Andrew Leigh

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.

I spoke with The World Today host Eleanor Hall about population and migration. A podcast of the interview is available here, and the transcript is below.

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

RADIO INTERVIEW
THE WORLD TODAY

THURSDAY 13 MARCH 2014

SUBJECT/S: Population; immigration; asylum seekers; taxation; budget sustainability

ELEANOR HALL: The Labor Party's Assistant Treasurer is calling for a new debate on what has long been a contentious issue in Australia: the size of our population, which is now around 23.5 million. In a speech at the Lowy Institute today, Dr Andrew Leigh is calling for a more respectful and fact-based debate about the population and about immigration. He joined me earlier in the studio. Andrew Leigh, in your Lowy Institute talk today you argue that Australia should have a bigger population. How much bigger?

ANDREW LEIGH: Eleanor, I think picking absolute numbers is a mug's game but I certainly think that we ought to be comfortable with current levels of population growth.

ELEANOR HALL: You say current levels of growth, so not a bigger population?

ANDREW LEIGH: The current levels of growth are a bit above the trend levels that we've had in the previous few decades, but principally I think we have the potential to be much more productive if we expand the number of innovative people coming to Australia.

ELEANOR HALL: Do you have the backing of your leader Bill shorten on this because the argument for a larger population is one that's divided the Labor Party previously, particularly under Gillard and Rudd?

ANDREW LEIGH: It's certainly been a perennial issue in the Australian public debate and I think what's important is that we have a sensible conversation in which we look at the evidence on both sides. The Labor Party's not pinning its colours to the mast on a particular number but we're keen to have intelligent conversations with the Australian people.

ELEANOR HALL: You say that the population debate is essentially one about immigration. Is Australia capable of having a rational debate about immigration?

ANDREW LEIGH: I think we are, and we're a nation which is as open to migrants as any in the world. We're a nation where a quarter of us were born overseas and other quarter have a parent who was born overseas. I, myself, am married to an immigrant and I think the skilled immigration system has in particular been good for Australia. It's ensured that we get that big boost to demand that comes from migration but that all of the pain isn't felt by those at the bottom of the distribution, as you see in the United States for example, where migration has put a lot of downward pressure on those who are earning the least.

ELEANOR HALL: You also say you want the asylum seeker issue to become less partisan. What are you and your colleagues then doing to try to diffuse the asylum seeker debate?

ANDREW LEIGH: I think it's really striking when you look at the debate over Indigenous policy and over refugees. If we look back 20 years in Indigenous policy, there were people making some outlandish claims and very nasty language around Indigenous Australians looking to take land through the Native Title system. That's transformed. Both sides of politics have a degree of respect for Indigenous Australians which is really heartening, but we don't see that on refugees. This language of 'illegals' and 'peaceful invasions' I think is deeply corrosive to having a sensible debate over asylum seeker policy.

ELEANOR HALL: Your proposal that the debate should become less partisan hasn't stopped your colleagues trying to make political mileage out of the recent Manus Island violence, for example? I mean, accusing the minister of having blood on his hands?

ANDREW LEIGH: I think it's important that we behave as respectfully as we can in politics and that we also hold the Government to account.

ELEANOR HALL: Are you comfortable though with the approach that the Labor Party has taken on asylum seekers? Do you really think that what the Labor Party has been doing in government and in opposition has helped to make the asylum seeker issue less partisan?

ANDREW LEIGH: What I've argued in this speech is that we ought to be aiming to save as many lives as possible by preventing drownings at sea. At the same time I think we can be more generous, and I was deeply disappointed to see the Government cut back the refugee intake.

ELEANOR HALL: You point out that Australia's asylum seeker intake has dropped from 20,000 to 13,500. Are you calling for an increase beyond 20,000?

ANDREW LEIGH: I think we ought to aspire to that yes. I certainly think that if you're able to prevent drownings at sea then that's appropriate. But we ought to too be working with other developed countries to try and take more people out of those UN refugee camps.

ELEANOR HALL: You say that you want this debate about Australia's population to be on the facts and on the numbers. Even 20,000 in a refugee population around the world of 11 million is absolutely minuscule, and you point out in your speech that in fact the refugee proportion of our immigration intake is around 10 per cent. Why doesn't the Labor Party put those numbers out there?

ANDREW LEIGH: Well, that's exactly what I'm doing in today's speech and I think one of the real challenges with population is facts and respect. I think both of those have been shamefully missing in the debate. The asylum seeker debate has so coloured the broader population debate [that] it's important to have a conversation about that relatively small share of our immigration intake, while also recognising that the largest benefit that migrants bring to Australia is through the skills and innovation that come through our skilled migration program, which is a majority of our permanent migrants.

ELEANOR HALL: Now as assistant treasurer for the Labor Party, what do you make of Ken Henry's warning that government spending is 'unsustainable', and that Australia's Federal Government needs to either increase taxes or cut government spending or both, and that an increase in the GST must be part of this?

ANDREW LEIGH: We've been pretty firm that Labor doesn't support an increase in the GST but I do think that it's important that the budget remain in a sustainable footing.

ELEANOR HALL: You just said the Labor Party won't support an increase in the GST; yesterday Bill Shorten wouldn't commit to keeping the mining tax. If the Labor Party's not prepared to increase taxes, then if you're going to balance the budget, you must be saying you're going to cut spending?

ANDREW LEIGH: Well we have in Parliament voted in favour of keeping both the carbon price and the mining tax. Profits-based minerals taxation is something which is supported by economists in general.

ELEANOR HALL: Andrew Leigh, thanks very much for joining us.

ANDREW LEIGH: Thank you Eleanor.

ELEANOR HALL: That's Labor's assistant treasurer. Andrew Leigh.

ENDS

My speech at the Lowy Institute looks at population size, immigration flows and refugee policy.

Does Size Matter? An Economic Perspective on the Population Debate*

Lowy Institute
13 March 2014

Andrew Leigh
Shadow Assistant Treasurer
Federal Member for Fraser
www.andrewleigh.com

I’ve wanted to say something about this rather controversial topic for a long time. Now that I take to the podium, I can’t help thinking of an epitaph Dorothy Parker penned for her gravestone: ‘Wherever she went, including here, it was against her better judgment.’

A great epitaph for a writer. Perhaps not so much for a politician. Nevertheless, I hope what follows shows that my belief in evidence is stronger than my desire to avoid tough questions.

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.

A big Australia, one side tells us, is a ‘catastrophe’[1] that ‘risks destroying our traditions and even our common language’.[2] Immigration has ‘undermined our higher education system, [and] put intolerable pressure on an overstretched health and transport system’.[3] Some go further, blaming ‘limp-wristed citizenship requirements’ for ‘ethnic crime waves sweeping across our nation, where samurai swords and machetes have become part of the media lexicon’.[4]

Not to be outdone, the other side of the debate argue that: ‘Putting caps on growth would turn Australia into a stagnant, ageing and inward-looking country – a basket case to rival the declining states of Europe.’[5] Some have warned that if population growth is too slow, the share market would stagnate, small businesses would be unable to fund their ventures, taxes would rise, and debt would balloon.[6]

And just in case overheated claims didn’t make the discussion difficult enough, each side delight in building straw men. Perhaps it makes people feel better when they take a stand against ‘unchecked population growth’ or ‘zero population growth’. But in reality, hardly anyone publicly advocates uncapped immigration, and few population commentators argue for zero immigration. The serious conversation is whether we want our population to grow modestly or significantly. But it risks being derailed by those who caricature their opponents to score a cheap point.

Perhaps one reason the Australian population debate is so odd is that because – from a population standpoint – Australia is an odd country.

Read more

This morning I spoke with 2CC's Mark Parton about revelations that Prime Miniter Tony Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey ignored John Howard and Peter Costello's advice to keep Treasury Secretary, Martin Parkinson. I discuss the decision and affirm the great work of the public service.

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

2CC RADIO INTERVIEW
WEDNESDAY 12 MARCH 2014
SUBJECT/S: Martin Parkinson and the Australian Public Service; Tasmanian election and jobs.

MARK PARTON: I don't think Andrew Leigh is going to be reinventing himself any time soon; driving a taxi or working in a bakery. He is these days the Federal Member for Fraser in Federal Parliament with the ALP. He is on the line right now. Morning Andrew.

ANDREW LEIGH, SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER: G'day Mark. It is my third career. I was a lawyer for a while. I was a professor for a while -

PARTON: Yes it is. I'd forgotten about that -

LEIGH: And we haven't even gone into my fruit picking and newspaper delivery days -

PARTON: You talk about people who've had to reinvent themselves. Let's talk about Martin Parkinson, the Treasury Secretary, because we learnt some fascinating things in this story in the last 24 hours. The Abbott Government apparently defied the advice of a couple of learned gentlemen on the right side of politics, in John Howard and Peter Costello. It is our understanding that they recommended Martin Parkinson should stay on as Treasury Secretary but for some reasons Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey said, 'No, you don't know what you're talking about.’

LEIGH: I think it was real a mistake of the Coalition to fire Martin Parkinson. Remember there's a story from the last recession where basically the only two people who are still around in senior economic policy making a couple of years ago were Ken Henry and Martin Parkinson. The only two people who had been through a recession, and now there's just Martin. I've argued personally to Joe Hockey that from his own self-interest he'd be well served to keep someone like Martin Parkinson who has faithfully served both sides. So it's this sort of vindictiveness that I think saw the Government come in and immediately get rid of four agency heads. We didn't do it in 2007. We hadn't appointed most of the secretaries but we took the view that public servants basically work hard for which ever government is in power and the sort of partisan firings are not wise in the long run.

PARTON: Obviously, Stephen Conroy was not involved in those conversations because he certainly demonstrated a different view point on that in Senate Estimates. I understand and concur with what you're saying and I think there were some knee jerks. Why have they gone down this route? It must be said Martin Parkinson is still there in the role and he finishes up in the middle of this year.

LEIGH: He does and part of today's report is the suggestion is he might be held on for longer and I think that if the Government were to change its mind on that then they would be well served by that backflip. I think they were quite angry with Martin Parkinson over the 2010 election costings where Treasury found that there was a massive hole in Coalition costings and I think some of the sort of the hardline warriors in the Liberal Party never really forgave him for that. But it's a mistake from their standpoint because this is somebody who is a first-rate public servant, like so many of the public servants that I meet in mobile offices and chatting away by phone and email. People who would have their own partisan preference but they know their job is to serve the country. It's public service at its best.

PARTON: Is it a reality though that despite the fact we've got some exceptionally well performing public servants at high level, that in their hearts they all have an ideology; in their hearts they all either fall to the left or the right?

LEIGH: I think everybody has their own personal ideology but that doesn't mean they can't do a good job of producing policy. You saw that through the Howard years and indeed through the Rudd and Gillard years. There were certainly Liberal Party supporters who did a good job of working for the Labor Party during our time in office. Good public servants are able to do that. I think this kind of ideology that you sometimes see the Coalition running around with in other places, that public servants are bloated fat cats, just misses the real reality of what Canberra public servants do. I'm enormously proud of the public servants here. As you well know Mark, the number of public servants per Australian didn't rise under Labor and so the idea that we've got an over-staffed public service is just bonkers.

PARTON: The political tide in this country has definitely shifted to the right in recent months and years and we're about to see a couple of state elections in Tasmania and South Australia. As Malcolm Farr pointed out about 10 minutes or so ago from News.com.au, at the end of the those elections Katy Gallagher may be the highest ranking Labor politician in the country.

LEIGH: Certainly possible. Those governments have the challenge of being in office for a long time. So it just becomes successively harder to make the case for another term the longer you've been in office. But I think also that those people in those states and looking at what's happening federally and they're looking at the cutting of the SchoolKids Bonus to middle and low income households and then the giving of a parental leave scheme, $75,000 to the richest families to have a baby and they're saying maybe these aren't the sorts of values that I hold. They are not the sort of basic values of an Aussie fair go, making sure that governments help those most in need not, rather than give the most to those who have the most.

PARTON: But Andrew, you've seen these primary polling figures from Tasmania. Wow, Labor's on the nose there, isn't it?

LEIGH: Well, I don't take a great deal of notice of polls but I think on the fundamentals it's always a challenge to win an election after being in government a long time and it's particularly a challenge if you've been in coalition. The coalition with the Greens was pretty tough for Lara Giddings. I think that's something that she's working on in differentiating herself in the election.

PARTON: Why was it tougher for Labor in Tasmania than for Labor here in the ACT to do that? Granted there is only one Green in this Legislative Assembly, but there were many more than that last time round and the train stayed on track.

LEIGH: Let me give you an economic answer because I kind of think about things as an economist. I think the Tasmanian economy is in much worse shape than the ACT's. Part of the challenge is them making the transition from logging. That logging peace deal was a historic deal but gee it bruised a few people around the place, to actually get loggers and conservationists sitting at the table striking a deal I think was a good thing. But where the jobs come from in Tassie is a bigger challenge than perhaps for than any other part of Australia. Education levels are perhaps a little bit lower. Productivity is one of the lowest anywhere in Australia. So Tassie has got some challenges whoever wins office. I think the Federal Government needs to be working hard in Tassie. These suggestions that maybe Tony Abbott will rip some more GST money away from Tassie are a real concern.

PARTON: Thanks for your time this morning Andrew, as always.

LEIGH: Thank you Mark.

ENDS

At the start of the week I spoke with Fairfax Media's Breaking Politics host Chris Hammer and Andrew Laming about what's making news, including speculation the still secret Audit Commission report has recommended making it harder for Australians to be eligible for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. Here's the full transcript:

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

TELEVISION INTERVIEW
BREAKING POLITICS - FAIRFAX MEDIA
MONDAY 10 MARCH 2014

SUBJECT/S: Pension age; Commonwealth Seniors Health Card; Relaxing media laws.

HOST CHRIS HAMMER: At just what age should Australians be able to retire and what age would they be able to access the old age pension? At the moment that age is 65 but in a few time, by 2023 it will rise to 67. Now there's speculation the Government may raise it again to 70. Joining me to discuss that and other issues, in the studio is the Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Labor member for Fraser in the ACT, Andrew Leigh and from Brisbane, the member for Bowman, Andrew Laming.

Andrew Laming, good to see you. Where are you this morning?

ANDREW LAMING: Well I'm down at my local quarry where I was hoping to show off a vigorous economy but at the moment there are no customers, so you'd just have to trust me.

HAMMER: Okay, very well. To the topic at hand, Andrew Laming can the Government defend or should the Government even be looking at raising the pension age to 70?

LAMING: Well Chris, we're certainly looking over a decade ahead now, so it's pretty hard to predict what living standards and expectations will look like then. But I think it's important that the Government, given the history of the pension age, continues to debate about where an appropriate age setting should be. I'm glad that's not a topic too hard to the Coalition to discuss and look ultimately we are, as a health expert I know, slightly fitter and slightly better able to contribute to the economy and Andrew Leigh would admit, that the longer keep people in the workforce the better it is for Australia's long term future.

HAMMER: Andrew Leigh, we are living longer. It does make sense?

ANDREW LEIGH, SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER, SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION: I certainly agree on the importance of participation Chris. But you've got to remember there are two key ages. There's the age that people can access their super which is 60 and the age people get the pension which will eventually be 67. The Government is only focusing on the latter of those ages and that's of course the time at which manual workers get their pension. And so, to say to manual workers, 'look you're going to now have to wait ten years longer than more affluent people who've got money in superannuation' and doing that in an environment where you know that manual workers, sometimes their bodies just give out, say if you're a bricklayer. We also know that low-income Australians die younger. So, it doesn't seem particularly fair to be pushing out the pension age for people who do hard physical labour and who in many cases die at younger ages.

HAMMER: Andrew Laming, this is a good point isn't it that someone, a wealthier person can retires and access their super at 60 and a pensioners has to wait much longer, maybe up until 70, especially given that superannuation is subsidised by the Commonwealth's tax system?

LAMING: Two points there Chris. Obviously with every year that passes, more and more Australians will have super. The second point is that I am very sympathetic to Andrew's point about people who really have broken down lower backs at the ends of their career and we have a disability support system for that and an excellent Medicare system for that as well. But keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of people at 65 are currently able to continue to keep working if they choose to. I'd certainly support a sympathetic look though at those who are physically unable to keep working. I know that most people in public life would.

HAMMER: So, you're saying essentially, we shouldn't be looking at the pension to support them but some kind of bridging disability allowance to get them to pension age?

LAMING: Well, I didn't want the debate to be derailed by our clear vision for people with bad backs not being able to work. That shouldn't undermine our pension debate. Those people do need all the health care possible. They also can obviously alter jobs in many cases so they can continue working but in less physical capacity. But all of these things are not beyond the width of government services. We just have to make sure that if a nation can support a slightly older retirement age, that that debate occurs -

HAMMER: Okay, to another somewhat related issue, and that's access to the Seniors Health Card. The Government is looking at reforming that, perhaps indexing it to the CPI. The big concern is who is and who is not eligible and whether superannuation payments should be considered in that means-test. Is the Government considering knocking a fair group of people off the seniors health card?

LAMING: Well it is kind of speculation that you see in the media first. I'm really completely in the dark. Obviously tinkering with these kind of thresholds do represent significant savings but any government needs to be mindful that it will affect a substantial amount of people who are right on the threshold and often are least able to be able to afford out of pockets in health care which we know are climbing. So it's a very sensitive issue. Of course I can't confirm and deny anything. I don't even know what discussions there are pre-budget but it's pretty important people hold their health care cards and value them that they need to make that very clear to government that they want to keep them.

HAMMER: You may not know what the budget committee is considering but as a health care expert you'd know on one hand how valuable seniors health cards can be to some of your constituents. On the other hand you'll also know how much costs are growing in that sector, like in the BPS. Is there pressure to reform... is the system we have at the moment sustainable?

LAMING: I think every discussion starts with 'it's not sustainable'. But we need to remember that health is an extremely complex economic system and very briefly, Tony Abbott was the person who pioneered a range of these safety nets that have been very effective and continued by Labor. That includes the extended Medicare safety bet for out of pocket. There are ways around this but I think a simple debate around health care card indexing is tinkering at the edges but has longer term effects than does eligibility changes. We'll just have to wait and see Chris.

HAMMER: Okay, Andrew Leigh, your view on this?

LEIGH: Tony Abbott's been, I think, a little tricky on this one. He was asked yesterday at a news conference whether or not he would change eligibility for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card and he said quite carefully that the Coalition was committed to indexing the thresholds. What he didn't rule out was changing the definition of income in such a way as to ensure that many Australians were no longer eligible for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. That's a live option on the table and I think that will make many Australians concerned.

HAMMER: But isn't it necessary to have it as a live option on the table given those increasing costs in our health system?

LEIGH: If the Government wants to make a case for excluding a large number of senior Australians from a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card then they need to come out and argue that case strongly. We found in government something like, for example, limiting the private health insurance rebate and excluding some of the most affluent Australians from that rebate, that we were able to win that public debate, and in the end we saw there was none of the drop-off in private health insurance coverage that had been predicted. I think that if the Coalition wants to make an argument, well [it should] go out there and make it with vigour and passion and be honest with the people who are going to miss out as a result of the change. But don't do these sort of Nixonian word games where you're asked if you'll change eligibility and you say you'll stick to your commitment to indexation. Australian people are smarter than that.

HAMMER: Okay. Let's move on, finally to media laws. Andrew Leigh, first, is this the right time to be relaxing media laws in Australia? Malcolm Turnbull has made the point that there is far more diversity in media access in Australia now, particularly in regional areas because  of the Internet.

LEIGH: Malcolm Turnbull is fond of floating thought bubbles and I think his main focus yesterday was on making very clear to Rupert Murdoch that his reference to a 'demented plutocrat' had nothing to do with him. When it comes to media laws, I think the view that now we've got the Interweb, we can just throw away all our media regulations, is a little too glib. Labor brought out the Convergence Review which discussed many of the ways in which these platforms are moving together but you need to have a carefully thought out proposal to put before the Australian people, not simply float thought bubbles on Sunday morning talk shows.

HAMMER: Andrew Laming, the Internet is certainly becoming more widespread. People are accessing different types of media. Yet, it is premature to talk about relaxing these kinds of media rules. Wouldn't it be better sometime in the future?

LAMING: Chris, I'm pretty open minded about relaxing media ownership rules but I don't think the Internet is really the excuse. People who most need diversity of news but often can't access it are those in regional Australia. They'll be a very keen eye on those parts of the country where people want locally produced news and local content where possible. The bigger picture is that I enjoy at least having two providers of diverse news and I like to be able to get that on all the different channels. I can remember back to 2009 was Kevin Rudd was named 'Man of the Year' and it felt like there were no friends in the media anywhere for the Coalition. But times change. You're not always loved by the media but I think if there are at least two voices then there's a chance of some diversity and you wouldn't want to see that lost in any part of this country.

HAMMER: Your concern about news sources in regional Australia wouldn't allow the merger of big metropolitan owners with regional media drive that kind of localism in regional areas down even further?

LAMING: There's no doubt you can have localism even with a single owner, so it all depends on what the drive is by the owner themselves and then what local content can be supported by both providers, local news and investment in local areas. Ultimately you'd like some people working in local and regional Australia so you can report on it... [audio breaks up]. I just want to make sure that when you turn your TV or radio or open a newspaper there's more than one available. It's really a practical test at the time not really one for blanket decisions right now at national level.

HAMMER: Okay gentlemen, thanks for participating this morning.

LEIGH: Thanks Chris.



ENDS



MEDIA CONTACT: Toni Hassan 0426 207 726

On 10 March, I spoke on Sky AM Agenda about mooted eligibility changes for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, and media regulation thought bubbles.

Last night I spoke in the Parliament about how Australia's  first independent charities regulator is providing an important service to consumers and donors. Scrapping the Australian Charities and Not For Profits Commission will make members of the public more vulnerable to charity scams.

DR ANDREW LEIGH: In November last year police in Mackay alerted local residents to a scam that was taking place. Residents around Andergrove in the southern suburbs reported people doorknocking, posing as collectors for Autism Queensland. They were attempting to get bank details from vulnerable residents. Autism Queensland had no collectors in the area.

This story of scammers posing as charitable collectors is sadly not an isolated incident.

Last month, ABC's 7.30 uncovered a children's education charity which had received nearly $1 million in donations but could not or would not say where some of those funds have gone. In other developments, scammers targeted Australian households last year with emails asking people to donate to phony bushfire appeals.

I am passionate about standing up for consumers and I know my friend and colleague the shadow parliamentary secretary to the shadow Treasurer is too. If we are to stand up for the interests of consumers then we need an organisation that will report dodgy dealings by charities, and that organisation is the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.

In its first year, the compliance team at the ACNC received and assessed 202 charity related concerns, an average of 17 a day—not bad for an organisation whose public profile is just beginning to rise. Eight of those cases, according to the ACNC, involved investigations of serious matters of fraud and governance, including one case involving allegations of serious mismanagement and fraud at a charity where a husband and wife were directors on the charity's board. As the ACNC review noted:

The couple took over the charity initially with the support of the members and existing board. However, many members cancelled their membership following the couple's increasing abuse of their position within the charity.

If we are to ensure that we have a strong charitable sector, we need a strong ACNC to which complaints can be directed.

The analogy here is with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, which underpins investor confidence and ensures that investors can put their money into firms knowing that there is a basic set of rules and an agency to which problems can be reported. The government, for its own heavily ideological reasons, wants to scrap the ACNC.

There is not only that; they are still committed to getting rid of the statutory definition of 'charities'. That is right: the government would currently prefer to go back to case law from the 1600s to determine what is a charity rather than having a simple, straightforward definition. Do we want to return to a set of laws that were drafted before flight, before cars, before electricity and before the telephone? It seems very strange to go back to a set of laws that predate the industrial revolution to define 'charities'. I call on the government to back off and to support the statutory definition of a charity.

I call on the government to engage with the charitable sector, who overwhelmingly have supported the ACNC. After all, the ACNC came out of a Productivity Commission review. It has been backed by four out of five charities in surveys. Tim Costello has said:

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

Carolyn Kitto, with the charity STOP THE TRAFFIK!, has written to my office in the following terms:

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, we do not 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.

As you would expect, given that the ACNC has a red tape reduction and reporting directorate. A government committed to tackling red tape should be a government that is proud to support the ACNC. It is an idea that originated with Prime Minister Howard and ought to enjoy bipartisan support.

My Chronicle column this month is about swimming.

Summer's Over But it's Still a Great Time to Swim, The Chronicle, 4 March 2014

In almost every Tim Winton novel, there comes a point where the main character has to escape the problems of life, and dives into the water for a swim. The strokes come painfully at first, but after a while, the characters find a rhythm. By the time they leave the water, they’re physically tired and emotionally cleansed.

While my troubles are a good deal easier to solve than Winton’s characters, I can’t help identify with his love of the water. Few things mark summer for me like diving into the crisp calm of a pool on a scorchingly hot day. There’s a sense of leaving the heat behind, and allowing the water to envelop you. Whether you’re a mellow breaststroker, a furious butterflier, or a plodding freestyler, the discipline of a good swim is a rare delight.

Unlike my friend Chris, who can happily start the day with a 5 kilometre swim, my time in the water is restricted to a couple of dozen laps. But as a way of staying fit through summer, it beats sweltering runs. And there’s something beautifully egalitarian in a sport that doesn’t need any more equipment than a pair of togs and a set of goggles.

Canberra is fortunate to have a suite of good pools. They range from the older ones in Woden, Dickson and Civic to newer structures at the AIS and Belconnen. In Forde, a purpose-built centre caters to learn-to-swim classes. In Gungahlin, a new 50 metre pool will open in May 2014. Personally, I love the older ones, like Dickson pool. It opened in the 1960s, a decade that also saw the inauguration of the Harold Holt Memorial Swimming Pool in Glen Iris, Victoria. If there’s another nation that would honour a drowned Prime Minister with a swimming pool, I’d like to know about it.

For my three boys, swimming is a marker of their confidence. I love their sense of pride when they first manage to swim a metre on their own, when they jump in from the side without holding your hands, and when they decide they can make it without the foam noodle. I want them to respect the water, to learn to master it, but also to delight in the freedom of water to escape the heat, and the satisfying ache in your arms afterwards.

Summer may be over, but there’s no reason the swimming has to stop. If you’d like to improve your swimming, my team and I have put together a list of resources. For those thinking about lessons, it includes contact details of swimming schools – including for adults who’ve never swum before. For casual swimmers, we’ve listed local pools and their opening hours. And for people like Chris who are keen to test their limits, we’ve compiled details of local swim squads.

Here's the list. Hope to see you at the pool.

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

On 21 February 2014, I took part in a panel discussion at the Perth Writers' Festival on Australia's economic future. The other panellists were Ross Garnaut, Mike Nahan, Andrew Burrell & Scott Ludlam. The chair was Carmen Lawrence. The conversation was subsequently broadcast on ABC Big Ideas.

I spoke in parliament on a bill relating to tax, superannuation and health, and took the opportunity to talk about Labor's legacy in these areas.

Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Bill 2014, 4 March 2014

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House is of the opinion:

(1) that the government has made clear its intentions of creating a two tiered system of health care by hitting vulnerable Australians with extra out-of-pocket costs while considering further cuts to payments and support;

(2) that savings generated under this Bill must be reinvested to enhance health care affordability and universally accessible health care for all Australians; and

(3) that it was an Australian Labor Government that revolutionised health care in 1983 with the establishment of Medicare and will always defend the right of every Australian to universal, affordable and high quality health care."

The Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 before the House goes to matters of taxation, superannuation and health care. They are matters with which Labor are strongly familiar, as the party that laid down many of the key foundations for our tax, superannuation and health-care system. We think typically of John Curtin as being the Prime Minister who brought the troops home to save Australia against the opposition of conservatives of the day. But as John Edwards's splendid book Curtin's gift also points out, one of the great enduring legacies of John Curtin was uniform income tax, a centre of Commonwealth power that is the substance of its fiscal policy effectiveness and which gives the Australian Commonwealth a unity of purpose through the taxation system. Labor is also the party that created universal superannuation and expanded universal superannuation - again, over the objections of conservatives of the day. Labor therefore support schedules 1 and 2 in the bill, which go to penalties for promoters of schemes that result in the illegal early release of superannuation funds and penalties for contraventions relating to self-managed superannuation funds.

Making sure that promoters do not engage in schemes which undermine the contributions made by working Australians to their superannuation is fundamental to a rigorous superannuation scheme. Labor support schedule 2, which ensures the integrity of self-managed superannuation schemes. Labor is the party of superannuation.

By contrast, the Prime Minister said in this place on 25 September 1995:

'Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.'

The Prime Minister even said at a press conference on 23 March 2012:

'We have always as a Coalition been against compulsory superannuation increases.'

By contrast, Labor is proud to have put in place a system which ensures that working people can retire with dignity, a system which makes sure that working people have a nest egg available for them at retirement. So Labor is supporting the superannuation aspects of this bill.

Labor also supports schedule 4, which adds the National Arboretum Canberra Fund and the Prince's Charities Australia Limited as specifically listed deductible gift recipient funds and extends the existing listing of the Bali Peace Park Association Inc. As a member representing the great city of Canberra, I add my support to the National Arboretum for the work that it has done. It is an extraordinary facility which is there for generations to come. The building of an arboretum is a classic intergenerational gift because small trees planted today may only be enjoyed by children and grandchildren. The National Arboretum is a place where Canberrans enjoy recreation, public events and weddings—the Margaret Whitlam Pavilion having become one of the most popular wedding venues in Canberra. I commend the many volunteers and donors who have worked together to make the National Arboretum such a success.

The bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to phase out the net medical expenses tax offset by the end of 2018-19 income year. From income years 2013-14 to 2018-19, that tax offset will be subject to transitional arrangements. This was a recommendation that flowed from the Henry tax review. The Henry tax review recommended that NMETO be removed for several reasons. These were that it does not provide assistance when the expenses incurred as claimed at the end of the income year; it is claimed by an individual but assessed on a family basis; it is inequitable for individuals who must incur the same cost as a family in order to make a claim; and that low-income families with higher out-of-pocket medical expenses cannot claim the offset because of insufficient tax liability. In the jargon, NMETO is not refundable and so is in that sense regressive.

It was a Labor proposal to phase out NMETO and Labor stands ready to support sensible tax reforms. It is absolutely vital that we have support in this House for an ongoing and sustainable healthcare system. I spoke at the start of my speech about Labor's role in building the tax system and the superannuation system, but it is Medicare which is, perhaps, one of Labor's great achievements. In an article in 2011, Bill Bowtell, in the journal Voice, told the story of the creation of Medicare. He pointed out that in 1969 Medibank was a crucial factor in securing the great swing to Whitlam Labor and to propelling Labor to power in 1972. It was, as Mr Bowtell put it, 'a simple, bold and deeply radical reform'.

The coalition's refusal to pass the Medibank legislation in the Senate helped to bring about the 1974 double dissolution and Medibank's eventual introduction in mid-1975 helped precipitate the constitutional crisis of that year. Labor maintained its commitment to Medibank, reworking it into what is known as Medicare. That work, done so painstakingly through the years of opposition, ensured that Medicare was an even better system than Medibank by the time of the 1983 election. Mr Bowtell argues that, at that election, Medicare was perhaps the only policy agreed on unanimously by the political and industrial wings the ALP and across its factions and the branches. The commitment to Medicare had been painstakingly built over almost 15 years between the 1969 and the 1983 elections. The speed with which Medicare was introduced after the 1983 election meant that the scheme could commence operation on 1 February 1984, after the legislation being passed through in the late 1983.

But conservative opposition to Medicare continued, as indeed it did to superannuation. <CLOSE UP>The coalition advocated the repeal of Medicare at the 1984 election, at the 1987 election, at the 1990 election and at the 1993 election. It is staggering to think that a little over 20 years ago, if a coalition government under John Hewson had been elected, Medicare would be gone. Indeed, the only substantial commitment made by John Howard after taking on the leadership was to accept the Medicare system in its entirety. It took from 1969 to 1996, nearly a generation, for Medibank and Medicare to pass from a mere idea into an established order. It is a great lesson for long game policy reformers about the amount of work that must be done, the public advocacy that must be put in, to bring about these landmark reforms.

All of us on this side of the House are committed to seeing a Medicare system that stands the test of time. We are enormously proud of Medicare and many of us on this side of the House are worried when we hear the Minister for Health floating thought bubbles on health reform that seem to suggest a lack of commitment to the Medicare system and to maintaining the strength of primary health care.

We know when we look at the international statistics that Australia has to do better on primary health care. When a person goes into hospital it is an extremely expensive exercise, so we need to ensure that our primary healthcare system works as well as possible. We on this side of the House are proud defenders of Medicare. We support the substance of this bill today—indeed, we wrote the substance of this bill. We are proud to support a strong income tax system, a strong superannuation system and a strong Medicare system and we will fight for that inside this House and outside.