Andrew Leigh

Parliament this afternoon chose to debate a Matter of Public Importance that I'd proposed.

My MPI was 'The urgent need for market-based reforms and for strict and transparent budgeting'. Here's my speech.

Matter of Public Importance - 'The urgent need for market-based reforms and for strict and transparent budgeting'
13 March 2012

Today's matter of public importance is on the need for market based reforms and the need for strict and transparent budgeting. I want to start by talking about market based mechanisms in dealing with environmental challenges. This used to be a pretty controversial area, and in fact the first person to raise it was none other than George HW Bush, who suggested that we might deal with environmental challenges by putting a price on the externality. He faced objections, but the objections at that time came from the Left. It was those on the progressive side of politics who took some time to come around.

But, from the very beginning, as you can see in such important documents as the honours thesis of the member for Flinders, the Right was signed on. The Right understood intuitively that this was a good way of harnessing market based mechanisms, that the choice of market based mechanisms would provide a more effective way of dealing with environmental challenges. That view still holds sway among conservatives in many countries. If you go to the United Kingdom, you will find a conservative party committed to the use of market based mechanisms to deal with climate change. If you go across the ditch to New Zealand, you will see the same thing: conservatives who understand that price mechanisms beat direct action. It was true in Australia when those opposite went to the 2007 election promising to put a price on carbon pollution, and it was true until that famous tipping point in Australian politics, the one vote in the coalition party room that tipped the coalition from good economics into populism.

When it comes to water pricing, the coalition rejects the use of water markets. But, of course, it was not always this way. Moves towards water markets were enhanced when the member for Wentworth was the relevant minister under the Howard government and when he was the Leader of the Opposition he supported carbon pricing as the most efficient way of dealing with climate change. But it is not just in the area of market based reforms that this side of the House are the free marketeers. When it comes to listening to economists it is the Gillard government that takes economic advice when it comes to preparing our budget. And when it is pointed out to the Leader of the Opposition that he cannot find a single economist to back his direct action scheme, he attacks Australian economists. When he finds that he cannot find a single Treasury official who is willing to back his election costings, he goes and attacks Treasury.

Let us go through what happens with the coalition's 2010 election costings. When they went to the last election the coalition used a private accounting firm, WHK Horwath and the member for North Sydney said at the time that the two accountants from that firm had certified 'in law that our numbers are accurate'. He told ABC Radio in November 2010:

'If the fifth-biggest accounting firm in Australia signs off on our numbers it is a brave person to start saying there are accounting tricks.'

And he said:

'I tell you it is audited. This is an audited statement.'

The member for Goldstein strongly vouched for the costings, saying they were 'as good as you could get anywhere in the country, including in Treasury'. But, in fact, we now know that that document was a one-page report produced two days out from the election and it was the result of a carefully worded agreement between the accountants and the coalition to produce work that would be primarily not of an audit nature. As Peter Martin pointed out in the Sydney Morning Herald last December, that led to two $5,000 fines plus cost orders for the accountants that had prepared these dodgy costings for the coalition. So you would think that, after all of that, the coalition would take a deep breath and would say, 'Well, clearly, using private accounting firms didn't work for us last time and we have the $11 billion black hole.' For a little while it did actually look as though the coalition were going to learn. A bipartisan parliamentary report on the Parliamentary Budget Office backed it in. It was backed by the member for Higgins and Senator Joyce. But it was only when they realised that they had a hole in their costings—a hole that emerges when you are the kind of opposition leader who says yes to every special interest and no to every tax increase—that the coalition decided they had to back away from a parliamentary budget office. So they backed away from having a parliamentary budget office in what I have to say was one of the most extraordinary late night debates in this place that I have been involved in. The members for Goldstein and Mackellar began attacking the institution of Treasury and Treasury secretary Ken Henry, who, as members know, was appointed by Treasurer Costello to that position. The member for Mackellar said:

'This Parliamentary Budget Office is something that is simply linked to the coattails of Treasury.'

She went on to say:

'I made the point that Treasury and the head of Treasury had been rewarded for things that they had done to assist the government.'

The member for Goldstein said very boldly of his costings at the last election:

'There was no black hole. This was a politicised black hole. This was something fabricated with the use of Treasury officials to give the government a political advantage.'

These were the outrageous attacks on a great Australian, one who has served Australian economic policy making extraordinarily well, and on a great government department, one that has done valuable work in producing good economic policy.

When those opposite are faced with an independent Treasury who finds an $11 billion black hole in their costings, they go and attack Treasury. Those opposite are like a rich kid who, when his maths teacher says, 'No, I think you've got an answer to a question wrong here,' goes to the principal and says, 'Can we get the maths teacher sacked, please.' They are all noblesse oblige. But, of course, these days those opposite are probably wishing they had a black hole as small as $11 billion. Their black hole is now $70 billion. That is the equivalent of stopping the pension for two years or stopping Medicare payments for four years.

It is not just I pointing this out. The opposition leader likes to visit various Canberra based businesses, but when he visited CRT Building Supplies he got a little bit more than he bargained for. Steve Bailey, who I would like to point out is not a member of the Greens Party or the Labor Party, heckled Mr Abbott about his $70 billion black hole. He said:

"I think he doesn't care for the people on low incomes; he cares about people like Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer. He's out for the big boys not the little people like us. It's a media opportunity for him, it's a stunt with no substance."

The Leader of the Opposition is happy to use my constituents as a political backdrop for his media stunts. He is happy to go along to local schools and trash Australia without once mentioning that he voted against the new school buildings that he is probably sitting in at the time.

It is Canberrans who would suffer most if the coalition were to win office. The member for North Sydney likes talking about the 12,000 Canberra public servants whom he would make redundant. Originally he liked to say this was from natural attrition, but he has given up that one lately and he is now talking about getting rid of whole departments. The department of climate change is on the chopping block. As for the department of health, the member for North Sydney says there are 5,000 people there and he does not know what they do. There are two answers to that. The first is he could ask the Leader of the Opposition, who was the minister for health when the Howard government was in office and when the department of health also employed about 5,000 public servants. Otherwise he could actually pay some serious policy interest to the things that the department of health are doing. I am waiting for the member for North Sydney to have his Rick Perry moment: 'I'd like to get rid of three departments—the department of climate change, the department of health and that other one that I can't quite remember right now.' But I am sure the member for North Sydney will think of a third department to get rid of.

It is deeply ironic that the member for North Sydney is out there speaking about job security and about the Australian economy. If he is interested in job security he might want to have a good, hard talk to the 12,000 public servants that he intends to make redundant. But frankly they are still $70 billion short. Even after firing those 12,000 public servants they need to find some other way of getting there. The shadow minister for immigration has suggested a novel way of getting there. He has decided that, when he is going to get costings done, rather than go to accounting firms, he will go to catering firms, because it was catering firms that did the opposition's costings for Nauru. That is an innovative scheme that might well get the opposition there—McDonald's may well have some interest in costing the opposition's health policy. It really does reflect much of what those opposite think of budgets. They think that government is an all-you-can-eat: you can just go out there and have it all. You can eat everything; worry about dieting—worry about where the money is going to come from—tomorrow.

We have also seen in recent days a really troubling development: the abandonment of countercyclical fiscal policy by those opposite. Those opposite have now said that they would not have put the Commonwealth budget into debt during a downturn. It is very clear what that would have meant. A no-debt position means that when your revenue write-downs come—let us not forget that two-thirds of the debt that Australia took on during the global financial crisis was revenue write-downs, not stimulus—you are going to pull the government back. Not only are you going to fail to prop up the private sector, you are going to do exactly what the private sector is doing—you are going to follow them down into the downturn. There is a precedent for that: Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression. This is why the Great Depression didn’t last a year or two, but a full decade. Those opposite are the Herbert Hoovers of economic policy. It is no great surprise, really, because they are led by somebody who, in the words of one of his predecessors, John Hewson, is genuinely innumerate. As John Hewson said, 'He has no interest in economics and no feeling for it.' Or as another coalition scion, Peter Costello, said when speaking of the Leader of the Opposition: 'Never one to be held back by the financial consequence of decisions, he had grandiose plans for public expenditure.' A former cabinet colleague of the Leader of the Opposition said, 'He's just spend, spend, spend.' Another said, 'He never really understood the meaning of fiscal conservatism.'

Those opposite are constantly out there with their economically illiterate plans, talking down the economy. The Australian economy now enjoys goldplated AAA credit ratings from the three major agencies. When was the last time that happened? It has never happened before. This is the first time in Australia's history that we have enjoyed a AAA rating from every major ratings agency. So when you hear those opposite speaking about the state of the Australian economy—trash talking the Australian economy and trying to damage consumer confidence—it is important to remember what they say when they are overseas. When the opposition leader leaves this country, he says, 'Australia has serious bragging rights. Compared to most developed countries our economic circumstances are enviable.' That is absolutely true. I only wish that they would say when they are back in Australia.

I have an opinion piece in today's Canberra Times on eHealth.

eHealth Means All Are More Informed, Canberra Times, 12 March 2012

Recently, octogenarian Pat Douglass was the first patient in the ACT and southern New South Wales to sign up for an eHealth record, at Calvary Hospital. Calvary is one of 12 national projects that are pre-testing elements of the personally controlled electronic health record system.

People sometimes talk about eHealth in technical terms, but when I spoke to parliament about it a couple of weeks ago, I found that the best way of understanding eHealth was to realise Mrs Douglass’ experiences of being treated without electronic health records.

Mrs Douglass, who still lives independently, had a fall in the street near her home and acquired a brain injury. After her fall, Mrs Douglass was confined to hospital for 10 weeks. After undergoing rehabilitation she returned home, but none of her regular doctors knew that she had been in hospital. None of her doctors knew about her injury or how she had been progressing. Similarly, the hospital was unaware of Mrs Douglass’ regular health requirements. Any information on normal medicines or routine check-ups that Mrs Douglass might have required during her time in hospital was not available to the doctors at Calvary.

Mrs Douglass told me that she thought it was a bit ridiculous that none of her doctors could share information about her previous conditions or about her current conditions. She wanted all of her doctors who look after different aspects of her health to be fully informed.

With eHealth records, this will be a thing of the past. Electronic health records will allow patients (if they choose) to share information with a range of health professionals. For example, your GP will be able to know what your physiotherapist has recommended. Your chiropractor will understand the different types of treatments you are undertaking. You will not need to explain your allergies, medicines and immunisations every time you see a different doctor.

For example, a Calvary eHealth record will include the following information: name, date of birth, address, contact details, allergies, immunisations and the medicines the patient is currently taking; a summary of each consultation; medical conditions; referrals; specialist letters; discharge summaries following hospital admissions; diagnostic reports, such as X-ray results; and shared care plans agreed between GPs and participating healthcare professionals.

eHealth records are particularly important for young adults who have moved away from home and are finding a new GP. They are important for older Australians, because we tend to have more complex health needs the older we get. And they are important to people with lower levels of literacy, who might have more difficulty relaying information provided by one health provider to another.

Each year, thousands of people are admitted into hospitals due to medication errors. Better sharing of information will reduce these sorts of unnecessary admissions. In the case of Mrs Douglass, Calvary Hospital was unaware that she was taking additional medications and needed to see her specialist during that time. If Mrs Douglass had had an eHealth record, all that information would have been available to her doctors. Under eHealth, patients will spend less time explaining and more time getting the care they need from their health professionals.

eHealth records will be an opt-in system, meaning that no-one will be forced to have an eHealth record. Records will be personally controlled and managed by patients, who can decide who they show their information to, including family members. For example, Mrs Douglass might have allowed her children to share her information in the event of an adverse health occurrence such as her fall.

Given the benefits of eHealth, you would have thought that it would enjoy bipartisan support in the federal parliament. Yet the Liberals went to the last election with no clear plan or idea for eHealth. These days, the Liberals support the federal government’s eHealth legislation, but Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey nominates the Department of Health and Ageing as one of the first on the chopping board for his 12,000 public service redundancies. If you gut the Health Department, it’s pretty difficult to know who’s going to manage eHealth.

After hearing Pat Douglass’s story, I decided to opt in, and signed up for my own eHealth record. If you’d like to do the same, just go to www.calvaryehealth.com.au and download a form. Like Mrs Douglass, you’ll find that all of your doctors will suddenly be able to speak to one another – which means you can stop playing courier and go back to being a patient.

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

Last Thursday was the 25th anniversary of the land grant for the Wreck Bay Indigenous Community, so I timed my regular visit to coincide with the celebrations.

I spent today in the Jervis Bay Territory; a small pocket of Commonwealth-owned coastal land near Nowra. I spent my time meeting with local constituents and talking with the local school, and also had the chance to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Wreck Bay Land grant.

Media Release

JENNY MACKLIN MP

Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Minister for Disability Reform

ANDREW LEIGH MP

Member for Fraser

 Historic anniversary for Wreck Bay Land grant

Today marks the 25th anniversary of the Wreck Bay Land grant, a significant anniversary for the local Aboriginal community.

Twenty-five years ago the then Hawke government handed back 403 hectares of land in Wreck Bay, in the Booderee National Park in Jervis Bay, to the local Aboriginal community.

This historic event followed many years of negotiation and was a significant step in recognising traditional land and beginning a process of healing for the local Aboriginal community.

Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin said that since the land grant, the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council has worked hard to protect natural and cultural sites.

“The council has ensured their land has retained its rich variety of habitats, which provide a home for more than 200 species of birds, 30 species of land mammals and 180 species of fish,” Ms Macklin said.

“The council also continues to pass on traditional knowledge, ensuring that their rich cultural heritage is not lost.

“And by providing community services, education and training, supporting health needs, including aid and housing assistance, the council has helped to build a strong community.”

Member for Fraser, Andrew Leigh, joined the community for the anniversary celebrations and congratulated the Wreck Bay community and council for their hard work and dedication over the past 25 years.

“Today is a special day for the Wreck Bay community and I’m pleased to be able to share in the celebrations to mark this historic occasion,” Dr Leigh said.

“The Australian Government has provided $20,000 funding to support the events marking the anniversary of the Wreck Bay Land grant.”

Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community was handed the land title in 1987 under the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay) Act 1986.

With Monday 12 March 2012 marking the 99th anniversary of Canberra, Robyn Archer and her team have a plethora of highbrow projects ready to go in the centenary year. But at the same time, I thought it was important to have some lowbrow ones as well.

Some time ago, Maryann Mussared dropped me off a list of 'celebrity suburb names' she'd devised. Here's the game: come up with a celebrity after whom your suburb could have been named. The more outrageous the better.

For example, you might decide that Hackett was named after the Triple J 'Hack' program, or Braddon is named after Brad Haddin.

Here's Maryann's list:

• Ainslie - Ainslie Gotto


• Bruce - Bruce Willis (or the Australian Bruces)


• Campbell - Glen Campbell (singer)


• Casey - Ben Casey (TV actor)


• Cook - Masterchef


• Dunlop - Tyres


• Florey - Original home of Floriade


• Forde - Harrison Ford (actor) or Ford Prefect (fiction character)


• Franklin - D. Roosevelt


• Fraser - Tammie Fraser


• Harrison - Rex Harrison (actor)


• Higgins - Missy Higgins (singer) or Henry Higgins (fiction character)


• Latham - Mark Latham


• Macgregor - Euan Macgregor (actor) or Farmer Macgregor (fiction character)


• Macquarie - Pass


• Melba - Peach Melba


• Mitchell - Warren Mitchell


• O'Connor - Des O'Connor (actor)


• Page - Elaine Page


• Reid - Chopper Reid


• Russell - Russell Crowe


• Scullin - Oarsome Foursome


• Spence - Bruce Spence (actor)


• Turner - Ike & Tina


• Watson - Dr Watson (fictional character)

Of course, most Canberra suburbs are still missing, so can you add to the list? If so, post your suggestions in comments below, or tweet them with the tag #celebcanberra.

Let's see how many we can come up with between now and the 99th birthday of our fine city.

[caption id="attachment_2315" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Opening Lena Karmel Lodge with ANU Vice-Chancellor Ian Young and Lena Karmel. Photo by Stuart Hay."][/caption] I was delighted to join ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher and ANU Vice-Chancellor Ian Young to open the Lena Karmel Lodge at the Australian National University today.

This follows on from the opening of Weeden Lodge at the University of Canberra last week. Both of these projects were funded through the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which has proven to be a great way to keep more Canberrans in work in the construction industry while also providing much-needed rental accommodation for students.

The media release is below.

CHIEF MINISTER FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
KATY GALLAGHER MLA

MINISTER FOR HOUSING & HOMELESSNESS
HON. BRENDAN O’CONNOR MP

MEMBER FOR FRASER
ANDREW LEIGH MP

JOINT MEDIA RELEASE

550 more students to get affordable accommodation

ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher today joined Member for Fraser Andrew Leigh and ANU Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian Young in opening the Australian National University’s newest student accommodation - Lena Karmel Lodge, which will provide even more affordable accommodation for Canberra’s growing student population.

Located in the City West precinct, the development was supported by contributions from the ACT and Commonwealth governments through the National Rental Affordability Scheme.

“Just last week I was pleased to open Weeden Lodge – which is already home to up to 220 University of Canberra students in the refurbished Cameron Offices in Belconnen. It is great to follow that this week by opening Lena Karmel Lodge, for a further 550 ANU students.

“Both of these new spaces for students deliver an affordable accommodation option at a discounted rent of at least 20 per cent below the market rate. This means that studying in Canberra remains an attractive option for current and future students,” the Chief Minister said.

Minister for Housing Brendan O’Connor said Lena Karmel Lodge was part of the Gillard Government’s $4.3 billion investment to increase the supply of affordable housing across the nation through the National Rental Affordability Scheme.

“The Gillard Government recognises that people are struggling to find rental properties around Australia,” Mr O’Connor said.

“That’s why we are helping to build 50,000 new rental properties nationwide, allowing households to save thousands of dollars each year in rent.

“Investing in building projects like Lena Karmel Lodge also helps support local builders and tradies and keeps the economy strong,” Mr O’Connor said.

Dr Leigh said Lena Karmel Lodge was further evidence of the Gillard Government’s commitment to Canberra.

“Education is Canberra’s second largest export, and these extra beds mean we can continue to attract and educate Australia’s future workforce, while freeing up rental properties for other Canberrans,” Dr Leigh said.

As well as providing new accommodation for the 550 ANU students, the facilities also house a conference room, a cafeteria, small gym and ground floor shops.

The Chief Minister congratulated the ANU on nearing completion of its objective of building 1,033 new units through the National Rental Affordability Scheme.

“Significant additions of student accommodation are not only important to the ANU, but also bolster Canberra’s reputation as one of Australia’s leading cities for obtaining further education.

“The Territory Government, together with the Commonwealth is extremely proud to have contributed to these affordable rental units, which will also help improve overall rental affordability, which means fewer students are competing for accommodation in the private rental market,” the Chief Minister concluded.

Photo by Stuart Hay

A surprisingly congenial discussion with Kieran Gilbert and Simon Birmingham about politics and policy.

MEDIA ALERT
Andrew Leigh MP
Member for Fraser

THURSDAY 1 MARCH 2012

‘Welcoming the Babies’ Postponed

Member for Fraser Andrew Leigh’s annual ‘Welcoming the Babies’ event has been postponed due to poor weather.

“Unfortunately, we’ve had some bad news. The National Capital Authority advised me that I’m unable to have the event at Stage 88 this weekend due to poor weather and concerns for safety,” said Andrew Leigh.

“With many babies already registered for this event, and knowing how important it is to connect families with community services, I’m still going ahead with a modified version of Welcoming the Babies.”

Here are the new details:

Date: Monday 26 March 2012

Time: 10:00am-11:00am

Venue: Andrew Leigh’s electorate office, 1 Torrens St, Braddon (at the corner of Torrens and Cooyong Streets)

“The best thing about having it in my office is that we can be sure it won’t be rained out! Parents should feel welcome to drop in, even if it’s just for a short time.”

A light morning tea will be provided. Parents will also still have a chance to connect with community service providers and one another, with many service providers either in attendance or providing materials. RSVPs are strongly recommended.

For more information or to RSVP email Andrew.Leigh.MP<@>aph.gov.au or phone 6247 4396.

At the start of February, I began a randomised trial of twitter. I said that I was a twitter-sceptic, but plenty of people (including Louise, Joshua & Holly) had been pushing me to give it a go. So picking up an idea of Justin Wolfers, I decided to use a randomised trial to test whether twitter made me happier and more productive. I figured that if I was going to move a motion in parliament calling for more policy randomised trials, the least I could do was to experiment on myself.

The experiment worked like this. At the end of each day, I rated my happiness and productivity on a 1-10 scale, and then tossed a coin to decide to tweet the following day.

Yesterday, the 29-day experiment ended. Over the month, my average happiness was 6.9, and my average productivity was 6.5. Out of curiosity, I began by looking at how both metrics related to the two big shifts in my week: parliamentary sittings and weekends. Though the difference isn't statistically significant, the data suggests that weekends find me happier and less productive, while sittings find me less happy and more productive.

But how about tweeting? The graphs below show my average happiness and productivity on tweeting and non-tweeting days. It looks like tweeting makes me happier, but less productive. However, neither difference is statistically significant.



Sure, I hear you saying - but how does it look in a multiple regression? Well, the answer is not much different. Here are regressions that hold constant the weekend and parliamentary sittings effects.

Happiness regression

Source	SS	df MS	Number of obs	= 29
		F( 3, 25)	= 0.85
Model	2.21812111	3 .739373702	Prob > F	= 0.4777
Residual	21.6439479	25 .865757914	R-squared	= 0.0930
		Adj R-squared	= -0.0159
Total	23.862069	28 .852216749	Root MSE	= .93046
happiness	Coef.	Std. Err. t	P>t	[95% Conf.	Interval]
tweet	.2048417	.3766625 0.54	0.591	-.5709093	.9805927
weekend	.1638734	.460441 0.36	0.725	-.7844226	1.112169
sittings	-.409311	.4069081 -1.01	0.324	-1.247354	.4287319
_cons	6.90689	.3286612 21.02	0.000	6.23	7.583781

Productivity regression

Source	SS	df MS	Number of obs	= 29
		F( 3, 25)	= 0.33
Model	1.48123033	3 .493743445	Prob > F	= 0.8059
Residual	37.760149	25 1.51040596	R-squared	= 0.0377
		Adj R-squared	= -0.0777
Total	39.2413793	28 1.40147783	Root MSE	= 1.229
productivity	Coef.	Std. Err. t	P>t	[95% Conf.	Interval]
tweet	-.3929236	.4975091 -0.79	0.437	-1.417563	.6317155
weekend	.0856611	.6081666 0.14	0.889	-1.166882	1.338204
sittings	.2633147	.5374585 0.49	0.628	-.8436018	1.370231
_cons	6.633147	.4341073 15.28	0.000	5.739086	7.527208

Nothing's statistically significant, but the confidence intervals remain pretty tight, with the 95% confidence interval for the tweeting coefficient lying between -0.6 and +1 in the happiness regression, and between -1.4 and +0.6 in the productivity regression. While I wouldn't be sanguine about a daily 1-point hit to productivity, it doesn't look like tweeting does much harm (or good) to my output and life satisfaction. If you'd like to play with the data yourself, here it is in Excel format (or you can go to the raw data).

Add to that the fact that tweeting over the past month has brought a tad more attention to some of my speeches and writings, and a little frivolity to my life (did someone say #AusPolValentines?).

So I think that decides it. From now, I'm officially tweeting.

If you'd like to follow me, just click the button below.

Follow @ALeighMP
// &lt;![CDATA[&lt;br&gt; !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");&lt;br&gt;//