Andrew Leigh

With the ALP National Conference in full force this weekend, I'm pretty sure that I'm the only person with an article both in the journals of the left (Challenge) and the right (Voice).

The Voice piece is just a few hundred words, and it's below.

Policy Ideas for Labor - Randomised Policy Trials
Voice, Summer 2011

In politics, there are few hotter potatoes than drug laws. So when the NSW Labor Government in 1999 was faced with a suggestion that it deal with drug offenders through a ‘Drug Court’, there were plenty of vocal opponents. To deal with the challenge, the government did something that was both smart policy and clever politics: it set up a randomised trial.

Like a randomised medical trial, offenders were assigned to the treatment or control groups by the toss of a coin, making the two groups basically identical at the outset. A couple of years later, it was clear that those who went through the Drug Court were much less likely to reoffend than people who went through the traditional judicial process.

Internationally, randomised trials of early childhood intervention, job training, housing vouchers, health insurance and microcredit have produced similarly valuable results. Farmers have used randomised evaluations for centuries, while medical randomised trials date back to James Lind’s 1747 experiment showing that citrus fruits cure scurvy.

We should not lightly dismiss ethical concerns about randomised policy trials, but they are often overplayed. Many government policies are surely ineffective, and some may even be harming the people they were intended to help. Part of the reason is that we mostly use low-quality evaluations rather than randomised policy trials.

Like other forms of evaluation, randomised trials have their limitations. But my best estimate is that less than 1 per cent of all government evaluations are randomised trials (excluding health and traffic evaluations, the proportion is probably less than 0.1 per cent). Given that you can’t get a new pharmaceutical approved in Australia without a randomised trial, it seems odd that hardly any policies are subject to randomised trials. One option would be to learn from the US, where federal legislation sometimes sets aside funding for states to conduct randomised evaluations.

What we need in Australian policy today is not more ideologues, convinced that their prescriptions are the answer, but modest reformers willing to try new solutions, and discover whether they actually deliver results. As Labor Party members, we must always remember that what defines us is the light on the hill, not a particular path up the mountain. As US judge Learned Hand famously said, ‘The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right’.

Andrew Leigh is the federal member for Fraser. Web: www.andrewleigh.com.

With the parliamentary year having wrapped up, I thought I'd post another call for potential interns and fellows. Details here (or below).

In particular, I'm interested in students with data-crunching skills (eg. someone with one or two semesters of econometrics under their belt). There are a couple of empirical projects I'm keen to try out.

When I was 16, I did two weeks’ work experience for John Langmore, who was then the member for Fraser. It was the first year that the new Parliament House had been opened, and I remember getting hopelessly lost as I went on errands around the building. I’m not sure how much of an impression I made on John (he didn’t remember me when we met again a decade on), but the experience had a profound impact on me – as I learned a ton about the issues and personalities that drove politics in that era.

Over the past year, I’ve been fortunate to have several people help out as volunteers in my office, assisting me with speeches and submissions, helping solve constituent problems, answering the phone, and assisting with campaigning activities.

So I thought it might be useful to put out a formal call for interns and fellows.

Keen to apply? See the FAQs below.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the criteria?

Enthusiasm, intelligence, and an interest in helping shape progressive ideas.

How long are the placements?

It depends on you. My office can accommodate anything from a week to a couple of months (though longer stints would probably need to be part-time). We will only have one intern/fellow at a time.

What would I gain?

A unique insight into parliament and constituent engagement.

What can you supply?

We can’t promise anything more than a desk and a chair. You’ll probably need to bring your own laptop.You may be working at either the electorate office in Braddon, the Parliament House office, or both.

What’s the difference between a fellow and an intern?

A fellow will complete a piece of writing – which is likely to be a submission or a report. School work experience students are likely to work as interns, while graduate students are likely to work as fellows. Undergraduate students could take either role, depending on their skills and interests.

How do I apply?

Email andrew.leigh.mp <asperand> aph.gov.au with a one-page CV setting out your experience and skills, plus a covering email saying why you’d like the position and what period you’d like to work. Either I or my overworked chief of staff Louise Crossman will get back to you within two weeks. It would be helpful to contact us at least a month before you’d like to start volunteering.

Andrew Leigh & ASSA President Barry McGaw at the ASSA New Fellows Dinner and presentation.

I gave a keynote address this afternoon to the ANU Crawford School's PhD student conference. I'll post the video when it becomes available, but I promised the audience that I'd post on my website now the ten economics papers that I'd like to read. (Since my production of research has tailed off lately, the least I can do is to suggest papers I want others to write!)

Politics:

1. Why are people in urban areas more left-wing? Is this selection or causation?

2. Do children of politicians make better politicians?

3. Is the frequency of an opposition leader’s media conferences negatively correlated with consumer confidence?

Microeconomics:

4. What is the elasticity of taxable income with respect to the marginal rate? How does it change across the distribution?

5. What is the deadweight cost of taxation? (Our current estimates are over a decade old, and this critical number needs updating.)

6. How do childcare, school, university and hospital reporting affect outcomes?

Macroeconomics:

7. How well does a Taylor Rule fit RBA decisions?

8. How accurate are business sector economic forecasters?

9. How much do GDP announcements affect the sharemarket? (using GDP measurement errors as an IV)

10. How do international events affect the exchange rate channel of monetary policy?

Lyndal Curtis hosted me and Michaelia Cash on the Capital Hill program yesterday evening. Topics discussed include Labor's plan for the Murray-Darling Basin, the Australian Labor Party national conference and how to involve party members, along with Tony Abbott's statement about only the "right kids" staying at school until year 12.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/7Cv1x4JE2XE

A report in today's Herald Sun returns to an economics paper that Chikako Yamauchi and I put out in the public domain in 2009, and which garnered quite a bit of coverage when I presented it to the December 2009 LSAC conference. The basic findings of the paper are:

• the differences in behaviour between kids in parental and non-parental care are small;


• there isn't 'one effect' of daycare - it differs across socioeconomic groups; and


• kids appear to do a smidgin better in daycare centres with smaller ratios.

If you're interested in the paper (or would like to see our application of the Altonji-Elder-Todd approach of using selection on observables in order to gauge the potential importance of unobservables bias), it's available here.

Due to the popularity of the 4x6 metre 'Big Tent' among local community groups, I've now bought a second marquee. The younger sibling is a smidgin smaller at 3x3 metres, and fits in a regular sedan with the front seat down. (The bigger one requires a station wagon or similar.)

If your community organisation would like to borrow one (or both!), just email me at andrew.leigh.mp <AT> aph.gov.au, or phone 6247 4396.

Pictures of the two tents are below (small at the top, large at the bottom).





And of course, we also have a PA system for loan.

I spoke in parliament today about the new national memorials report (and as it was my last speech for the year, thanked my staff, volunteers, interns and family).

National Capital and External Territories Committee Report
24 November 2011

National memorials are a crucial part of the nation's collective memory. They bind a nation together through one of the most powerful of unifying forces—shared history. The National Memorials Ordinance 1928 came about at a time when Canberra's population was under 10,000, and Lake Burley Griffin was just lines on a map. It was instigated by Prime Minister Stanley Bruce when parliament had just moved to Canberra and rapid development was underway in the new national capital. The recommendations arising from the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories into the administration of the National Memorials Ordinance 1928 reflect Canberra's transformed milieu and how Australia's management and use of national memorials can be improved.

In seeking to improve the management of the capital's national memorials, the committee found it instructive to look at the case of Washington DC. Washington, like Canberra, is both a national capital and a planned city. Both are sites for the expression of the national aspirations of their people. Both are governed by a detailed planning regime that balances the legacies of the past with the needs of the present and the potential of the future. Part of the challenge is in choosing appropriate subjects for commemoration and choosing suitable designs and locations for new monuments and memorials. This process must balance the competing desires and interests of the different stakeholders.

We on the committee found that one of the key strengths of the Washington model is that the planning stage involves broad constituencies. Washington's National Capital Planning Commission has 12 members, representing federal and local constituencies. Each member represents a different section of the community and brings different perspectives. No one entity dominates the process.

As many Canberra residents made clear in their submissions to the inquiry, the need for local consultation and input in the development of national memorials is paramount. While memorials and monuments are of national significance, Canberrans live with the consequences of their designs and management on a daily basis.

The committee recommended, as the member for Riverina has pointed out, that the National Memorials Ordinance 1928 be repealed and replaced with an Australian commemorative works act, based on the United States model. The act would provide for a two-pass assessment process for national memorials—the first pass focused on commemorative intent, the second pass on character and locations. Time does not permit me to go into the detail of our recommendations, but I commend what is a very bipartisan report to the House.

I would like to use this opportunity to thank the committee secretariat, particularly Peter Stephens and the indefatigable William Pender, for their work on this report. To the many Canberrans and representatives of national organisations who took the time to put together submissions for the inquiry, to give evidence and to engage so deeply with this process: thank you.

As this is perhaps my last parliamentary speech for the year, I would also like to use this chance to briefly thank my hardworking staff, Louise Crossman, Gus Little, Claire Daly, Lyndell Tutty, Ruth Stanfield and Nick Terrell, as well as my team of terrific volunteers, including Ken Maher, Barbara Phi, Alex Dixon, and Gerry Lloyd. I would also like to thank the interns who have worked in my office during the year, including Hariharan Thirunavukkarasu, Louisa Detez, Angela Winkle, Jessica Woodall, Huw Pohlner and William Isdale.

I am pretty sure that after our 3 am finish on Wednesday I was the only MP who was woken at 6 am by a four-year-old entering the bedroom. My two wonderful boys, Theodore and Sebastian, are more than a full-time job, and I would like to acknowledge my extraordinary wife, Gweneth, as well as my parents, Barbara and Michael, for all their help during the year. Our families bear much of the burden of this job, and I could not do it without them.

I spoke in parliament today about cancer research and the Ben Donohoe Run and Walk for Fun.

Ben Donohoe Fun Run, Capital Region Cancer Centre
24 November 2011

Ben Donohoe was a sports-loving, caring and intelligent nine-year-old boy who lived with his parents, Robyn and Peter, and siblings, Luke, Lauren and Kate. An active boy who particularly loved cricket and soccer, he played every sport. He also loved his music and would sing and dance around his bedroom to the sounds of Shrek, Robbie Williams and Shannon Noll. Ben attended Latham Primary School and was in year 4 when he was diagnosed with a brain tumour on 10 June 2005. When he became sick, his mother Robyn would often ask him if there was anything she could get for him and Ben would simply say, 'Just a cuddle.' That is a testament to his caring nature. Despite an operation to remove the tumour and despite Ben's determination, the tumour was too aggressive. Ben passed away on 2 August 2005, less than eight weeks after being diagnosed.

Now in its seventh year, the Ben Donohoe Run and Walk for Fun has raised over $220,000 for the ACT Eden Monaro Cancer Support Group, Make-A-Wish Australia and Brain Tumour Australia. This has greatly helped in supporting families affected by cancer and bringing hope and joy to the lives of seriously ill children. The Ben Donohoe Run and Walk for Fun is now one of the largest fun runs in the region. On 6 November, a team from my office ran the six-kilometre circuit around Lake Ginninderra with almost 2½ thousand others who helped raise over $65,000.

Cancer patients in the ACT and surrounding region will also benefit from a new Capital Region Cancer Centre. When completed in late 2013, the new centre will improve cancer treatment by drawing together and integrating cancer services including chemotherapy, radiation therapy, haematology, immunology, research and teaching programs, within a single five-storey building on the Canberra Hospital campus. The Capital Region Cancer Centre is part of a $2 billion Australian government initiative to build a world-class cancer care system. It was my pleasure on 2 November to be part of a sod-turning with the Minister for Health and Ageing; Katy Gallagher, the Chief Minister of the ACT; the member for Canberra and Senator Lundy. The Capital Region Cancer Centre will service around half a million people across the ACT and surrounding regions by providing access to screening, assessment, diagnostic treatment and palliative care services.

I would like to thank the organisers of the Ben Donohoe run, and members of the 'Leigh team', who wore T-shirts emblazoned with my name and joined me on the day—Damien Hickman, Gus Little, Claire Daly, Jules Zanetti, Angela Winkle, Karina Leys, Jess Woodall, Alex Cubis and Eleanor Cubis. Next year's Run and Walk for Fun will be on Sunday, 4 November 2012. I look forward to doing another lap of the lake and encourage all Canberrans to take part.