Andrew Leigh

I spoke in parliament today about a bill to crack down on the illegal firearms market, and discussed the Australian experience with gun control.

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill, 5 February 2013

Last year the Australian Crime Commission did a national intelligence audit of the illegal firearms market in Australia. That audit estimated that, while there were more than 2¾ million registered firearms in Australia, the illicit firearms market consisted of around a quarter of a million weapons—around 250,000 long arms and, perhaps more concerning, about 10,000 handguns. Illegal firearms sourced through theft from licensed owners and firearms dealers consist in part of weapons that were made illegal in the 1997 gun laws, about which I will say more later, and deactivated firearms that have been reactivated.

This bill is a response by the Australian government to these concerning findings. It deals with the spread of illegal firearms by introducing new offences for aggravated firearms trafficking. It extends existing cross-border offences and introduces new basic offences for trafficking firearms across borders. Our aim is to hold traffickers responsible for the consequences of providing firearms to the black market. They are aiming to tackle the illegal firearms market from different angles—to seize the firearms, to break the code of silence and to improve our ability to trace firearms—and they complement other reforms the government is putting in place. These reforms include the rollout of the Australian Ballistics Identification Network, a national database which will allow police in states and territories to link up their information on weapons recovered from crime; better training, from the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which will happen in February this year; and an in-principle agreement with police ministers for a national firearms register. This national firearms register really is an important development, and I would urge those police ministers who are currently considering it to act immediately. I think it is vital that state and territory firearms registers are joined up. Australians move states or territories frequently and the information about those weapons should follow them.

These laws are also part of a package of reforms dealing with unexplained wealth. As the Minister for Justice explained:

‘These laws will help us to catch criminals. Just like with Al Capone - you can catch criminals by following the money.’

And through this broad suite of reforms we are cracking down on the illegal firearms market. In so doing we are supporting law-abiding recreational shooters. Law-abiding recreational shooters have the most to lose from an illicit firearms market in Australia because it is law-abiding firearms owners who are tarnished when these drive-by shootings occur, when crimes are committed with illegal weapons.

I am fortunate to have within my own electorate the firing range used by the Canberra Rifle Club. The Canberra Rifle Club is, I am told, the city's oldest surviving sporting body. It traces its conception back to a report in the Queanbeyan Age newspaper on 6 May 1913, nearly a century ago:

‘There was a representative gathering of riflemen at the residence of Mr. Hector McIntosh, Canberra, on Saturday last, to discuss the proposal of forming a rifle club at that place.’

And there had previously been rifle ranges at the Black Mountain Peninsula picnic grounds and the Mount Ainslie summit road, but the club's present facilities are at a better location in the Majura Valley. They opened in September 1969 and, in passing, I note the at they are just off Majura Road, near the Majura Parkway. The club's facilities will not be adversely affected by the construction of the Majura Parkway, the ACT's biggest road-building project, 50-50 funded by the federal and ACT governments and which it was my pleasure to attend the sod turning of this morning.

The range is named the McIntosh Rifle Range after Hector McIntosh, and since 1972 it has been the venue for the National Queen's Prize shoot. In 2004 the Canberra Rifle Club and Bungendore Rifle Club ran the inaugural Canberra Queen's Prize meeting, and they are a premier state and national rifle competition. The member for Griffith attended the presentation ceremony for the Queensland Queen's Prize in 2012.

The Canberra Rifle Club, importantly, has strict requirements for its members regarding firearms licences. Its rules say:

‘All members and users of the range may be required at any time to satisfy the Club that they hold a valid Firearms Licence as issued by the State or Territory in which they reside.

‘This is especially the case when purchasing ammunition or ammunition components from the Club. Consequently, you should carry your current Firearms Licence and your current NRAA Membership Card at all times.’

This is an example of a well-managed and regulated facility for sport shooters.

That state ands in stark contrast to the behaviour of some of the sport shooting associations in the United States. Following the Connecticut school shooting we have seen again on display the awful intransigence of the US National Rifle Association, a body which took a moderate stance in the 1930s when it supported federal gun control; which in the 1960s supported a ban on ‘Saturday night specials’ because, as they said at the time, they had ‘no sporting purpose’; but which was taken over in 1977 by people like Harlan Carter, Wayne LaPierre and the like and found itself in the 1980s opposing bans on armour-piercing bullets, which were being used to kill police on US streets.

The debate on gun control in the United States is so different from the debate in Australia. In part that is because of the initiative that was taken in 1997 by then Prime Minister John Howard and Tim Fischer, Leader of the National Party, who were willing to take on the extremists in their own party to see a gun buyback passed. I think sometimes in this place we pay too little tribute to the other side of politics. I was in here about an hour ago speaking about the fiscal profligacy of the Howard government, but let me in a different spirit recognise the forward-thinking actions of the Howard government and Tim Fischer in the Australian gun buyback.

By tightening firearms legislation, by buying back around two-thirds of a million weapons, Australia achieved a substantial fall in the firearms death rate. Firearms homicide and suicide rates fell by about half and have stayed down. These are figures that are sometimes contradicted by shills speaking for the National Rifle Association or other bodies in the United States but the facts do not lie: fewer Australians die as a result of firearms homicide and suicide thanks to the actions of the Howard government in 1997.

But we have to remain vigilant. We have to continue updating the laws to fit the times. This bill cracks down on the illegal firearms market. It is important that we keep the challenge in perspective. Australia's firearms death rate is low by international standards. Christine Neill of Wilfred Laurier University and I carried out two studies looking the Australian firearms buyback. We found when we looked at the time trends and when we looked across states it was very clear that the firearms buyback had saved lives.

Prior to the Port Arthur massacre Australia had experienced a mass shooting—that is, a shooting with five or more victims—on average every year for the previous decade. Since then we have not had a mass shooting in Australia. That could be coincidence, but the odds of that are less than one in 100.

Importantly, we have brought down firearms suicide, because that is the most common form of gun deaths, and we have brought down firearm homicide. The United States, though, still experiences over 80 gun deaths every single day—a horrendous death rate. One of the things that we in Australia can do is to present to United States legislators who are dealing with this very complicated issue—President Obama and Vice President Biden are now considering a package of gun law reforms—a bipartisan model of dealing with gun deaths. This is a bipartisan model that does not undercut the role of sporting shooters but recognises, as I have in my own electorate, groups of sporting shooters who are committed to enjoying their sport with shooting licences and with gun registration. They recognise that good laws are essential if people are to enjoy sport shooting in a safe environment. They recognise that the scourge of gun death in Australia has, in the past, been too high and that it needs to come down.

So I would urge those opposite to try and refrain from some of the partisan politicking in this debate. One of the things that has traditionally characterised the firearms legislation debates has been their bipartisan nature. Then opposition leader Kim Beazley did not hesitate before supporting John Howard in the package of laws that were put in place after the Port Arthur massacre. I urge those opposite to be wary of point-scoring and to recognise the value that we can bring to this place from sober, sensitive, reflective debate over reducing gun deaths.

We will probably never reduce the number of deaths to zero but we ought to do all in our power to bring it down. And we ought to do all we can to tell the world the story of Australia's firearms regulation. It is a good story. It is a story of conservatives who were willing to stand up to extremists in their ranks, of bipartisan law reform, and of ongoing law reform recognising that, as criminals advance in their methods of evading detection, Australian laws have to move to keep pace.

I commend the bill to the House and I commend the work of the minister, who is here in the chamber, on this bill.

I spoke in parliament today about the importance of good fiscal management.

Matter of Public Importance - Fiscal Policy, 5 February 2013

It is a pleasure to rise today to speak on an important issue of economic management. When we talk about the importance of good budget management it is important to remember one simple fact: if the tax-to-GDP ratio today were the same as it had been under the Howard government then the budget would be strongly in surplus.

Dr Emerson:  By more than $20 billion.

Dr LEIGH:  By more than $20 billion, I am informed by the minister. But if the tax-to-GDP ratio under the Howard government had been what it is today then many of their budgets would have been in deficit. That is a simple fact which those opposite cannot deny. Driving things at the moment are two big factors. First of all, mineral prices have softened, and that has brought down corporate revenue. Second, the Australian dollar remains high. Why does the Australian dollar remain high? Because Europe is underperforming. With Europe underperforming, investors are looking around the world to where they can find AAA-rated government debt. And they are finding it in Australia, one of the few countries that maintains that AAA rating. Despite the fact that minerals prices are coming off, the Australian dollar remains high. So this double-whammy hits revenues, and this is reason revenues for 2012-13 are $20 billion down from what Treasury projected in 2010.

So what should a government do under those circumstances? Prior to Christmas there was a suite of policy advice coming at the government from across the political spectrum. John Quiggin and Warwick McKibbin do not agree on every issue in public finance, but they were among the many economists who were saying that as revenue fell it was not the best approach to fill the government's revenue shortfall by making further budget cuts. The OECD and the IMF were among those saying the same thing. So that was what drove the Treasurer's announcement before Christmas.

But it is important to put this in a broader context. We have had a few bits of history being disinterred over recent times—we have just discovered where Richard III is buried. And thanks to an IMF report we have discovered a little bit about past budget practices in Australia. An IMF report released in January examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies. It identified two periods of fiscal profligacy in recent years. When were those periods? Well, if you listened to those opposite, you would be led to think that it was under the current government. But in fact that is not what the IMF found. The IMF found that those two periods of fiscal profligacy were under John Howard's term in office in 2003 and during his final years in office from 2005 to 2007.

Why did that fiscal profligacy occur? A report by David Hetherington and Dominic Prior from Per Capita called After the party: how Australia spent its mining boom windfall found that ‘the Howard government gave at least $25 billion away in tax cuts and concessions…. It used another $50 billion in inflated spending programs’. As a result, the report concludes, ‘we missed the opportunity to invest $75 billion into long-term productive assets’. And the Howard government, of course, was unable to make the tough decisions that have been made under this government.

Stephen Koukoulas has observed that during their combined total of more than 20 years in office the Fraser and Howard governments never once cut real spending. Labor governments have cut real spending on five occasions since the mid-1980s. In the last five years we have found savings of $138 billion, and they have not been easy savings to find. When we means tested the family tax benefits and the private health insurance rebate, those opposite said we were playing ‘the politics of envy’. When we phased out the outdated dependent spouse tax rebate - a measure that discourages work by secondary earners - we were told we were attacking the family. When we reduced the baby bonus for second and subsequent children the member for North Sydney drew comparisons with China's one child policy. That is how serious those opposite are about finding savings.

But you do not have to take my word for it. The IMF's article IV report from 16 November said that:

‘the authorities' adept handling of the fallout from the GFC, their prudent economic management, and strong supervision of the financial sector, has kept Australia on the dwindling list of AAA rated countries.’

The OECD economic surveys Australia 14 December said:

‘Adjustment to the mining boom so far has produced favourable results, thanks to the robust macroeconomic policy framework and the largely decentralised wage setting system …’

Authorities at the OECD think we have got the balance right on industrial relations, unlike those opposite.

At the same time we have been making the right investments. In my own electorate of Fraser the ANU has seen an increase in enrolments, up from 6,350 to 7,086. That is part of a nationwide increase of 150,000 in student numbers. ANU funding is up $130 million, 15,000 more students nationally getting youth allowance. And, as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition did, I would acknowledge the very generous donation today from Graham Tuckwell of $50 million to improve scholarship opportunities at the Australian National University.

This morning I joined the minister for transport, the member for Eden-Monaro, Senator Lundy and the member for Canberra at the sod-turning for the Majura Parkway, the biggest ever road investment in the ACT—$288 million, half federal, half ACT, which could teach the New South Wales government a lesson about co-contribution—an important road which will take the pressure off traffic in my electorate.

By contrast, those opposite have been coy about what will happen if they come to office. Senator Sinodinos said that the opposition was doing something like the dance of the seven veils, which does make one wonder whose head is going to be on the platter. Senator Abetz said that the opposition was offering a policy skeleton and that only further down the track would there be flesh on the bones.

But yesterday the cat was belled in the form of Senator Humphries. Senator Gary Humphries is now facing a preselection challenge from Zed Seselja, who assured the people of Brindabella of his undying loyalty just a few short months ago but has now decided that he would prefer to abandon them for a shot at the red carpet. When querying this on PM Agenda yesterday, the interviewer said that under an Abbott-led government the interests of the people of Canberra would not rate. Senator Humphries said, 'Well, it is a question then of making sure they are constrained in the knowledge that this impacts very badly on one of their colleagues.' Senator Humphries is now admitting that an Abbott government would impact ‘very badly’ on the ACT.

He said in another interview:

‘Canberra is going to be facing very heavy pressures. We know that this city will be the subject of some very tough decisions by an incoming government.’

We know why that is: the member for Canning, in a previous debate, described public servants as those who ‘feed on others’. The member for North Sydney gets the Public Service numbers wrong every time he stands up to speak on them and thinks that there has been an extra 20,000 public servants, a number in which he appears to be including Defence Force reservists as public servants. That now seems to be their new target for public sector job cuts—20,000 public servants. Those opposite say that they have an aspirational target for job creation, but the only policy they have released on jobs is a target for job destruction. It is a target for getting rid of 20,000 Canberra public servants.

Let me just finish with an article that I would commend to members of the House on 'The limits of hairshirt economics' by Tony Abbott, from the Adelaide Review, November 1994. This is an article in which the Leader of the Opposition questioned the floating of the dollar. He said as follows:

‘The floating dollar remains an article of faith with the leadership of both main parties, notwithstanding its exceedingly dubious outcome for Australia—'

Today I released the first ever 'people's map' of the Fraser electorate. The map is the result of an extensive exercise in community engagement, and was designed by a local design student.

To find out northsiders’ favourite spots, I collaborated with the Belconnen Arts Centre, which held public consultations in Belconnen, Gungahlin and Civic. This exercise produced hundreds of favourite Canberra places, which were then winnowed down to a smaller number that would fit on a map. In addition to favoured haunts, the map also covers northern Canberra’s landmarks such as the University of Canberra, the War Memorial and the Telstra Tower, making the map a reflection of where northsiders work, live and play.

Students at the University of Canberra then used their graphic design skills to design an easy to read version of the map. The winning entry was by UC student Michelle Lang which you can view here:

I recently surveyed the Fraser electorate on their experiences with ACT schools and some of their perception regarding our Government’s education reforms.

The results were positive and showed that the Government’s commitment to boosting literacy and numeracy, maintaining a well-rounded curriculum and attracting and retaining quality teachers is shared by parents.
Over 1000 people completed the survey which was distributed between October and December last year. Responses with postcodes from outside the ACT and from the southside were removed leaving 974 responses from Fraser. You may notice that some of the percentages don’t add to 100 per cent – this is due to rounding.

SCHOOL SECTOR

The sample group roughly reflects national numbers in this area. Here is a graph showing the proportion of respondents’ children who attend either government schools, non-government schools or both:

[caption id="attachment_3756" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Type of school attended"][/caption]

SCHOOL RESOURCING

Overall, most parents felt their children’s schools were well resourced. However, there were slight discrepancies between parents whose children attended non-government and those who attended government schools. In the free response section, many parents highlighted the funding gaps between public and private schools. Some parents also spoke about the tired facilities at their local schools and these comments were mostly focused on government and Catholic schools. School funding is an important issue which is why I am a supporter of the Gonski recommendations and why the Gillard government will be pursuing reform in this area. The results below are shown as percentages.

[caption id="attachment_3757" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="School resourcing"][/caption]

EDUCATION POLICY PRIORITIES

I have been really lucky to have met many of the great teachers who work in our north-side schools. The importance of attracting and retaining quality teachers ranked by far the most important issue for parents completing the survey. In the free comments section, many parents spoke about the dedication of their child’s teachers and spoke about the need to improve teacher pays in order to attract and retain more like them. I have written more on this topic which you can read here.

[caption id="attachment_3758" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Ranked most important"][/caption]

Demonstrating the importance of quality teachers continued to rank highly showing that over 60% of respondents ranked it as their most or second most important issue. The Gillard Government’s focus on literacy and numeracy and strong curriculums were mirrored in the results of this survey demonstrating that policy is moving in a responsive direction and that parents and Government share the same priorities.

[caption id="attachment_3759" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Ranked second most important"][/caption]

MYSCHOOL WEBSITE AND BUILDING THE EDUCATION REVOLUTION

The MySchool Website was designed to empower parents with information about their children’s school and help them in their decisions regarding what kind of education is the best fit for them and the results show that most parents have utilised it. This means that more than half of the respondents have a suite of information at hand when making decisions about which school to send their children to. These results also demonstrate that parents are able to have a more informed discussion regarding school resourcing into the future.

[caption id="attachment_3760" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Most people have used the MySchool website"][/caption]

Similarly, a large proportion of the respondents had seen a BER project around the area. This perhaps demonstrates how far reaching the program is and it’s great that many of our local schools have received funding for important improvements to their infrastructure.

[caption id="attachment_3761" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Awareness of Building the Education Revolution program"][/caption]

YOUR CHILD’S SCHOOL

Perhaps the most heartening section of the survey was this section which tended to produce very positive responses. The responses show that the ACT has great principals and teachers and that the Territory’s schools are well placed to deliver quality education for our kids. But they also show the strong relationships parents have with their child’s school and this again came out in the free responses where many parents spoke about how wonderful their child’s teachers were.

Please rate how much you agree with the following statements. If you have multiple children as school, please answer for the eldest child.	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree	Strongly agree
My child's school has a commitment to learning	1%	3%	9%	36%	51%
My child's school is a safe environment	2%	5%	13%	53%	27%
My child has great teachers	2%	6%	18%	46%	28%
My child's school has a terrific principal	3%	6%	24%	37%	31%
My child's school is well-resourced	5%	21%	21%	41%	11%
My child's school has good buildings	5%	14%	19%	44%	18%
My child's school has good equipment	2%	17%	21%	49%	11%
My child's school encourages a love of learning	2%	7 %	16%	48%	27%

The results were also reported in the Canberra Times, with thoughtful comments from other education stakeholders.

I’ll be holding plenty of mobile offices and community events over coming months. These are a good chance to raise policy issues, chat about matters affecting you and your family, or just to say g’day.

Community events:

• Sun 24 February – 10.30am-12.30 Welcoming the Babies, Glebe Park

Mobile offices:

• Sat 9 Feb - 11am-2pm, Multicultural Festival, Civic


• Thu 28 March – 8-9am Civic Bus interchange


• Sat 30 March – 10-11am at Gungahlin (on Hibberson St, outside Big W)


• Sat 30 March – 11.15am-12.15pm at Dickson (outside Woolworths)

For the last week in January we had a chat about superannuation, industrial relations and the Coalition's lack of policy vision.

On 26 February, FARE will be hosting a lunchtime forum at Parliament House with UCLA's Mark Kleiman, author of When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment. Mark is one of my favourite criminologists, and I'd recommend the event for anyone interested in crime and punishment.

Details in this flyer or over the fold.

How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment

FARE invites you to a lunchtime forum with special guest Mark Kleiman, hosted by Member for Fraser Andrew Leigh MP

Tuesday 26 February, 2013
Room 1R1, Parliament House, Canberra

Mark Kleiman is Professor of Public Policy in the UCLA School of Public Affairs. He teaches courses on methods of policy analysis, on imperfectly rational decision-making at the individual and social level, and on drug abuse and crime control policy. His current focus is on reducing crime and incarceration by substituting swiftness and predictability for severity in the criminal justice system generally and in community-corrections institutions specifically.

Professor Kleiman is the author of When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment, listed by The Economist as one of the “Books of the Year” for 2009. In addition to his academic work, Professor Kleiman provides advice to local, state, and national
governments on crime control and drug policy. Before moving to UCLA in 1995, he taught at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and at the University of Rochester.

Event details:
Date: Tuesday 26 February, 2013
Time: 12:30-2:00pm

For guests without a Parliamentary Pass, please arrive at the Marble Foyer at 12:20pm for sign-in, you will then be escorted to the event.
Location: Room 1R1, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
RSVP: email glenis.thomas{at}fare.org.au or call (02) 6122 8600 by Thursday 21 February 2013.

A light lunch will be provided. Please advise if you have any dietary requirements with your RSVP.

Note: For guests who are driving to the event, please allow additional time to find a parking space due to the fact that Parliament will be sitting.

[caption id="attachment_3740" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="In about 12 months, people living in the shaded area will be able to connect to the NBN"][/caption]Yesterday, I welcomed the release of detailed maps by NBN Co, showing where construction of the National Broadband Network (NBN) will start in Civic.

This is really exciting for local families and business in the Civic area. In around 12 months’ time, people in Civic will be able to start connecting to the National Broadband Network. The map shows that NBN fibre is being rolled out Civic, Acton and parts of Braddon which will allow more residents access to faster, affordable and more reliable broadband.

The map is another sign that construction of the National Broadband Network is continuing to accelerate, with work now having commenced or been completed to over 784,000 homes and businesses across Australia. The release of this map means that work is starting in this area and over the next few months, we’ll start to see NBN Co workers locally doing the detailed planning and inspection work, and then rolling out the fibre. Within around twelve months, construction of the NBN in Civic will be completed. This means that families and businesses will be able to connect to faster, more reliable broadband services. A standard NBN connection to the home or office is free – and NBN retail services are available for similar prices to what people are paying now, but for a much superior service.

The National Broadband Network is about preparing Australia for the future. It’s about ensuring that our local communities in places like Canberra are not left behind as the world and our local economy changes. From seeing your local doctor from home, to your kids being able to take a specialist class at another school – the NBN will change the way we live, work, and access services. It will lead to a new wave of innovation, and I’m delighted that people in Civic will be among the first to benefit.

On ABC666, I spoke with Adam Shirley about the challenge of balancing local ALP democracy with having a caucus that looks like the rest of Australia. While rank and file preselections are at the heart of the ALP, it's also true that in twelve decades, that system has failed to put a single Indigenous Labor member into the federal parliament.

2CN Morning Show - Nova Peris by Andrewleighmp on Mixcloud

Eight hours to go before voting closes for Triple J's Hottest 100. Here are my choices.