, the 457 visa legislation. This is the Government’s so-called crack down. Now Arthur Sinodinos, I’ll start with you, the legislation that’s been introduced into the Parliament really just gives the Government the ability to monitor and enforce compliance with the law, because at the moment they don’t have that. What exactly is wrong with that as an idea?

Arthur Sinodinas:             I think what’s wrong with this is the context. I mean, we’ve had something like a record number of 457 visas issues under this Government, the program’s been going for years and years including five or six years under this Government and all of a sudden, close to an election, people start worrying about Aussie jobs being taken away. The coincidence is just too much. I mean, I think that Minister O’Connor has been caught out contriving to create a scandal and an issue by concocting some numbers around how many of these visas are allegedly being misused. I saw the report on the ABC the other night on the 7:30 Report about what might be happening in the IT sector. My view of that has always been, and that was always about one company that was the focus of the report, and then the implication is what? That you generalise from that and say that the whole program is being rorted? I mean, that one of the -

Waleed Aly:                        - Isn’t that the implication just that rorting does happen and therefor it makes sense that there’s some sort of mechanism in place for policing it?

Arthur Sinodinos:             But my point is they’ve been monitoring this program for years and what? They’ve only just realised now that there’s possibly a little bit of rorting going on? I’ve no doubt that any program might involve an element of rorting but certainly nothing along the lines of what O’Connor tried to concoct in his own office to suggest that this was such a wide-spread problem. Essentially what’s been done here is that they’ve been stung by the success of the Coalition in raising the whole issue around asylum seekers and they’ve looked for a way to get back into that debate and they think this is the way to do it. That’s the bottom line of this and it’s not very edifying stuff, and the Minister is just basically doing whatever it takes to try and make an issue out of it.

Waleed Aly:                        Andrew Leigh?

Andrew Leigh:                  I think Arthur is being overly harsh in suggesting this is pure politics, Waleed. The Migration Council did a survey of 457 visa holders and they asked them whether employers had been meeting their obligations and whether they were getting equal working conditions with Australians. Five per cent said their employers weren’t meeting their obligations, 7 per cent said they weren’t getting equal working conditions with Australians, and from a pool of about 190,000 primary and secondary 457 visa holders that gives you something in the order of 10,000 457 visa holders who themselves said their employers weren’t meeting appropriate obligations or weren’t getting appropriate working conditions with Australians. So you want to keep that figure in perspective; yes, it’s five, seven per cent. But on the other hand it’s 10,000 people whose employers don’t seem to be meeting the rules of the program. And you’ve got to have these rules properly enforced otherwise I think you erode public confidence in the migration system.

Waleed Ally:                       That does raise the question that Arthur Sinodinos has asked, which is why you would move on this now? You’ve had six years in government, three years since the last election. If it’s a serious issue, if it’s significant enough to make the song and dance about it that we’re seeing in trying to push legislation into Parliament in the last session before the election, why leave it so late?

Andrew Leigh:                  Well the Migration Council report that I’m referring to has just recently come down and so this is a matter of fine tuning the program to make sure that it’s got appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Arthur and I are two extremely strong supporters of migration, but we would both share the view that without good enforcement of migration rules, you risk eroding public confidence within the entire system. So that’s what this is aimed at doing. The Migration Council themselves recommended that in the case where 457 workers weren’t being properly treated, that there ought to be some look at enforcement by employer peak bodies, the ACTU and the government. So I regard this as flowing out of that. You know, I was marching on the weekend with the Walk Together folks recognising the great benefits that Australia has gotten from migration in the post-World War II era. I was very proud to be part of that march and I don’t see any inconsistency between that and trying to get proper enforcement to make sure that 457 visa holders are looked after.

Waleed Aly:                        The question of the rhetoric that surrounds it and Arthur this brings me to a really interesting point with respect to the Coalition I know when you lost the election in 2007, you were one of the wise-heads that came out of that to explain that and one of the points you made was that the Coalition’s rhetorical position had not been inclusive of all the diversity here in Australia and at times had been divisive. Do you think that the rhetoric -

Arthur Sinodinos:             - Did I say that in 2007, did I?

Waleed Aly:                        I think you did!



Andrew Leigh:                  How these words come back to haunt you!

Waleed Aly:                        Feel free to dispute it but if you don’t dispute it, do you think the Coalition’s rhetorical settings, particularly on an issue such as asylum seekers, have really changed at all?

Arthur Sinodinos:             This is a real paradox. People just say this is an issue of wedge politics but in fact it goes to a point Andrew was making in the context of 457s, if it looks like you can’t control your borders, and we can have a big debate about numbers involved and all the rest of it, it does undermine support for the migration program. So, if the greater good is to have a strong and hopefully rising immigration program you want to deal with the issues that otherwise give people reservations about having a large program. And that, I think this is a really important point, my point about divisiveness versus inclusiveness is at every stage you should try, the best way to get people onside and earn their loyalty is to make them feel included, and so, you know, the idea of simply dividing the Australian population whether it’s class, gender, one race against another is equally abhorrent.

Andrew Leigh:                  I certainly share that view.

Waleed Aly:                        Mmm, it’s just interesting because the allegations are of different, but perhaps of equal dog whistle, aren’t they?

Andrew Leigh:                  Arthur is right to suggest that you want to be very careful accusing anyone of racism in these debates and also to maintain a strong tenure of respect. The language around ‘illegals’ that some members of Arthur’s party have used has been unfortunate. I’m fairly sure he doesn’t use that language, and I think that’s an important marker. It’s not illegal to seek asylum in another country, and we want to be very measured and balanced in everything we say about migration.

Waleed Aly:                        Well it seems that either of you can see the dog whistle on the other side politics and in your hearts of hearts; can you recognise it within your own?

Andrew Leigh:                  There are two pitches of dog whistles you think, Waleed? We’re uniquely attuned to the wrong pitch?

Waleed Aly:                        Yes, well they seem a semi-tone apart and it’s awful to listen to.

Arthur Sinodinos:             No, no, no, my point is that we have to be careful to maintain the overall support for the immigration program. I don’t think the way to do that is to deal with the issues that potentially can undermine it. So it’s not about dog whistling, it’s about dealing with issues that can deal with the greater good that you’re seeking to encourage.

Waleed Aly:                        Sure, sure, but you don’t call asylum seekers ‘illegal’ when they’re not.

Arthur Sinodinos:             Look, look, that to be honest, that debate rose in the context where, it’s not illegal to seek asylum, but the question was it was illegal to land, you know, without papers and authority and everything else. You can get into all sorts of semantics about this, so I just call them asylum seekers or boat people or the rest of it and people know what you’re talking about and we just go from there.

Waleed Aly:                        Yes, I wonder if they know what you’re talking about when you say “illegals” as your boss does, though?

Arthur Sinodinos:             He’s, I think, tried to clarify the context in which that happened

Waleed Aly:                        Ok, we’ll await further clarification. Gentlemen, it’s been wonderful to have you putting on your armour again and going in to fight for us, well joust, I’m not going to say fight because it’s been a little more dignified than that.

Arthur Sinodinos:             I think on the same side today!

Waleed Aly:                        Yeah! It’s good. Lovely to hear two erudite men..

Arthur Sinodinos:             Against the interviewer!

Andrew Leigh:                  Exactly. Exactly.

Waleed Aly:                        Well I just got a text: “lovely to hear two erudite men discussing policy. Well done Waleed and team.” It’s nothing to do with me. You’re the knights in shining armour, so thank you. Thank you so much for your contributions, we’ll have to do it again soon.

Arthur Sinodinos:             Thanks.

Andrew Leigh:                  Thanks Waleed.

I spoke in parliament tonight about the need to reduce cyberbullying.

Reducing Cyberbullying, 24 June 2013

Bullying has long posed a challenge for schools, parents, workplaces and, most significantly, its victims. It also poses a challenge for us legislators, and it is a challenge the Gillard government has sought to address through initiatives such as the National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence, through directing more than $20 million to the Fair Work Commission to provide victims of workplace bullying with a quick and effective way to resolve bullying at work and prevent it ever happening again.

But, as online communications become increasingly prevalent in our offices, our schools and our social lives, it is clear that combating bullying needs to adjust to take this new dimension into account. It is especially important we recognise the safety and security needs of young people, who are growing up in a world with greater digital use than any previous generation.

As a parent, I recognise that the use of the internet my three little boys engage in is vastly different from my own. They have never known a world without ubiquitous internet. To them, being able to touch the screen of a device is just what you do. The ease with which my four-year-old comfortably navigates the internet sometimes sends a shiver down my spine.

That is going to present my three little boys with opportunities I cannot pretend to foresee, but it will also bring new threats. Between Facebook, Vine, Twitter, YouTube and Snapchat, there is a rapidly developing world of online communication. We have to embrace those technological developments while at the same time doing what we can to safeguard the security of users now and into the future.

Bullying may be an old problem, but cyberbullying is different in a number of important ways. Firstly, it provides a degree of anonymity to the perpetrators, meaning they can behave with more aggression and malice than they may dare to in person. A famous study by researchers at the University of Texas, Austin paired up young university students and just asked them to engage in conversations over email. By the end, the researchers were stunned at the extent to which these otherwise placid young university students had begun to engage in conversations that were either lewd or rude. We know that cyberbullying can occur 24/7. We also know that it is nearly impossible to escape. We know it can reach a far more public arena and that online activity can quickly be shared with a larger audience than was possible with bullying in the past.

The Labor government takes the issue of cyberbullying very seriously. In 2008, this government committed $126 million towards a range of cybersafety programs targeted at informing and educating young people as part of our broader cybersafety plan. The government's cybersafety plan is combatting online risks to children. It is helping parents and educators protect children from inappropriate material and inappropriate contacts while online.

The funding supports measures for cybersafety support, education, awareness-raising initiatives and law enforcement, such as funding for the expansion of the Australian Federal Police Child Protection Operations team to detect and investigate online child sex exploitation, funding to increase the capacity of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure prosecutions are handled efficiently and funding for education and awareness-raising through the Think U Know program, which aims to assist parents and children to deal with the risks posed by online predators.

I particularly acknowledge the Youth Advisory Group, some of whom met last year with Minister Stephen Conroy and me at Amaroo School to discuss their inputs into making sure that these cybersafety advances by the government are appropriate and useful to young people. That Youth Advisory Group helped to develop online tools, such as the Cybersafety Help Button and the Easy Guide to Socialising Online website. The government has also provided funding for the Australian Communications and Media Authority's Cybersmart program, which is a national cybersafety and cybersecurity education program.

All this investment is based on some pretty concerning research. Studies undertaken by the ACMA and partly released on 19 March 2013 have found that 14- to 15-year-olds are the most vulnerable to cyberbullying. Thankfully, they are also the most likely to stand up and speak out about it. The research indicates that more than one in five 14- to 15-year-olds have experienced cyberbullying. It shows that levels of cyberbullying among Australian children remain generally steady, despite increases in online participation. That is a good thing.

That indicates that the cybersafety messages underpinning programs such ACMA's Cybersmart program are getting through to the people they are intended to help. The ACMA's research also indicates that eight to 11-year-olds use more than two devices to access the internet. While computers are still the main point of access, a quarter have gone online using a mobile phone and half have accessed the internet using another kind of mobile device, such as a tablet or gaming device.

Thirty five per cent of eight- to 11-year-olds have their own mobile phone, rising to 94 per cent of 16- to 17-year-olds. Recent research by Pew has indicated that young Americans are essentially now plugged in for every moment that they are not sleeping or in school.

Industry and organisations are coming together to address issues of cyberbullying and cybersafety. Organisations like McAfee are engaging in research, education and awareness raising. McAfee's research which Minister Conroy launched on 21 May 2013 was released as part of the 2013 National Cybersecurity Awareness Week which was 20 to 24 May. The research tells us that education needs to start early. On average young people are using many more internet enabled devices. The McAfee research tells us that one in five tweens have chatted to a stranger online and six per cent of teens have met up with a stranger. That is a statistic that would cause great fear for many Australian parents.

Professor Donna Cross of Edith Cowan University has completed a landmark study on cyberbullying commissioned by the government. She reports that children who had been bullied are much more likely to suffer depression and anxiety. Professor Cross said:

‘We know that probably the most significant effects on children who've been bullied are effects in their mental health. They're much more likely to feel depressed, anxious, their self-esteem is affected. There are some students that report suicide ideation. It has very serious immediate effects and long-term effects.’

Twenty thousand Australian school children were surveyed using a combination of anonymous questionnaires and interviews. According to that survey work, about 10 per cent of young people reported they were being cyberbullied. This government has done the research, we have recognised the problem, and we are acting on it. It is terrific to see the coalition now adopting similar policies in the fields of cybersafety and cyberbullying.

To quote Dr Judith Slocombe, the chief executive of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation: ‘there is no difference between someone who bullies online and one who bullies face-to-face. They are just using different methods. They both can cause enormous harm.’

It is important we talk about those issues because online communications are developing rapidly. Rollout of Labor's National Broadband Network - fibre to the home for 93 per cent of Australians and ubiquitous broadband for the whole population - is happening fast. Last Friday I was in Gungahlin with Minister Conroy to see nearly 11,000 new Gungahlin homes switched on to the National Broadband Network. People in Amaroo, Ngunnawal, Palmerston and Mitchell now join the nearly 15,000 Canberrans in and around Gungahlin that are enjoying superfast broadband. By mid-2016, construction in the ACT will have commenced or be complete to 180,300 homes and businesses. Gungahlin is also leading the country with the sheer number of premises that are signing up to the National Broadband Network. In an area switched on only six months ago more than half the population has signed up for an NBN service. In another area that has only been switched on for three months take-up of the National Broadband Network is already 40 per cent. The myth that the opposition peddles that no-one wants the National Broadband Network is being disproved every single day in the ACT and all across Australia.

[email protected]

Australians come up to me in my mobile office, my community forums and when I am doorknocking and they never ask me, 'Why are we getting fibre to the home?' The question they ask me is, 'When do I get fibre to the home?' Australians recognise the importance of fibre to the home and we recognise the importance of a cybersafety plan to make sure Australians are safe online.

I spoke in parliament tonight about the sad news that Australia has lost our 40th soldier in Afghanistan.

Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird MG, 24 June 2013

Tonight this parliament pays tribute to Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird MG, a member of the Special Operations Task Group from the 2nd Commando Regiment based in Holsworthy Barracks. Corporal Baird was killed in action by small arms fire during a firefight with Afghan insurgents on Saturday in the Khod Valley. He was noted for his leadership, his spirit and his unwavering respect for his colleagues. Corporal Baird was an experienced and decorated special forces soldier. This was his fifth tour of Afghanistan, and this relatively young man had also served in Iraq and East Timor. He died aged just 32.

Among the many honours that Corporal Baird received was the Medal for Gallantry for actions during close-quarters combat in Afghanistan on Operation Slipper. When his platoon came under heavy fire during a close-range firefight in the initial clearance phase of the operation, then Lance Corporal Baird took his team to recover their wounded members and took them to a position of cover. Following this, he was able to lead his team to re-engage with the enemy and successfully complete the clearance. ADF chief General David Hurley described Corporal Baird as an iconic figure within the ADF. He said:

‘In combat and as a team commander, he was the man to watch and was never happier than when the situation demanded decisive action and courage.’

In the past Australia has been very clear about our commitment to Afghanistan. Our efforts, as other speakers have noted, have come with a heavy price. We have lost 40 ADF members, and 254 personnel have been wounded.

Australia's operations in Afghanistan have been a long and often gruelling commitment. We have invested a great amount of resources, equipment and, most significantly, personnel in these efforts. That work included the special task force deployment—around 150 personnel in the wake of 9-11 and then, in September 2005, the Special Operations Task Group of 190. To this task we also committed two Army CH47 Chinook helicopters and 110 personnel. The next year, a 240-strong reconstruction task force, with an extra 150 personnel to follow. 2007 saw the redeployment of around 300 Australian special forces personnel to Uruzgan. The ADF peak deployment was expected to be 1,000 personnel in mid-2008—a combination of the reconstruction task force, their protection company group, the Special Operations Task Group and RAAF air surveillance.

Our strategy placed a great emphasis on training and mentoring the Afghan National Army in Uruzgan province in early 2008, in recognition of the need for the government of Afghanistan to build its own security forces and take charge of its citizens' ongoing security. Australia therefore deployed a 50-person operational mentoring and liaison team, and that brought our total personnel supporting Australian operations in Afghanistan to around 1,100. This was again increased in 2009, bringing the personnel to 1,550, which included extra support for projects run by the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force and by the election support force. We have been working closely with the US, Singapore and Slovakia, as well as the civilian director of the Uruzgan Provincial Reconstruction Team. It was my pleasure last week to have lunch as part of a group meeting with the finance minister of Afghanistan, Dr Omar Zakhilwal, and he noted the willingness with which Australian forces worked in Uruzgan province, one of the least developed provinces in Afghanistan.

Last October we assumed management of the transitional process from the United States, making it now our duty to assist these responsibilities to move to Afghan security control. It is a huge responsibility and, as we have been recently and tragically reminded, one that carries inherent risk for our personnel. In November the Australian government announced that all four infantry Kandaks of the ANA 4th Brigade in Uruzgan province were operating independently without the need for Australian advisers. With this development, the ADF was able to transfer control of joint forward operating bases and patrol bases to the 4th Brigade.

In March this year the Prime Minister and defence minister welcomed the decision by the International Security Assistance Force to close multinational base Tarin Kot in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan by the end of 2014. That decision to draw down and close the base indicates that we are now transitioning to full Afghan-led security forces. We have to continue the transition but we need to also be aware of the challenges that remain. The Taliban continue to target the ANSF and the Afghan authorities. Propaganda motivated attacks, particularly suicide bomb attacks, are still widespread, as we have seen in Kabul. These attacks are part of operating in a counterinsurgency environment.

This morning Minister Warren Snowdon, shadow minister Senator Michael Ronaldson, the member for Canberra and I spoke at a ceremony to mark the Boer War Memorial. It was remarked by a number of speakers at that event that, like Afghanistan, the Boer War was a conflict that saw Australians operating in a counterinsurgency environment, an environment that is extremely risky, an environment that leads to loss of life, as with the 40 brave Australians that we mourn today.

I pay tribute to Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird. I offer my condolences to his parents, his brother and his partner. I again echo the words of General Hurley, 'We share their loss and we feel their pain, and we will support them through the difficult days ahead.' His sacrifice will not be forgotten.

Remarks at the opening of the National Arboretum playground

22 June 2013

Check Against Delivery

[Acknowledgments omitted]

I’m here today representing Federal Minister Catherine King, who I think perhaps has the best excuse in history for not being at an event: it is Catherine’s son’s 5^th birthday today.

So she is organising his 5^th birthday and I think if ever there was a reason to miss a playground opening, then that’s a pretty darn good one.

There are some events for a federal politician that aren’t so family friendly.

I was out doorknocking Kaleen this morning, and I’ve got to say when I asked my three little boys if anyone would like to join me, I didn’t get any hands going up in the air.

But for the Leigh family, being here is pretty special.

My middle son Theodore had a one-word description of this play space: he said it’s ‘great’.

And like Katy [Gallagher], I suspect I will be back on a very regular basis.

Gweneth’s work at the Arboretum really means that she has a love for this place.

But I wanted to say a bit too about the evolution of the playground, because I think the structure behind me really illustrates what an extraordinary journey play spaces have been on.

In order to have playgrounds, you had to first have childhood.

For most of human history, you didn’t really have a thing called childhood.

People were young adults, who weren’t ready to work, and then when they were ready to work they were sent off into the fields or into the factories.

And finally in the 19^th century that we get the idea of play – the notion that there should be a period known as childhood, where kids really explore opportunities.

In 1859, the first playground is opened in Manchester.

And playgrounds steadily expand around the world, and there was a huge explosion of playgrounds in Australia after World War II.

And now we’re seeing what I regard as the next stage of playgrounds, because we’ve got a big challenge in Australia now with childhood obesity, with more and more kids living sedentary lifestyles.

Part of that is because of technology – those electronic games, the PlayStations and the Xboxes – are just getting better and better. And so the only way to fight that, I reckon, is for the playgrounds to get better and better.

So what you see over here is technology’s response to the Xbox.

This is playground designers saying ‘Fine, if you’re going to build some amazing electronic games, we are going to build you the most phenomenal playground you’ve ever seen.’

And it’s fitting that there’s acorns in there, because acorns – as you know – are those little things from which huge things grow.

And a great playground does the same thing, it’s a space in which children can have the opportunity to start off having that activity and doing that play that is so critical to evolving into a stronger person.

This playground is unusual – it’s got federal funding.

I know many Australians would regard the Commonwealth Government as already devoting a fair bit of money towards games that are played in Canberra.

But this is, I think, a fairly unusual initiative.

And the Federal Government’s done that because we believe this National Arboretum for all Australians.

This is going to be a spot where Australians come and say ‘this is my National Arboretum, in my national capital.

It’s got trees from around the world and it’s got a playground unlike any other.’

It’ll be a space for the whole family, and I’m delighted with Katy today opening this extraordinary playground.

Thank you very much.

TRANSCRIPT – 'BREAKING POLITICS' WITH TIM LESTER
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
24 June 2013

Topics:                         Leadership, Coalition’s plan for northern Australia



http://media.smh.com.au/news/national-times/bring-on-the-policy-debate-4514917.html

Tim Lester:                          Kelly O’Dwyer, Andrew Leigh, thank you for coming in this morning. Andrew Leigh, what should Kevin Rudd do for Labor’s and the country’s best benefit this week?

Andrew Leigh: Well Kevin has clearly said, Tim, that there’s no circumstances in which he believes he could lead the Labor Party to the next election. We have a Prime Minister and I think the important thing is to be focussed on the policy differences between the major parties.

Tim Lester:                          So, Kevin’s said enough in terms of ruling himself out for leadership? He doesn’t need to be clearer in that regard?

Andrew Leigh: I think he has and I think that if there’s a choice in Australian politics it’s a choice between parties. I suspect this is an issue with which Kelly would agree with me: there are big differences between the parties. In my view, an Opposition which doesn’t have an education policy, a health policy, whose Northern Australia plan is a rehash of things that are already happening, and whose broadband plan delivers fibre to a cabinet down the street rather than fibre to your home. They’re big questions in Australian politics and they’re ones that deserve greater scrutiny.

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Surprisingly though, I don’t agree with you. I know you’re going to find this shocking…

Andrew Leigh: You don’t think the big differences in Australia are between the parties?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  I think your analysis is somewhat off, but the point I would make is this: there is clearly extraordinary dysfunction in the Labor Party right now. It’s the third year anniversary of Julia Gillard taking over from Kevin Rudd, the ‘faceless men’ installing her; they openly declared this on Lateline three years ago. She said that she was going to fix a number of problems facing Australia. On each of those three things; on the economy, on the mining tax, on boats, she has most abysmally failed. She has divided caucus, she has divided Shadow, well I was going to say Shadow Cabinet but it is actually the Cabinet that’s, they’re behaving like a Shadow Cabinet…

[Tim Lester:                        Give it time]

Andrew Leigh: This is measuring the curtains going on already, Tim.

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  No, no, no, they’re behaving, though, like a Shadow Cabinet. They’re behaving as though they are in opposition rather than in government because they take no responsibility for any of the decisions that they make. I take your point though, that there are clear differences between the Opposition and the Government. One is competent, one is incompetent. You have got a Coalition that knows how to handle an economy, knows how to handle a budget. We have seen this current Treasurer deliver five budget deficits. We are going to go past the $300 billion gross debt ceiling – a ceiling he said we would never reach, a ceiling he has increased from $75 billion. We are paying interest bills now of $8 billion a year. I mean, this is incompetence writ large.

Tim Lester:                          Ok, pretty standard political positions from you both. But just on the question, dare I ask you to counsel Labor, Kelly, but what does Kevin Rudd need to do to give Labor, and give the country frankly, the certainty it needs?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Go to an election.

Tim Lester:                          But should he stand up and fight the leadership? Is there a time to ‘put up or shut up’ here, or isn’t it that simple?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Well look, I wouldn’t actually give the Labor Party any advice other than this: the Australian people are sick of the farce, they’re sick of the soap opera, they’re sick of incompetence in government and they’re sick of a Prime Minister who is totally focussed on trying to keep her own job rather than concerned about the Australian people. They want to go to an election right now to ensure that we have certainty in our government and to restore confidence so that business can get on with what it does best which is growing our economy and employing people.

Tim Lester:                          Andrew Leigh, you want a…

Andrew Leigh: Well I just understand certainly why the Coalition are banging this ‘election now’ drum; it’s because they hope to skate into power without proper scrutiny of their policies and there are massive policy differences. The tax rise the Coalition would impose on the superannuation of low wage workers would cost a childcare worker $75,000 in lost savings over the course of their career…

[Kelly O’Dwyer:                Because of your borrowing, those children are going to be paying increased taxes for generations to come.]

Andrew Leigh: …And in the case where Kelly’s spoken about economic management, if you look at the savings made in the last five Labor budgets there’s eight times the savings made in the last five Howard budgets…

[Kelly O’Dwyer:                You’ve increased the [inaudible] more than $100 billion a year]

Andrew Leigh: …The difference is a global financial crisis and significant revenue write-downs seeing the tax as a share of GDP fall from 24 per cent to 22 per cent.

Tim Lester:                          Ok, just a couple of quick wrap up issues on the leadership question. This morning, the Australian has a Newspoll that mirrors last week’s Nielson poll, and Fairfax papers have a piece in which Gillard backers argue that actually the problem in the polls at the moment is that there is the focus on Kevin Rudd. Leadership is damaging Labor in the polls, do you agree?

Andrew Leigh:                   Certainly I think the Coalition are the favourites at the moment and we are the underdogs. That’s reflected in Kelly’s comments suggesting Labor already has a Shadow Cabinet. And that sheer arrogance that characterise the Coalition…

[Kelly O’Dwyer:                No, I’m saying you’re behaving like an opposition is what I’m suggesting]

Andrew Leigh: …Certainly I think if you look at the track record of this Government: 586 Bills passed through the House of Representatives, a price on carbon pollution (which the experts agree with), a Murray-Darling Basin plan finally settled after over a century of argy-bargy, and a seat on the UN Security Council thanks to assiduous diplomatic work. These are big and important achievements.

Tim Lester:                          Ok, can I ask you both, our paper the Age, Fairfax media’s the Age, dared to editorialise at the weekend that Labor should change leaders from Gillard to Rudd. First you, Andrew, was that a fair thing for a major daily newspaper like the Age to do?

Andrew Leigh: I don’t think most people take their cues from editorials and I think that is true also of the Labor caucus. Prime Minister Gillard will lead us to the next election.

Tim Lester:                          As an enlightened Member of Parliament from Melbourne, what did you think of your daily newspaper doing that, Kelly O’Dwyer?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Well I think it certainly made a splash, but look, it’s a matter for the Age to determine its own editorial policy so I’ll leave it at that, I think.

Tim Lester:                          The Coalition’s ‘Developing Northern Australia Plan’ was released last week. What evidence do you see that a change of plan like this, an emphasis on the north can double the country’s agricultural output?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Well absolutely this is part of the vision for the future of Australia, and for northern Australia. For too long it has been ignored, too long have we seen people not make decisions in the national interest. What we’ve said is that we need a plan for northern Australia; we need to have a proper infrastructure plan that survives not one, not two but more than three elections time.

Tim Lester:                          Plan? Or pie in the sky?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  No, no, no, you’ve got to have a vision and a plan for northern Australia before you can implement it and that’s what we’ve said, we’ve said that we need to actually have this discussion underway. We need to ensure that we work together with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, with the State Premiers in the north to get the right infrastructure so that we can capitalise on our competitive advantages as a country. We know that we are a clean and green agricultural producer; we know that we are going to see increased demand from Asia; this is something that Australia can greatly benefit from if we put the right infrastructure in place.

Tim Lester:                          Andrew Leigh, plan? Or pie in the sky?

Andrew Leigh: I certainly agree with Kelly about the importance of infrastructure spending. That’s why if you look at infrastructure spending under this Government, road spending is double the Howard Government level, rail spending four times the Howard Government level. I think perhaps the most enlightening thing that you can learn about this policy is that it recommends the creation of a set of ministerial meetings that already happen. If Mr Abbott spent a little bit more time using Google and a little bit less time coming up with catchy slogans he might actually realise that what he’s recommending out of all this already exists.

Tim Lester:                          What, that this kind of planning is already down the track?

Andrew Leigh: Absolutely, there’s a strong focus on the importance of Northern Australia. There are ministerial meetings taking place and the strategy of improving our food exports to Asia is one that’s at the core of the government’s Australia in the Asian Century White Paper.

Tim Lester:                          Andrew Leigh, Kelly O’Dwyer thank you for coming in this morning.

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Great to be with you.

Andrew Leigh: Thanks Tim. Thanks Kelly.

TRANSCRIPT – ABC NEWS 24 BREAKFAST
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
24 June 2013

Topics:                                  Leadership, Coalition’s lack of health policy



Michael Rowland:            We’re joined now by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Andrew Leigh, and Opposition for Health and Ageing Spokesman, Peter Dutton. Gentlemen, good morning to you both.

Peter Dutton:                    Good morning

Andrew Leigh: Morning, Michael

Michael Rowland:            Andrew Leigh, picking up on Greg Combet, does that leadership issue have to be resolved this week?

Andrew Leigh: Well Michael, Kevin Rudd has made clear that there are no circumstances that would see him returning to the Prime Ministership and I think the main focus of this week is going to be between the big policy differences between the major parties. I’m sure Peter and I disagree on the substance of many of those issues, but I think we would agree on this point: that the main differences in Australian politics aren’t within parties - they’re between them. From my point of view, that’s differences like the fact that the Coalition a couple of months out from an election doesn’t have an education or a health policy. They have a second-rate broadband policy. That they have a policy on climate change that is not supported by any serious economist. That on superannuation they would raise superannuation taxes on the lowest paid workers in order to be able to give tax cuts to the biggest miners and the biggest polluters. So it’s those big values questions that I think are going to characterise the week rather than these sorts of questions of gossip and say so.

Michael Rowland:            It’s more than gossip and say so, with respect, Andrew Leigh. Greg Combet there saying it’s distracting Labor from pursuing its, as you say, policy agenda. It has to be resolved, in his words, this week. Gary Gray, another key supporter of the Prime Minister, last week, lashing out at Kevin Rudd, accusing him of lacking the ticker, lacking the courage to stand again. This isn’t gossip; this is a party at odds with each other.

Andrew Leigh: Michael, I can’t fault you for being excited about the colour and movement that might be going around Parliament House...

Michael Rowland:            I’m not excited, Andrew Leigh, I’m just putting questions to you that, you know, it is glib to say that this is simply gossip and say so.

Andrew Leigh: Michael, with respect, I think you are missing the big story in Australian politics if three months out from an election you think that the main question that concerns Australians is questions of internal party management. They are in fact the big differences between the parties. Mr Abbott, with his $70 billion costings gap has to either raise taxes on Australians or cut services and at the moment we’re seeing him largely evade scrutiny with his approach of throwing out white papers left, right and centre in an attempt to sort of pretend that he’s thinking big but not in fact be honest with the Australian people about the services that they will lose if he’s elected to office. He said that everything is on the table, and so that means potential cuts to pensions, to services that people rely on. Your Queensland viewers will know the Campbell Newman playbook - this approach of suggesting a Commission of Audit before the election, which after the election delivers swingeing cuts to essential services; cuts to the police force, to education, nurses losing their jobs, these are really important issues and they’re the sorts of things that come back to me. I was out doorknocking in Kaleen on the weekend and that’s what people were more focussed upon.

Michael Rowland:            We’ll get to those policy issues in just a moment. Peter Dutton, over to you. Can we just clarify, we heard Christopher Pyne standing outside Parliament earlier this morning saying there won’t be a no confidence motion put by the Coalition this week. We’re speaking of commitments, people making commitments, backing away from commitments: you put an awful lot of store in threatening to do this, why is the Coalition now seeming to be backing off from that no confidence motion avenue?

Peter Dutton:                    Well Michael, just to sum up where we’re at at the moment - Andrew’s had a lot to say in his opening remarks - this is obviously a divided and dysfunctional government, there’s no question about that. Andrew, it seems to me, has all the credibility of Comical Ali standing up there saying, “there’s nothing to see here”, no leadership issues and yet you’ve got Cabinet ministers threatening to resign, you’ve got people who are fighting within Labor like we haven’t seen in a couple of generations. And Labor at war with itself is bad for the Australian public and it seems to me at the moment that the Labor Party on the third anniversary of the ‘faceless men’ taking to Kevin Rudd are now at war with themselves about whether they’ll stick with Julia Gillard or go with Kevin Rudd, but in the end all of this distils down to this point, Michael: the Labor Party is obsessed with itself and has forgotten about the Australian people. It has no plan for the future and it really, we’re desperate to have these policy discussions because we have a superior offering at the federal election but the Labor Party continues to fight, it continues to brawl within itself and even if this issue is not brought to a head this week it will haunt the Labor Party right through, not just to the federal election, but for years to come, because in opposition I believe the Labor Party will continue to tear themselves apart. And Michael, at the moment, the Labor Party is not saying, “We’re thinking about bringing back Kevin Rudd because we think he’s a good Prime Minister, or because we like him as a person, or because we think that he would be good for the country’s future. They’re saying to the Australian people, “we’re contemplating bringing back Kevin Rudd because in spite of the fact that we loathe him we want to try and save some seats so that Bill Shorten can have a better launching pad as the Leader of the Opposition.” This is not a functional government and it just gets worse every day.

Michael Rowland:            Well let’s talk about policy. The thing is, Peter Dutton, we can’t really do that with you because you told the Financial Review earlier this month, effectively the Coalition doesn’t have, and won’t have a health policy going to the election, because you told that paper there are other more pressing issues. Is that good enough for a health spokesman?

Peter Dutton:                    Well that’s not what was said at all, Michael. What I’ve said is that health has had to take a back seat, if you like, to the issues that the Government has presided over: $300 billion worth of debt, cost of living pressures for families, businesses that don’t have any consumer or business confidence, people who have been sacked or are living under a great threat of being sacked because there’s no confidence in the workplace, the 45,000 people who have come by boats. All of these issues, Labor’s ongoing battles over leadership, all of that means we can’t talk, we can’t get the airtime because, like in this interview, we’ve spent the first five minutes talking about the Labor Party…

Michael Rowland:            Alright, I’m asking you about your policy, or your lack of health policy. Here’s your opportunity, Peter Dutton.

Peter Dutton:                    Well our policy is ready to go, Michael. I mean, I’ve been working on policy with stakeholders in this portfolio behind the scenes every day over the course of the last five years. And we will have a cracker of a policy as we did at the last election. We announced a $1.5 billion mental health policy, we announced new beds, we announced funding for doctors, allied health professionals, more funding in aged care in the primary care space. We’ve got a lot that we will announce at an appropriate time. But I’m not going to be lectured by the Labor Party about when our announcements will be made. If you try and get a front page story at the moment, it’s pretty hard to compete with Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard in this Days of Our Lives episode that knows no end, and I think the Labor Party needs to get itself sorted out because to be this divided and dysfunctional you cannot lead the Australian people and that’s why people are falling off the Labor Government at the moment. We’ll make our announcements at a time that suits us.

Michael Rowland:            Andrew Leigh, let’s go to a policy issue very dear to the heart of the Prime Minister, of course, the Gonski reforms. The deadline she set expires at the end of next week for the remaining states and territories to sign up. Is there now virtually no hope of those reforms being agreed to?

Andrew Leigh: Well Michael, these are really important reforms for local schools. I spend a lot of time in schools in my electorate as I’m sure Peter does in his. And you really get a sense that our current school funding model is broken. That a model that has these decade old grandfather clauses - and where federal funding is tied to state funding, so when conservative state governments cut back, the federal funding falls. That’s not a model to take us to be one of the best performing school systems in the Asian region. And so I think that we need these schools reforms. I think they’re sensible reforms that provide loadings to Indigenous kids, kids in regional areas and low-SES students and reforms from which all students stand to benefit. I’d also say quickly on Peter’s comments on the health policy, he says it’s a cracker of a policy but every so often crackers go off in your face. I’m sure Australian people are saying, “well Peter, if it’s so good, why won’t you bring it out of witness protection? If your health policy is really that great for Australian people why don’t you be clear about what you’re going to do?”. And all I’ve heard from Peter on his health policy is suggestions that he wants to get rid of the public servants in the Health Department who manage campaigns around reducing obesity and binge drinking, who manage getting drugs listed on the PBS. I mean, if you want new drugs listed on the PBS as Nicola Roxon said last week, then you don’t want your health policy to be firing people in the Department.

Michael Rowland:            Alright. Ok Peter, can you answer some of those claims?

Peter Dutton:                    Well I just think it’s quite amusing to hear Andrew talk about crackers and celebration. I’d be interested to know how he’s celebrating the third year anniversary of Julia Gillard’s ascension today. It hasn’t been spoken about much, but it’s worth noting and I’d be very interested to see, Andrew, what you’re going to do to celebrate today. But look, in  terms of the bureaucratic spend within the health portfolio, no question that the Labor Party has increased the number of bureaucratic numbers in the Department by 27% over the course of the last five years. A few years ago there were three outside agencies: there are now eighteen agencies. The Department did have two Departmental deputy-secretaries, there are now six. And yet at the same time we’re seeing money taken away from front line services and all I’ve said is that we’ll have an absolute priority to get more of the health spend back to front line services, not to take money away, but to give more money to doctors and nurses so that we can get the surgery for elderly Australians, so that we can reduce waiting times in emergency departments, so that we can make it easier to get in to see a doctor. Those are the policies that we’re working on. At the same time, Labor has spent an enormous amount of money on this ever growing bureaucracy, Michael.

Michael Rowland:            We’re out of time, Peter Dutton, Andrew Leigh. Thank you. We’ll just have to wait to see just what sort of crackers do go off.

Andrew Leigh: Thank you Michael, thank you Peter.

I spoke in Parliament today about the weekend's Welcome to Australia walk.

'Welcome to Australia' Walk Together, 24 June 2013

In my first speech in this place I spoke about my maternal grandparents—a boilermaker and a teacher—who lived by the credo that if there was a spare room in the house it should be used by someone who needed the space. As a child, I remember eating dinner at their house with migrants who lived with them and hearing the stories of their having come from Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Cambodia and Sri Lanka. That experience informed my lifelong passion for Australian multiculturalism.

Australia's multicultural story is a proud one. We have welcomed over seven million people from more than 200 countries since 1945. It was my pleasure on Saturday to participate in Walk Together in the ACT. The theme of this year's walk was 'If we're all people, we're all equal'. The walk was organised by Bree Willsmore, who took over from Henry Sherrell as the ACT coordinator, and was part of 16 walks around Australia which took place over the weekend. I acknowledge Brad Chilcott, the National Organiser of Welcome to Australia for his work on this.

In the ACT, we were privileged to hear from Ms Mariam 'Maz' Hakim, a radio announcer at 104.7 in Canberra, who arrived in Australia in 1983 after her father fled Kabul with his family during the invasion of the Soviet Union. We heard from Duncan Smith, a Wiradjuri man from central-western New South Wales, whose presence reminded us that except for indigenous Australians, every other Australian is a migrant or the child of a migrant. We heard from Mariam Veiszadeh, also of Afghan heritage, a lawyer who did the walk at five months pregnant and spoke passionately about multiculturalism in Australia. We heard from Sam Wong, the chair of the Canberra Multicultural Community Forum, as well as Simon Sheikh, the former head of GetUp and now ACT Greens Senate candidate.

There were some terrific performances by a local ACT blues band Blue Yvie the ACT Chinese Australian Association and the Italian choir. I acknowledge the organisational efforts of Amnesty International and the LifeCity church as well. There were a variety of views reflected in Walk Together, but we were all united in a single view that refugees and migrants must always be treated with respect.

In closing, let me also acknowledge the hard work of St John's Kippax, who organised an event on Friday for refugee week. I thank Bevil Purnell for inviting me along, and acknowledge Gabriel Yak for telling his extraordinary story as one of the ‘lost boys’ of Sudan. It brought a tear to everyone's eyes.

I MC'ed today a bipartisan event to boost public awareness of the proposed Boer War Memorial, which will hopefully soon be built on ANZAC Parade, in my electorate of Fraser. Here are my opening words.

Boer War Memorial Event
Parliament House
24 June 2013

I acknowledge the Minister for Veterans Affairs, the Hon. Warren Snowdon MP; the Shadow Minister for Veterans Affairs, the Hon. Senator Michael Ronaldson; Gai Brodtmann MP; Nigel Webster, the Chair of the ACT National Boer War Memorial Committee; Ian Ball, also from the ACT National Boer War Memorial Committee; and John Howse, the grandson of Sir Neville Howse, the first Australian to win the Victoria Cross in the Boer War. I recognise too Senator Gary Humphries, who I understand was unable to attend, but is a strong supporter of this memorial.

The Boer War is – for many Australians – a forgotten war. It began before we were even a nation. The rights and wrongs of the war are less clear than in other conflicts. If asked to name one story about the Boer War, many Australians would likely name the movie Breaker Morant.

The Boer War was the Banjo Paterson was a Boer War correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, and after the war put his experiences to verse. In his ballad With French to Kimberley he described the young Australian soldiers so:

“And in the front the Lancers rode that New South Wales had sent:
With easy stride across the plain their long, lean Walers went.
Unknown, untried, those squadrons were, but proudly out they drew
Beside the English regiments that fought at Waterloo.”

One such young New South Welshman was Private William Abrahams of Bega. Private Abrahams was excited about taking part in the Boer War. He joined the Bega Mounted Rifles with a number of other young men from the district.

An enthusiastic correspondent, he wrote many letters home to his mother, his brother and sister, describing his journey to South Africa and his impressions on arrival.

In a letter to his brother and sister dated 4 December 1899, he wrote:

"We arrived in Port Elizabeth last night at about 9.30 and anchored there till this morning. (...) It is a very nice looking place, the town is close to the sea it would make a half dozen Begas."

Late in February 1900 he wrote to his mother describing a battle.

“We had a good battle last week called Paardeburg, we captured a laager (as we call a camp) of 3,400 Boers, and killed many more. We have had several small battles but not so large as Paardeburg.”

Sadly, a week after sending this letter Private Abrahams was killed.

One of Abrahams' comrades, Trooper Stewart of Wollongong, writing from Bloemfontein said:

"The young fellow who was killed in our company was named Abrahams and hailed from Bega. His death was due to abominable treachery, for while the enemy were holding up white flags in any number, a shower of bullets landed all round us, and one of them found its mark in the heart of this poor boy.”

The Boer War was a hard-fought conflict, with stories such as this one redolent of many of the wars since, including our involvement in Afghanistan.

An Australian soldier leaving his home for the Boer War in 1899 left behind a collection of colonies, and if he was lucky enough to return home at the end of the war in 1902 it was to a newly federated nation. While many things have changed since 1901, the universal tragedy of young men and women dying before their time remains the same.

Private Abrahams is one of the 102,730 Australians acknowledged on the Roll of Honour at the War Memorial. Hopefully soon his sacrifice will be recognised in this striking memorial.

TRANSCRIPT – DOORS
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
24 June 2013

TOPICS:                                Superannuation for low income workers, leadership, polls



Andrew Leigh: At the next election Australian people are going to face a very clear choice on the issue of superannuation. We know now, thanks to new figures that are on the www.moresuper.gov.au website that a child care worker working on average child care wages, full time, will lose $75,000 in retirement savings if Mr Abbott were to win office. Mr Abbott’s superannuation changes increase superannuation taxes on the lowest paid workers in Australia. That is, I think, fundamentally at odds with basic Australian values that say that if you want to make budget savings you should make them on those who can most afford them, not those who can least afford them. If the superannuation pause takes effect then an average worker stands to lose $30,000. But if, as is more likely, Mr Abbott were to, upon winning office, not continue with increasing superannuation that would cost $127,000 of retirement savings. That’s a deeply short-sighted decision and one that’s damaging to so many workers on average and lower incomes. Happy to take any policy questions you’ve got. [Pause] Silence?

Journalist:                           It’s commendable for you to come out here and try to talk about policy but aren’t you ignoring the big issue of this week, and that is the leadership, do think it’s just media fascination?

Andrew Leigh: I’m happy to take your leadership question, Laura, but the reason I come out and talk about policy every day is because I believe that questions of leadership pale into insignificance alongside the big policy differences between the major parties. Tony Abbott doesn’t have a health policy; he doesn’t have an education policy. He’s got a $70 billion costings crater. And last week he announced a northern Australia plan proposing a commission that already exists.

Journalist:                           How can Australians have confidence in the Government though, to be able to deliver on these promises if you’re not entirely sure who’s going to be leading the Party by the end of the week?

Andrew Leigh: You just look at the track record. 586 Bills passed through the House of Representatives. Big reforms like the price on carbon pollution, DisabilityCare, better schools, and let’s not forget winning a seat on the UN Security Council. I’m very proud of the track record of this Government on policy reform.

Journalist:                           Are you confident that Julia Gillard will still be the Prime Minister by the end of the week?

Andrew Leigh: Yes

Journalist:                           Do the Rudd forces need to ‘put up or shut up’?

Andrew Leigh: My focus here is on policy, not on gossip and flim flam.

Journalist:                           Well it’s not gossip. Like, Rudd supporters are obviously backgrounding and there’s some sort of backgrounding that’s going on at the moment on the leadership, so what to the Rudd forces need to do? Do they need to challenge Julia Gillard for that position or does the Prime Minister need to step aside?

Andrew Leigh: Mr Rudd has said as recently as last week that there’s no circumstances in which he can envisage returning to the leadership. He has said that he sees the major contest in this country as being the contest between the political parties. And he’s right about that. That is the huge policy question here in Australia. This absence of a health policy or an education policy just months out from an election; that’s an extraordinary thing for the Coalition to be attempting to do. To try and skate into power without being honest with the Australian people about what they would do to services, without being clear about which taxes they would increase and which services they would cut to fill that $70 billion black hole.

Journalist:                           Poll after poll shows that Kevin Rudd is vastly more popular than Julia Gillard and today’s poll shows that Labor could lose 30 seats at the election. Why won’t you or your colleagues switch to Kevin Rudd if it means saving some seats?

Andrew Leigh: Julia Gillard is an extraordinarily gutsy woman. She will lead us to the next election and my focus between now and then is talking about policy, not talking about numbers.

Journalist:                           Why should she, though? Why should she given the state of the polls; they’ve been consistent at that level for the best part of six months. Why, what’s the best reason you can give that she should lead?

Andrew Leigh: Prime Minister Gillard has delivered an extraordinary set of reforms over the course of this parliament. In the circumstances with a minority government she has managed to get done a large number of important policy changes. Whether that’s the superannuation changes, the increases in foreign aid: now at the highest level as a share of GDP in 25 years, important improvements in Australian services, the hospital reform efficient pricing…

Journalist:                           But she’s unable to pull Labor out of the dire situation. So, aren’t most of those reforms at risk?

Andrew Leigh: My view is that good policy is good politics. That if you want to have the privilege of being elected and re-elected by the Australian people, which is what it is, then you’ve got to be focused around policy and we as a party need to back a leader who has delivered important Labor reforms across the board.

Journalist:                           So what happens now? We’re now looking down the barrel of perhaps a third leadership showdown. The last two, we’ve been told the matter is resolved. So, what should Kevin Rudd do now? Should he bow out of politics or does he remain a problem for Labor whilst he’s there.

Andrew Leigh: Mr Rudd has made it absolutely clear that there aren’t circumstances in which he believes he would lead the Labor Party.

Journalist:                           Regardless, Andrew, if he remains in the Party, in politics, there’s always going to be this question of leadership.

Andrew Leigh: Laura, I’m not sure why you can say ‘regardless’. Mr Rudd has clearly said that there’s no circumstances in which he sees he will return to the leadership.

Journalist:                           Do you believe him?

Andrew Leigh: Yes, I do. And I’ve clearly told you that I believe that Julia Gillard will lead us to the next election.

Journalist:                           So you don’t believe that there’ll be any sort of leadership challenge this week?

Andrew Leigh: No, I don’t. But I certainly believe that we ought to see more scrutiny of the policy differences here because they are massive. Broadband: Fraudband versus broadband is a far bigger issue than any poll that’s been coming out today.

Journalist:                           So you haven’t you heard any of the talk around Parliament House that Julia Gillard is losing some support; you haven’t heard any of your colleagues talk about this leadership issue?

Andrew Leigh: This building is filled with more petty gossip than any other building I have worked in.

Journalist:                           Do you put it all down to petty gossip, though? Are you seriously saying that this leadership talk is a figment of our imaginations and petty gossip?

Andrew Leigh: I think it pales into insignificance between the policy differences and I’m desperately worried that three months out from an election we’re spending more time, you are more interested in asking me questions about opinion polls and personalities than about the big policy questions. And that’s I guess my challenge to you as an honourable profession is to focus on the policy questions as well as the ones on personalities.

Journalist:                           Fair enough, but Craig Emerson this morning said that it would be naïve to suggest that there isn’t backgrounding going on and he spent the better part of five or six minutes trying to call on caucus to back Julia Gillard, he didn’t speak about policy once. Is he distracting from the issue there?

Andrew Leigh: I suspect Craig Emerson is in the same predicament as me in which he is answering questions rather than giving statements. But, if you get Craig on a topic of policy passion, something like economic reform, something like trade liberalisation, he’s one of the great economic reformers of the place and I suspect would much rather be focussed on policy questions than questions of personality, gossip, flim flam.

Thanks folks.