Labor shadow ministry - ABC 666 Canberra - 14 October
Breaking Politics - Fairfax Media - 14 October 2013
HOST TIM LESTER: So, Labor has a new cabinet and with Bill Shorten in the position of Opposition leader, the team can now take its places. We will learn this week, not only who is on the front bench but what roles they will have and one of the names kicking around is Andrew Leigh, the Labor MP in the electorate of Fraser, a regular on Breaking Politics. Welcome back Andrew.
ANDREW LEIGH: Thanks Tim.
LESTER: Tell us, what are your hopes for a frontbench spot?
LEIGH: Caucus will make that decision, now that we've changed the rules to allow democracy to flow through the party and I think that's a great thing. We're seeing a whole lot of opening up in the Labor Party, opening up of the selection of the leader to the membership which has been so warmly welcomed and now, going back to the system of the caucus choosing the frontbench. We're fortunate to have an array of talent comfortably fill two high-quality frontbenches, so it's going to be a tough decision for us collectively to make today.
LESTER: Now, I gather Chris Bowen is already the nominee for the position of shadow treasurer.
LEIGH: Yes.
LESTER: But you would naturally fit in an economic portfolio given your academic background in that regard. Do you think that's a chance?
LEIGH: I'll make a contribution to the economic debate wherever I am Tim. I am pretty passionate about this stuff. I got into parliament because I wanted to make a difference on increasing the growth of Australia and reducing the gap between rich and poor and I'll make that contribution whatever part of the Labor team I end up in.
LESTER: Bill Shorten as leader, what qualities do you think he brings to the job?
LEIGH: So Bill's pretty extraordinary at connecting with people across a wide range of walks of life. I've been a kitchen in Civic in the middle of Canberra. We were there to do an event with the chefs and Bill was the first bloke to walk over and shake the hand of the kitchen hand washing the dishes in the corner. It's the kind of guy he is. He's very good at connecting with people, making them feel comfortable and listening to their stories. He's a great speech-maker which I think is really important in terms of building a narrative of what we do because public policy is complex and it's only getting more complex. I think voters get turned off a bit if they feel that what you're doing is just a just cooked up policy designed to solve a political problem rather than telling the story, the long narrative about how we got there. He did that with DisabilityCare. He did that with the increase in superannuation. Storytelling really is a vital part of good policy, whether you are in government or opposition.
LESTER: Tony Abbott has just given a four year lesson in how Opposition works if you attack. He brought his own Opposition together and he brought down two prime ministers and ultimately a government. Does Bill Shorten need to have some of the attack dog, that Tony Abbott had in Opposition, in him.
LEIGH: Good critique's important Tim. But I think that people who say we ought to just ape the tactics of the Coalition are missing what modern politics is about. Politics isn't about Coke and Pepsi, where you see your competitor pursuing a strategy and you do your best to adopt that. Labor's role in Australian politics has always been as the generator of ideas. We need to be the party that is coming up with the next big reforms because we just can't leave that to the conservatives. That's not in their nature. That's not the way they operate. They block, they oppose, they maintain the status quo. We're the ones that build, whether it's university access or better schools. And so, we'll be working on the ideas game. But of course holding the government to account.
LESTER: Tanya Plibersek as deputy, which she do it well?
LEIGH: Tanya would be first rate as deputy. She's somebody who's extraordinarily well respected across the community. She did a tremendous job as health minister and somebody who, I think, is extraordinary in her ability, just to balance so much, to get to so many seats, to contribute to the policy, and, like me, she's got three little kids and I'm greatly impressed at how she was able to manage that with being a cabinet minister.
LESTER: Has Labor done itself a favour going through this process, or has it in fact perhaps undermined Bill Shorten by highlighting the fact that the rank and file actually didn't want him. They wanted Anthony Albanese by a ratio of almost, two-thirds of them wanted Anthony Albanese.
LEIGH: I think that whenever you see these sorts of split voting systems you can expect that certain parts of the electorate will go differently from other parts. That's what you see in this style of voting system whether it's run in New Zealand or Britain. That doesn't make it a bad system. People point to the 52% overall result that Bill Shorten got. But I got to say that looks like a landslide compared to the 50.6% of the Liberal Party party room that Tony Abbott got in 2009.
LESTER: Okay. You're concerned about economics. You're going to be watching them closely. Is this government worried and exercised enough about what's happening abroad in the U.S. with the potential debt default here, what that might become for Australia?
LEIGH: Well, a government shutdown is bad enough but the debt default is terrifying. It will almost certainly send the U.S. into recession. It would have massive negative knock-on effects for Australia. What worries me is that we see from reports today that Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann, in 2011 visited the U.S. to meet with the sorts of people who are looking at sending the U.S. over the edge of this cliff. He met with the extreme wing of the Republican Party, the Tea Party. He met with Grover Norquist. And you saw some of those tactics some of those tactics being used by the Coalition in the last term: the incessant railing about debt and deficits as if it would have been better to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs, the attacks on increasing the debt limit in Australia. Those sorts of Tea Party tactics were pursued by the Liberal Party in the last term of parliament and I think that was a terrible mistake to play footsie with some people who are really causing massive problems now for the world economy.
LESTER: To what extent do you think Matthias Cormann now realises this or do you think he has genuinely adopted those perspectives and they might be reflected in some ways in policy?
LEIGH: Well, we'll see that from Mr Cormann himself. I'd like to see him to repudiate people like Grover Norquist and the extreme Tea Party wing. It's not good enough for Mr Hockey to be standing over in the U.S. assigning blame to Democrats and Republican alike. This is a Republican-caused shutdown. You just have to be clear about those facts and too often the Government seems caught in with its ideological bedfellows in the U.S. Republicans, not enough pursuing the interests of Australians, being critical and assigning blame when it's due and doing our best to avert this debt default.
LESTER: While we're on the topic of Joe Hockey, the question of foreign investment has emerged. What do you make of Mr Hockey's latest comments on where the Government might go on the vexed question of foreign investment limits.
LEIGH: Well we warned the Liberal Party before the election that they were pursuing strategies that would get them into trouble overseas – that turning the boats back would offend Indonesia, that attacking Malaysia's human rights record would damage our relationship with a major ally, and that saying they would lower the foreign investment review threshold on China would make a free-trade agreement impossible. We know see that Mr Hockey's looking like back-flipping on that; increasing the foreign investment review threshold in order to strike a free-trade agreement. That will represent a broken promise from the Coalition who said the opposite beforehand. Barnaby Joyce campaigned very hard to make it more difficult for Chinese investors, not to make it easier as the Chinese would like to see.
LESTER: Andrew Leigh, as always, we're grateful for you coming in to Breaking Politics.
LEIGH: Thanks Tim.
Same-sex marriage - 666 ABC Canberra - 11 October 2013
This morning I spoke with ABC 666 Canberra Breakfast host Jolene Laverty in support of the ACT Government's same-sex marriage laws as something that will make our society stronger. Here's the full transcript:
ABC 666 CANBERRA with host Jolene Laverty
JOLENE LAVERTY: ACT is ready to fight to become the first jurisdiction in Australia to legalise same-sex marriage. It's expected to pass through the assembly with the full support of Labor and Green MPs. But really that looks like it's going to be the easy part. There has been a commitment from the Coalition Government to challenge any law in the High Court. Attorney General Senator Brandis has asked the ACT to withdraw the bill. We invited him on this morning. He was not available. We also asked Senator Zed Seselja who was also not available to comment. You may have heard in the news there with Mark Dawson that Zed has given some comment to ABC News. This is what Senator Seselja had to say:
ZED SESELJA: One is that I don't support same-sex marriage. Two, that I believe that same-sex marriage or marriage generally is the preserve of the federal parliament. So, whether your views are in favour of same-sex marriage or against same-sex marriage, the correct place for this to be debated is in the Commonwealth parliament. One thing I have always done is, I've always been upfront so people have always known my views on the issue. I don't think there's any secret. I've also, on this issue, even though my views on same-sex marriage are clear, what the issue is here is who has the power. I believe it's very clear that the Commonwealth parliament has the power. The ACT Assembly does not.
LAVERTY: Andrew Leigh is the Labor member for Fraser. Now, you've been quoted as saying you're disappointed but are you surprised?
ANDREW LEIGH: I am actually Jo. Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak about it. It’s quite usual for a federal government to challenge a state or territory law. It's an inherently political decision and it's a decision that I think, flies in the face of history and decency. The states and territories in fact, contrary to what Mr Seselja just said, had responsibility for marriage all the way up until 1961. So there's nothing in the Constitution that says that states and territories can't act here. The situation we are in arises from the Howard Government in 2004 narrowing the scope of the federal Marriage Act down to heterosexual marriages. That's left open the opportunity for the ACT to say, ‘well, if the federal law is going to just regulate heterosexual marriages, we'll have a parallel law that doesn't overlap, doesn't have anyone marry twice, which allows same-sex marriages’. I think that's perfectly reasonable and that the notion that George Brandis will go about trying to tear up ACT same-sex marriage certificates is, to me, pretty repugnant.
LAVERTY: Well they are challenging it because they say that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. And they want to take it to the High Court. Do you think that's the right place to debate it?
LEIGH: The High Court will make its own judgement on this. The arguments as I understand them might well be quite finally balanced. I'm a former High Court associate and I certainly don't want to, as a politician, tread onto what they're doing. But what I will say is that the Attorney General didn't need to make this challenge. A challenge that like this would normally come from a private citizen rather than the federal government and I think it really reflects this archaic attitude to same-sex marriage that so many in the Coalition leadership seem to have. This idea that somehow their heterosexual marriages are threatened by allowing same-sex couples to wed. I just think that in a generation's time, people will look back at this and they will roll their eyes that there were parliamentarians who would fight this hard against the right of a same-sex couple to walk down the aisle.
LAVERTY: There is a lot of conversation about whether or not this should be debated in the High Court or taken to the parliament. What would be the difference there?
LEIGH: If the Federal Government isn't going to act on marriage equality - and it feels fairly likely that the bill won't be brought before the House - then it's perfectly reasonable for the ACT Government to act. What the ACT Government has said is, well, back nine years ago the Howard Government restricted the federal Marriage Act, so it only covered heterosexual marriages, so we're going to have our own ACT same-sex marriage law. It reminds me of the lovely line in the New Zealand same-sex marriage debate when one of the conservatives, Maurice Williamson, gave a promise to people who opposed same-sex marriage. He said 'I promise you, the sun will still rise tomorrow. Your teenage daughter will still argue back as if she knows everything. Your mortgage won't grow and you won't have skin diseases, rashes, or toads in your bed'. That, to me, sums up the debate. I think this is something that means an awful lot to those same-sex couples in the ACT who would like to marry their loved ones. It isn't going to weaken heterosexual marriages like mine. This is going to make us stronger as a society.
LAVERTY: It may mean an awful lot for those same-sex couples Andrew Leigh, but if the elected government has not prepared to accept same-sex marriage in Australia, then doesn't that then say that perhaps Australia's not ready for it?
LEIGH: Certainly when you look at popular opinion on this, I think it's changing faster than on any social issue that I have seen. I tend to think that attitudes on race and gender move glacially. But this one is moving with extraordinary pace. I mean, just in the time between when the federal parliament last voted and now, we've seen same-sex marriage been passed by conservative government in Britain and New Zealand. They've passed it because they believe, as conservatives, that the institution of marriage is one that's good for families. Don't forget that one-fifth of lesbian couples have kids in the home. Why wouldn't we allow those couples to have access to the institution of marriage, that stabilising institution of marriage, that I think could potentially good for kids in those households as it can for kids in heterosexual households.
LAVERTY: Which is interesting because that's part of the constitution as well, isn't it, that it can constitute over adoption and having children in the homes as well, which is part of the Marriage Act?
LEIGH: There are things that the federal Marriage Act covers but the argument that will be before the High Court is whether - in saying the federal Marriage Act only covers heterosexual couples - the federal government has effectively covered the field on marriage or whether it has inadvertently left open the space for the ACT Government to allow same-sex marriages. But really I think the federal government should let alone on this one. I think they should allow the ACT to pass its own laws. It should allow ACT same-sex couples to walk down the aisles to have the joys, travails, to have the same-sex divorces that will invariably flow. That's not harmful for Australia. There are other things that the Federal Government should be fretting about rather than challenging ACT laws and trying to rip up same-sex marriage certificates.
LAVERTY: We are going to be talk to constitutional law expert George Williams in just a moment but before I let you go Mr Leigh, the Labor leadership. It's been going some weeks now to find a new Labor leader. How do you think it's unfolding? What do you expect to happen?
LEIGH: As they say, the voters have spoken - we just haven't quite heard them yet. The result is there in the ballot papers and it's just a matter now of counting it. We'll have a caucus meeting on Sunday and welcome in the new leader. But I was really struck yesterday in the caucus, the sense of warmth and generosity that came from Mr Albanese and Mr Shorten speaking about each other, about the contest and just the sense that it is really provided yet another great reason to join the Labor Party. Because in the Labor Party unlike any other major or minor political party in Australia, members get to have a say in choosing their leader.
LAVERTY: Terrific. Thank you so much for making yourself available this morning.
LEIGH: Thanks Jolene.
LAVERTY: Bye bye. That is Andrew Leigh, who is our federal member for Labor.
Breaking Bad
Broken promises after just three weeks in job, The Daily Telegraph, 11 October 2013
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has made a great deal of the importance of keeping his promises. A few days before the election, he said that if he became Prime Minister: ‘you should move heaven and earth to keep commitments and only if keeping commitments becomes almost impossible could you ever be justified in not keeping them. And I suspect the electorate would take a very dim view even in those circumstances.’
And yet after just three weeks in the job, Mr Abbott has broken at least three promises.
First, Mr Abbott told Australians before the election that the nation was facing a ‘budget emergency’. In his campaign launch speech, he promised a budget update within 100 days of the election. Yet now he looks set to put off the mid-year budget update until 2014, well outside his 100-day timetable. As if that wasn’t enough, we have Joe Hockey – who spent his years as Shadow Treasurer railing against ‘debt and deficits’ – relying all the time on the misleading ‘gross debt’ figure to exaggerate how much we owe. Now, according to recent reports, Mr Hockey is looking for ways to reclassify debt so he can borrow more for his favourite projects. Could this really be the same party that held media conferences in front of a ‘debt truck’?
Second, after pledging that no public servants would be fired, Mr Abbott used his first full day in the job to fire three agency heads. All were career public servants who had worked for both sides of politics. Indeed, one had helped Peter Costello implement the GST, while another was chief of staff to Liberal Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock. Their crime was to state the obvious: that policies like turning back the boats and Direct Action (aka soil magic) won't work. Instead of a frank and fearless public service, it looks like the Coalition wants a flaccid and fearful public service.
Third, Mr Abbott said in no uncertain terms: ‘the assurance that I give the superannuants and the superannuation savers of Australia is that there will be no adverse changes to their superannuation arrangements under this Government’. But in order to pay for policies like cutting the mining tax, his own costings show that he will raise taxes on the superannuation of 3 million low-income earners. This group – two thirds of whom are women – will be adversely affected, with lower superannuation balances as a result. Mr Abbott’s broken promise will hit people like sales assistants, childcare workers and hairdressers, who already struggle to put enough into superannuation.
There are also smaller breaches. Speaking at the Garma festival in August, Mr Abbott left many in the crowd with the impression that he would spend his first week as Prime Minister in northeast Arnhem Land. While he does have a track record of spending more time in Indigenous communities than most parliamentarians, he hasn’t yet spent a week on Yolngu land. And following his visit to Indonesia, it’s becoming clear that his avowed ‘boat buyback’ policy will be nothing more than an assistance fund to Indonesia.
Then there are the policy areas where the public is being softened up for a backflip. Despite being slapped down by his leader, Education Minister Christopher Pyne is clearly angling to cap the number of people going to university, and scrap targets that aim to raise the participation of disadvantaged Australians. What does this say to the aspirations of a bright high school student who hopes to be the first in her family to get a degree?
Also on the chopping block is the Coalition’s promise to cut taxes every year in office. Not complying with Peter Costello’s Charter of Budget Honesty might have served them well in the election campaign, but now they’re in government, the books have to balance. It’s hard to see how you can offer a multi-billion dollar tax cut to big polluters, give $75,000 to millionaire families when they have a baby, and still reduce income taxes for the rest of us. It is impossible to raise spending, cut taxes, and pay down debt faster. Unless Mr Abbott works out a way of repealing the laws of mathematics, that is.
The longer Mr Abbott is in the job, the wider the gap between the reality and his pre-election rhetoric. If he really believes in open government, why do his ministers have to seek permission from the Prime Minister’s office before speaking to the press? If he wants to raise ethical standards, why is his ministerial code of conduct being written by a man who thinks it’s appropriate for taxpayers to fly him to a mate’s wedding? If he believes that men and women should be equal, why does cabinet have just one woman – as it did in 1975?
Over the next term, Labor will be working hard to develop policies that build a fairer and more prosperous Australia. But we will also be keeping Mr Abbott to account on his pledges. With three broken promises in three weeks, who knows how many we will see in the next three years?
Andrew Leigh is the federal member for Fraser, and his website is www.andrewleigh.com.
Capital Hill - The Three Andrews
Here's the full transcript:
ANDREW GREENE: Joining me to discuss the day is Labor MP Andrew Leigh who's here in Canberra, and Liberal MP Andrew Laming in Brisbane. It's going to be a bit confusing but welcome to you both.
ANDREW LEIGH: Thanks Andrew.
ANDREW LAMING: Thank you.
GREENE: Before becoming Prime Minister, Tony Abbott declared there was a budget emergency though he has been reluctant to use the phrase since. The Grattan Institute's John Daley today told the National Press Club there's no emergency but it is plenty to be worried about.
JOHN DALEY: But there’s no flashing, blue lights. The Australian government budget is not in cardiac arrest on the operating table needing a triple by-pass to keep it alive. We don't have that kind of emergency but Australian government budgets are unfit, overweight and smoking and now they have high blood pressure and chest pains and most worryingly, I'd suggest, the patient has gone into denial and is eating more cheese.
GREENE: Well, firstly to you, Andrew Leigh in Canberra, we have seen an IMF report released overnight that again is warning of a slow-down in growth, rising unemployment. The current government is dealing with the legacy of Labor, isn't it?
LEIGH: The figures we've seen out of the IMF are broadly are in line with the Treasury updates before the election so I don't think there's anything to be surprised about in this. Clearly, risks in Europe with the banking system, risks in the US caused by the extreme wing of the Republicans pushing the country to the shutdown now and potentially even to a default on October 17th. I'm not sure Mr Abbott would be as congenial towards the Tea Party now as he was last year. But certainly it is not a time to be cutting jobs and Mr Abbott's pledge to cut 12,000 public service jobs is, I think, badly timed. David Johnston's suggestion that the Government might break its pledge to exempt defence is even more concerning.
GREENE: Andrew Laming in Brisbane, is the Coalition settled on whether we do have an emergency or not?
LAMING: Well, I think you heard it very clearly, Andrew, the economy effectively has chest pains, shortness of breath. To me, whether the house is smoking or fully alight, I guess the definition of emergency depends on how closely you are responsible for paying it off. So certainly I'm glad this government is utterly committed to doing that. The IMF's downgrade, shaving 0.1 or 0.2% off global forecasts, mostly reflects a reweighting of developing economies and they've taken between one and two per cent off some predictions there. They're very obviously concerned about the state of Europe one to five years before we can see any glimmers of hope there and what's happening in the US as Andrew Leigh said. For Australia, we have to be investing. I'd rather be building the roads of the 21st century than expanding or public service. You really are seeing in this Liberal Government a focus on front-line services.
GREENE: That's the point isn't it, Andrew Laming, you'd much prefer to be in Australia right now than anywhere else, Europe or the United States as you mentioned?
LAMING: And the IMF is effectively agreeing. In 2007 we had a large budget surplus, very, very strong and well regulated banks and we were able to negotiate what turned out to be a very deep ‘V’ recession worldwide with minimal recession here in Australia. Of course Australia did very well but when you look at the way we spent that money, it wasn't on economic infrastructure, in too many cases it was giving checks to people or paying for flat screens which certainly helped the South Koreans escape the GFC more so than Australia.
GREENE: Andrew Leigh, your response?
LEIGH: Well, Andrew Laming makes a lot of important points but he did say there was a mild recession in Australia. That's not correct. Australia didn't experience any recession, something that wouldn't have been the case if we'd insisted on keeping the budget on surplus all the way through. We did the economically responsible thing which was to take on modest levels of debt to support jobs. Now I see Mr Hockey, after railing against debt and deficits for years, is now looking at how he can put infrastructure spending off budget. He criticised Labor when we constructed the national broadband network in such a way that it wouldn't be on budget because it earned a return. Now the Coalition's NBN plan has a similar accounting treatment and they're looking at doing the same for roads. I think it's perfectly reasonable to invest in the infrastructure of the 21st century. Labor doubled the road budget when we were in office but it is passing strange that Mr Hockey has shifted from driving debt trucks around the country to now saying he'd like to have more debt for Australia.
GREENE: Andrew Laming, is now a time to consider borrowing for stimulus or for infrastructure?
LAMING: Well, when we look at the US's action, what Ben Bernanke has done has been [to] continue very strategically and innovatively stimulus measures innovatively stimulus measures in the US which has been far more severely affected than Australia has. These are decisions obviously for the Treasurer himself but certainly Australia continues to spend and continues to have earnings, the question is what do you spend this money on and what can you do to stimulate your economy with the everyday expenditures of government? The simple point that's come out of today is we can't afford to go into even more debt without carefully targeted economic infrastructure, roads of the 21st century is the best example of that.
LEIGH: Andrew is right about that and I agree with his priorities but you would question why the Coalition wants to get rid of the profits-based mining tax, a measure whose benefits would go disproportionately towards magnates like Clive Palmer and wedding host Gina Rinehart and you would question why you would put in place a paid parental leave scheme which gives $75,000 to millionaires to have a child when we know the savings rates of millionaires are amongst the highest in the country. So, if you want money to flow into the country I agree with Andrew, it needs to be infrastructure. So build fibre to the home NBN, invest in urban rail and don't cut urban public transport. They’re ways of making sure we get a strong economy.
GREENE: Andrew Laming, your final response?
LAMING: Look, effectively Tony Abbott's paid parental leave scheme is making sure that low and middle-income earning females are supported through having children. Primarily they are the ones who miss out. We're not talking about the highly-paid public servants. We are not talking about those in corporate Australia, many of whom already have paid parental schemes. This about looking after every woman in Australia and as Tony Abbott said it is a productivity measure and shouldn't be seen as a social welfare measure.
GREENE: Andrew Leigh mentioned Gina Rinehart quite cheekily with the wedding host title, if we can turn to the issue of travel entitlements. Andrew Laming in Brisbane, firstly, you were investigated in the past few years over printing allowances and you were cleared by that process. Do you think it's now time to have a look at the rules and regulations, get some perhaps more scrutiny in the system?
LAMING: Look, I don't for a minute think that we need to completely change the system because the system itself fully, fully releases all expenditure by politicians and you're seeing now evidence that the public, through the media, can scrutinise what politicians have done going back years. So it's important for politicians to be very cautious, to remember that everything they do that's funded by the taxpayer has to be legitimate work-related business and obviously there's a balance sometimes because there can be personal time involved in work-related travel. But we have seen dozens and dozens of politicians on both sides of the fence paying money back. I think every politician knows whenever they travel at public expense that that decision can be expose by a vibrant media on the front page of the newspaper or on shows such as these. And I think that's a great system as it stands.
GREENE: Andrew Leigh, as the member for Fraser in Queensland, perhaps you're not the one to ask about airfares as much but are economy airfares something to consider for MPs travelling short distances?
LEIGH: I’ve made that decision on a personal level, if I'm flying a short-haul flight to Sydney or Melbourne I'll book an economy-class fare and that's, I think, a decision that others can make personally. But I do think that the test that Andrew Laming identifies is absolutely the right one. Is this reasonable in the eyes of the taxpayer? When I look at the refusal of Bronwyn Bishop and Philip Ruddock to repay the costs of travelling up to the wedding of a parliamentary colleague, when I look at Mr Abbott's decision not to repay the cost of privately competing in the Port Macquarie Ironman I do raise an eyebrow. If it's the case that I can do a sporting event just because it's in a marginal electorate, then that means presumably next year I can go up and run the City to Surf in my own personal capacity as long as I pick a hotel to stay the night in that's in a marginal electorate in Sydney. That doesn't seem reasonable.
GREENE: Andrew Laming, are sporting events reasonable things to be claiming travel entitlements for?
LAMING: I'm a strong supporter of senior political leaders being involved in large community events. I’d strongly support politicians competing and participating in events like that. We get to the ridiculous situation where you can sit at the grand final and watch it on entitlement but once you throw a jersey on and participate then you can't. I want to see politicians that do what every-day Australians do, I want to see them at the beach, meeting with the surf club. I want to see them doing events, participating and having a go and you'll find when leaders do that the entire event and entire town is aware of it and has the opportunity to engage those political leaders. I'm a strong supporter of that. The point about travelling economy is interesting. It should be noted discount business airfares are about the same price as the economy tickets that politicians often choose to buy. So the only way to save money for the Commonwealth is to fly on these non-flexible ready deals which are often not taken up by politicians. Just coming out of the business cabin of an aircraft doesn't save much money.
GREENE: Andrew Laming, on that point, in 2011 when you were very critical of then Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd and his overseas travel bill, you suggested Wotif.com and various web specials. Is this something perhaps Julie Bishop could embrace, she could be jumping on Wotif?
LAMING: Certainly I use them and most politicians I suspect do that. I guess, again, it's the public expectation test. Is $7,000 a night reasonable to stay in an overseas hotel or is it 700? Again, it gets the media test and public-interest test to decide those kinds of decisions.
GREENE: So to be clear, politicians should perhaps be looking at online deals?
LAMING: If you're asking me that question, look already in many cases where you’re presented with a global budget then the test for the politician to use the money as well as they can, representing their electorate or nation. So in many cases, in my case in particular as a federal politician, I have a limited pot of travel for family to accompany to Canberra, for instance, and we use that extremely judiciously to maximise the opportunities for my small family to be in Canberra, something I don't enjoy as much as Andrew Leigh who lives in our fine capital. We have a capped amount and use it as well as we can. I make the simple point that where there is a more expeditious way to travel then politicians, I think, are always looking to do that.
GREENE: Before we move on from this topic, we have been asking all MP s have either of you, beginning with Andrew Laming, had a need to update the registry in the past few weeks?
LAMING: No, I haven't but certainly years ago I paid back taxi fares, for instance, in my first year as an MP. I certainly add my name to the list of someone who's paid money back.
LEIGH: I flew to Melbourne last week on an economy fare, was upgraded to business and that's reportable so I reported that upgrade. Just to the broader point though, I think Labor has been very reasonable through this. For example with Mr Abbott's Pollie Pedal event, we haven't said we think that's inappropriate but we have encouraged the Government to look at a broader review of the way in which these entitlements are used. We'd like to see the system tightened up and I'm concerned that there are so many senior members of cabinet that seem to think that it's appropriate, for example, to use parliamentary entitlements to attend weddings or private sporting events. I agree with Andrew Laming, it's great to see parliamentarians competing in sporting events. But I just don't see why the taxpayer needs to foot the bill.
GREENE: Just before we end this evening, we will see the Labor caucus ballot tomorrow, Andrew Leigh, when we move ahead to the front-bench positions. Will you be expecting a call-up?
LEIGH: This is a matter for the caucus. The caucus selects the front bench and that's a decision we'll make collectively. I think that’s a great thing. And one of the things that you notice, if you look through the Labor caucus, you have an absolute wealth of talent. You've got a diversity of experience, people coming in having worked in the public and private sector, having worked as truck drivers and teachers. So we will be spoiled for choice in selecting our front bench in coming days.
GREENE: And on that point we'll have to leave it there. Thank you very much to our guests Andrew Laming in Brisbane, and here in Canberra, Andrew Leigh.
LEIGH: Thanks to the Andrews.
GREENE: That's Capital Hill for now. Good evening.
Breaking Politics - 8 October
BREAKING POLITICS – FAIRFAX MEDIA
TIM LESTER: When is it legitimate for an MP to claim his or her travel expenses on the taxpayer? Going to weddings for example. There are some numerous and now some notorious cases out there. To help us fathom this issues and others, our regular for Monday, joining us this week on a Tuesday because of holidays is Andrew Leigh, the MP for Fraser, Labor MP. Thank you for coming in Andrew.
ANDREW LEIGH: Thanks.
LESTER: Tony Abbott attended weddings several years ago. Now, one of them was Peter Slipper's several years ago now. He claimed the costs. The taxpayers paid for him. He's now paid it back seven years later when the issue surfaces as contentious. Has he done the right thing or the wrong thing?
LEIGH: Mr Abbott's seems to have a fairly expansive view of entitlements and you're beginning to see a bit of a pattern here. Like the Howard Government which had seven ministers resign early on as a result of various scandals including travel expenses scandals. There are now four Coalition cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister who are under investigation here. I guess what worries me is that if they're taking that sort of approach to these cases that we know about, what approach do they take to public expenses more broadly? That plays into a broader question over schemes such as paid parental leave which I think demonstrate an even more cavalier approach to the public finances.
LESTER: So, the various cases of weddings that we've seen here where these MPs have gone along and claimed on the taxpayer, they should not have done that?
LEIGH: I certainly don't believe so. I mean it's great to see Coalition MPs going to weddings. They’re so excited by them, you wonder how they can be against same-sex marriage. But this strikes me as an entirely personal matter and I'm surprised they've claimed for it.
LESTER: So, let me check that you're confident about your own circumstances, you wouldn't have comparable claims for private events..?
LEIGH: Certainly nothing that I am aware of Tim.
LESTER: So, how common is the practice of MPs claiming expenses from what are pretty clearly private events.
LEIGH: Well, everyone applies the rules themselves. You simply call up and book a flight and it's a matter of members of parliament making sure that they're exercising due concern when they're doing it and that they are not, for example, claiming something that's really substantively of a private nature or attempting to make a private expense look like a public expense.
LESTER: So, do you believe these cases that we're seeing are rare or normal?
LEIGH: I certainly hope they're rare. I'm pleased to see they've been paid back. But let's be clear about why we're here Tim. Mr Abbott has spent the last few years calling in the Australian Federal Police whenever there's any suggestion that someone has misused their entitlements. It's him who has suggested that this ought to be escalated to a criminal matter in other cases, and now he shouldn't be surprised when the chickens come home to roost.
LESTER: Peter Slipper has fallen from the speaker of the House of Representatives to political ruin, not even in the house of reps anymore based on a claim of a little more than $900. I know there might be some legal technical differences here. But where's the moral difference between what Peter Slipper did and what's been done now and numerous other cases?
LEIGH: Well, that's a matter for the Australian Federal Police as to where they choose to investigate and where they don't.
LESTER: [Is there] A moral difference?
LEIGH: As a parliamentarian, I'm pretty careful with what I do with my entitlements and I can understand Peter Slipper being somewhat surprised to see that Mr Abbott has now been able to repay travel expenses to attend Mr Slipper's wedding, but the same opportunity wasn't given to Mr Slipper. They're different circumstances. The federal police have treated them differently, but I can understand Mr Slipper's concerns.
LESTER: Can you understand the public scratching their heads and going, you know, there's a double standard here.
LEIGH: I can. I suspect Mr Slipper doesn't attract more public sympathy than the typical member of parliament, but I certainly think that it's important that we're frugal in our travel expenses. For my own part, I try to save money, certainly, by taking economy class short flights where I can. I don't think that I need to be booking business class flights if I'm going to Sydney or Melbourne for example. And that seems to me a reasonable action if you're trying to minimise the cost to the tax-payer.
LESTER: Couple of other issues before we let you go. How dangerous is the US government impasse for the world economy and therefore for us in Australia?
LEIGH: It's a very serious issue Tim. We're going to see an impact on the US government's day-to-day activities, but then there's also the looming debt ceiling issue that's coming up. That's frankly pretty terrifying because the notion of the world's largest economy defaulting on its creditors is almost too large to behold. The US Democrats have been quoting back to their Republican colleagues the words of Ronald Reagan - who spoke about what a disaster it would be if the US defaulted on its debts. But this is something of a pattern: we saw in Australia last year the Coalition saying that Australia should be reluctant to raise its debt ceiling. A position which I now see Mr Hockey has back-flipped on. When Wayne Swan referred to the ‘cranks and crazies’ in the Tea Party, Mr Abbott was quick to slap him down. I'd be surprised if Mr Abbott takes the same view of Tea Party Republicans since they've stopped Barack Obama meeting him at APEC.
LESTER: Should Australians be deeply worried about what's going on in the United States for the sake of Australia, let alone the US?
LEIGH: US debt default is extremely concerning. That's the deadline that's approaching and that has a massive effect on consumer confidence around the world. The difference between this, of course, and what's going on in Europe is that in Europe, you have economic fundamentals. You have extremely high debt loads, unsustainable public finances, where debts as a share of GDP are ten times Australia's and more. But in the US, this is just entirely avoidable. The US Republican House leadership simply needs to allow a vote to take place, and as I understand it, there are the numbers in the House for a budget bill to pass.
LESTER: OK, how feasible is it for the Abbott government, do you think, to quickly negotiate a free-trade deal with Beijing?
LEIGH: I'd like to see a free-trade agreement concluded. We were aware when Labor was in government that one of the key issues was a desire on the Chinese side to see more access to being able to invest in Australia. The problem Mr Abbott has is he went to the last election saying that he would lower the foreign investment review board threshold on Chinese enterprises. That's going in the opposite direction from what the Chinese want. I suspect that's going to be a major sticking point if not entirely a stumbling block in these negotiations.
LESTER: What, the Coalition's difficulty on foreign investment?
LEIGH: That's right, and you understand why the Coalition finds itself in this spot. They have the agrarian socialists in the National Party pushing very strongly against foreign investment. When foreign investment over a 30 year period grew from 5.9 to 6 per cent of Australian farms, Barnaby Joyce said it was an ‘exponential’ increase. So when you've got that sort of scare-mongering around ‘the Chinese buying up our farms’, as they say, it's very hard for the sensible economic wing of the Coalition to pursue policies that are in Australia's national interest - getting more investment into Australia and allowing more trade with other countries.
LESTER: To close, Tony Abbott said yesterday that those who wish to protest the West Papuan cause against Jakarta are not welcome in Australia. They need not bother; they need not carry out those protests. This at a time when a new report has suggested that genocide is going on, and has been going on in West Papua. Is Tony Abbott going too far in ruling out the expression of free speech in this country, or is he right to protect our relationship with Jakarta in this way?
LEIGH: Our relationship with Indonesia is a vital one. But I think we do ourselves a disservice if we try and clamp down on issues of human rights in order to preserve relationships with other countries. If we look back into history we can see examples of South African and East Timorese protesters being able to exercise their rights of free speech in Australia. West Papua is an enormously complex issue. But I think Mr Abbott should be careful in stepping on the rights of others to free speech. He has spoken of that right to him personally in the past and the right to free speech includes the right to protest against your government in your own country and overseas. If Mr Abbott believes in that right to free speech he needs to respect it, even and especially in the case of causes that are unpopular and that he disagrees with.
LESTER: So, you'd say to the West Papuan activists, 'Go for it'?
LEIGH: There's a right to protest in Australia. There's a right to have your voice heard. Australia is a country that ought to welcome a diversity of issues, particularly on complicated foreign policy questions.
LESTER: Andrew Leigh, as always, we're grateful for your time.
LEIGH: Thanks Tim.
ENDS
Sky AM Agenda - 7 October 2013
On Sky AM Agenda, I spoke with host Laura Jayes and Liberal minister Mitch Fifield about the Coalition's odd policy of liberalising trade and restricting foreign investment, and about the four cabinet members who have claimed travel allowance to attend weddings.http://www.youtube.com/v/ABkxsHm2rtQ?version=3&hl=en_US
Where to Next for Labor?
Legislation Shows Labor Stamp on National Identity, The Chronicle, 1 October 2013
In my lifetime, Federal Labor has only lost office on three occasions: 1975, 1996 and 2013. Unlike 1975 and 1996, the last election did not see Canberrans electing any Coalition members to the House of Representatives. So like Labor supporters across Australia, the typical Canberran is probably feeling a little bruised by the election result.
So the question for the ALP and our supporters is: where do we go next?
In answering this, I’m guided by the stories of two women who spoke to me last month. Joyce, an octogenarian from Ainslie, wrote to say that she remembered living through the Great Depression as a child. She wanted me to know how grateful she was to the government for preventing Australia going through a similar slump in 2008-09.
And then there’s Deb, whose carer pushed her wheelchair up to me on polling day, when I was handing out at Lyneham Primary School, so she could simply say: ‘Thank you for DisabilityCare’.
Joyce and Deb helped remind me that Labor in office did a great deal that was right. Saving hundreds of thousands of people from unemployment was worthwhile, even if we did have to take on some debt to do it. DisabilityCare is a vital part of our social safety net, recognising that each of us is just a ‘shaft of fate’ away from a permanent impairment.
Likewise, Labor was right to put a price on carbon, reducing emissions at the lowest cost. We were right to campaign for – and win – a seat on the United Nations Security Council. And history will judge us well for finally apologising to the Stolen Generations.
Labor would not have performed better if its policies were closer to those of the Greens Party. Nationwide, the Greens Party vote was down 3 percent, perhaps reflecting the electorate’s harsh judgement of a party who voted against the Murray Darling Basin Plan and whose unfair paid parental leave plan looked a lot like that of the Coalition.
But neither does the solution lie in becoming ‘Liberal Lite’. Since Labor was founded in 1891, our party has played a unique role in Australian politics. Our role is to develop new ideas and forge new solutions. What is known internationally as ‘the Australian model’ is in many respects ‘the Labor model’. From the age pension to Medicare, floating the dollar to superannuation, expanding university places to capital gains taxation, Labor reforms have helped shape Australia for the better. It would be a grievous mistake for the ALP to descend into negativity.
So over the next three years, you can expect to see Labor both holding the government to account, but also proposing positive solutions. And as your local representative in Parliament House, I’ll be continuing to take your ideas and concerns up wherever I get the opportunity. If I can help, don’t hesitate to give me a call or drop me an email. I’d love to hear from you.
Andrew Leigh is the federal member for Fraser. His phone number is 6247 4396 and his email is Andrew.Leigh.MP{@}aph.gov.au.
Conversation with Michelle Grattan
ABC24 Capital Hill - 3 October 2013
E&OE
ANDREW GREENE: Now to our panel, joining me in the Parliament House studio is the newly elected Liberal senator Zed Seselja, and joining us from Melbourne today is Labor MP Andrew Leigh. Welcome to you both.
ANDREW LEIGH: Thanks Andrew.
Let's begin with the new-look NBN board and the Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has put his own mark on NBN Co's management appointing former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski to the role of Chairman.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: In appointing Dr Switkowski to the board as Chairman, we have appointed one of the most experienced telecom executives in Australia. This has been a shockingly misconceived exercise in - wasteful exercise in public policy. We are endeavouring to recover value for it and get the job completed as quickly and cost effectively as we can.
GREENE: Andrew Leigh, could you firstly, I would assume that as a former Telstra boss, would you be consider Ziggy Switkowski well qualified to be running the NBN?
LEIGH: I've certainly got no issue with Mr Switkowski's competence and ability to handle complicated issues. But I would take some issues. But I would take some issue with Malcolm Turnbull's characterisation of the National Broadband Network. This is the equivalent of the Snowy Hydro scheme, of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, of the rail networks and road networks of generations gone by. The reason that Labor constructed a National Broadband Network with fibre to the home is that when you're running signals down glass, the speeds can increase and increase as compression technology gets better. But if you stop that glass at the cabinet down the street and do the last stretch to the home with copper you get an inferior signal. You can't conduct a video conference in the same high definition pictures that your viewers are seeing at the moment.
GREENE: Your views on the NBN are really known in terms of what the coalition is doing, but you certainly have no quibbles with what's been announced today?
LEIGH: I'm not sure it was necessary to overhaul the board to the extent that Mr Turnbull did. I think the board appointed by Labor was a highly competent board and I'd be interested if Zed had views to the contrary.
GREENE: We'll go to Zed on that. Is that a fair assessment from Andrew Leigh?
LEIGH: I think firstly it's an excellent appointment. I think that Dr Switkowski brings a wealth of experience. I think we'll do an outstanding job in what's a very challenging area. It's not just a challenging area of the breadth of this as an infrastructure project. It's a very challenging area because it hasn't been handled well to date. There wasn't proper cost benefit done at the start of this process.
GREENE: Did that justify getting rid of most of existing board?
SESELJA: Well, look, I think it's reasonable for an incoming communications minister to make judgements about who he believes are the best people. In the end it's going to be Malcolm Turnbull and this coalition government that needs to answer for the roll-out going forward and how it's managed from here. We're certainly not responsible for what has happened up to now and we know that there have been significant problems with this roll-out. Now, much of that goes down to the
government. The government made some very poor decisions at the start. They rushed many of these decisions. We know that they had a much smaller process in mind initially and then they very quickly changed, without doing the necessary work.
GREENE: Do you find it hard to explain to people in the ACT, the Territory you represent, that they won't be getting fibre to they won't be getting fibre to the home?
SESELJA: Well, I think people in the ACT, what they will be getting is they will be getting fast broadband much more quickly. What they would've been seeing under the NBN plan of Labor and that's even if we were to believe their roll-out figures, most of which were never achieved but if they had proceeded with that , people in Canberra, people in the south of Canberra in particular, would've been waiting for years longer and paying much more at the end of that. Under the Coalition's plan, they won't be waiting as long and they will be paying less for their product. So they will be getting value for money. That's what they will be getting from the coalition.
GREENE: We'll get your response to that Andrew Leigh. Is it a faster delivery of a project that was having some troubles while Labor was in power?
LEIGH: During the election, we ran a forum which Zed and I were present at. I asked those in the room to raise their hands in they didn't want fibre to the home. Two people out of a packed lecture theatre raised their hands. That I think reflects that people recognise that this is an essential technology for Australia in the 21st century. And that stopping it will generate a digital divide in our suburbs. There's going to be suburbs in the ACT like Downer who are just on the edge of the roll-out schedule, who won't get to see super fast broadband, and whose house prices on average will be about $5,000 lower as a result of not having the National Broadband Network. That will be replicated right across the country.
GREENE: If we stay with your side of politics now and Labor has decided to extend the deadline for rank-and-file members to vote on the party's leadership. The official cut-off was Wednesday, but the candidates Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten had both today called for an extension.
ANTHONY ALBANESE: I'm aware that some of the mail houses where the Labor Party is sending out the ballot papers have been slow. I'm certainly calling for the ballot to be extended by at least a couple of days so that people in regional Queensland or people in Western Australia still have the chance to fully participate. The caucus meeting should also be delayed? Don't know if that's necessary. That will be a decision made by the caucus chair and the returning officer. But we do have a bit have a bit of room to move in terms of the members being able to get their ballot papers in a couple of days longer than was otherwise scheduled to do. There is that capacity without unduly delaying the whole process.
GREENE: So just to recap - the extension has now seen the deadline shifted from Wednesday to Friday for Labor's rank and file members. Andrew, there have been some grumblings, certainly publicly and privately, about this whole situation, that is a result of the changes Kevin Rudd brought in. Is it indicative now that we're seeing a few problems with the actual voting process that perhaps this process isn't entirely welcome?
LEIGH: I think that this is a good development today, Andrew. I would still urge Labor Party members watching your program to get their return ballot papers back in the mail as quickly as possible. But this gives us an extra two days for those ballot papers to get back to the Labor Party National Secretariat.
GREENE: Who would you be urging people to tick on that ballot paper?
LEIGH: I have spoken to both Mr Albanese and Mr Shorten and made clear to them who I will be supporting, but I'm not talking about that publicly. In part because I want my members to have the freedom to make a different decision from me. Both candidates gave excellent preparations in forums in the ACT. They've been hitting the phones to ACT branch members and as a result, there are now Labor Party members across Australia who've been directly canvassed by potential leaders for the Labor Party. I don't think Liberal Party can say the same. I challenge Mr Seselja to identify a regular rank-and-file Liberal Party member who's been phoned at home by Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott asking for their support. But that's strengthened our party. It's meant that we're a party now where more and more people are joining and where Labor Party people, members, feel included in the process.
GREENE: Zed Seselja would you take up that invitation and would you like to one day see that happen in the Liberal Party as well?
SESELJA: Well, let's look at why this came about. I mean this came about because the Labor Party kept sacking its leaders. So this wasn't about empowering the rank-and-file. This was Kevin Rudd's gift to the party on his way out, where he said he didn't want to be rolled in the same way that he'd been rolled in the past.
GREENE: The last Liberal leadership ballot Tony Abbott prevailed by one vote. Would it have been helpful for the party to say have the rank-and-file and have a voice as well?
SESELJA: I'm not convinced that after the loss of an election or in other periods where there's a majority who call for a spill that one month or more of a political party talking about itself, which is what we're seeing from the Labor Party, is necessarily the best thing. So look, the Labor Party can choose to conduct its affairs as it sees fit. It is talking about itself a lot now post-election. The Liberal Party has its processes. I don't see any particular reason why we'd follow the Labor Party on this, given it really did came about because they kept sacking prime ministers.
GREENE: If we can stick with the Liberal Party today in the ACT, a former President, Gary Kent, has resigned from the party. Partly in disgust at the process that saw you disappointed at that development?
SESELJA: No, look, I'm not and I said some months ago, I said that people who want to skiff then bag the Liberal Party publicly should consider whether they want to continue to be part of the Liberal Party. It's one thing to make constructive improvements and to have debates, it's another thing to go out there consistently and publicly bag the party which you belong to. I think in the end, people who clearly have those sort of ongoing significant differences probably should consider their positions and clearly that's what Mr Kent has done. Gary Humphries, a lot of people have a lot of respect for his time here in the parliament.
GREENE: Is there a role for Gary Humphries in public life? Would you like to see him given a role by Tony Abbott?
SESELJA: Yes there is. I think that, I'm one of the people who respects Gary Humphries. We had a debate and we had a pre-selection process, and that was a difficult one. But Gary Humphries has made a great contribution to the Senate, to the ACT Assembly and so I'm sure that there'd be many
roles, many roles that he would be suited to and very well suited to.
GREENE: You're already in the senate, but when the senate changes over in July, the Coalition will need to negotiate with the Palmer United Party and senators from several micro parties if Labor and the Greens block legislation. Already the government's senate Leader Eric Abetz has made contact with each cross-bench senator and today he was making friendly noises towards the new Palmer United Party senators who will join the upper house in the middle of next year.
ERIC ABETZ: I think they will bring various life experiences to the Senate, and when you have a look at Mr Wang from Western Australia, Ms Lambie from Tasmania and Mr Lazarus from Queensland, different life experiences, different life experiences, different backgrounds, and they will undoubtedly add to the wealth of experience that will be represented in the Senate after the 1 July.
GREENE: To you, again, Zed Seselja - it's going to be like herding cats isn't it after July?
SESELJA: No, not at all. I mean obviously there's a range of parties that have got representation and that is our electoral system. Can I say it's great to have another Canberran in Glenn Lazarus coming back to the senate. He's someone who's well known here in Canberra. I think pretty well respected for the role he played here for the Canberra Raiders and as a national icon.
GREENE: Does that make him qualified for parliament?
SESELJA: Well, he qualified for Parliament because he got elected by the people. So that's the ultimate qualification for Parliament. I don't think that we should say that certain people from certain backgrounds don't belong in our Parliament. I think that people make a contribution, someone like Glenn Lazarus has made a great contribution in sport. I'm sure he will be looking to make a very strong contribution. The people of Queensland have given him their support and I look forward to working with him.
GREENE: Andrew Leigh, do you envisage the Labor Party embracing the likes of Palmer United, perhaps even Family First as you work to perhaps block pieces of legislation next year?
LEIGH: We'll obviously deal respectfully with all members of parliament but I think for us, we know very clearly what we stand for and what we bring to the parliament. We'll be looking to hold the Abbott Government to account on things like his attempt to hide the boats, to hide the budget update, to hide his ministers from public view or even to hide his Indonesian press conference from local journalists. Those sort of issues are ones which an opposition ought to be appropriately scrutinising, as well as working to develop policy for the next term. Labor occupies a unique role in Australian public life. We have traditionally been the key generator of policy ideas and it's important that we continue to do that.
GREENE: But what about some of the policy ideas Tony Abbott has put out there? Is it already time for the Labor Party to start considering support for schemes like the paid parental leave scheme?
LEIGH: I'd find it difficult to see a circumstance in which we would back a scheme which is five times as generous for a millionaire family as it is for a family on minimum wage. At worst, you've typically seen in the past conservative governments offering tax cuts to the top and taking away benefits from the bottom. This time they're doing that but on top of that they're offering additional
benefits to those at the top.
SESELJA: On paid parental leave – Andrew, here in Canberra [he] knows that around about 50% of the workforce gets access to a pay replacement scheme through the public service. I think that's a good thing. Fifty per cent of the workforce in the private sector doesn't. Why is that fair? Why is it that people who work for small business not to have their wages replace and only get the minimum wage? It's pertinent right around the country. I think here in Canberra, we see it particularly. If you accept that it's reasonable for public servants to get their wages replaced when they go on parental leave, as I do, then why is it not reasonable for people who work for small businesses?
GREENE: Before we go on, we have some breaking news on the Western Australian Senate count, and the Australian Electoral Commission in that State has announced that there will not be a recount, so Senator Scott Ludlam appears now to have lost his seat. Do you welcome that decision?
SESELJA: Look, it's obviously very close. It's a decision for the electoral commission. So I respect their processes. It will obviously be very disappointing for the Greens to have lost a senator in WA. But you know, there are new senators who have been elected, so in the end these things are tough, when it's that close when you're only talking about a few votes but I'm sure the electoral commission has considered all of these arguments clearly.
GREENE: Andrew Leigh, briefly to you, is the Parliament a poorer place with the loss of Scott Ludlam.
LEIGH: I always got on well with Senator Ludlam. But certainly I am very pleased to see my colleague Louise Pratt returned. Louise brings a wealth of experience to the parliament. She was one of those who argued passionately around same-sex marriage and around the reforms that Labor put in place to help transgender people. So having Louise back in the Labor Party room is something I welcome a great deal. I think I will be calling her 'Landslide Louise' after this one.
GREENE: Andrew, while we have you there, we should also look at the issue of paid parking, which today there has been an announcement here at Parliament that from next year, all visitors to Australia's Parliament will now have to pay for parking. Is that a fair concept for people wanting to see the house of government?
LEIGH: I will be watching with interest to see how the new government manages to implement this policy. It's going to be a complicated one to ensure fairness through the many employees who work in Parliament House. I will be consulting with my Labor colleagues and also encouraging those who are affected, whether they're members of the media, Labor staffers, Green staffers, even Coalition staffers to share their views with me about how this decision of the government is affecting them.
GREENE: This was a decision that began in the last budget which was handed down by Labor. Zed Seselja, do you support people from interstate, overseas, wherever having to pay for parking when they visit parliament?
SESELJA: I'm concerned about it. I think this is the people's house. Just today I was at the front of Parliament House and seeing tourists taking pictures, families there. We should make it as accessible as possible and this is a flow-on of the decision to implement paid parking in the Parliamentary Triangle. I would urge the government to actually reconsider this policy, because I think that it wasn't thought through by Labor and by bringing it in when they're planning to, I think
there could be some negative consequences.
Brendan Nelson has already highlighted the impact on the War Memorial, for instance. So the impact on our national institutions of this policy is real. I think we need to think through more how this might impact and what I don't want to see is people finding it more difficult to access their institutions because in the end, it's the Australian people who own the parliament and the War Memorial and these other great institutions.
GREENE: While you're lobbying your leader Tony Abbott have you had any more word own the ACT's same-sex marriage legislation?
SESELJA: No, look, there's no update on that. Obviously we know that Tony Abbott has said that George Brandis is seeking legal advice on that. I think that that is an important process. That we consider whether or not the ACT Assembly does have the constitutional ability to actually legislate for marriage, a power specifically listed as belonging to the federal parliament. My views on this are well known. The Coalition's views have been clear for a long time. But in this instance, what needs to be considered is, does the ACT Assembly have the ability, the constitutional power to actually legislate for marriage?
GREENE: Unfortunately, that is all we have time for tonight, we'd like to thank our guests here in Canberra, the Liberal senator Zed Seselja and in Melbourne, Andrew Leigh. Thanks very much. Thanks Andrew, thanks Zed. Thanks for your company tonight.
ENDS