Andrew Leigh

I spoke in parliament today about the Australia-China Forum, which I attended in Beijing on 15 November 2012.

Australia-China Forum, 29 November 2012

Earlier this month it was my pleasure to attend the second annual Australia-China Forum. Established during a difficult period in the bilateral relationship, the forum provides an opportunity for businesspeople, government officials, academics and journalists to discuss issues that matter to our two countries. The Australian delegation was led by the indefatigable Gareth Evans, and the Chinese delegation was led by another former foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing. We were generously hosted by the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs, CPIFA. By chance, the forum took place on the precise day that the new Chinese leadership was announced to the world.

The economic rise of China since 1978 has been astonishing. In the short time since I last visited in 2006, China's GDP has nearly doubled. Australia's economic fortunes are now tied more closely with China than with the United States. Next month, Australia and China will mark the 40th anniversary of the bilateral relationship. As the Australia in the Asian century white paper noted, China is far more to us than a buyer of commodities, and we are more to them than a buyer of manufactured products. Australian architects are designing buildings across mainland China, while Chinese students are studying at every Australian university. Hundreds of thousands of tourists travel between the two countries annually. Billions of dollars of foreign investment occurs in both directions.

Among the issues discussed at the forum was foreign investment. Australian representatives made clear that there is broad recognition across the parliament that we have more jobs and higher wages as a result of foreign investment. Since the Channar joint venture between Sinosteel and Rio Tinto in the 1980s, Australia has welcomed foreign investment by China, and no proposal has been rejected by the Foreign Investment Review Board, although some have been approved with conditions. Similarly, many Australian firms are now investing in China, across a wide range of services and manufacturing industries.

Another important issue is foreign aid. As a Lowy Institute report has noted, both Australia and China are major donors in the Asia-Pacific region. Working together—either bilaterally, multilaterally, or through vertical funds like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria—will be important in reducing poverty in our shared neighbourhood.

As with any good discussion, there were differences. In the case of the competing claims in the South China Sea, Australian representatives stated that this was a regional issue that required a regional solution, with relevant governments clarifying and pursuing their territorial claims and accompanying maritime rights in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

In terms of military engagement, Chinese representatives criticised Australia's decision to allow a small number of United States marines to rotate through Darwin in the dry season. My own view is that the US 'pivot' towards the Asia-Pacific is welcome, and Australia can maintain strong relationships with the world's two largest economies. Some commentators, including Hugh White—who was not at the forum—have suggested that the rise of China will have to cause Australia to rethink its strong alliance with the US, but I am more optimistic about our options. Australia can be a good friend to China while being honest on difficult issues such as human rights.

Australia's relationship with China has suffered some difficulties over recent decades, most notably during the 'deputy sheriff' era of the early 2000s. To make sure we maintain a strong relationship, people-to-people dialogues are important. Australia now has over 30 bilateral dialogues with China, many at a ministerial level but also some including 1.5-track dialogues such as the Australia-China Forum. The Australian delegation included Professor Richard Rigby, Ambassador Frances Adamson, Rowan Callick, Tracy Colgan, Mike Gallagher, Henry Makeham (the founder of the Australia-China Youth Dialogue), Hamish McDonald, Peter Rowe, Trevor Rowe, Warwick Smith, Catherine Tanna, Frank Tudor, James Zeng and BJ Zhuang.

I am grateful to officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for their organisational efforts and to the other participants for their insightful comments. Unfortunately, I was the only federal parliamentarian in attendance, as the invited coalition parliamentarian was unable to rearrange his diary so as to be able to attend. I very much hope that the coalition will be able to actively participate in the next forum, particularly as it is scheduled to be held in 2013 at the Australian National University, placing it within my own electorate of Fraser.

In conclusion, I returned from Beijing with a strong sense that the Australia-China relationship is vigorous, dynamic and will continue to strengthen over coming decades. I am grateful to have many Chinese-Australians in my electorate and to have had the opportunity and indeed the privilege of attending the Australia-China forum.

I spoke in parliament today about the state of the Australian and global economy (and snuck in a few words of thanks to my staff, interns, volunteers and family).

Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report, 29 November 2012

The review of the Reserve Bank of Australia's annual report is an opportunity to reflect on the strength of the Australian economy and on some of the potential threats to that ongoing strength. If you had told any economic policy maker two decades ago that, three years after the biggest downturn since the Great Depression, the Australian unemployment rate would have a '5' in front of it, inflation would be in the middle of the target band and growth would be at around the long-term average, they would say that you were dreaming. But that has been the stand-out performance of the Australian economy over recent years.

We have an unemployment rate which is low by the standards of recent decades, although we should always work to get it lower. The dispersion of unemployment is also lower than it has been in recent years, meaning that the differences across regions are not as marked as they have been in other periods. There has been talk of various threats to this continued prosperity and I want to take a few minutes to go through some of those, drawing as I do so on the recent RBA Statement of Monetary Policy and a terrific speech by RBA Governor, Glenn Stevens, delivered to a CEDA conference.

One potential threat is the end of the mining boom, as it is said. This misses the fact that the mining boom is moving through a three-phase cycle. The first is the significant rise in prices—in some cases a doubling, tripling or quadrupling of prices—from their long-term average. The second phase, which we are now moving into, is a significant run-up in resource sector physical investment. There have been questions as to whether mining investment is coming off, but we have to put these into perspective. The long-run average of resource sector investment is one to two per cent of GDP. We are now arguing over whether resource sector investment is going to come off from nine to eight per cent of GDP. But, by historical standards, resource sector investment is extraordinarily high. When we are talking about projects conceived in an environment of extremely high prices, it is no surprise that some of those projects will not come to fruition. The third phase is an increased rate of extraction, which will be ongoing. The capacity of the mining sector has been possibly permanently increased as a result of the current boom, and that phase will continue for many years to come.

Another risk often raised is the potential slowdown in Chinese economic growth. I have just returned from an Australia-China Forum discussion in Beijing, which I found incredibly valuable. It was striking to me that, since I had previously visited Beijing in 2006, China's economy had nearly doubled. As Glenn Stevens has pointed out, the increased size of the Chinese economy means that, even if growth slows from 10 per cent to, say, seven per cent, the total amount that China adds to world output every year will actually be higher than it was. He points out, for example, that seven per cent growth in 2013 adds more to global GDP than did 10 per cent growth in 2003. So, while there are of course risks—the Chinese housing market, political transitions, the management of state owned enterprises—I think we will see strong growth from China for many years to come.

Another risk sometimes raised is the higher household savings rate. I do not regard this, however, as a bad thing. The savings rate in Australia has historically been over the current 10 per cent, and I think the rebuilding of household balance sheets in the years following the global financial crisis has been no bad thing.

Another is sluggish productivity growth. Productivity has not in recent years been a standout performance, although we have seen with some of the recent numbers some indicators that productivity may be ticking up again. I would commend to the House the outgoing speech of Gary Banks, chair of the Productivity Commission, whom I praised in the House this week, and his discussion of policy reforms to boost productivity. I am particularly enamoured of his focus on good evaluation. As an advocate of randomised policy trials, I think this is an effective way of ensuring sustained prosperity.

A final potential threat to world economic growth is what has been called the US fiscal cliff. If the US goes off the fiscal cliff, estimates are that annual growth in the United States will be three to four percentage points lower in 2013 than it would otherwise be. Experts are suggesting that would lead to a recession in the US in the first part of the year. What indicators we have suggest that the chance of that is around 20 per cent, but that is clearly far too high.

Why is the US facing a fiscal cliff at the moment? Part of that is the intransigence of a Republican opposition that is unwilling to countenance any increases in taxation. I have seen from my second cousin, Alison Laughlin, who lives in Oregon, the importance of maintaining unemployment benefits in the downturn, but the fiscal cliff includes the end of Extended (Emergency) Unemployment Benefits in the United States.

I think there are two lessons for Australia in this. The first is that parties that have an ideological tax-cutting obsession are going to get themselves into terrible trouble—and we see that here in Australia where the coalition has an ideological obsession with scrapping the mining tax and the price on carbon. As a result, they have gotten themselves into a terrible fiscal hole with their budget costings. The second is that Australia's system of superannuation, had it been adopted by the United States in the early 1990s, would have put the United States in a far better position than it currently enjoys. We think back to the early 1990s in Australia and the introduction of universal superannuation, which was hard fought. One can only imagine the fiscal situation Australia would be in now if people like the member for Mackellar, then Senator Bishop, had had their way and had blocked universal superannuation.

I pay tribute to the chair of the economics committee, the member for Parramatta, who gave a group of us a beautiful Liszt piano recital in the Great Hall this morning. I close by acknowledging the valuable work of my staff this year: Louise Crossman, Nick Terrell, Lyndell Tutty, Damien Hickman, Gus Little and Claire Daly; and earlier this year, Bob Harlow and Eleanor Cubis. I have been well served by a group of diligent interns: Phillip Metaxas, Matilda Gillis, Trudy McIntosh, Byron Hewson, Rebecca Mann, Michael Jones, Daniel Carr, Ben Molan, Tanya Greeves, Emily Murray, Kyneton Morris and Jack Brady; and by some hardworking volunteers: Barbara Phi, Ken Maher, Alison Humphreys, Shalini Arumugam, Joshua Turner and Samm Cooper.

Finally, none of us could do this job without the support of our families. I thank my extended family and, particularly, my extraordinary wife, Gweneth.

Mr Jenkins:  Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou):  Does the member wish to take an intervention?

Dr LEIGH:  I would.

Mr Jenkins:  I wish to ask the member whether parenthood had changed in his view as an economist about the way that the community should interact with financial matters.

Dr LEIGH:  I thank the member for Scullin for that intervention. Parenthood has changed me in many ways, not least reducing the amount of sleep that I come to this chamber with. Also, like I am sure the member for Chifley has felt, it has made me perhaps a little softer around the edges in my thinking of the world than I might have been in the pre-parenthood years.

For several months this year, an ANU student by the name of Emily Murray worked as an intern in my office, via the ANU ANIP program. During this, she interviewed 41 politicians, political advisers and campaigners. At the end of it, Emily has produced a report titled 'Pressure Politics: Why Australian Politicians Support or Ignore NGO Policy Campaigns'.

I'd encourage anyone who has the time to read Emily's full report. But for the busy types who frequent Capital Hill, she has also written a guest blog post, listing ten tips for pitching your ideas up to us pollies. Take it away Emily...

Ten Top Tips for Engaging with Politicians
By Emily Murray

Almost all of us have had a bit of a whinge at one point or another about our politicians. I can’t open a newspaper or visit my Granddad without hearing how the country’s going off track and how it could be fixed. It’s easier to throw stones than build bridges.

Have you ever tried taking your ideas and concerns to your politicians, and engaging them in a respectful discussion about an issue? The politicians I’ve met welcome meeting with their constituents and genuinely want to learn more about the issues that they face.

I’ve spent the last semester researching why politicians say yes or no to policy proposals from their constituents. Here are ten top tips to help you get your ideas on board!

1)  Do your research.

Know how things stand. What does the politician think about this issue? What have they written or said publicly about it, previously and recently? How have they voted on this issue in the past? What is their party’s position? What do their constituents want? What has their party already accomplished on this issue?

Also be sure to check whether your issue is within this politician’s area of responsibility. If you’re not sure, you can always ask their office staff. Don’t be embarrassed- the division of power is complicated, and government power is more limited than most people believe. Just ask which political representatives (e.g. council, state or federal) have responsibility for this policy area and how you can contact them.

2)  Go to the meeting in a group of one or two people.

Any more people prevent a good conversation from developing - and this meeting should be a respectful, persuasive conversation, not a one-way rant.

3)  Clearly and concisely explain why you want the politician to change the policy.

Show statistics (ideally from the Australian Bureau of Statistics or from peer-reviewed research) and tell personal stories from their constituents, to explain the human impact of the current policy and how their constituents would benefit from the proposed policy. New evidence, or evidence that the politician hasn’t seen before, is vital for persuasion. Don’t make arguments that go beyond what your statistics can support, and avoid emotional pressure. Politicians are looking for an informed, respectful debate, not negative emotions without statistics and reason.

4)  Explain to your politician why this issue could be relevant and important to them.

• What are your politician’s personal and political values? How are these values served by the proposed policy?


• In their life before becoming a politician, were they interested in your issue or did they work on your policy issue?


• What did they go into politics to achieve? How does your policy proposal fit in with their personal motivations?

5)  Acknowledge their work so far and explain what you want the politician to do, immediately and in the long term.

If they’ve already worked on this issue in the past, say thank you for what they’ve done and give some examples of the human impact of their work. Then, make a respectful request for what you’d like them to do next.

E.g. would you like them to write to the relevant Minister, make the policy proposal in a party forum, move a private member’s bill, or meet with you in one month to discuss the result of their efforts?

6)  Show the politician any evidence you have that their constituents care about your issue and agree with your proposed policy.

This doesn’t have to be a poll: politicians will probably be skeptical of your capacity to accurately poll their constituents. Instead, mention the numbers of attendees at a recent local rally, letters to the editor, public meetings or lectures on the issue. Demonstrate growing momentum in public support.

Don’t expect constituent concern to be enough to move the politician to action. Most politicians won’t do something just because their constituents think it’s a good idea. They will need to think it’s a good idea too.

7)  Ask the politician what they think of your proposal: do they agree with the proposed policy? Do they agree with what you want them to do about it?

This is a two-way discussion: what are their thoughts? Be honest about the shortcomings of your proposal. Don’t over simplify your issue: it’s nuanced, with many stakeholders, and you are doing them a disservice by taking a black and white stance. Try to see all sides of the issue.

If they don’t seem willing to help, find out why. Is it because they don’t agree with the proposed policy? Their fear of separating from their party’s position? Their fear of not being re-elected? If you know the real reason why they’re unwilling to act, you have a better chance of finding a way around it.

Just because your politician has worked on this issue in the past doesn’t mean they’ll automatically lend it their support now. This could even have the opposite effect: they might think they’ve done enough and other priorities need the government’s time and money now. They might think their party has no political capacity to take this issue any further at the moment, due to opposition from the public, other lobby groups, or other parties.

8)  Ask the politician what they need you to do before they add their support the campaign. How can you support them?

Do they need you to find more evidence of how the proposed policy will improve the lives of their constituents? Gather pledges of support for the proposed policy from a wide range of groups? Increase the issue’s profile in the media or on social media to demonstrate community support?

If they ask something of you, settle a definite date by which you’ll give them an update on how it’s going.

9)   Give them a summary.

When you leave, give your politician a printed one page summary of why the proposed policy is a good idea and what you want them to do about it, now and in the long term.

10)  Thank them.

Of course, say thank you to them and their staff for holding the meeting. But also thank them publicly. Acknowledge their support at your events, on our website, in your printed publications, mention it in your op-eds. If your politician knows you’ll acknowledge their efforts publicly, they’ll be more willing to help you.

If the politician already has a view on an issue, then it’s unlikely that your meeting will change their view. Seventy-five percent of politicians and political advisers that I interviewed said that a policy campaign had never changed their opinion of a policy. But that’s not your only goal: you can raise the issue as a priority for them, and you can inform them of the arguments and counter-arguments on the issue. And if they haven’t yet formed an opinion, this discussion could be instrumental in winning them as a champion of your cause.

Emily Murray recently completed an internship with Andrew Leigh MP within the Australian National Internships Program. Her research report, Pressure Politics, can be downloaded here.

Back in October 2011, I launched the ‘Mapping the Northside’ project to develop a people’s map of my electorate.

Belconnen Arts Centre displayed a 3m x 2m map on their wall, where people could come in and locate their favourite places in Canberra’s north – the federal electorate of Fraser that I have the privilege to represent. Belconnen Arts Centre also facilitated information sessions at Gorman House Arts Centre, Gungahlin Library, and at their own location in Emu Bank, Belconnen. Local professional artist Maryann Mussared was on hand to help with the creative process.

Popular locations included local universities, mountains, popular walking spots and community facilities such as John Knight Park in Belconnen and Gungahlin Skate Park.  We turned this into a Google Map of people’s favourite places.

I’ve now joined forces with design students from the University of Canberra to put some of those key places into an infographics map. The range of options and different ways of showing key northside places was incredible and I was impressed by the students’ creativity.

You can have a look at the different ideas the students came up with at the links below. My favourite was Michelle’s, and this will appear in my next community newsletter.

What do you think?

• Daniel


• Dilshan


• Riley


• Jessica


• Mollie


• Kate


• Amy


• Michelle


• Jessica (Coffee Map of Canberra – scroll down)


• Kierah

Many thanks go to Ben Ennis Butler, the University of Canberra, Belconnen Arts Centre, Gungahlin Library and the Gorman House Arts Centre for their support on this exciting project.

I'm speaking at Per Capita in Melbourne next Wednesday, on the topic of liberalism and the ALP. Details here, and below.

Reform Agenda Series: The Future of the Left in Australia: Embracing social liberalism?, with Andrew Leigh MP, 5 December 2012
Please join us in Melbourne for this Reform Agenda Series event featuring guest speaker Andrew Leigh MP, Member for Fraser.

Prior to entering Parliament, Andrew was a Professor of Economics at the Australian National University. Has has a PhD in Public Policy from Harvard, and has written extensively on economics and social policy. At this forum, he will be discussing why the ALP should embrace the legacy of liberalism - egalitarianism, minority rights and open markets; with a response by Dennis Glover, Per Capita Fellow, speechwriter and political columnist. This will be followed by an open Q & A session.

Venue: Corrs Chambers Westgarth - Level 36, 600 Bourke Street, Melbourne
Date: Wednesday 5 December 2012
Time: Light refreshment served from 10.30am. Forum 11.00am - 12.00pm
Cost: This is a free event

To RSVP for this event, please email Allison Orr on a.orr<AT>percapita.org.au or call 02 9310 5000.

I spoke in parliament yesterday about social entrepreneurship in Canberra, discussing a breakfast meeting with social entrepreneurs and the Ben Donohue Walk and Run for Fun.

Social Entrepreneurs, 27 November 2012



On 16 October this year I held a breakfast meeting with a small but passionate group of local social entrepreneurs: Bradley Carron-Arthur, Courtney Slone, Katrina Marson, Melanie Poole, Tony Shields and Ben Moody. The aim of the breakfast was to bring together these social entrepreneurs to share their stories, experiences and their ideas for solving some of the challenges they face. I hope in the future they can act as a brains trust for one another and for other budding social entrepreneurs. Their projects range from coordinating volunteers and boosting mental health awareness to improving Australia's international development efforts. I would like to thank them for their ideas and their efforts to assist those in need and for helping to build social capital. Social entrepreneurs are people who take an idea and with passion and persistence bring to fruition enterprises that assist those in need.

Last year Forbes magazine celebrated the work of social entrepreneurs by having the first top 30 social entrepreneurs list. Helen Costar of Forbes magazine wrote that social entrepreneurs 'unlike millions of us who recognise some kind of a problem, feel a pang of hopelessness and move on' set about fixing the problems they see in the world.

One great example of social entrepreneurship in my electorate is the Ben Donohue Run and Walk for Fun. Now in its eighth year, the Ben Donohue Run and Walk for Fun is one of the largest fun runs in the region. On 4 November 'team Leigh' joined a record 2,400 people for the six kilometre circuit around Lake Ginninderra. This year we were pleased to help the run and walk raise over $55,000.

Since its inception, the Ben Donohue Run and Walk for Fun has donated over $350,000 to its nominated charities: the Council Support Council, Ronald McDonald House Canberra and Make a Wish Australia. It has greatly helped families affected by cancer through the most difficult time and brought hope and joy to the lives of seriously ill children. I pay tribute to Ben's extraordinary parents Peter and Robin Donohue who organised the first event just months after Ben's passing. They really are social entrepreneurs that exemplify what can be achieved by those who set about fixing the problems they see.

Finally, I recognise the members of team Leigh who joined me on the Ben Donohue fun run: Kate Reid, Liesel Hickman, Shane Drumgold, Nathan Lambert, Gus Little, Emily Murray, Michael and Paul Hiscox, Alice Wade, Michael Petterson, Kurt Steel, Alice Crawford, Ethan Moody, Shobaz Kandola, David Mathews, Victor Violante, Megan Ponder, Brenton Sloane and the indefatigable Claire Daly from my office, who recruited and organised this year's splendid team.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/_xbwC1RiqRY

I spoke in parliament twice yesterday about asylum seekers, and the importance of reducing drownings at sea and treating refugees with dignity.

Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures), 27 November 2012

The issue of migration and of refugees is one that is particularly close to my heart. I spoke in my first speech in this place about my mother's parents, a boilermaker and a teacher, who lived by the credo that if there was a spare room in the house it ought to be used by someone who needed the space. I remember as a little kid, eating at my grandparents' place and spending time speaking to migrants, some of them refugees—from Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Cambodia and Sri Lanka.

I also told a story that still brings a lump to my throat about an art competition run as part of Refugee Week, where the first prize went to a Karen Burmese woman who had woven a traditional crimson tunic. She was missing her homeland so much that she had made a loom by taking the mattress of the wooden bed base and using the slats as a loom to weave a traditional Karen tunic. That story for me sums up the extraordinary courage and ability of Australia's refugees. It is why you will never hear me referring to refugees as 'illegals'. It is why you will never hear me using phrases like 'boatpeople'.

It was of course Australia's own Doc Evatt who was a key drafter of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which says in Article 14(1): 'Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.' And that is why there is nothing illegal about seeking asylum from persecution.

But what we have to do in this place is to find a set of policies that will end the sheer horror of drownings at sea. There have been over 1,000 drownings of asylum-seekers at sea over recent years. What that has meant is that, on the best estimates I have seen, about four per cent of those who have tried to get to Australia by boat have drowned doing so. It is a death rate which must give pause to anyone who simply says, 'Let everyone come.' There is nothing humane about a policy that says if you can take a leaky boat and make it to the shores of Australia you get to stay here as a refugee. To me that is a fundamentally inhumane policy.

We have got into this situation, in part, because of changes in technology. If you go back 20 years, you needed a somewhat more experienced sailor in charge of a fishing vessel to have a chance of making it from Indonesia to Christmas Island. The GPS has changed that. With a GPS device you can actually put a 15-year-old kid in charge of a fishing boat and he has a reasonable chance of making it to Christmas Island. It has meant that more people have attempted the dangerous journey and it has meant we have seen more drownings at sea. That in turn has meant, as the member for Chifley said, that we need to rethink our policies. Like him, I see no shame in that. The greatest shame is to pursue a set of policies that are ineffective; you need to adopt policies that will stop drownings at sea. It is the old Keynes line: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?'

It is those stories of drownings which have seared themselves into my consciousness. The late, great Senator Peter Cook chaired the SIEV X inquiry, an inquiry that was looking into an incident where at least 70 children drowned; at least 200 adults lost their lives. The member for Chifley, although he did not mention it in his speech, was one of those who were on the parliamentary inquiry that investigated the Christmas Island disaster, a disaster after which 30 bodies were recovered, including four juveniles and four infants. Another 20 were missing, presumed dead. There have been others. Some of the worst of those were where vessels were simply lost at sea, where everyone on those vessels perished.

Like the member for Chifley, I believe that the most effective way of reducing the flow of unseaworthy vessels, and the risk to those aboard them, was the Malaysia agreement. The Malaysia agreement was one which, as the Houston panel noted, was ‘vitally important’. I still support that agreement. I still hope for the day that those in the opposition will support an arrangement that would provide the clearest possible message to those considering getting onto leaky boats: don't do it, because you will be returned to one of the largest asylum-seeker camps in our region.

The 'no-advantage principle', the rock on which the Houston report is grounded, is a clear principle but it is more difficult to implement through measures available to us through the use of Nauru and Manus islands and bridging visas in Australia. Far more effective would be an agreement with Malaysia.

One of the chief arguments raised against returning refugees to Malaysia is that Malaysia is not a signatory to the refugee convention. That is an issue raised by those opposite. It is also an issue that is frequently raised with me by local Labor Party branch members. I had to smile when the member for Cowan suggested that somehow my speaking in this debate was a way of securing my preselection, because I can promise you there is deep disquiet among many of my branch members on this issue. The argument I would make to them and that I would make today to the House is that we must see the refugee convention in its historical light. We must recognise the way in which that document was drafted and we have to recognise that some of the aspects of the refugee convention are difficult. Indeed, the member for Cook himself said that the refugee convention 'no longer reflects the practical reality'. It is a document which was drafted to deal with the flow of refugees in the aftermath of World War II.

The result is that we now have three groups of countries in the world when it comes to the refugee convention. We have developed countries with the ability to patrol their borders who are happy to sign the refugee convention. We have developing nations which receive few asylum seekers—for instance, Somalia or Iran—and are willing to sign. But there is a third set of countries—such as India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia—who are reluctant to sign. These are countries situated close to refugee sending nations who recognise that, were they to sign up to the refugee convention, they would be obligated to take, house and resettle all of the refugees with genuine claims who came over their borders. That is simply impractical for some of these countries to do. Pakistan, as of the end of last year, had 1.7 million refugees. For these developing countries the cost of processing asylum seeker claims, let alone the cost of meeting education, health and housing obligations, would be prohibitive. The cost is what prevents them from signing the refugee convention.

You do not have to take my word for it. In April 2007 the Malaysian foreign ministry's parliamentary secretary told the news outlet Malaysiakini that it would not officially recognise refugees since 'the government is of the opinion that if Malaysia becomes party to the convention, considering its strategic geographical location in the region, it would be a drawing factor for refugees to come to Malaysia'. It is for that set of reasons that the Malaysian government has not signed the refugee convention. Malaysia is a party to many international agreements. The reputation of the Malaysian government has been done a deep disservice by those on the other side of the House in the context of the asylum seeker debate.

It strikes me that there is little consistency in the coalition's opposition to the Malaysia agreement based on Malaysia not having signed the refugee convention. The Howard government used Nauru to process asylum seekers at a time when Nauru was not a signatory to the refugee convention. The opposition would have boats turned back to Indonesia, a country which has not signed the refugee convention. I think what is demanded of all of us in this debate is a practical approach which recognises the reality of asylum seeker flows. GPS technology means younger and younger skippers are crewing boats. We need to work with non-signatory countries. Rather than being bound to a policy which has more people drowning at, we need to recognise the geopolitical realities as to why the Malaysian government does not sign the refugee convention.

The government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Houston report. Those recommendations include working through a managed regional system. That approach is grounded in the Bali process, of which Australia is a core part and recognises that, around the world, there are around 42 million internally displaced people and asylum seekers—nearly twice the population of Australia. It is never going to be possible for Australia to resettle all of those who would like to seek asylum in Australia. Our best contribution will come in working regionally and finding approaches which have a reasonable sharing of the burden across countries which are willing to settle refugees. That is a classic role Australia has played—a middle power diplomacy working cooperatively with countries in our region. I commend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister for their work in the East Asia Summit and their constant advocacy of good policy in the region and cooperative policy with those around us.

When I last spoke in this debate I said that I hoped the refugee intake would one day be increased to 20,000. I am now pleased to be able to welcome that increase to 20,000 places which has occurred through the Houston report. I believe that Australia can, and should be able to, settle more refugees. I am very proud of the organisations in my own electorate of Fraser who do such good work with refugees. They are committed to rolling out the welcome mat to people who have been assessed as genuine refugees and helping them become a strong part of the Canberra community.

In closing, I would also like to acknowledge Sarah Staege, a temporary migrant to Australia, who is in the gallery today with three of her colleagues. This indicates the benefits of migration to Australia.

Matter of Public Importance - Asylum Seekers, 27 November 2012

On 18 October 2001 an Indonesian fishing boat left the port of Bandar Lampung. There were 421 people on board, including at least 70 children. The boat was 20 metres long and four metres wide, so people were tightly packed on board. The next day, about 70 kilometres south of Indonesia, the boat encountered heavy seas, took on water, listed violently to one side, capsized and sank within an hour. There were life jackets on board, but none of them worked. As a Senate committee chaired by the late, great, Senator Peter Cook concluded, there were at least 70 children aboard when SIEV X sank. Only three survived. Two hundred adults also lost their lives. This was the precursor to many more deaths at sea over the next decade.

We are where we are today because Australia, as an island continent, is a dangerous place to journey to. We are where we are today because the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is a document largely drafted in the aftermath of World War II to deal with what weree by today's standards relatively moderate asylum seeker flows across land. We are where we are today because Australia faces a unique challenge. Four per cent of those who take boats to get to Australia perish on the seas attempting to do so, so our policies need to be targeted at stopping those deaths at sea.

There are those in both houses who have served on the SIEV X inquiry, and there are other parliamentarians who have served on the Christmas Island inquiry. We have just heard the Minister for Justice speaking movingly about some of the more recent tragedies that have occurred. I believe that in this debate there is no compassion in a policy which says that, if you can take a leaky boat to Australia and make it, then you can stay. I do not think that that policy is a compassionate one. I do not think that that policy is one which aligns with the value of the Labor Party, a party that I am privileged to represent in this place.

What we have done through putting the Malaysian agreement before this parliament—an agreement rejected by an alliance of those to the left and to the right of us—has been to try and ensure that we do not create incentives for people to make the dangerous boat journey here. That Malaysian agreement was struck down by the High Court and legislation to enable it was unable to pass through this parliament. We then found ourselves in a position where a productive exchange of letters over the Christmas break last year between the opposition immigration spokesperson and the government immigration spokesperson was stymied when the Leader of the Opposition became involved. It became almost absurd. The member for Cook was asked at one point: 'If the government were to adopt all of your policies, would you support them?' and he could not even say yes to that. So, as an attempted circuit breaker, this government asked three distinguished Australians—Angus Houston, Michael L'Estrange and Paris Aristotle—to come up with a report which would look at how we could prevent those tragic drownings at sea. When the Houston report came down, the government immediately announced we would follow its recommendations. All we have unfortunately seen from those opposite is an attempt to try to play politics with one of the most difficult issues in Australian public life.

There are three facts that I do not think have received significant discussion in public commentary on this issue. First, the humanitarian intake in Australia has been increased by 45 per cent to 20,000 places. I called for that in a speech at the end of last year and was extremely pleased when it was adopted. That is 45 per cent more people who are able to enjoy the high-quality humanitarian settlement process in Australia. Subject to economic circumstances, that will be increased to 27,000 places in the next five years. That cements Australia's position as the leading resettlement country globally on a per capita basis, according to United Nations data.

Secondly, Australia has been a world leader in how we provide those settlement services. I am enormously proud of the charities—some of them religious, some of them not—in my electorate of Fraser who work hard with newly arrived refugees. In some cases this will be a young Afghan boy who has lost his parents or whose parents have not joined him here and who is struggling to learn English and fit into the local community.

Canberrans have accepted refugees from Sudan, and many of them are making a great contribution to our city. In fact, I was pleased to start the day playing a game of basketball outside Parliament House with the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the member for Chifley, Senator Lundy and a range of parliamentary staff. We were playing against the Big Bang Ballers—a phrase not best said 10 times quickly—a group run by Pierre Johannessen in Canberra. Pierre works with at-risk youth playing Saturday night basketball. Many of the youth who join in are migrant youth or refugee youth. The Sudanese blokes on the other team certainly ran rings around me. But it is testament to the Canberra community that we are able to work on that resettlement so well.

Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, told 7.30 on 13 February this year:

'Australia has received 750,000 refugees until now. Australia's one of the most successful, if not the most successful resettlement program in the world with a large number of people being successfully integrated in the Australian society.'

We provide English language support, case management, torture and trauma counselling, funding for migrant resource centres, and cultural orientation programs.

The third thing that you do not hear often in this debate is that the average length of time spent by asylum seekers in detention facilities has decreased. It decreased from 277 days in November 2011 to 93 days in June 2012. The government is reducing the amount of time that people spend in detention.

In re-opening the Nauru and Manus Island facilities, we are also providing external scrutiny, something that never existed when the Howard government was in power. Amnesty International has recently brought down a critical report on the Nauru detention centre. The government does not agree with all of the findings in that report. But it is important to note that that report would not have been possible under the Howard government. Next week I understand the member for Cook is travelling to Nauru—again, something that would not have been possible under the Howard government.

That internal scrutiny is important to me as somebody who believes that it is important to deter people from making a dangerous boat journey, but we must also treat those who make that journey with dignity and compassion. You will not hear me, as the member for Cook and the member for Stirling said, describing as illegals those who come as asylum seekers. It is not illegal to seek refuge in another country. You also will not hear me attempting to have it both ways on the refugee convention.

In speaking on the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 shortly before question time, I discussed some of the circumstances that determine why a country signs or does not sign the refugee convention. I find it passing strange that the opposition is willing to turn boats back to Indonesia, a dangerous attempt which could endanger not only the lives of asylum seekers but also naval personnel, and also something which is odd given that Indonesia is a non-signatory country. We believe that it is important to recognise that circumstances have changed since the refugee convention was signed and to find an approach that is humane and compassionate.

I spoke in parliament yesterday about the government's reforms to address problem gambling.

National Gambling Reform, 27 November 2012


May I start with a story from an email sent to me by one of my constituents, Gary Hatcliffe. He wrote to me as follows:

'My name is Gary Hatcliffe. The pokies have taken away the past 25 years of living for me. Some would say I had a choice; unfortunately, the addiction overpowered my logical thought processes. As a result, I have just completed 7 months of live-in rehabilitation and I now reside in a half-way house in Canberra. Eight months ago I was destitute in Melbourne (having hit rock bottom once again) and I was going to kill myself.

'I have, only just this weekend, opened up the third meeting of Gamblers Anonymous in Canberra.'

He finishes up his email:

'PLEASE KEEP UP YOUR GOOD WORK FOR POKIE REFORM. MY LIFE WILL FOREVER BE AT RISK UNTIL MY ACCESS IS TAKEN AWAY FROM ME. I envisage, down the track with the mandatory pre-commitment and a nationally regulated card system, to be able to ban myself from using any machine in Australia. This will allow me to still be social and go into a club with friends, have a meal and a couple of drinks, and know that I cannot use the pokies because I will not have access to a 'pokie' card.

'Warm regards,

'Gary Hatcliffe.'

Mr Hatcliffe's story is sadly all too common across Australia. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald last year noted the phenomenon in St Johns Park Bowling Club where at 2.30 on a Sunday morning the club starts handing out $100 notes. In order to win those $100 notes gamblers need to swipe their membership cards at a reward centre and wait. The article went on to talk about other incidents and other factors that ensure that gamblers are unable to take themselves out of the zone, unable to stop, reflect on how much they have spent and decide whether they want to stop playing. It pointed out that the machines in St Johns have an attendant button—a sort of room service so pokie players do not have to leave their machines to get a drink. The practice is banned in Victoria but popular in New South Wales.

The article tells the story of a tense Fijian woman, aged about 70, who tells the journalist:

"I've lost $400 tonight,'' she says, snorting involuntarily each time she smacks the machine and chases her losses. ''I lost $3000,'' she adds, snorting again, before locking eyes back on the spinning reels, too distracted to explain.

A counsellor by the name of Wendy who works with problem gamblers in that part of Australia says:

'Once they are on that machine, the world could blow up around them, and they really wouldn't notice.'

She goes on to say:

'Often people will say to me: 'I looked up and, oh my God, I've been there for five hours. I didn't eat anything, I didn't drink anything, I didn't go to the toilet.''

And then I will ask them how much money did they put into the machine and they'll go: 'I don't know, I was just feeding it money.'

A player named Yvonne from Wentworthville says:

'Your mind stops, you don't think.'

The article finishes up with the story of Toai Thi Nguyen, an illiterate 55-year-old Vietnamese mother of four who racked up debts of $28,000 to loan sharks through her gambling and found herself eventually succumbing to the threats of the loan sharks. She flew to Vietnam, where a gun was held to her head. She returned with 10 kilograms of pseudoephedrine, used for making ice, and was intercepted by Customs. She is now serving five years in jail for this.

A Parliamentary Library FlagPost article by Amanda Biggs noted that the prevalence of problem gambling is highest in low socioeconomic areas of Australia. It noted, for example, that in Greater Dandenong the average weekly income is $426 and pokie losses are $1,110 per adult. By contrast, Boroondara has an average income of $836 a week and average losses of $153 an adult. So this is very much a social justice issue. This is an issue where those of us who care about the most disadvantaged in Australia are compelled to act.

I found it surprising that the member for Menzies was saying that it is not appropriate for the federal government to step in here, that this is an area where we ought to respect states rights—whatever that means. As a representative of the ACT, I could not help thinking: is this the same member for Menzies who introduced a private member's bill to override the rights of the territories on the issue of euthanasia? I think it might be. I think it might be the very same member for Menzies. So, when it suits him, he is happy to come into this place and use federal authority to override other jurisdictions, but, on an issue that he does not think is appropriate, he will not do that.

I think in this case it is appropriate to have a national approach. It is a national approach that is grounded in behavioural economics. The great thing about precommitment is that no-one is forced to do anything. You are simply asked to set your limit. That limit that you set can be as high or as low as you want it to be. All we are doing with mandatory precommitment is allowing people to keep the promises that they make to themselves. We are allowing people to set a limit and to have the club assist them in sticking to that limit. We know—as the stories I read out this evening illustrated so powerfully—that people get in the zone. They walk into a club or pub intending to spend no more than $200, and they walk out scratching their head wondering where the $500 went. They chase their losses. They lose track of time. They lose perspective on how much they are willing to gamble. All mandatory precommitment does is that it ensures that people set that number and that the clubs help them stick to it.

Here in the ACT, a trial of mandatory precommitment will be taking place. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, has set up a Trial Oversight Committee that includes representatives from ClubsACT, the Tradies, the ACT Council of Social Service, the ACT Club Managers Association, United Voice, the Australian Institute of Family Studies and the ACT and Australian governments. That committee has been welcomed by participants in this debate. The CEO of ClubsACT, Jeff House, has said:

'Whilst there is a large body of work that needs to be completed before the trial can commence, the establishment of this Oversight Committee is a key step in the timeline which will allow us to make some initial progress on completing that body of work. I look forward to continuing to work with Minister Macklin and her department.'

I commend Mr House for the constructive way in which he and his members have worked with this government. I know the same is true of ACT clubs that are outside ClubsACT. I welcome the constructive way in which the ACT Minister for Gaming and Racing, Joy Burch, has worked. She has said, for example:

'A trial of mandatory pre-committment in the ACT will build on the substantial reforms already underway in the ACT.'

That commitment to evidence based policymaking is a hallmark of this government. I am very pleased that the Australian Institute of Family Studies and their head, Alan Hayes, have been actively involved in thinking through the way in which the ACT trial will operate and thinking through the best way of evaluating this.

I want to go to something that you often hear from those opposite—that, because Queanbeyan clubs are not affected by mandatory precommitment, such a trial would automatically fail. The thing about this criticism is that it fundamentally misunderstands what mandatory precommitment does. With mandatory precommitment, the government does not set a cap on what you can bet; it asks you to set your own cap. Those opposite suggest that people will flee to Queanbeyan in order to avoid the cap. You do not need to do that. If you think at the outset that you want a higher limit, you set that higher limit yourself. That is the thing about mandatory precommitment. We are helping you to keep the promise that you make to yourself. If you say that you want to stop when you spend $200, we help you to stop when you hit $200. So people are not going to flee to Queanbeyan as a result of this.

What is going to happen is that we are going to help them break out of that zone in which people end up spending more than they intended to, they go beyond their discretionary income and they start spending money that was intended for food, groceries and the kids. You hear some of the most horrendous stories around the impact of problem gambling. One that sticks in my mind is of a little boy who says: 'Dad, could we get a pokie machine at home so Mum can stay at home with us and gamble here?' Those sorts of stories about families that are torn apart by the impact of problem gambling are stories that ought to impel us in this House to act.

The bill that is before the House will ensure that all gaming machines are part of a state-wide precommitment system, and that they display electronic warnings, by 2016—recognising that small venues will need longer implementation time lines. New machines, manufactured or imported, from the end of 2013 will be capable of supporting precommitment. We are placing a limit on ATM withdrawal of $250. And we are making sure that these changes are implemented in conjunction with stakeholders. There will be a Productivity Commission review in 2014 that will assess the progress of the measures.

I am often surprised when those opposite say that we need more evidence on this, because we have a substantial body of evidence, the most important of which is the Productivity Commission's report on problem gambling. What we need to do now is to take the steps to implement that report.

I am pleased too that we are going to see an Australian Gambling Research Centre that will be run as part of the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Under the leadership of Alan Hayes, the Australian Institute of Family Studies has become a premier policymaking body across social and economic policy. It will be an important part of making sure that we assess the ACT trial and that we continue to evaluate what we are doing in this area.

The government's reforms are grounded in the notion of what Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler have called libertarian paternalism—that is, we ought not to impose on people any more regulation than is necessary. The thing about libertarian paternalism is that those opposite ought to like this because it is libertarian, because you set the limit yourself. If you want that limit to be $10,000 a month, that is the limit you can set. If you want it to be $200 a month, that is what you set. The paternalism comes from something that you impose on yourself. The paternalism is your ability to say: 'I've got a self-control problem. Don't let me go past what the family's discretionary budget allows. Don't let me spend more than I want to, when I get into the zone at three o'clock in the morning with drinks coming to me and without the perspective of where gambling ought to be in my life.'

The story of Gary Hatcliffe that I told at the outset is one that all of us in this place should bear in mind. Mr Hatcliffe is aware of his challenges. He is aware of his own self-control problem. He is aware that it is only through mandatory precommitment that he will be able to go into a club and enjoy a drink with his mates without again getting caught in the zone.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/kTGkCp8bapQ

I spoke in parliament yesterday on the passing of my most famous constituent, Bryce Courtenay.

Bryce Courtenay, 27 November 2012



A little over 12 months ago Paul Keating told Leigh Sales during a Lateline interview:

'Well, it's all about telling the stories. You gotta be able to tell the stories, I think.'

Today I pay tribute to one of our greatest ever storytellers. Australian author Bryce Courtenay lived in the suburb of Reid in my electorate, a few kilometres from my electorate office. Last week he died of stomach cancer, aged 79. He was a prolific author. In his 23 years of writing he wrote 23 books—almost one a year. I say 'almost' because the only time he missed his annual deadline was last year. He was upset by this even though the arthritis in his hands were so severe he could only perform two-finger typing.

As somebody who has a couple of books with my name on the spine of them I can only marvel at a man almost 40 years my senior who worked 12 hours a day, six days a week, for months on end to tell us his stories. I remember once reading a book about fiction writing which said that if you want to be a good fiction writer you have to be at the desk every day: some days the muse will come and sit on your shoulder and you will write beautiful prose, while other days the muse will not come and nothing will come out. But you have to be there, otherwise the muse will turn up and you will be off somewhere else.

Bryce Courtenay was there day in, day out, waiting for the muse to land on his shoulder and produce those wonderful stories. Great storytellers like Bryce Courtenay can inspire us. They fill us with vision and sometimes even tell us things we do not want to hear. Bryce Courtenay's power to tell a compelling story saw him sell more than 20 million books worldwide—nearly a book for every Australian. He wrote 12 of the most borrowed books in Australia's public libraries. It is estimated that one in three Australian households have a Bryce Courtenay book on their bookshelves.

What was it about Bryce Courtenay the man and the writer that so enthralled us? I believe it was his ability to tell stories about the strength and triumph of the human condition. His own life was testimony to that. It is hard to read The Power of One or April Fools' Day without being touched by how he spoke to us on this eternal theme. In The Power of One he wrote:

'The power of one is above all things the power to believe in yourself, often well beyond any latent ability you may previously have demonstrated.'

These are powerful words from storyteller who could reach out and grab the heart of the reader.

Bryce Courtenay, like all of us, was very much human—a man with his own imperfections—and he showed us through his life and his writing that we should not hide from them; the imperfections and hardships of life are what makes a story worth celebrating. Two weeks ago Bryce Courtenay posted a final message on YouTube to his readers. Here is part of what he said:

'Well kids, here we go. The book coming out this year, Jack of Diamonds, is my last book. It is my last book because my use-by date has finally come up, and I've probably got just a few months to live. I don't mind that—I've had a wonderful life—but part of that wonderful life has been those people who have been kind enough to pick up a Bryce Courtenay book, and read it and enjoy it and buy the next one, and be with me in what has been, for me, an incredible journey.'

He paused before continuing:

'All I'd like to say is, as simply as I possibly can—'

with his voice now starting to break—

'thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.'

I say here to Bryce Courtenay that it is we who should thank you. Vale, Bryce Courtenay.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/rINF5qcvOxE

WIN News covered my call for Canberrans to tell me they want to work in the mining industry. They also interviewed a local construction worker who has struggled to crack into the industry.

Ross Peake also covered the story in the Canberra Times.

You can email Andrew.Leigh.MP {at} aph.gov.au or call 6247 4396 to let me know you're interested in working in or around the mines so I can encourage the companies to come to Canberra and provide more information.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/H0p4m2fNsZk