Andrew Leigh

I launched Stuart Cunningham's new book Hidden Innovation tonight.

Launching Stuart Cunningham, Hidden Innovation: Policy, Industry and the Creative Sector
Paperchain Books, Manuka
9 April 2013

According to one study cited in Stuart Cunningham’s book, there are two opposing groups of people: ‘political junkies’ (PJs) and Big Brother fans (BBs). PJs think that it ‘beggars belief’ that anyone could think Big Brother was useful. BBs say that politicians are unapproachable and out of touch.

So as an MP who used to quite enjoy watching Big Brother, I found myself torn. Am I a BB or a PJ? A PJ in BBs? Or a BB in PJs?

The reference to Big Brother is just one of a myriad of cultural touchstones in this fascinating book. Stuart Cunningham’s book romps through Survivor and Go Back to Where you Came From, Korean bloggers and Fat Cow Motel, Australian iTunes game Fruit Ninja and Nigeria’s ‘Nollywood’.

Stuart Cunningham has also read a plethora of OECD and overseas government reports on creativity and innovation – so you don’t have to. What’s striking about many of the OECD reports is how un-creative and un-innovative their titles are (‘Content as a New Growth Industry’, ‘Innovation and Knowledge-Intensive Services Activities’, ‘Demanding Innovation’, ‘Creativity, Design and Business Performance’). Naturally, the very readable and pithily titled Creative Australia, the Australian Government's 2013 national cultural policy, is an obvious exception to this general rule.

One thing that I enjoy about such reports (and Stuart Cunningham’s book itself) is that they point out the increasing role that creativity is playing in the jobs of the future. Indeed, the pace of change is so rapid that many of today’s school leavers will spend the bulk of their career doing a job that hasn’t yet been invented.

We cannot forecast the future, but as MIT economists David Autor and David Dorn have pointed out about the US job market, we can make some predictions about the impacts of trade and technology:

‘technical change, augmented by offshoring, is eroding demand for middle-skilled ‘routine’ cognitive and manual activities, such as bookkeeping, clerical work, and repetitive production tasks. Because the core job tasks of these occupations follow precise, well-understood procedures, they are increasingly codified in computer software and performed by machines or, alternatively, offshored over computer networks to foreign work sites. This displacement of routine job tasks raises relative demand for non-routine tasks in which workers hold a comparative advantage over current technology, in particular ‘abstract’ tasks requiring problem-solving, creativity, or complex interpersonal interactions (e.g., attorneys, scientists, managers) and ‘manual’ tasks requiring, variously, situational adaptability, visual and language recognition, and in-person interactions (e.g., janitors and cleaners, home health aides, beauticians, construction laborers, security personnel, and motor vehicle operators)’[1]

This hollowing out of the middle of the US wage distribution has important implications for Australian workers. As technology improves, one of the worst places to be is in a job where you’re doing a task that a computer program can substitute for. One of the best places to be is in a job where your skills complement what a computer can do. So I commend Stuart Cunningham for his strong focus on digital design, from computer game designers to creative workers who are using animation to convey health information to remote Indigenous communities.

If there is a single idea at the heart of this engaging book, it is that it’s not just scientists who ‘do’ innovation. As Stuart Cunningham puts it, ‘the concept of innovation has been virtually soldered to science’. He draws on C.P. Snow’s splendid ‘two cultures’ notion to highlight the disconnect in Australian public life between scientists and creative people.

I agree that this is a real divide, but it’s important not to take from it that science is in the inner circle, and the arts are on the outer circle. As part of last year’s Science Meets Parliament campaign, each Australian parliamentarian was given a copy of Mark Henderson’s The Geek Manifesto. It’s a book that frets about the lack of scientific knowledge and engagement by politicians. After citing C.P. Snow, Mark Henderson argues that the real problem is that parliamentarians understand less about thermodynamics than they do about Shakespeare. So if you’re a creative type, don’t assume that you’re any less ‘plugged in’ to the policy process than any other group.[2]

What should parliamentarians be doing to promote creativity? Stuart Cunningham discusses the Convergence Review, and the recognition that media laws may need to change as technology transforms the industry. For media outlets, attempting to hang on to what Jay Rosen referred to as ‘the people formerly known as the audience’ is no easy task.[3]

Another oft-proposed solution is to make intellectual property laws stricter, but as Stuart Cunningham points out, many parts of the creative sector have thrived through open innovation (eg. via creative commons licenses). Indeed, given that sensible critics are now arguing that the US has gone too far in protecting IP, it seems that a much smaller country such as Australia should carefully assess any claims that toughening up IP laws would boost innovation.[4]

And that brings me to a point I greatly appreciate about this book, which is its recognition that the creative industries aren’t just good for GDP.

Interestingly, claims about why particular things are good for GDP aren’t typically made by economists. If you’ve taken an introductory economics course, you know that economics is about the concept of utility, which encompasses happiness, fulfilment and pleasure. Standard economics recognises that a Carl Vine piano concerto or a new novel by Tim Winton has a benefit that goes well beyond the price of the concert tickets or book purchases.

Indeed, it’s no coincidence that one of our great economic reformers, Paul Keating, was also a deep lover of the arts for their own sake.[5] When Keating was asked by the West Australian Symphony Orchestra to introduce Mahler’s 2^nd symphony, he didn’t talk about how the purchase of trombones and timpanis raises economic output. Instead, he quoted Kant: ‘Only artistic genius discloses a new path to us’, and he talked about how the symphony melded biblical themes, folk songs, and Mahler’s experience of seeing a children’s choir sing a resurrection chorale.

Similarly, when Keating spoke at the funeral of Geoffrey Tozer, he didn’t discuss the way in which government investment in Tozer’s training had been more than repaid in CD sales. Instead, he talked about why someone of Tozer’s genius only comes along once a century, and observed that ‘When one has been touched by the stellar power and ethereal playing of a sublime musician, one is lifted, if only briefly, to a place beyond the realm of the temporal.’

Understanding that creative output matters for its own sake is good for a number of reasons. First, it’s a more sensible way of viewing the world, since none of us wake up believing that maximising GDP is the only thing that matters. Second, it’s useful because – as Stuart Cunningham notes – the literature on creativity and economic growth is notoriously fragile. Sure, countries, cities and companies that are more creative also have more output, but it doesn’t follow from this that the relationship is causal.

It might run the opposite direction (when you get rich, you get creative), or it might be that some third factor drives both creativity and growth. As Harvard economist Ed Glaeser pointed out in his critique of Richard Florida’s book: ‘Sure, creativity matters. The people who have emphasized the connection between human capital and growth always argued that this effect reflected the importance of idea transmission in urban areas. But there is no evidence to suggest that there is anything to this diversity or Bohemianism, once you control for human capital.’[6]

Dropping the more fragile reasons for caring about creativity brings us back to the basics. We want a more creative Australia because culture enriches our lives and soothes our souls. As Stuart Cunningham points out, creativity and innovation are closely intertwined, and dynamic developments in both help make Australia a more interesting place in which to live.

Focusing on culture in its own right also helps concentrate the mind on how we should be measuring the success of government programs. The most interesting question to be asked about a government grants scheme isn’t ‘what did it do to GDP?’, but ‘what did it do for creativity?’. We need more rigorous impact assessments (eg. through randomised trials) of the various ways in which government might boost creativity. Is it more effective to reduce venue hire costs (as Marcus Westbury advocates) or provide scholarships to young artists? Shall we focus on regions with the highest levels of creative output or the lowest levels? The better we understand the answers to these questions, the more effective we will be in boosting what Stuart Cunningham calls the ‘hidden’ innovation of the creative sector.

---

[1] David Autor and David Dorn, 2009, ‘This Job is ‘Getting Old’: Measuring Changes in Job Opportunities using Occupational Age Structure’, American Economic Review, 99(2), 45-51

[2] The classic discussion of this issue is Robert Reich, 1998, Locked in the Cabinet, Vintage Books, New York. Reich finds that the closer he comes to power in Washington DC, the more there seems to be someone else better connected than him.

[3] Jay Rosen, quoted in Stuart Cunningham’s book.

[4] See eg. Alex Tabarrok, 2011, Launching The Innovation Renaissance: A New Path to Bring Smart Ideas to Market Fast (TED Books) [Kindle Edition]

[5] Both of these speeches may be found in Paul Keating, 2011, After Words: The Post-Prime Ministerial Speeches, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

[6] Edward L. Glaeser, 2005, ‘Review of Richard Florida's The Rise of the Creative Class’, Regional Science and Urban Economics, vol. 35(5), pages 593-596.

TRANSCRIPT - SKY AM AGENDA
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
8 April 2013

TOPICS:                                Prime Minister’s visit to China, Australia-China trade relations, Tony Abbott’s comparison of Australia and Cyprus, the NBN, the Budget.



David Lipson:                     Hello and welcome to the program, I’m David Lipson. Pledging a new level of relations between Australia and China; that’s the message from the new Chinese President, Xi Jinping after a forty-five minute meeting with the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard yesterday.

[CLIP JULIA GILLARD]

Julia Gillard:                        You can take it from the nature of the discussions today that there is a great deal of confidence about the state of the relationship now, and optimism for the future. When words are being used about taking the relationship to a new level, I think that that is indicating a spirit of optimism about how we can grow this relationship.

David Lipson:                     Today, the Prime Minister will formalise a deal that will allow exporters to trade directly the Australian dollar with the Yuan. There’s also a big trade push with plans to set up a major trade fair along the lines of the G’Day USA campaign in the United States, a very successful campaign, and following in the footsteps of that.

[CLIP CRAIG EMERSON]

Craig Emerson:                  It is very important because just as we have G’Day USA, we’ll have G’Day China and that’s about bringing the best of Australia to the hustle and bustle of Shanghai. This is the most populous country on Earth, it’s an increasingly wealthy country, fabulously large middle classes, so we’re going to bring the best of Australia to the hustle and bustle of Shanghai. It’s a very exciting time.

David Lipson:                     Laura Jayes is covering the Prime Minister’s trip to China and she filed this report for AM Agenda

[CLIP LAURA JAYES]

Laura Jayes:                        This is Julia Gillard’s second visit to China and so far it is being judged as a success. So far, so good. Julia Gillard is pretty confident on the world stage and by all accounts her meeting with Xi Jinping went pretty well. They spoke for forty five minutes about the situation in North Korea but also Australia’s important relationship with China as expected. But, there was other things as well and Julia Gillard sought out and went out of her way to really reassure the President, Xi Jinping that Australia is a friendly place for China to invest. There’s also talk of a free trade agreement. Now this has been in the works since about 2005, so talked about for a good eight years. Now there was an indication, and this is a priority in the Asian Century White Paper, that you get the feeling it might still be a few years off. Now, more immediately, the Government has sought to really capture that Chinese dollar, the tourist dollar here in China with the growing middle class. 70 million Chinese travelled overseas in 2011, and spent about $70 billion dollars. Comparing that to 625,000 Chinese tourists that went Down Under last year, well Australia is only capturing a small portion of that. That’s why the Government is committing to spending about $2 million to throw a big party to really showcase Australia’s best. It worked so well with G’Day USA in the States, it only makes sense to replicate it here in China. Laura Jayes, Sky News, Shanghai

David Lipson:                     Well joining me now on AM Agenda is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Andrew Leigh and the Shadow Disabilities Minister, Senator Mitch Fifield. Good morning to both of you gentlemen. First to you Andrew Leigh, Xi Jinping’s comments about a new level of ties between Australia and China: are there any risks in those new level of ties, for example, with our relationship with the United States?

Andrew Leigh: David, I think it’s a reality that Australia’s economic integration with China has been growing apace. I remember when I was first involved in politics working for the late Shadow Trade Minister Senator Peter Cook in the late 1990s China was important but very much second fiddle to Japan and that has just transformed as the economic relationship has blossomed. I was in Beijing last year for an Australia-China forum talking about the engagement. It is really important, I can understand that some Chinese would have been a little rattled by some of the scare-mongering over foreign investments that say people like Barnaby Joyce were engaging in last year, and part of this is just reassuring China that Australia’s doors are open for business, that we are keen on having a relationship that spans foreign investment, trade, huge tourist flows there: two thirds of a million Chinese tourists coming to Australia, and that ensures that Australia gains as much as we can in this the  Asian Century.

David Lipson:                     So that won’t put off America?

Andrew Leigh: I certainly think America has a deep commercial relationship with China as well. That will obviously co-exist with robust discussion around for example around human rights – we have disagreements with China over issues such as Tibet for example – but we’re able to be firm friends to be frank about where we disagree, but also to find those many areas of commonality, the Australian architects that are helping to design projects in China, the Chinese students coming to study in Australia, both enriching each other’s countries.

David Lipson:                     Mitch Fifield, it was a very positive message from Xi Jinping, the leader of our most important trading partner and it’s been backed by action as well, as I mentioned, the trade fair and the currency deal too. Do you support those elements and indeed the language coming from China?

Mitch Fifield:                      look, we support the Prime Minister’s visit to China. It’s important for Australian Prime Ministers to be frequent visitors to China and we hope that the mission is a success and the outcomes are achieved. But look, it’s well and good to go to China, to say the right things, but a nation like China looks for certainty in its trading partners and that certainty was damaged in relation to Australia as an investment destination by the mining tax, by the xenophobia that we’ve heard from this government in relation to 457 visas. Now that has not helped Australia’s reputation as a safe and predictable place for foreign investment. On the other side of things China looks to its trading partners from whom it imports to also be reliable and what Minister Ludwig did in relation to live cattle exports to another of our trading partners could only have caused concern in China. Look, it’s good to talk to talk and we wish the Prime Minister well on her venture in China but you’ve got to have the policies that back up that certainty that our trading partners are looking for.

David Lipson:                     what about another round of free-trade talks as we’ve heard Laura Jayes saying there. There’s been talk about this for quite a few years already – more than half a decade. Is a free-trade deal, Andrew Leigh, with the Chinese automatically a good thing when you consider that they can produce goods much cheaper than we can?

Andrew Leigh: Well I’m an economist David, and it’s almost a hallmark of entry to our profession that you have to believe that free trade raises incomes, and I think empirically the evidence bears that out very strongly. Australia is better off for being engaged to the world not only because we buy things at cheaper prices but also because we get the innovation and the know-how from engaging with other countries. Practically, how to bring down those trade barriers? Well I tend to be a supporter of multilateral agreements where you can, but increasingly the World Trade Organisation has stultified. The Trans-Pacific Partnership which is a smaller sub-set of countries trying to strike a trade deal, looks more promising but hasn’t yet delivered the goods so then you begin to look at these bilateral relationships. They’re not ideal but if that’s the best we can do to bring down trade barriers to allow our exporters better access into Chinese markets then that’s something we may have to look at.

David Lipson:                     has there been a failure of this Government and of the previous Rudd Government as well that there has been talk for so long about a free trade deal and we haven’t got, really, anywhere?

Andrew Leigh: These negotiations are progressing but they progress on a number of fronts. There’s typically an enormous number of things that need to be nailed down in a bilateral deal. Bilateral deals, David, tend to be more complicated that the multilateral deals: countries are more tempted to put new things on the table when they’re dealing one-on-one than they are when they’re sitting around the table with 180 odd countries. So sometimes you get too many issues on the agenda and that becomes difficult to resolve. I’d be keenest, I think, to see China playing part of a really strong push to bring down trade barriers to the WTO. World-wide benefits of that are in the hundreds of billions of dollars. It’s good we didn’t see a big increase in tariffs during the GFC as some had feared. It would be better yet if we could bring down those tariffs further.

David Lipson:                     Mitch Fifield, what’s the Coalition’s position on a free trade deal with China?

Mitch Fifield:                      look, unlike the Labor Party, we’ve always been strongly supportive of bilateral free trade agreements. The ALP in government have always had preference for working through multilateral agreements and particularly under Kevin Rudd. But we take a much more pragmatic approach – if you can get a good economic outcome for Australia, whether it be a multilateral or a bilateral agreement, then you should pursue that. And if multilateral negotiations aren’t travelling too well, then the real opportunity is there in the form of bilateral trade agreements. And the way that you get those is by intensive, constant negotiation and discussion and probably Australia has suffered from a lack of that by having Craig Emerson as the Trade Minister because as you would know, David, whenever Dr Emerson isn’t on Sky, he is on another network. He is doing a doorstop somewhere else. He is almost never focussed on or talking about his trade portfolio. He is always focussed on and talking about domestic Australian politics, and more than that, he is almost always talking about internal Australian Labor Party politics in the media. So, I think it would be a real boost to Australia’s negotiating position in bilateral FTAs if Dr Emerson did less media, spoke less about domestic politics, spoke less about internal Labor party matters and focussed on his day job.

Andrew Leigh: David I should just say something on that, I mean, Craig Emerson is a very strong advocate for Australia in the world and I reject the sort of nasty attacks on Minister Emerson who has travelled extensively to the Middle East and America…

Mitch Fifield:                      (indistinguishable)

Andrew Leigh: …to Asia, he’s been as strong advocate of Australia’s interested around the world. He is deeply committed to an open Australia, engaged in the councils of the world. I think that’s exactly the sort of Trade Minister we need following very much in the traditions of people like Bob McMullan and Peter Cook.

David Lipson:                     ok we’ve got to take a quick break on AM Agenda but we will be back very shortly after this commercial break.

BREAK

David Lipson:                     Well, in china, Julia Gillard couldn’t escape he superannuation debate that was going on back here in Australia. She was asked about comments made by the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott where he compared the government’s superannuation changes to Cyprus and what the government is doing there. That resulted in Julia Gillard lashing out at the opposition leader as an economic simpleton. Let’s take a look and his response…

[CLIP JULIA GILLARD & TONY ABBOTT]

Julia Gillard:                        you know the kind of economic simpleton talk…

Tony Abbott:                     the Prime Minister shouldn’t use an overseas trip to make domestic political comments. I think that the extreme language of the Prime Minister is unworthy of that great office

David Lipson:                     Mitch Fifield and Andrew Leigh are still with me here on AM Agenda. First to you Mitch Fifield, that comparison with Cyprus, that’s overblown isn’t it?

Mitch Fifield:                      look, Tony Abbott wasn’t saying there was a direct parallel between Australia and the Labour Party’s policy in Cyprus. He was saying there were “shades of”. You know, clearly, this Government is on a hunt for revenue and they’re looking to gouge some of the retirement savings of Australians who have worked hard and put money aside. That was the point that he was making. And I defy anyone to say this Government is on anything other than a hunt for revenue to compensate for the fact that they continue to spend more money than they bring in in taxes. Despite the fact that their revenues have been increasing year on year.

David Lipson:                     but even “shades of Cyprus”, I mean, their two dramatically different economies, Australia and Cyprus.

Mitch Fifield:                      yeah, they’re different. But as I say, Tony wasn’t doing a direct analogy. He was just saying there were “echoes of”, “shades of”, “a hint of”, “a touch of”… you know I think the Prime Minister needs to take a big, deep breath. It was certainly a very strong and inappropriate response to refer to Mr Abbott as a simpleton. I don’t think anyone who leads a major Australian political party is a simpleton. Tony Abbott has an economics degree and I’m sure he’ll continue to be attacked by this Prime Minister and this Government whenever he points out the fact that this Government is living beyond its means, that it is entirely unpredictable when it comes to policy, and that it thinks nothing of gouging money from people’s superannuation and if re-elected we know that this government would continue the gouging.

David Lipson:                     Andrew Leigh was that appropriate? That sort of commentary from overseas, from a place like China?

Andrew Leigh: I think it was a response to a question about domestic politics, David, and it seemed perfectly accurate. I mean, the sort of doomsday cult mantra we get from the Opposition, talking the Australian economy down, constantly exaggerating any difficulty for the Australian economy, isn’t in the national interest. We saw again in the Telegraph today, Andrew Robb suggesting that Labor hadn’t saved Australia from the GFC. Well, against Andrew Robb I give you Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, who has said very firmly that it was Labor’s intervention to prop up an ailing economy in 2008/09 which saved those hundreds of thousands of jobs. And every one of those jobs is a life not blighted by a spell of unemployment. A spell of that sort-of deep sense of powerlessness and hopelessness that comes from looking for work and being unable to find it. That’s the difference between the major parties; we chose to save jobs when the GFC hit. The opposition are still walking around pretending as though the GFC didn’t happen. Pretending as though somehow Australia could have skated through without taking on any debt. I don’t know any sensible economist who backs that proposition.

David Lipson:                     Australia has indeed taken on a lot of debt…

Andrew Leigh: Not a lot, I would disagree with that…

David Lipson:                     well the deficit has, you know, the promise of surplus I should rephrase, has been thrown out and replaced with the likelihood of a deficit this year. And yesterday, Penny Wong the Finance Minister on Sky News, well she refused to confirm that Labor wouldn’t deliver a surplus in the years ahead, she said that the fiscal strategy would be transparent to all, so does this mean we’re going to have a deficit not just this year but in the forward estimates as well?

Andrew Leigh: We’ve been very clear that we will balance the budget over the economic cycle, but that is also something that needs to be balanced and taken in the context of what’s happening to revenues. We’ve seen this sort of ‘perfect storm’ with commodity prices coming off a little, but the Australian dollar still staying high. And that means we get this double whammy on prices, resource companies returning lower profits because the commodity prices are down but still challenges for other firms who are export oriented as a result of the high Australian dollar. That makes it difficult for government revenues which is why government revenues are well down on their average from the last decade. You know, if we had the Howard Government’s tax to GDP share, we’d be comfortably in surplusIf they’d had ours, many of Peter Costello’s budgets would have been in deficit. That’s just a simple economic fact.

David Lipson:                     Mitch Fifield, a response?

Mitch Fifield:                      yeah, look David, we’ve got to nail once and for all this idea that the budget is in deficit because of revenue write-downs. There are some simple facts here. This Government is bringing in $70 billion a year more in revenue than in the last year of the Howard Government. Even this financial year to date, revenues were projected to be up 5% on the previous financial year. The problem is that this Government, even though revenues are up, is spending $100 billion a year more than in the last year of the Howard Government. So it is completely untrue to say that revenues are down, revenues are up, $70 billion up on the last year of the Howard Government. The problem is that spending is up by even more. The reason why this budget is in deficit, and every single Labor budget has been in deficit is because they are spending more than they are bringing in in revenue, despite the fact that revenue is up on the period of the Howard Government. That is the truth. When this Government says revenue write downs, what they are talking about is a reduction in the forecast of revenue. Now, a revenue forecast is not a reduction in revenue.

David Lipson:                     the Coalition also has some big spending promises: a more generous paid-parental leave scheme, it’s on board with the NDIS, some pretty expensive commitments. One of the savings that the Coalition has identified is in the NBN and we may be seeing a Coalition policy sooner rather than later as Tony Abbott said yesterday. There’s a suggestion today though, Mitch Fifield, that the Coalition’s estimates of the Government’s NBN could cost in the end $90 billion dollars. That’s well more than double what was suggested. That’s an extraordinary figure. How does the Coalition figure that?

Mitch Fifield:                      well, there are some reports and some analysis that’s been done that indicate that this Government’s NBN program could cost double what the Government initially said it would cost. Now that’s not a huge surprise to us because this Government never produced a business case for the NBN, they didn’t do a cost benefit analysis, it was essentially back of the envelope stuff with Stephen Conroy deciding that the fast broadband network would be a new telecom or for those old enough to remember, a new PMG.

David Lipson:                     I’ve got to interrupt as I’ve got to give Andrew Leigh an opportunity to respond, we’ve just got about 30 seconds left

Andrew Leigh: The NBN will come in on budget. $37.4 billion dollars and completed by 2021. That’s because this is a very large infrastructure project, the largest in Australia’s history in fact, of this kind. And the alternative to not doing the NBN is the Coalition’s suggestion: that every household should have to pay $5000 to connect from the node to the home by fibre.

David Lipson:                     ok I’m going to have to interrupt you as well. Andrew Leigh, Mitch Fifield, we are out of time thanks for joining us on AM Agenda, the latest news is coming up next.

At Gungahlin marketplace today, I talked about the value of local representation, and the Labor Government's investment in the Gungahlin Library NBN Digital Hub.http://www.youtube.com/v/o36xZ7Kc8c0?version=3&hl=en_US

My Chronicle column this week is about migration.

Celebrating the Australian Way of Diversity, The Chronicle, 2 April 2013

If you’ve ever seen a Bollywood movie, you probably know about the Indian festival of Holi, in which people shower one another with colourful powder. Indian society is typically quite respectful of social boundaries, but on Holi, it’s alright for anyone to throw powder at anyone else.

This year, I celebrated Holi at the Hindu Temple and Cultural Centre in Florey. My hosts had told me there would only be a bit of powder gently smeared on my cheeks, but by the time I left I was a rainbow from head to toe. Amidst the delicious food and exuberant dancing, I thought about how appropriate it was to hold such a messy celebration in the suburb named after Howard Florey. After all, Florey and Fleming discovered penicillin after a stack of dirty plates in the corner of a lab started to grow mould. Sometimes, a bit of chaos makes the world a better place.

Canberra’s vibrant Hindu community is just one of the many multicultural communities that give strength to our city. Recently, Minister for Multicultural Affairs Kate Lundy hosted Harmony Day celebrations at Parliament House. There, I got chatting with young philosopher Tim Soutphommasane, whose book Don’t Go Back to Where You Came From argues that multiculturalism has been part of building the Australian nation. The child of Chinese and Laotian parents, Soutphommasane argues that multiculturalism draws on both egalitarianism and liberalism – recognising that everyone should enjoy equal rights, but also that different cultures are valued.

The genius of multiculturalism is evident in the way suburban Australians have welcomed successive waves of migrants into our community. Past decades have seen significant waves of migrants from Greece and Italy, Vietnam and China. In each case, initial disquiet has turned into acceptance. When James Savoulidis brought pizza to Canberra in the 1960s, it was an unusual delicacy. Now, the diversity of our culture is represented in the quality of Australian cuisine. ‘Modern Australian’ isn’t just a menu choice – it’s a way of life. Half of us were either born overseas, or have an overseas-born parent.

Many Canberrans already help welcome new migrants into our city. Bodies such as Canberra Refugee Support and the Multicultural Youth Centre provide links into the local community and social support in the early months. Companion House in Cook provides medical services for new migrants, while the Big Bang Ballers in Belconnen offer Saturday night basketball. As local member, I’m often struck by the quiet generosity Canberrans display in working to build a stronger community.

Another quiet movement to celebrate diversity is Welcome to Australia, which will be holding its second walk on 22 June, starting at lunchtime from Commonwealth Park. As a Welcome to Australia Ambassador, I’m proud of the work this organisation does to tell the great story of Australian generosity – reminding us of the skills and ideas that migration brings to our nation.

Few other countries have succeeded in multiculturalism like Australia. But we haven’t done it by being lucky – it’s by constantly working hard to bridge the barriers of difference, to embrace openness rather than being a closed society, and to share our stories with one another.

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

I launched Ian Warden's new book on Canberra tonight. Here's my speech, complete with a newly-uncovered 1977 ACT Anthem by Philip Grundy.

Launching Ian Warden, A Serious House on Serious Earth
Electric Shadows Bookshop, Canberra
4 April 2013

I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people, on whose lands we meet.

It is a pleasure to be here today to launch the book of a great Canberra icon, Ian Warden (also known as the Beige Bombshell).

If you travel today to Dalgety, a town of 75 people and one pub, it strikes you that there might exists a parallel universe to our own in which Australia’s capital is on the banks of the Snowy River, and Canberra is a sleepy town of 1700 people (as it was in 1911).

In that parallel universe, we would likely be standing in a paddock filled with cow dung. From that paddock, we would be able to see across to St John’s Church, built in 1841-1878. It is around this building that Warden tells the tale of Canberra.

His title, ‘A Serious House on Serious Earth’ comes from Philip Larkin, but it undersells the quirkiness of the Canberra story.[1]

Let’s start with the possible sites for Canberra. Warden notes that the search for a federal capital site in the early-C20th was focused on ‘bracing places’: locations such as Albury, Armidale, Bathurst, Bombala, Lake George, Lyndhurst, Orange, Tumut and Dalgety. Believing that cold air was good for one’s health, coastal cities were excluded.

And so the search began.

Senior NSW public servant Alexander Oliver noted in each case ‘the unswerving loyalty of the witnesses to their local climate. No matter what the day temperature might be, the nights were always cool… Where such enclosures as cemeteries existed I was assured that nine tenths of the occupants had been ‘undesirables’… An immense pumpkin… chased me around several sites’.

Canberra-boosters made assurances that the district could readily supply the stone required for building, and all the food the city would need to consume. But the prize for boosterism must go to Mr A Evans, who proposed that the capital be built atop Lake George, saying ‘Here we may create a new Venice, only a perfect one.’

What Ian Warden calls ‘the Battle of the Sites’ also saw plenty of trash-talking. Billy Hughes told Parliament of his visit to Dalgety: ‘When I observed [to the local sergeant] that it was fearfully cold… he informed me ‘This is the warmest winter we’ve had for 17 years. … only one man and myself ventured into the Snowy River and personally, I have never been the same man since, while the other gentleman has retired from parliament’. Fortunately, such negativity would never be tolerated in today’s parliament.

Meanwhile, Warden describes how the Bulletin magazine crusaded against Canberra, describing Dalgety as ‘a paradise of waters’, and Canberra as ‘a dry, waterless, rabbit-ravaged, howling inhospitable wilderness’. Again, we are lucky that strong editorial views do not shape the objective reporting of today’s news outlets.

Ian Warden’s book reminds us how unfair is the naming of Canberra’s suburbs. Victorian Senator James McColl, who switched his vote in the Senate to break a deadlock in favour of choosing Canberra, has no suburb named after him (even McColl street in Ainslie was named after his father). John Gorton, the only Prime Minister to live here in his retirement, has no suburb named after him.

Meanwhile, we have Canberra suburbs named after Western Australian John Forrest (who preferred Dalgety because he thought Canberra too flat) and West Australian Senator George Pearce, who harangued his colleagues in favour of Dalgety, and – Warden argues – fabricated reasons as to why Canberra was unsuitable.

And yet the name of the city itself is fitting – especially alongside alternatives such as Cooeeoomoo, Eros, Federata, Malleyvista, Piscatoria and Shakespeare. Ours is the only Australian capital city named in the language of its traditional owners rather than after a European dignitary.

In his Foreword, Warden thanks ‘that ectoplasmic companion, the amiable ghost who was usually my only company down underneath the Library in its Controlled Access Collection area where I spent so much time researching and writing’.

In the same spirit, I decided to conduct a little dusty research of my own. At a function last year, someone came up to tell me about a competition that Warden had run back in 1977, to coincide with the plebiscite that would choose our national anthem (you know, the one where the rest of Australia chose Advance Australia Fair, and Canberra chose Waltzing Matilda).

The competition asked Canberra Times readers to come up with an ACT anthem. Armed with only the information that ‘it was sometime in 1977’, the blessed researchers at the Parliamentary Library began digging. Eventually, they hit gold. The joint winners had been the great ANU economic historian Noel Butlin, and Fisher resident Philip Grundy (both now sadly deceased). Despite my love of Butlin’s historical economic data, I confess that I preferred Grundy’s anthem.

So here it is. From the archives of Ian Warden’s 1977 Gang Gang column in the Canberra Times, I present to you, ‘Hymn to Canberra, Queen of the Plains and Hills’.

Hymn to Canberra, Queen of the Plains and Hills
Philip Grundy
Published in the Canberra Times on 7 April 1977 (26yrs ago this Sunday)

When God beneath the South Cross created land and sea
The choicest spot His Finger touched was called the ACT.
Our hills bedecked with eucalyptus, our Lake is girt by land.
Within our City’s noble streets imposing buildings stand.
Here mighty statesmen labour for our country’s common weal
And public servants work to show the loyalty they feel.



Chorus:
Brisbane and Sydney and Melbourne and Perth
Hobart and Adelaide – what are they worth?
Villages all of them! Greet them with mirth!
We’ll fight for Canberra, land of our birth.

In glorious homes our people dwell, both humble and aloof.
Their sturdy walls of brick veneer, of solid tiles their roof.
Each suburb here with quiet pride our heroes’ fame proclaims,
While bosky streets preserve for aye the mem’ry of their names.
For where God’s handiwork reveals the beauty of his Plan
The NCDC daily adds the handiwork of man.

Chorus:
Brisbane and Sydney and Melbourne and Perth
Hobart and Adelaide – what are they worth?
Villages all of them! Greet them with mirth!
We’ll fight for Canberra, land of our birth.



Who would our land’s armorial pride in Tidbinbilla view
May there the stalwart emus see, the sturdy kangaroo.
Whilst midst the melaleuca of our native habitat
One may behold the possum and the lissom feral cat.
Nor lacks our Lake the finny tribe that swims there without fuss,
And in our streams float monotremes, the loyal platypus.

Chorus:
Brisbane and Sydney and Melbourne and Perth
Hobart and Adelaide – what are they worth?
Villages all of them! Greet them with mirth!
We’ll fight for Canberra, land of our birth.

O Canberra! O Canberra! Where mighty mountains roll,
Our planners made thee beautiful, Our City with a Soul
Yea Canberra! Thy people are a great and happy band
Of citizens rejoicing that thou hast been fully planned!
Let lesser breeds within the States in envy scoff and sneer;
We know that if they had the chance they would be living here!

Chorus:
Brisbane and Sydney and Melbourne and Perth
Hobart and Adelaide – what are they worth?
Villages all of them! Greet them with mirth!
We’ll fight for Canberra, land of our birth.

---

[1] It also makes me wonder: will Warden’s next book will follow in the same vein, perhaps drawing on the opening line of Larkin’s famous poem ‘This Be the Verse’?

Having recently been appointed as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, I'm looking to hire three staff members to work in my Parliament House office. I'm particularly looking for:

• an understanding of government legislation processes (ideally gleaned through time working in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet); and/or


• economic nous (experience working on a budget in the Commonwealth Treasury would be ideal)

Dry wit, a modicum of wisdom, a yen for hard work, and and an ability to pen sparkling prose to a tight deadline are all desirable qualities.

If you're interested, please send a CV and covering email to andrew.leigh.mp asperand aph.gov.au. I'll be moving fairly quickly - so the earlier, the better.

Update: I've now concluded the selection process. Thanks to the more than 50 people who took the trouble to apply - I'm sorry there were only a limited number of opportunities.

For anyone who hasn't fled Canberra for the long weekend, I'll be holding two of my regular street stalls on Sat 30 March:

• 10am - Hibberson St, Gungahlin (Outside Big W)


• 11.15am- Dickson (outside Woolworths)

Thanks also to everyone who came up to say g'day at yesterday's street stall in Civic.

On ABC702 yesterday, I enjoyed a conversation with host Richard Glover and guests Dick Smith and Malcolm Turnbull, ranging from carbon pricing to urban congestion, parliamentary roles to economic growth, helicopter travel to books that make you cry. Here's a podcast.

MEDIA RELEASE

Andrew Leigh Honoured to be Appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Member for Fraser, Andrew Leigh, today said he was honoured to be appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

“I am humbled at the chance to contribute further to the Australian Government’s reform agenda,” Dr Leigh said.

"I come from a family that believes a life of community service is a life well-lived. It’s a privilege to serve in the federal parliament, and to work every day for a better, fairer, more prosperous and more just future.

“At street stalls and community events, I am constantly reminded of how important a Labor Government is to improving the lives of my constituents.

“Whether it’s the person with a disability who will finally get the care they deserve, or the child in a disadvantaged neighbourhood whose school has received the investment they need, our Labor Government has helped change lives for the better.

“Over the next six months, I will be fighting alongside the Prime Minister and the Labor team to make sure these achievements endure.”

Andrew Leigh will be sworn in at a ceremony at Government House today, at 3.30pm

On ABC RN Drive yesterday, I spoke with Waleed Aly about the Labor leadership, and the importance of now focusing on Labor's many reforms. Here's a podcast.