Andrew Leigh

The Daily Telegraph today publishes an extract from my population speech at the Lowy Institute.

Don't be scared, let's populate and prosper, Daily Telegraph, 20 March 2014

If there’s one thing that’s really big in the population size debate, it’s the size of the scare campaigns made by both sides. One side tells us that a big Australia is a ‘catastrophe’, while the other says that slow population growth will hurt share prices and drive up debt.

Australians comprise just one in 300 of the world’s population. We have the third-lowest population density of any country. Only Mongolia and Namibia have fewer people per hectare than Australia. Yet we also have one of the highest urbanisation rates. Nearly nine in ten Australians live in urban areas.

An unusual feature of the Australia’s population debate is how much it is sparked by population projections. This is especially odd given the record of past projections. In 1888, the Daily Telegraph predicted that the population in 1988 would be 60 million. The Australian Treasury recently updated its population forecast for the 2040s from 26 million to 35 million.

And while you might think that the government has two population levers: one marked ‘more babies’ and one marked ‘more migrants’, only one of them really works. Government can control migration, but its policies have little impact on whether or not people have babies. So the population debate is really a migration debate.

In the debate over a larger Australia, there are dud arguments on both sides.

Advocates of more migration argue that size will reduce the per-person cost of government, and give us much additional heft on the global stage. I don’t think there’s much evidence for either of these.

But it does seem likely it will get us better cultural goods, such as international sporting events and great entertainers. If you want to host a World Cup or attract the world’s best musicians, size helps.

Perhaps the best argument for a larger population is that it means more entrepreneurs. One channel for this is simply scale: if extraordinary people like Albert Einstein and Steve Jobs are one in a million, then it follows that they are also an argument for another million people. Innovators may also be over-represented among migrants. Some evidence suggests that bilingualism raises intelligence, and a global outlook is good for business (half of Australia’s exporters are foreign-born).

How about the claimed costs of migration?

It is often said that a larger population will mean more traffic congestion. Over the past decade, Sydney’s population has grown by 12 percent, while commuting times have grown by 4 percent. And yet while gridlock is one of the most serious problems faced by Sydneysiders today, the best way to address it is through good city planning and economically sensible policies, not population control. Even if we stopped all population growth tomorrow, cars would still become cheaper to buy and use. We should tackle congestion efficiently and directly, not via population policies that could harm Australia in other ways.

A similar argument applies to house prices, where the best approach is to focus directly on housing affordability, by removing unnecessary supply constraints, and ensuring that housing policies are as effective as possible. Even if we adopted a zero population growth strategy, rising incomes and higher marriage ages would still drive up the demand for housing, creating a good argument for getting housing policies right. Likewise for the natural environment, where market-based policies can do far more than population control to address the challenges of water supply and climate change.

Population growth has the potential to get us things we cannot obtain in other ways: better cultural goods and a more productive, more entrepreneurial culture. A larger nation has more mouths, but also more minds. Size has potential costs, but economics teaches us that these are best addressed by good policies to reduce congestion, increase housing supply and protect the environment.

Over the past decade, three in ten permanent immigrants have been family reunion, six in ten have been skilled migrants, and one in ten have been refugees. Skilled migrants are more likely to compete with high-wage workers, making the Australian immigration system quite different from the US immigration system. Some evidence suggests that the Australian skilled migration system reduces inequality.

The skilled migration system can surely be improved – for example, through harmonising occupational requirements with source countries, or better exchanging data on applicants’ labour market history. But overall, it should be a source of pride.

Skilled migration will remain the largest component of our permanent migration program, and it is vital that we don’t just focus on ‘how many?’, but also on ‘who?’. If we want to have a healthy migration debate, then ensuring that our migrant mix reflects our national values and priorities matters more than fretting about the next set of demographic projections.

Andrew Leigh is the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, and his website is www.andrewleigh.com. This is an edited extract of a speech delivered at the Lowy Institute.

In today's Australian, I have an op-ed arguing that the government should keep the charities commission.

Scrap Charities Register, and Say Goodbye to Giving, The Australian, 20 March 2014

When doorknockers with a children’s education charity Care4Kids rang the doorbell of homes across Melbourne and Sydney, they got a warm reception.

Nearly a million dollars was raised for ‘work helping children with cancer, leukaemia, other illnesses and learning disabilities whose education has been compromised’.

But there have been questions raised about exactly how the money raised by the charity actually benefited children at risk; the people it was intended to help. There is little information to show exactly where the money went.

Alas, this is not an isolated incident. Formed at the end of 2012, the independent Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC) received 202 complaints in its first year, including 48 for fraud or criminal activity.

This goes to show just how important a well regulated charitable sector is. In the same way that ASIC provides investors with the confidence they need to buy shares in companies, the ACNC provides donors with the confidence that registered charities are actually performing charitable works.

It is not only the direct victims of fraud who suffer when a charity defrauds donors, it is the charitable sector as a whole. For every story you hear about a dodgy charity, you’ll be just that little bit less likely to donate to the volunteers who rattle tins for the Salvos or Surf Life Savers.

Anything that leads Australians to give less is a tragedy. The inexcusable actions of a few dodgy organisations are being allowed to undermine the fantastic work undertaken every day by the huge majority of Australian charities.

This is one of the key reasons why the former Labor Government established the ACNC in 2012 after an extensive period of consultation. It was recommended by the Productivity Commission and the Henry Tax Review, and supported by the charity sector.

The ACNC helps charities strengthen their transparency and accountability so the public can have confidence in the sector and the good work they do.

It does this by making charities and not-for-profits visible with a national register of charities. The register is a major weapon against scammers taking advantage of your goodwill. If donors are worried about whether a charity is legitimate or not, they can simply carry out a free check of the ACNC’s register: an online database nearly 60,000 charities. The register contains information such as a charity’s tax status and where it is based. In coming months the register will contain more information about charities, including their activities and financials.

The ACNC also helps our charities with governance, legal training and advice. Many charities have told me how much they appreciate the ACNC’s friendly approach and expertise.

The ACNC will reduce the duplication that can arise in a federal system. Thanks to the ACNC, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia have said that they will exempt nationally registered charities from also having to register in their jurisdictions. Other states would do well to follow. Our reforms make it much simpler for charities to run their organisation – so they can spend less time filling out forms, and more time in the community.

The ACNC is administering a Charity Passport underpinned by a ‘report-once, use-often’ reporting framework. Charities that work with different government departments will find it easier to do their reporting thanks to the Charity Passport. Scrap the ACNC, and you lose the Charity Passport.

Every day, we hear the Abbott Government claiming to be cutting red tape. Yet ironically, scrapping the ACNC means abolishing its red tape reduction directorate – the very people in charge of reducing regulatory burdens on the charitable sector.

The Abbott Government is heading up a very small minority of critics of the ACNC. According to a recent survey, four out of five charities support the work the ACNC is doing.

Over 40 charities, including the RSPCA, Lifeline and the Hillsong Church, have signed on to an open letter to keep the ACNC. As World Vision’s Tim Costello notes, the ACNC ‘underpins the consumer benefit to charities.’ Carolyn Kitto of anti-slavery charity Stop the Traffik calls it ‘a dream come true for small charities’, and points out that the ACNC ‘has cut the red tape dramatically’ for her organisation.

As the Community Council of Australia has warned, abolishing the ACNC would be a sign that the government is not interested in the views of the charity sector. It would harm charities, who will lose visibility and governance support. And it would be bad for the public who will be more exposed to fraud and scams.

Published in The Australian

This morning I issued a media release arguing that the axing of the the Australian Charities and Not for Profits Commission would be a mistake. The Government's repeal package is now before the parliament with a lot at stake for donors, consumers and charities. Today some of Australia’s best-known charities signed an open letter urging Tony Abbott to abandon plans to scrap the national regulator.

ANDREW LEIGH MP

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION

MEMBER FOR FRASER



MEDIA RELEASE

CLUELESS COALITION TO CHOP CHARITIES COMMISSION

Federal Labor will continue to support the charity and not for profit sector and oppose any government attempts to repeal the Australian Charities and Not For Profit Commission (ACNC).

Today, in an open letter to the Prime Minister, 40 organisations say if the ACNC is shut down and the ATO is reinstated to determine who is and isn't a charity, "red tape will continue to grow, the size of bureaucracy will grow. Services to the public will be reduced. Services to the sector will be reduced." Signatories include Save the Children, St. John Ambulance Australia, The Ted Noffs Foundation, RSPCA, the Myer Family Company, Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, Volunteering Australia, Lifeline and many others.

The Abbott Government will sneakily include the ACNC in its so called ''repeal day'' package.

In the week that the Government claims to be cutting red tape, it’s looking to kill an agency that does reduce red tape.

Testimony from sector players and experts speaks volumes:

“The commission is actually working for us and it gives the public confidence, it underpins the consumer benefit to charities.''

-      Tim Costello AO, World Vision Australia CEO, Fairfax Media, 1 September 2013



“During its short history, the ACNC has played a positive role in the overall regulatory environment of charities, and it is well-placed to continue that role. In the short term, it provides the infrastructure for a ‘one stop shop’ for Commonwealth regulatory requirements, and a dedicated force to work with other Commonwealth agencies to streamline their present arrangements. Its stellar improvement in terms of timeliness, consistency of decision making and responsiveness to emerging issues of previous ATO functions, surpasses the sector’s original high expectations.”

-      Professor OAM Myles McGregor-Lowndes, Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, QUT, ACNC Guest Editorial, 25 February, 2014



“The ACNC is a dream come true for small charities. We don’t have the range of expertise needed to manage the ATO and ASIC and we don’t have the time to do compliance for many different groups nor can we easily stay on top of changes in regulations. The ACNC has cut the red tape dramatically. The staff are helpful and navigate complexities so we are sure we are compliant and efficient.”

-      Carolyn Kitto, Australia Coordinator STOP THE TRAFFIK, 6 February, 2014

“The ACNC is more efficient than the government regulators it replaced, is doing good work and deserves a chance to achieve its three goals of reducing red tape, increasing public trust and strengthening the charities sector… Axing the ACNC would be a very clear sign that government is not interested in the considered views of the charities sector.”

-      David Crosbie, chief executive of the Community Council for Australia, Opinion, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 February, 2014

“Since the ACNC’s establishment as an independent charities regulator, Philanthropy Australia has consistently supported the ACNC’s important role in our community. The ACNC has only existed for just over a year – so far the progress is promising and we want it to be given the opportunity to realise its full potential.”

-      Louise Walsh, Philanthropy Australia CEO, Pro Bono News, 6 February 2014

In August 2013, a Pro Bono survey of over 1500 members of the not-for-profit sector found that 81% supported the ACNC.  Only 6% of survey respondents in the charitable sector supported a return to the ATO as the default regulator (which is what the Abbott Government advocates).

The not-for-profit sector employs over 1 million Australians, turns over around $100 billion, involves almost 5 million volunteers, and is at the heart of all our communities.

The Productivity Commission and the Henry Tax Review recommended a national charities commission.

The Productivity Commission declared the previous regulatory framework to be complex, lacking coherence and transparency and costly to charities.

Abolishing the ACNC is an insult to taxpayers who want to see where their donations go. It’s an insult to charities who will lose visibility and governance support. It’s bad for the public who will be more vulnerable to fraud and scams.

ENDS

WEDNESDAY, 19 MARCH 2014

I'm inviting new parents and their extended families to join me for the 2014 Welcoming the Babies.

This is an event I've organised each year since the inaugural event in 2011.

It's a great opportunity to meet other parents and find out about local community services for young children.

Come along on March 29, 10.30am-12.30pm, to the St Margaret's Hall (Cnr Phillip Avenue and Antill Street, Hackett).

Enjoy a day out with the whole family. There will be face painting, balloons, a sausage sizzle, music, playground and a toy library.

In case of rain, we have a backup indoor play area.

Everyone is welcome!

If you want to register your baby or toddler for a certificate, please email Lyndell Tutty in my office - Lyndell.Tutty {AT} aph.gov.au - or phone 6247 4396.

I hope to see you on the day.

I spoke in parliament on Australia's backsliding on climate action, while other countries almost universally do more to address the challenge.

Climate Change, 17 March 2014

I rise to speak tonight on the issue of climate change. As the House knows, the historic Australian climate change legislation, passed under the previous government, has seen significant improvements in our environment. Electricity sector emissions fell by 5.5 per cent over the year to September 2013; emissions from companies covered by the carbon pricing mechanism fell by seven per cent in 2012-13. Inflation was within the Reserve Bank's target band. Growth has continued. Productivity has modestly picked up. And we have not seen any Australian cities wiped off the map. The introduction of the Australian carbon pricing scheme was done in a manner which accords with textbook economics. While putting a price on the negative externality, that of carbon pollution contributing to climate change, we reduced income taxes for low- and middle-income earners to ensure that they became no worse off.

Labor went to the last election pledging to link our carbon price with international schemes. If we compare scrapping emissions pricing with moving to a floating price, the impact on inflation in 2014-15 is less than one-quarter of a percentage point. The government in Australia is running in very much a different direction from most countries around the globe.

A recent report by the global legislators organisation GLOBE, co-authored by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, covered about nine-tenths of global emissions. That report catalogued almost 500 laws to tackle climate change—including: flagship legislation in developing countries including Bolivia, El Salvador and Mozambique; and key action in major economies such as China and Mexico. Indeed the report found that 64 out of the 66 countries had put in place or were establishing significant climate or energy legislation. Only two countries were backsliding: Japan and Australia. Japan is stepping away from some of its prior commitments as a result of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and scaling back its contribution to nuclear energy. Perhaps that is understandable given the circumstances of the Fukushima tragedy. Less understandable is Australia, which is walking away from carbon pricing for straight-out political reasons.

We had a consensus in this country for carbon pricing until one of the great tipping points in this debate: the victory by the Prime Minister Mr Abbott over the Communications Minister, Mr Turnbull, in the Liberal Party party room by one vote saw the bipartisan consensus for climate change collapse. Now the coalition are pushing for Direct Action, a scheme which Frank Jotzo and Paul Burke have noted is an attractive political phrase; the combination of two very positive-sounding words. But it is unfortunately fundamentally flawed. The reason for that is that, unlike carbon pricing, Direct Action does not allow us to pick the lowest-hanging fruit of emissions reduction opportunities. As the OECD has estimated, subsidy approaches involve an economic cost per unit of emissions reduction more than ten times higher than under carbon pricing. Because the baseline of what a firm would have emitted otherwise is impossible to verify, the result is that firms are probably delaying emissions reduction investment right now even as a result of the talk of Direct Action.

Direct action is a short-term policy with promised payments for five years worth of claimed energy reductions rather than the long-term solution of carbon pricing. While carbon pricing assists the government's bottom line, making a $3.6 billion contribution to cash receipts in the fiscal year 2012-13, direct action is funded by revenue from existing taxes. What we saw under Labor was a tax switch—and I emphasise the word 'switch' because when I spoke about this previously I was misquoted in a Liberal Party attack ad. A tax switch that sees lower taxes on work and higher taxes on pollution. The reverse system will involve higher taxes on work in order to subsidise polluters. As Professor Jotzo and Dr Burke note:

'Direct Action appears to be an ill-considered clunker, like the hastily chosen gift you bring to your aunty’s fourth wedding ...'

It is complex and bureaucratic as distinct from the simple, free-market solution of carbon pricing, which is, unsurprisingly, favoured by the World Bank, the OECD and the International Monetary Fund.

In a submission to the inquiry into the Direct Action Plan by the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee, Professor Ross Garnaut noted:

The Green Paper does not specify the objective of the Emissions Reduction Fund … The Green Paper makes no effort to meet the elementary requirements of good practice with new regulation:

As Professor Garnaut further noted:

'Rather than a Green Paper, what is before the Senate is a shooting of the breeze: the raising of a few of the questions that would need to be answered along the way to preparing a Green Paper.'

What we have at the moment is a proposal to get rid of a national cap. Without a national cap that we currently have under carbon pricing policies, the baselines and penalties need to set business facility by business facility. It is, as Professor Garnaut noted, 'a huge bureaucratic exercise'.

Professor Garnaut estimates that the lower bound for the budgetary deterioration as a result of shifting to direct action is $4 billion to $5 billion per annum and the upper bound extends several times above that. As a result of this, the emissions reduction targets, the five per cent bipartisan emissions reduction targets, are unlikely to be met, Professor Garnaut notes, unless the fund is as large a drain on budget expenditures as the sale of permits is now a contributor to public finances—that is even to get modest emissions reduction targets, but to meet the five per cent targets may well cost more than that.

The core of the problem is that the government is surrounded by climate change deniers. While the Prime Minister himself now says that he supports the science of climate change, having previously called it 'absolute crap', the renewable energy target is subject to review under a chair who is on the public record with statements that modern science is wrong in its knowledge that human activity is a major contributor to global warming. The scientific consensus around climate change is 95 per cent for anthropogenic climate change—about the level of certainty that scientists have that smoking causes cancer. The Prime Minister's No. 1 business adviser goes further still. In September of last year, Maurice Newman wrote in The Australian Financial Review claiming:

The CSIRO, for example, has 27 scientists dedicated to climate change. It and the weather bureau continue to propagate the myth of anthropological climate change and are likely to be background critics of the Coalition’s Direct Action policies.

These attacks on hardworking scientists are of a piece with the government's attacks on experts. This is a government that has never seen an expert that it did not want to attack. By contrast, under Labor we saw renewable energy grow. Under the renewable energy target, we saw more than a million households installing solar panels compared to only about 7,000 under the former Howard government, and we saw the creation of 8,000 to 16,000 jobs.

Former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry has described the Prime Minister's Direct Action scheme as 'bizarre' and when economists were polled on this at the Australian Conference of Economists a survey found that 86 per cent supported a carbon price or an emissions trading scheme with just six per cent supporting Direct Action. There is, as Matt Wade said at the time, 'near-unanimity among economists' for a market-based solution. That market-based solution is doing the job of reducing Australian emissions and Australia ought not be one of the only countries in the world that is backsliding on tackling climate change.

I spoke in parliament today about the inaugural meetings of the Australia-American Leadership Dialogue in Miami.

Australia-America Leadership Dialogue, 17 March 2014

It was my pleasure to attend, from 5 to 7 March, the inaugural Australian American Leadership Dialogue meetings in Miami, Florida. They were discussions that covered a wide range of topics, as is usual with the AALD, under the Chatham House Rule. Among the topics discussed were the changing role of diversity in the United States, with Miami providing something of an example as to how the rest of the United States may be over the decades to come; issues of infrastructure financing, which both countries face; immigration reform; and the desire of both the United States and Australia to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The meetings were also an opportunity to engage in discussion and innovation. It was commented that President Obama's focus on neuroscience will be important for Australia as we look to boost innovation. It an opportunity also, through the lens of Miami, to look to Latin America, where many Australian students are currently studying and Australian firms such as seek.com are operating.

There were many attendees, but I would like particularly to acknowledge Phillip Scanlan, Martin Adams and Julie Singer-Scanlan from the AALD; US ambassador John Berry; and the mayor of Miami, Tomas Regalado, who I hope will visit Perth and perhaps other Australian cities as part of a return visit next year.

This morning, I spoke with Chris Hammer about what's making news this week, notably the Government's repeal plan which confuses regulation that enhances public safety and accountability with burdensome red tape.

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

TELEVISION INTERVIEW
BREAKING POLITICS - FAIRFAX MEDIA
MONDAY 17 MARCH 2014

SUBJECT/S: Public polling on Medicare and Qantas; Home Insulation Program Royal Commission and cabinet confidentiality; Red tape and community safety.

CHRIS HAMMER: There's a new opinion poll out today in Fairfax showing the Government and Opposition running neck and neck. Perhaps of more interest is some of the questions further down the poll about peoples' attitudes towards Medicare and the Government helping Qantas. On Medicare, the poll reveals that some 52 per cent of respondents support means-testing bulk billing for Medicare. 49 per cent support a six-dollar surcharge every time someone visits the doctor. And 50 per cent agree that the Government needs to do something to reduce the costs of Medicare. Well, to discuss this issue and others, I'm joined by Andrew Leigh, the Labor member for Fraser in the ACT and also Assistant Shadow Treasurer.

ANDREW LEIGH, SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER: Morning Chris.

HAMMER: And, Andrew Laming, the Member for Bowman in Queensland. Andrew Laming, first to you as a former medical practitioner. What does this poll tell you about peoples' attitude towards Medicare and the amount it costs government.

ANDREW LAMING: At the margins, it suggests that the Government's getting its message across about just how important is it to get the budget under control. But I think the bigger picture in health is that you get 50 per cent of people every day of the week supporting means-testing so long as it doesn't it doesn't means-test them. These numbers don't mean much to me and I don't think there's a great deal of savings to be made by introducing a few dollars here and there, given that already a quarter of Australia pay up to $50 to see a GP and overwhelming majority of the rest of them are already bulk-billed and will keep their bulk-billing status. The changes are very, very small.

HAMMER: So, the six dollar surcharge is not something you'd support?

LAMING: Look, it's not a matter of supporting it. It will have an impact in those large city clinics where there's an oversupply of doctors, people pop in and pop out for convenience GP visits. Collecting six dollars from them will raise somewhere in the vicinity of $175 million dollars over four years. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the $120 billion annual health budget. We really need to focus on the big picture in health and this is not it.

HAMMER: Okay. Well, Andrew Leigh, support for Medicare has been very strong over the years. The conventional wisdom is you don't tamper with it. Yet these polling figures people are willing to consider changes to Medicare including means-testing and the six dollar surcharge.

LEIGH: I think it's really important that we maintain a strong Medicare system Chris and it's true that Medicare is something that Australians are passionate about. But we had a huge period of Australian history where we fought about Medicare. Essentially all the elections from 1969 to 1993 are fights about Medicare, before finally the Coalition decides that they'll support the system. If they want to now go ahead and argue for a six dollar GP surcharge then they ought to come forward, put that proposal on the table for the Australian people. If that proposal is contained in the Commission of Audit, then that's one more reason why that 900 page report which is worrying many of my constituents ought to be in the public domain, as the last Commission of Audit report was, rather than sitting secret in the Treasury archives.

HAMMER: But, if a six dollar surcharge or means-testing means that Medicare remains more viable into the future as an entire system, isn't it simply sensible to look at this?

LEIGH: The Coalition needs to put a policy on the table and what I've been concerned about over the last few months and one of the reasons I think that this has been the first Government in my lifetime not to enjoy a honeymoon period is that the Government is floating too many thought bubbles and not enough considered policy development; not putting clear policy proposals out but floating ideas through sympathetic journalists and seeing what reception they get. That's not a good way, by and large, of making public policy.

HAMMER: Okay. Andrew Laming, just to touch on something you said in a previous answer. You said there were big savings to be made and these aren't where you should look. Where should you look in the medical system if the Government needs to save money?

LAMING: Most experts now agree it's in the complex co-morbidity space with people in and out of hospital all the time. Our communications between private specialists, public hospitals and GPs is almost non-existent. It's still done with fax machines. So we've really got to get that area, where the Europe and the US has moved, significantly ahead. We've got to get that in our focus. Back to the other situation, we have most politicians understanding that the health system is limited by what the visiting hours are at the local hospital. Very few of us have had any real in-depth experiences in these large money-hungry monoliths, so understanding how to fix the health system has always been something that causes trepidation amongst politicians. The first step will be to have a hard conversation about how we manage complex chronic disease.

HAMMER: So, do you think this idea of means-testing and the six dollar surcharge being floated, if the Government did pursue that it would obviously come at some political cost. Is your assessment that it's simply not worth the political cost?

LAMING: Well, picking up on Andrew's very good point, we fought over these things in the 1960s. The very point is we don't fight over them anymore. The same is our attitude to Work for the Dole or publically supporting companies with taxpayer money. These things change over time as Australians become more comfortable with decisions that Government is making. The very fact that we can now have an open debate about middle class Australians fundamentally paying the same amount to see a doctor as they do to fill one prescription at the pharmacist, indicates we've moved on this health debate.

HAMMER: Andrew Leigh, it seems if you combine the Medicare question, there was another question in the opinion poll about government assistance to Qantas. Something like forty per cent of people didn't want to give any assistance. Only 30 per cent supported the removal of foreign ownership restrictions. Only 20 per cent supported providing a debt guarantee. Put all this together, it does suggests the Government's message that these are tough economic times, that the Government's got to rein back spending, it's a sort of over-arching narrative, it does suggest that that message is getting traction in the electorate.

LEIGH: Chris, one of the things that makes these polls difficult to interpret is that voters' judgements on issues are also shaped by what political parties say on issues. The classic one is, you look at Liberal Party supporters' attitudes to climate change when Malcolm Turnbull is the leader supporting an emissions trading scheme and after Malcolm Turnbull cedes the leadership to Tony Abbott. The flip on the issue is massive. So I think you want to wary of reading too much into issues polls. But certainly on Qantas I'm not inundated at my street stalls and office meetings with constituents saying the real solution is to make Qantas a foreign owned airline. That's not a strongly popular view in my electorate and I'd be surprised if Andrew Laming, indeed other members of the House of Representatives, have people knocking their door down, saying the best thing to do is to sell off the Flying Kangaroo to people overseas.

HAMMER: If we move on, the Royal Commission into the whole home insulation, the so-called 'pink bats' Royal Commission is starting in Brisbane today.  Andrew Laming, at a time when the Government is sending out this message of restraint and tightening spending. It's $25 million to tell us what we already know sounds like a waste of money, doesn't it?

LAMING: Unless you're one of the families who had their home burnt down as a result of a government decision and we really need to know what happened to the advice, the recommendations and warnings. We all remember the program, $2.5 billion, we were watching teenagers running round with rolls of insulation in the backs of renter-trucks and wondering where our federal money was going and why it was spent this way. It's a small price to make sure this never happens again.

HAMMER: Andrew Leigh?

LEIGH: We've had a range of investigations on this Chris. These have included federal and state investigations. Labor supported it because we are concerned about workplace deaths and these handful of installers who died were part of the tragically, 200 a year who die from workplace injuries. Labor's always committed to making sure we have workplace safety but I am concerned when the Government ends a more than century-old cabinet confidentiality by handing over cabinet documents to the Royal Commission. I think that sets a precedent which this Government might ultimately regret.

HAMMER: So what will Labor do about that, the access to cabinet documents, the potential subpoenaing of cabinet ministers, indeed former prime minister Kevin Rudd to appear before a Royal Commission. What can Labor practically about that?

LEIGH: Well, each of those individuals are now private citizens and they will take their own legal advice and make their own decisions and I'm sure they'll cooperate to the greatest extent they're able to. In terms of cabinet documents, this is just a tradition. It's a tradition that's been upheld by every Australian government until this one. But there is nothing legally that Labor can do to protect the confidentiality of conversations that occur around the cabinet table and the strength of collective decision making that is underpinned by that tradition, now scrapped by this Government that calls itself conservative.

HAMMER: Andrew Laming, it's not a bad point. You know, separated away from the issue of home insulations, accessing cabinet documents so soon after the fact, doesn't that mean that any cabinet minister walking into cabinet this week is going to have to be careful of what they say, that there won't be a full and frank discussion around the cabinet table?

LAMING: That's a genuine concern. I think and that's why it should only be done under extremely critical circumstances. I am not sure if this one crosses the bar. But certainly this is a case that the Government will have to make if and when asked by the royal commission for access to those documents and one middle ground of course is that one of the commissioners can look at that document without the document becoming public. So there is some middle ground there, but we will have to wait and see what happens.

HAMMER: So you think maybe that this issue isn't important enough to cross that threshold?

LAMING: I am in two minds in this one. I think that confidentiality of cabinet documents is absolutely critical, but if the argument is ultimately made for those documents to remain privilege, it will go to a court of law and that is where it will be decided.

HAMMER: Okay, now this Wednesday has been declared ‘Repeal Day’ because the Government is introducing legislation or to amend legislation that will cut up to a billion dollars in red tape. Isn't the timing of this rather unfortunate Andrew Laming, in that, on the one hand we have a Royal Commission into what happens when we there's not enough regulation and on the other hand the government is trying to get rid of all this regulation?

LAMING: Well you got a fair point that we want a responsiveness when warnings were first received. That's a little different to the bigger picture when ultimately I am a Liberal. I just love seeing wheel barrows full of regulations being carried to dumpsters. I mean it is one of the reasons I go into public life. But, in a practical sense, how does that change the lives of Australians. They will be judging repeal day not on the number of pages or regulations but how our ability to enjoy a free and incumbent life for those who lead honest and hardworking lives without the impact of government, people who are trying to start a business and people who are trying to run their lives the responsible way will want to see a difference from these repeal laws. That will be a very strong case that the government will have to make. It will be a challenging one. We will have to convince Australians that repealing these laws make a practical difference to the way we lead our lives. And that's a case that is yet to be made.

HAMMER: Andrew Leigh?

LEIGH: Well as this, your point I think highlights this Chris, that there are many regulations that improve work, health and safety. It worried me yesterday when the Prime Minister gave us one of his main examples of what would occur on repeal day, childcare regulations. Now we have childcare regulations so we keep our kids safe. Now Andrew and I have both had kids in childcare. Regulations such as the regulations that workers need to not have criminal convictions, to make sure that food preparation is safe, that communicable diseases are reported. Which of these bits of childcare red tape would the Prime Minister like to get rid of? I'd like to know.

LAMING: The answer probably is Chris, the areas that overlap between state and local government regulations. So increasingly part of repeal day will be  to find those overlaps.

HAMMER: Isn't that a good point Andrew [Leigh]? That is tends to be that regulation is brought in with all good intentions, legislation whatever, but it tends to build up and accumulate, there's duplication between state and federal and indeed local, that from time to time you really need to go in with a broom and sweep it out.

LEIGH: You have just got to be careful that you look after the kids in that process. In the area of childcare regulations this looking after an incredibly vulnerable set of kids. By and large there’s clarity as to what the state and territories do and what the federal government does. And so really people ought to be make sure that red tape repeal day doesn't make us a more vulnerable society. We have bits of red tape for example that ensure that airline safety is maintained, that trucks are safe on the roads. This idea that red tape is dragging us our society down, flies in the face of the huge rise in safety that we have seen in the Australian community over recent generations.

LAMING: Chris, we make the argument for safety. But in 2007 the roads were safe, the childcare centres were safe but since then we have introduced 975 new laws, 22,000 more regulations. Ultimately we have to try and draw the line somewhere.

HAMMER: But what's the rush? I mean there's sensible, logical, mature all those adjectives that Tony Abbott was quoting on taking government. Why the rush now? Why this big push to try and even have a repeal day. It suggests spin rather than content?

LAMING: It's kind of ironic that whether we are writing laws or repealing them, politicians will always busy. But I argue that whether I come down here to Canberra, and spend time out of my electorate making up new laws, is really building a better society. In the end it's not so much a rush, but we've got an agenda. This won't be the first repeal day nor the last. So these repeal days are likely to be continued into the future.

HAMMER: Andrew Leigh, does this give Labor a political opportunity, that the Government is being too keen in repealing regulations?

LEIGH: Well one of the issues that I have portfolio responsibility is the Australians Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission. That's expected to be on the chopping block on Wednesday despite the fact that it has a red tape reduction directorate. It was set up with the aim of reducing duplication for charities across states and federal. And the Charities Not-for-Profits Commission is set up in order to protect people who donate to charity, to make sure that they are not ripped off by scammers. If the ACNC is removed then Australian charitable donors and good charities - who are the vast majority of charities - will be placed at risk.

HAMMER: Okay, gentlemen thanks once again for your participation.

LEIGH: Thanks Chris, thanks Andrew.

ENDS

At lunchtime on Thursday 27 March, I’ve been invited to speak at the National Press Club, on the topic ‘Battlers and Billionaires: Australian Egalitarianism Under Threat’. I will talk about why inequality matters, and the risk that the wrong set of policies will threaten an egalitarian ethos that is fundamental to who we are as Australians.

I’d be delighted if you could join me. Tickets can be booked at the National Press Club website.

This morning I issued a media release pointing out the Abbott Government's inaction since announcing its long anticipated 'root and branch' competition review in December.

ANDREW LEIGH MP

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION

MEMBER FOR FRASER

MEDIA RELEASE

101 days since Competition Review announced and still no action

The Prime Minister and the Minister for Small Business announced 101 days ago that a review panel would be announced “shortly” to conduct its root and branch competition review.

But since December 4, 2013, there’s been no action.

The Government stated last year that:

"The Federal Government has provided the states and territories with draft terms of reference for a competition review. The review panel will be established shortly so that we can have a final report within 12 months.” [Tony Abbott and Bruce Billson, Joint Media Release, 4 December, 2013]

More than three months later, there are no final terms of reference and no one has even been appointed to conduct the review.

“The delay calls into question the Government’s commitment to a thorough and independent review of competition policy,” Dr Andrew Leigh said.

“This is a critical policy area, which impacts on consumers and small and large businesses from supermarkets to service stations, but seems impacted by the Abbott Government’s ‘go-slow’ approach.

“The Prime Minister said his Government would contain no surprises or excuses. I suppose you can’t be surprised by something that moves at a glacial pace.

“Why the hold up? It appears this Government is too busy breaking its promises on the economy, healthcare and education to pursue long term, sensible economic reform through competition policy.”

“Competition is about good regulation. It underpins productivity and participation. I call on Minister Billson to stop procrastinating and get on with the job,” said Dr Leigh.

“If ‘shortly’ doesn’t mean ‘within 100 days’, perhaps Australians will soon be asking whether Mr Billson is engaged in ‘misleading and deceptive conduct’!”.

Friday, 14 March 2014

On 14 March 2014, I spoke on ABC's The Drum about my Lowy Institute speech on population. The video is below.



On 21 March 2014, I also spoke about it with Luke Bona on 2CC. Here's a podcast.