Andrew Leigh

MEDIA RELEASE

Young people on Canberr'a northside urged to apply to help them be creative young stars

Andrew Leigh, Member for Fraser, today urged students and young people in Fraser to apply to share in $23,500 to help them develop their talents and chase their dreams by taking part in creative, cultural, academic and community activities.

Dr Leigh previously announced applications under the Australian Government’s $8 million Creative Young Stars program which is a feature of Creative Australia, the Australian Government national cultural policy.

The program will invest $23,500 per financial year in Fraser, and the first funding round will open on 1 June and close this Friday, 21 June 2013. The program will deliver grants of $500 for individuals and $3000 for groups of six or more in Fraser. The program will provide funding for successful applicants aged 25 and under.

“Canberra’s northside is full of young people who have many great talents and who will use those to make a fantastic contribution to our community once they get the chance to develop those talents further,” Dr Leigh

“But in some cases their families find it difficult to meet the extra costs associated with participating in activities, events and training.

“The Australian Government is determined to help young Australians reach their potential in all walks of life, be that at school, be that at finding a job, or be that in areas such as the arts, community service and leadership, or academia,” Dr Leigh said.

“That’s why we are complementing our record investments and improvements in areas such as school education with a $23,500 investment each financial year to help young people on the northside develop their potential in areas that go beyond the classroom.

“These grants will help young people further develop their creative talents by helping them take part in competitions, eisteddfods, public speaking tournaments and other cultural, artistic or academic events.

“I am proud that the Australian Government is able to make this practical investment to ensure that more young people in Canberra’s north get the chance to reach their potential and make an even greater contribution to our community in the creative fields.

“I strongly encourage students and young people, their parents and carers on the northside to apply for a Creative Young Stars grant to help them chase their dreams,” Dr Leigh said.

In Round 1, the program will deliver grants to 12 individuals and two groups in each of the 150 Federal Electorates across Australia.

For more information on the Creative Young Stars program visit www.youth.gov.au/sites/youth/news/pages/creative-young-stars

On 18 June, I appeared on Sky PM agenda with host David Speers and Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos. We discussed assistance to manufacturing, carbon pricing and leadership.

TRANSCRIPT – SKY PM AGENDA WITH DAVID SPEERS
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
18 June 2013

TOPICS:                                Holden, local government referendum, carbon pricing, leadership

David Speers:                    Now we’re going to move on and bring in our political panel this hour. We’re joined by Parliamentary Secretary Andrew Leigh, and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Arthur Sinodinos. Thank you both very much for joining us. Now look, I just want to pick up on that quickly if we can; Holden are now in talks on how to cut production costs. It’s likely to mean lower wages and fewer conditions if the workforce agree to it. But Mike Devereux saying there, they’re making it pretty clear there that they want the level of industry support to continue. Arthur Sinodinas, is the Coalition sticking by its plan to cut this $500 million?

Arthur Sinodinos:             What we’re talking about there, David, is cutting some of the extra assistance that was provided by Labor since it’s been in office. We’re also committed to a review by the Productivity Commission about the whole assistance arrangements around the automotive sector and I think that’s our rigorous way to go and get some evidence-based policy-making around this. The challenge the automotive sector have today is even as Labor has put more money in in order to preserve or even expand jobs, the sector’s actually been shedding jobs. And so this is creating that sort of question in the minds of the public: well ok, are we really in a sense throwing good money after bad, if you like, and what are we getting in return? That’s not an argument for closing the sector down, that’s an important sector and we’re committed to the sector, but we want a rigorous approach as part of considering assistance for the sector going forward, and we were always committed from when we were in government to having a Productivity Commission review before any further assistance was provided.

David Speers:                    Andrew Leigh, as an economist, can you really say that this level of industry support is in the best interests of the economy as a whole?

Andrew Leigh: Well David, the reason we’re providing industry assistance to the car industry is because of the spill-overs to other sectors, because of the benefits that you get to the rest of manufacturing, and the benefits to research and development. I certainly appreciate Arthur’s commitment to evidence-based policy-making, it’s a commitment that I share as well. But the challenge is, as Mike Devereux highlighted, that when there’s uncertainty, it makes it very difficult for his firm to plan for the future. And so the Coalition’s policy has an admirable level of scrutiny, but the practical effect of that is to cause real difficulties for someone like Mike Devereux, making investment decisions into the future, not knowing whether there’s $500 million stripped out or maybe even more as a result of the review the Coalition is committed to.

David Speers:                    Mike Devereux is not a politician, but I tell you what, he’s pretty clever on the diplomacy here because he was careful not to tread on Coalition toes too much. And Similarly on the carbon tax as well. But I think he’s making it pretty clear that it’s one factor at least that does add to the cost of production in Australia. It hard to deny that, isn’t it?

Andrew Leigh: We’ve always been clear, David, that a carbon price would add to CPI. It adds about 0.7 per cent to CPI, about a third of the impact of introducing the GST. But the reason you have a carbon price, and the reason that the Howard Government wanted a carbon price before the 2007 election is it’s just the most efficient way of dealing with carbon pollution. That’s why today you’ve seen Shenzen, a province of China with ten million people setting up its own emissions trading scheme.

David Speers:                    But not the sort of carbon price, it’s about to go up over the next couple of weeks to over $24/tonne here in Australia. It’s one of the reasons car makers like Holden are doing it tough.

Andrew Leigh: The net effect of the carbon price, David, on total costs in the economy has actually ended up being less than we had projected beforehand. We’ve provided considerable household assistance, which for most households has more than offset the price effect. Were you to strip it away now, effectively you would be putting Australia in a much worse position because the alternative to a carbon price is the sort of command-and-control approach which Mr Abbott has pioneered: much more expensive, much less efficient.

David Speers:                    Alright, I know Arthur Sinodinos will want to jump in on that but we do need to take a quick break. Stick with us though and there’s a few other issues I want to cover as well. For New Zealand viewers New Zealand news next for you but stay with us as this continues on PM Agenda

[Commercial Break]

David Speers:                    Let’s back to our panel. We’re talking to Labor’s Andrew Leigh and the Coalition’s Arthur Sinodinos. Now, I do want to move on and we’ll get to the ongoing, never ending, leadership issues that are dogging the Labor Party all week it seems. But initially the Coalition Party room today, Arthur Sinodinas, on the referendum that’s coming up at this election as well on whether to recognise local government in the Constitution. Just firstly, are you in favour of this?

Arthur Sinodinos:             In terms of recognising local government in the Constitution?

David Speers:                    Yeah

Arthur Sinodinos:             I think we’ve got to fix up the anomaly that the High Court has identified. The problem we’ve had, and this is more the front bench, because we discussed this as a shadow ministry some time back, was the concern that this has been rushed a bit and that maybe with a bit more time it would be possible to build more of a consensus around this. I think if we’re coming up to what’s going to be a pretty frenetic election, I don’t think the referendum necessarily gets the attention it deserves. Now, it may be there are some Labor strategists who think it’s a bit of a distraction but our view in the shadow ministry was if they want to as a government put this up, ok, there should be equal funding, and that was, I think, the understanding on which…

David Speers:                    And this is the thing, there’s not. It’s ten and a half million for the ‘Yes’ case and half a million for the ‘No’ case.

Arthur Sinodinos:             And us poor senators don’t get counted, this was done on the basis that there were only two in the House who voted for the ‘No’ case.

David Speers:                    Yeah so given all of that and the disparity in the funding, do you still support the ‘Yes’ case?

Arthur Sinodinos:             Look, we will support it being put forward but I think you’ll find within the Liberal Party there are some very strong views, both for and against, there are for example people who argue that, you know, if you entrench local government in the Constitution, what impact does that have on the states and the powers of the states? So, if you’re a West Australian Liberal, for example, now you’d be quite concerned about the impact on state rights. A lot of this comes down to the view about, you know, what is the appropriate sort of balance within the Constitution on these issues. But where I think Abbott in particular has been coming from was a concern that unlike, say, the agreement that was stuck on the indigenous referendum which is essentially, let’s do it in a way that maximises the chances of it getting up, this has been a bit rushed and a bit sort of bowdlerised on the way  through.

David Speers:                    I’m intrigued to, Andrew Leigh, see what position you take on this and what you expect Canberrans to do on this because, of course, we don’t have local government in the ACT.

Andrew Leigh: That’s right, David. So we’re one jurisdiction that isn’t affected by this - but certainly for most Australians what this would do is to regularise a system that’s already in place. So, if your local council is expecting Commonwealth funding - for a local organisation, or to fix the local bridge - then you ought to be supporting this referendum because it allows that Commonwealth funding to flow with a constitutional guarantee. If it doesn’t go through, the only way your local council is going to be able to fix that bridge is by raising rates.

David Speers:                    Now, let me move on, because we’ve only got a couple of minutes left, to the leadership issue. Where are you at on this, Andrew Leigh, what’s your view on what’s going on and what do you think should happen?

Andrew Leigh: My view, David, is I’m finding so many of these questions being raised, I’ve had lots of conversations about this all week - and they’ve all been with journalists. So this is a huge issue for the Parliamentary Press Gallery who are utterly engulfed on this topic. But I represent Canberra, what the Americans would call an ‘inside the beltway seat’, and I can tell you that when I was out doorknocking Nicholls on the weekend, no one was talking about this.

David Speers:                    So, just to be clear, are you saying, because we hear this every time, that it’s a media creation?

Andrew Leigh: I’m not saying it’s a media creation, I’m simply saying that it is not the main concern of my electors who are focused on DisabilityCare, the National Broadband Network, health and education. These, I think, are the most important issues for people in Australia’s capital city.

David Speers:                    Nobody is saying to you, you need to do something about the leadership?

Andrew Leigh: No. I mean, it’s not the feedback I get when I’m out doorknocking.

David Speers:                    Ok, but just to be clear though do you support a change or not?

Andrew Leigh: No. Prime Minister Gillard will lead us to the next election.

David Speers:                    And Arthur Sinodinos, you’ve seen some of this stuff before on the…

Arthur Sinodinos:             I’m not agitating for leadership change anywhere!

David Speers:                    I’ve seen you issuing press releases pointing out various Labor MPs that standing by Julia Gillard. You clearly think she’s lead in the saddlebags for Labor candidates.

Arthur Sinodinos:             I’d be less than honest if I didn’t admit that when we were out doorknocking, particularly in NSW places like Western Sydney, the Prime Minister is an issue in terms of her capacity to cut through.

David Speers:                    But do you really think Kevin Rudd would fix everything for Labor?

Arthur Sinodinos:             I don’t believe that. The reason I don’t believe that, even though the polls suggest he could do a little bit better, is at the end of the day it seems to be a debate over the personality as opposed to the policy issues and I think that’s, from the public’s point of view, that’s one of the reasons they see this as a bit of a soap opera now, that it’s too much about two camps as opposed to policy issues. I mean, for example, we don’t know what Kevin Rudd would do about the boat people situation, whether he would improve on that. On Gonski, I’m a bit sort of puzzled as to where he actually stands for example. So, what we’re being offered is the idea that he’s somehow a celebrity and cult figure who could attract people back. I think the Australian public have gotten to the stage where they just want the election, they just want a majority government, and they just want to get on with things.

Andrew Leigh: By contrast, the leadership issue within the Coalition is actually a very big policy difference.

David Speers:                    Well I don’t know that it’s quite the leadership issue that we’re seeing in Labor at the moment. But look, we will have to leave it there; we’re out of time. Andrew Leigh, Arthur Sinodinas, good to talk with you.

Andrew Leigh: Thanks David, thanks Arthur.

Arthur Sinodinos:             Thanks.

My op-ed in the Canberra Times points out that since Tony Abbott was Health Minister, the federal Health Department has grown more slowly than the Australian population. Yet he now claims not to know what it does, and is threatening savage cuts.

Liberals' unhealthy dose of purging threatens, Canberra Times, 19 June 2013

Recently, I was chatting to a public servant who works at the federal Department of Health and Ageing – working on ways of reducing smoking, encouraging better nutrition, and decreasing obesity rates.

The conversation turned to this year’s election, and what it meant for our jobs. As a politician, I know that every three years I’m up for a job interview with a 130,000 person panel. But it turned out that this person felt much the same. They’re concerned that their job turns on the election result.

Having done countless mobile offices and community forums, I know that many Canberra public servants feel just the same. They’ve heard Joe Hockey say “the public service here in Canberra has to be reduced by 12,000 over the first two years as a starting point”. When Chris Uhlmann on 7.30 asked Mr Hockey whether he in fact intends to cut 20,000 public servants, Mr Hockey confirmed “we’ve already said that.” Some of his colleagues are more contemptuous still, with Western Australian MP Don Randall describing public servants as those who ‘feed on others’.

But public servants who work for the Health Department have a special reason to be worried, because the Liberals have made the department a special target. In his budget reply speech this year, Tony Abbott said “The objective will be to reduce and end, as far as possible, the waste, duplication and second guessing between different levels of government that has resulted, for instance, in the Commonwealth employing 6,000 health bureaucrats even though it doesn’t run a single hospital.”

This statement is daft on so many levels. First, according to the December 2012 APS employment snapshot, the Health Department had 5040 employees. Second, the Department’s staffing numbers have barely increased since the Coalition was last in office. The same data source shows that the department had 4802 employees in June 2007. From June 2007 to December 2012, the Australian population grew by 9 percent, and the number of staff in the Health Department grew by 5 percent.

It gets worse. The Minister for Health from 2003 to 2007 was none other than Tony Abbott. When it suits him, Mr Abbott is happy to boast of the expertise that this period as minister gave him, calling it a “solid record of achievement.” Yet when it suits him, Mr Abbott is happy to feign complete ignorance of what the Health Department does.

At a personal level, I find this willingness to use public servants as political playthings pretty shocking. In the four years that Tony Abbott spent as their minister, Health Department officials worked late nights and weekends, spent time away from their families, and did their darndest to implement his policies. Yet when it suits his political purposes, Mr Abbott is happy to pretend that none of this ever happened.

Politics is a rough game, but public servants should not be pawns in it. In case the Liberals need reminding, federal public servants in the Health Department have achieved a lot over recent years. They have designed a Dental Reform Package that will make it as easy for 3.4 million young Australians to see a dentist as it is to see a GP. They have crafted a mental health package delivering additional services and a greater focus on prevention and early intervention. They have worked to close the life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. And they have written Australia’s world-first plain tobacco packaging rules, which will help reduce smoking rates.

The Liberals’ treatment of the Health Department is of a piece with a larger pattern of behaviour towards public servants. Still smarting from Treasury finding an $11 billion hole in their costings at the 2010 election, Shadow Finance Minister Andrew Robb has said of budget numbers: “My assumption is that Finance and Treasury will not engage in what are clearly the sorts of fiddles that we have seen take place in this budget to create the prospect of future surpluses.” This is a none-too-veiled threat: give us the numbers we want, or heads will roll if we win office.

The impact of public service job cuts on the Canberra economy would extend beyond the 1 in 4 workers who work for the federal public service. As the experience of 1997-98 shows, swingeing job cuts would drive up unemployment and bankruptcy rates, and drive down house prices. Acknowledging this, Mr Hockey recently quipped “There is a golden rule for real estate in Canberra – you buy Liberal and you sell Labor.” Is there any other context where a federal politician would be content to joke about how their job-shedding policies will bring down house prices?

Federal public servants have faithfully served both sides of federal politics. Going back to Menzies, there is a strong tradition in the Liberal Party of respecting the role of an apolitical public service, and encouraging critical advice. It’s a pity that Menzies’ heirs today seem to wish that the public service was flaccid and fearful rather than frank and fearless.

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

MEDIA RELEASE

NBN Construction to begin in Belconnen

[caption id="attachment_4392" align="aligncenter" width="1024" caption="Construction of the NBN will soon commence in Belconnen, Aranda, Macquarie and Cook"][/caption]

Construction has commenced to bring the NBN to hundreds of households in the Belconnen area, Member for Fraser, Andrew Leigh said today.

Andrew Leigh today welcomed the release of detailed maps by NBN Co, showing where construction of the National Broadband Network (NBN) will start in Aranda, Belconnen and parts of Macquarie and Cook.

“The map shows that NBN fibre is being rolled out in Belconnen which will allow more residents access to faster, affordable and more reliable broadband.

“Under Labor, connection to the NBN is free because we believe everyone should have access to the NBN,” Dr Leigh said.

“Under the Liberals you will have to you pay up to $5,000 to connect NBN fibre to your home - or you’re left disconnected.

“The National Broadband Network is about preparing Australia for the future. It’s about ensuring that our local communities in places like Belconnen are not left behind as the world and our local economy changes,” Dr Leigh said.

The map is another sign that construction of the National Broadband Network is continuing to ramp up, with work now having commenced or been completed to nearly one million homes and businesses across Australia.

Canberra will be one of the first metropolitan centres to be fully connected to the NBN.

“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 workers locally doing the detailed planning and inspection work, and then rolling out the fibre.

“What’s more, NBN retail services are available for similar prices to what people are paying now, but for a much superior service.

“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 Belconnen will be among the first to benefit.

“The Liberals to come clean with the people of Canberra and say whether they support Tony Abbott’s plan to charge up to $5,000 for families to connect to Labor’s NBN.

“I know many families in Belconnen who will simply not be able to afford a $5,000 hit to the family budget and will have to miss out on the superfast broadband that Labor’s NBN is delivering.

“Labor is building the NBN for all Australians. But the Liberals are planning a digital divide in every suburb and town across Australia, denying access to Labor’s fibre network for millions of people.”

For more information on when the NBN is coming to your area, you can go to www.nbnco.com.au/rollout and type in your address.

Construction of the NBN will soon commence in Belconnen, Aranda, Macquarie and Cook

Construction of the NBN will soon commence in Belconnen, Aranda, Cook and Macquarie

TRANSCRIPT – SKY AM AGENDA WITH KIERAN GILBERT
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
17 June 2013

TOPICS:                                 Leadership, immigration, National Plan for School Improvement.

Kieran Gilbert:                   This is AM Agenda, thanks for your company. Joining me now is Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Andrew Leigh, and the Shadow Minister for Families, Jamie Briggs. Good morning gents. Andrew Leigh, first to you. This polling – I know you’re famously opposed to looking at opinion polls – but these have been consistent, over many, many months. Kevin Rudd is much, much more popular than Julia Gillard, he’s twice as popular according to the latest Nielsen poll as well. When do you think that these haves some sort of quality that you need to look at? I know that as an academic you don’t think polls should be taken attention of, but surely 3 months out, this is significant.



Andrew Leigh:                  Well Kieran I think it’s clear that Labor is the underdog in this election. Certainly that’s apparent from a range of indicators, not least the Coalition measuring up the curtains in The Lodge and engaging in tactics on the floor of Parliament such as bullying Treasury officials, suggesting if they don’t get the Budget numbers they want, that heads would roll under an Abbott government. So, you know, the arrogance of the Coalition, that sense of hubris, of entitlement to power is coming through. We’re the underdog but we will keep talking about policy, about the importance of the National Plan for School Improvement, the value of DisabilityCare, why Australians are entitled to expect a government –

Kieran Gilbert:                   But don’t you have to listen to the Australian people when they say consistently, over a number of years, that they think you got it wrong in 2010 in dumping Kevin Rudd?



Andrew Leigh:                  Kieran, I do little else than listen to people. I was out doorknocking Nicholls on the weekend, I was handing out for the Canberra charity Menslink at the Canberra Raiders game on Saturday afternoon. I’ve had many, many conversations with electors over the weekend and let me tell you one thing – here in Canberra, inside the so called beltway, people aren’t interested in leadership issues. People are interested in policy.

Kieran Gilbert:                   I want to play our viewers a little of Graham Richardson, I spoke to him earlier. He thinks it’s increasingly inevitable that Labor will change leader.

Graham Richardson

(footage):                           …certainly more and more of them are talking about it, I’m even hearing some who now say they’re prepared to vote for Kevin Rudd. But you need leadership for that, and I think that means you need Bill Shorten to do it. Bill Shorten is nowhere near committed to any of this, he might be thinking about it, but he’s not said he’ll do it, certainly not to me, and I’m not aware of him saying it to too many others. So I don’t think you can say that this is ‘on’, but it’s more likely than not because more and more of them understand now how desperate their situation is.



Kieran Gilbert:                   And that’s Graham Richardson this morning. Jamie Briggs, it shows – this Nielsen poll – if Labor do return to Kevin Rudd, it’s competitive again. Do you believe those numbers?

Jamie Briggs:                      Well, look, it could be Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard or Bobo the clown leading Labor party, it’s the policies that are the problem. We’ve been focused on providing, and talking to the Australian people about our real solutions plan for months now. We’re not focused on our internal issues, on the chaos and dysfunction that the Labor party is going through. No matter where you go in Parliament House, someone wants to talk to you about Labor’s leadership and it’s usually a Labor MP. They are so internally focussed that they’ve forgotten that they’re here to serve the Australian people, they’ve forgotten what government is all about, which is creating opportunities – hope, reward and opportunity for the Australia people. Andrew talks about how there is some focus in the Opposition on measuring the curtains, well that couldn’t be any further from the truth, Oppositions always start underdogs. The problem that the Labor party’s got is they’re busy measuring up the curtains of the Opposition offices. So much so that for the first time in living memory, they’ve actually appointed an Opposition spokesperson Andrew Leigh. He’s been appointed Opposition spokesperson already. They’ve given up on governing, they’re focusing on themselves purely. They’re not focused on good policy for the Australian people, they want diversions and distractions every week, rather than good policy for the future of our country.

Kieran Gilbert:                   I want to play a little now of Laurie Ferguson, a Labor member from Western Sydney. He was asked about the prospect of a Rudd return and he’s obviously not excited about such a prospect. Let’s take a listen to some comments last night.

Journalist

(footage):                           Should the Prime Minister quit for the good of the Labor party?



Laurie Ferguson

(footage):                           Absolutely not.



Journalist

(footage):                           Why not?



Laurie Ferguson

(footage):                           Well, because I don’t see any alternative to her.



Journalist

(footage):                           Could the alternative be Kevin Rudd?



Laurie Ferguson

(footage):                           No, not really, no.



Journalist

(footage):                           Is it too late for that?



Laurie Ferguson

(footage):                           Look, quite frankly, I think that 5 minutes after he’s elected leader, the Opposition will be stressing the immigration changes that he engineered, and that’s western Sydney.



Kieran Gilbert:                   Laurie Ferguson says that, the Coalition, predicting what will happen if you do return to Rudd, and that is something that lingers, isn’t it? That he did change the border protection policies, and it does sort of reinforce that argument that both need to be accountable for the policy failures, doesn’t it?

Andrew Leigh:                  Well Kieran, we know that certainly the big challenge in the asylum seeker space is simply that the Opposition is not willing to support the findings of the independent Houston panel. If they were willing to do that, if they were willing to take the advice of Angus Houston and his fellow panellists and back all of those recommendations and work with the region, in a regional solution through the Bali process, then that for me is the way forward. But the Coalition chose to walk into Parliament, and chose to vote for more boats, by voting for legislation that would have backed in the Houston panel’s recommendations. That for me is the big issue.



Kieran Gilbert:                   On the asylum seeker issue, Jamie Briggs, are you comfortable with this policy to send those convicted of crime, to deport them? Are you comfortable with that, will you still see the Coalition honour its international commitments as Christopher Pyne asserted this morning?

Jamie Briggs:                      Yes, I am. But just on that point about, um, if nothing sums up the problem that the Labor party has in government better, it’s just Andrew’s last answer: it’s always someone else’s fault. It’s never their own fault. Not the fact that in 2008 they found a solution and created a problem by overturning the laws that had worked for years, they still haven’t admitted they did that by the way, you won’t hear Andrew Leigh say ‘yeah look I’m sorry about that, the reason we’ve had 40 odd thousand people arrive by boat was because we tampered with something we shouldn’t have touched. We haven’t heard him say sorry about that, we haven’t heard Kevin Rudd say sorry about that, we haven’t heard Julia Gillard say sorry about that.

Kieran Gilbert:                   On the Coalition policy though, because the polls suggest that you will win government as of September, it’s a significant policy to say that you will send back those convicted of crimes with sentences of more than a year, with removing appeal processes and so on, aren’t you then intervening inappropriately in the judicial system?

Jamie Briggs:                      No, we believe that you need to have a strong border security program to ensure that the humanitarian visas which our country issues each year, which are limited. Unless the Labor party is now saying that they want to open up and unlock and allow as many people who want to arrive, which is the Greens policy by the way, the Greens don’t have a number at which they will stop people arriving at, the Labor party seems to be going down that path as well. We say that there are a limited amount of spots, that we are able to, what is a very generous country, internationally compared. We don’t think it is appropriate, people who have been convicted of serious crimes to get access to –

Kieran Gilbert:                   Andrew Leigh, your response to that? Because Mr Pyne said a bit earlier that they would still honour their international commitments under the Refugee Convention under this policy.

Andrew Leigh:                  Kieran, this is just the Opposition playing pure politics. We already have a set of rules which allow people convicted of crime to be deported. 97 have been deported this year under those rules. But the Opposition’s policy would have ensured that Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi could never have come to Australia because of course all of them had served longer than 12 months in detention. So this is a policy that’s simply designed to spread fear and misinformation in the community about asylum seekers, 0.2 percent of whom have committed offences, well below the rate of the general population.

Kieran Gilbert:                   What do you say to that?

Jamie Briggs:                      Well this just shows that the Labor party has lost complete connection with this issue. People are sick of seeing new stories every day of another boat arriving, of people drowning at sea, because their policies have put the sugar on the table to encourage people smugglers back into business. That’s what they did, that’s why there’s been 40 odd thousand people arrive, more than 1000 people have died at sea because of it, women and children have drowned because there is a policy which encourages people to get onto boats. Now if they think that is a humanitarian policy, good luck to them. The Australian people doesn’t – don’t, and we don’t either, and we don’t think that’s a great way to run your national security policy. If Andrew Leigh wants to defend it, then good luck to him.

Andrew Leigh:                  I’ll defend the Houston panel reports.



Jamie Briggs:                      Say sorry for changing the laws. Why won’t you say sorry for changing the laws, you were part of the government who did it, you and Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and –

Andrew Leigh:                  Jamie, shouting and bluster doesn’t change the simple facts.



Jamie Briggs:                      Apologise. Look at the camera and apologise.

Andrew Leigh:                  The simple fact of this issue is you need a regional solution, and Paris Aristotle –



Jamie Briggs:                      You changed the laws. You changed the laws. You changed the laws.

Andrew Leigh:                  - and Angus Houston and Michael L’Estrange have recommended that we have a regional solution, and that we look at Malaysia as an alternative.



Kieran Gilbert:                   Ok, you have made the point about the regional solution and we have discussed it many times before. I want to ask about the Gonski education reforms. Victoria still keeping open the option of signing on, but why would they at the moment when they don’t know who the Labor leader is going to be next year? Next week, I mean.

Andrew Leigh:                  They should sign on because every government school in Victoria is going to be better off. We’ve put out clear evidence on that, we’ve shown evidence school by school as to how much Victorian kids will receive. And unfortunately Premier Napthine is using these funny numbers at the moment where he’s assumed that the past level of indexation would continue – 4.7 percent indexation – but that’s a level of indexation which is based on strong education spend from largely Labor state and territory governments. Now we’ve got more and more conservative governments in power in states and territories, they’re cutting back on education, and this strange federal formula that we have then mechanically cuts back on federal spending. 3.9 percent this year, projected to be 3 percent next year. When you take that into account, it’s very clear that every government school in Victoria would be better off on the National Plan for School Improvement.



Kieran Gilbert:                   There is still the prospect that they will sign on, there is some, you know, disagreement on the numbers at the moment, but it looks a lot like they’re just angling for more money at this stage. Jamie Briggs, if Victoria does sign on, you’ve got New South Wales and Victoria, the two most populous Coalition states, where the Coalition are in power. It’s going to be really tough to unwind that, you must concede.

Jamie Briggs:                      Well no, I think it’s slated to begin in 2019, isn’t it? At the end of the day we’re talking about this government being elected again, again, and possibly again before you would see these so called changes come into place. Christopher Pyne outlined earlier our view in relation to education. The idea that somehow the Labor party has a mortgage on education is a farce, given that in recent times they’ve cut higher education, that’s why there’s TV ads run by Andrew’s former colleagues at the ANU saying how bad that policy is. How do you justify that to those former colleagues, cutting higher education?

Andrew Leigh:                  Higher education funding will continue to increase strongly under this government Jamie, as you well know. Higher education saw a big increase in funding since 2007 –



Jamie Briggs:                      No, no, so why are they running ads? Why are they running ads?

Kieran Gilbert:                   We’ve only got a few minutes left, I just want to get your thoughts quickly on Jamie’s point about this not coming into force until 2019, another six years.

Andrew Leigh:                  No, this plan will take effect from next year. Schools will start to get additional money, and that additional money will go where the experts tell us it’s needed. It’ll go to improving teacher quality, providing principals with more autonomy and power to do what they need to do, and making sure that we have resources that follow the child.



Kieran Gilbert:                   Do you think that there is any prospect that Kevin Rudd, if he returns, will water this down or scrap it?

Andrew Leigh:                  Prime Minister Julia Gillard will lead us to the next election.



Kieran Gilbert:                   Hundred percent?

Andrew Leigh:                  Absolutely.



Kieran Gilbert:                   Ok. Thank you Andrew, Jamie.

TRANSCRIPT – BREAKING POLITICS WITH TIM LESTER
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
17 June 2013

TOPICS                               Neilson poll, Labor leadership, Victoria and the National Plan for School Improvement, refugees, hung parliaments



Tim Lester:                          Kelly O’Dwyer and Andrew Leigh, thank you for coming back into Breaking Politics today.

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Great to be with you

Andrew Leigh: Pleasure

Tim Lester:                          Andrew, you first, for five months now the Gillard Government has been completely lifeless in the polls. You still are this morning, except for those numbers on Kevin Rudd were he to come back as leader and the chance that he apparently would give Labor to win. Can you look us straight in the face and honestly say that Labor MPs won’t be chewing over a leadership change in the next two weeks?

Andrew Leigh: Tim, I think it’s pretty clear that Labor is the underdog going into this election. You can tell that from a variety of indicators; not least the fact that the Coalition are clearly measuring up curtains in the Lodge. They’re bullying bureaucrats - telling Treasury officials that if they don’t get the numbers they want that heads would roll under an Abbott Government. We’re the underdog, but…

Tim Lester:                          Underdog or dead dog? Seriously, I mean, at what point do you say, and I don’t mean to be condescending…

Andrew Leigh: It’s pretty arrogant to the Australian people to suggest that the election has been decided before polling day, Tim. I’ve got a lot of respect for my voters.

Tim Lester:                          Of course, but there’s a point at which you have to look at those numbers and say no, this is just the way it’s going isn’t it? Where it’s a denial of the obvious to say, oh no, we’re a reasonable chance to win under Julia Gillard.

Andrew Leigh: Look Tim, I’ve been clear that we’re the underdog and our strategy over the next few months is going to be talking about policy, talking about the national broadband network, the choice people have between getting fibre to the home or having to pay $5000 to get the fibre connected under Tony Abbott’s scheme. The choice between low income earners paying no tax on their super contributions or having tax raised under Mr Abbott. The choice between better schools – every government school in Victoria getting more money under the Gonski plan, or having that money ripped away under Mr Abbott.

Tim Lester:                          And that shot of adrenaline that Rudd would give in terms of leadership - don’t know whether he would win it for you – but the shot of adrenaline he would give will not be discussed by Labor MPs you don’t think this fortnight.

Andrew Leigh: Prime Minister Gillard will lead us to the next election.

Tim Lester:                          Ok, Kelly O’Dwyer there is so much capacity here for a Coalition to get cocky, isn’t there? There is just so much, so much reason to believe you are going to win the next election. That’s almost dangerous, isn’t it?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Tim, I would certainly not say that there is any arrogance or hubris at all on the side of the Coalition. I mean, I find that exchange very interesting because of course, you know, I hate to say this Andrew, but I mean, you were making things up when you were saying that there was bullying going on with Treasury officials, I mean, you have no evidence to substantiate that statement, and I think it doesn’t do you justice to have made a statement like that. Certainly we know that every day we have to go out and explain to the Australian people why we will be a better government than the current government. Now, it is fair to say that the Australian people have made a decision on the current Prime Minister; they don’t think she’s doing a good job, they don’t think has been a particularly good government and that’s revealed time and time again when you talk to people on the streets, which is what I do. But it is not true to say that there is any arrogance on our side of politics. You know, we will have the judgement of the Australian people on polling day, whenever that might be.

Tim Lester:                          Parties love to go to elections as the underdog, you know, champion the underdog, there’s a thing about that in Australian politics. You are not the underdog for this election, are you? Nowhere near!

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Well, I mean I, all I can say to you, Tim, is that every day I do what all of my colleagues do and that is make sure that I’m out there talking about policies that are of interest to the Australian people. I’ll tell you one thing that isn’t of interest to them and that is this ‘leadership lotto’ that seems to happen every day, this very insular, inward focus about who is going to be Labor leader today, whether it’s Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd. I think Australians are really sick of that this Government is focussed inwardly on itself and not on the concerns that people have.

Tim Lester:                          Ok, one of those concerns and one of those policy positions that the Coalition is taking is that it would deport refugees, it says, who commit crimes that would carry gaol terms of more than twelve months, even if the refugee concerned wasn’t convicted or sentenced to a twelve month term. Why the need to go that hard on refugees? To force deportation in those cases?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  In cases where people have committed crimes?

Tim Lester:                          Yes

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Well, I think we’re already…

Tim Lester:                          We’re talking about deportation. That is, on a boat and out of here.

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  … Well, if you’re not an Australian citizen and you’ve committed a crime, it’s entirely appropriate that you would be deported. I don’t see the controversy in that.

Tim Lester:                          The bar is pretty low though, isn’t it? I mean, it strikes me that this is an easy signal to make on a highly sensitive issue.

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Well I think most Australians would be very concerned if there were people committing crimes here and, you know, wanting to stay in this country. I mean, I don’t see the controversy in deporting people who have committed crimes. We do that quite routinely already, where people who have committed crimes here who are citizens of another country get deported back to that country.

Tim Lester:                          Andrew Leigh, your view?

Andrew Leigh: Certainly, Tim, in extreme cases where people have committed serious crimes they can currently be deported. That’s happened in 97 cases over the past year. That’s actually happened on a higher number of cases than has happened in the last year of the Howard Government. So, I think what’s striking about this issue is the Coalition is calling for a policy which exists in a better thought through form already. I mean, the Coalition’s policy has this odd thing where they say you have to stay out for twenty years and then you can come back. That sounds a pretty strange way of structuring a policy. This policy exists already and Mr Abbott is just really trying to drum up fear and, I think, undermine the good standing of asylum seekers in the community. 0.2 per cent of asylum seekers have committed crimes – a lower rate than in the broader public. By and large, asylum seekers have contributed great things to public life. Whether that’s Frank Lowy, Majak Daw, Anh Do, we ought to be celebrating these stories of refugees rather than trying to drum up fear.

Tim Lester:                          Another policy issue that’s been raised that clearly divides you to some extent is on the comments from the Victorian Premier with regards to Gonski and the fact that he says, Mr  Napthine says, that some Victorian schools will be worse off under the Government’s plan. Is he right?

Andrew Leigh: Well Mr Napthine’s methodology is at odds with the numbers the Government has put out and here’s the reason for that: the Government has put out figures based on indexation rates as we expect them to be. The indexation rate that Mr Napthine assumes is 4.7%. But this year alone it’s 3.9%, and is projected to fall to 3% largely because indexation falls when conservative governments cut school funding, as they’ve been doing. So, when you use the right indexation rate you find the right result which is that all government schools in Victoria are better off under the National Plan for School Improvement. Rather than calling for the scrapping of penalty rates as Mr Napthine has been doing today, he ought to be supporting more money for every government school kid in his state.

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Can I just pick Andrew up on that point? Because I think it’s actually an important point. Firstly, the Premier has actually put out a list of hundreds of schools that will be worse of according to, as you appropriately say, the figures that have been put together by the Victorian Government.  The reason why the Government’s figures, the Federal Government’s figures, are wrong is because they are using an indexation rate that is completely at odds with the historical average indexation that has occurred over the last ten years which has been around about 6 per cent indexation…

Andrew Leigh: When Labor state governments were investing

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  No, no, no, just let me finish, because it’s a very, very important point. The Government is trying to dodgy up the figures to try and support their argument. The Government is in fact cutting funding to schools. They’re cutting funding to schools right across the nation. In fact, they’re cutting it by around about $300 million. All the promised ‘new funding’ that they say will be delivered will be in two elections time. Now, we can’t rely on the Government’s figures to last for more than six months, I mean, you know, you would have to be critical of Treasurer Wayne Swan and his ability to stick to the forecasts and the figures. I don’t think we can rely on the Government’s figures more than five years out.

Tim Lester:                          Andrew Leigh?

Andrew Leigh: Well the National Plan for School Improvement sees $16 billion more in funding going to schools around Australia. It replaces a system which I think people have largely agreed is broken. The simple answer to Kelly’s question is that the federal indexation is currently based …

[Kelly O’Dwyer:                Well, they clearly haven’t agreed]

Andrew Leigh: …on the average of spending and so Kelly’s comparing a period in which you largely had Labor state and territory governments doing appropriate investment in education. Now we’ve got conservative state governments cutting back, the Federal Government formula mechanically cuts back funding to the schools. That’s just daft. So this plan sees a better way of allocating funding based on socioeconomic status…

[Kelly O’Dwyer:                How much new funding is the Commonwealth providing to schools?]

Andrew Leigh: …based on Indigeneity, based on regionality and to answer Kelly’s question, it’s $16 billion of new funding under the National Plan for School Improvement.

[Kelly O’Dwyer:                In the next four years. No, in the next four years]

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Well that’s simply not correct. The Commonwealth is not providing new funding over the next four years. They’re relying on the states to increase levels of funding. They say they’re going to provide $7 billion new funding in year five can’t be believed. You absolutely cannot believe or rely in a promise made by this Government.

Tim Lester:                          Ok, I think moving beyond Gonski, as a closing question I’d like to ask you both as we’re running out of time, sittings of the 43^rd Parliament will end Thursday week, it’s all over. What has this parliament taught us, Kelly O’Dwyer, about minority governments and whether they can work?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  I think it’s taught us that minority governments are not very good, particularly governments that rest on the Greens, a Government where we have got a Labor-Greens alliance with a number of Labor independents. It’s not achieved good outcomes for Australians more broadly. I think it has ignored the real concerns that people have. Unfortunately I think this is going to go down as a pretty sort of sad part of our history in Australian democracy. I think that civility in the parliament has not been at its highest and I think that that is quite shameful.

Tim Lester:                          Andrew Leigh, minority governments: do we now know they work or don’t work?

Andrew Leigh: Well I certainly agree with Kelly’s point about the decline in civility in the parliament and I think one of the challenges there is that Mr Abbott has been the most negative Opposition Leader in history.

[Kelly O’Dwyer:                Take some responsibility]

Andrew Leigh: The reason that has happened is that minority government involves a lot of negotiation in public with independents about policy questions. But we’ve seen a range of policy reforms go through: the price on carbon pollution, the profits-based mining tax, the increases in superannuation from 9% to 12%, DisabilityCare- which will be a fundamental pillar of our social safety net, the National Broadband Network, and that’s just a tiny sample of the more than 500 bills that have passed the House of Representatives.

Tim Lester:                          Did better than forecast?

Andrew: So we’ve certainly gotten an awful lot done. But one of the challenges I think this has illustrated in minority government is the one that Kelly points to of maintaining civility, and frankly, that’s a challenge for all of us in parliament.

Tim Lester:                          Andrew Leigh, Kelly O’Dwyer, thanks for coming in today.

Andrew Leigh: Thanks Tim. Thanks Kelly.



Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Thanks Tim.

http://media.smh.com.au/news/national-times/enough-of-the-leadership-lotto-4496142.html

I spoke in parliament today about the passing of distinguished Australian economist Helen Hughes.

Helen Hughes, 17 June 2013

Economists have a tradition of paying tribute to colleagues of a different ideological view. Friedrich Hayek said of John Maynard Keynes, 'He was the one really great man I ever knew, and for whom I had unbounded admiration. The world will be a very much poorer place without him.'

Larry Summers said of Milton Friedman, 'He and I probably never voted the same way in any election. .... Nonetheless, like many others I feel that I have lost a hero, a man whose success demonstrates that great ideas convincingly advanced can change the lives of people around the world.'

I am far from that league, but it is in that same spirit that I rise to acknowledge the free-market economist Helen Hughes, who died on Saturday aged 85. Born in Prague, Professor Hughes emigrated to Australia in 1939. Educated in Melbourne, she did her PhD at the London School of Economics and then worked at the World Bank in Washington DC.

Returning to the ANU to work as a development economist, she was appointed in 1983 by Bill Hayden to be the deputy chair of the Jackson Committee on foreign aid. In 1985 she gave the ABC's Boyer Lecture and was made an Officer of the Order of Australia in the same year. She wrote, edited or co-authored an astonishing 18 books.

In recent years, Professor Hughes worked as an Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University and as a senior fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies. In 2004, she received the Economics Society of Australia's Distinguished Fellow Award.

In my ANU economics blog, I took issue in 2006 with her views that foreign aid did not boost growth in poor countries, and in 2009 with some of her arguments around the test score gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. She fired back both times, engaging on the detail with fierce enthusiasm that belied her octogenarian status. I disagreed with Professor Hughes' conclusions, but I was delighted she was working on such vital issues. Too few Australian economists devote their attention to Indigenous disadvantage and global poverty.

Professor Hughes not only wrote about these issues, she immersed herself in them. According to an obituary in today's Australian, as recently as two years ago, she was making four wheel drive trips to remote outstations in north-east Arnhem Land. Professor Hughes' approach to her life and work was a wonderfully no-nonsense one. Yesterday, I told her son Mark Hughes that I intended to say a few words about her in parliament. He responded:

‘What you do is your decision. I can tell you exactly what Helen would have said. She would have said, ‘Parliament's job is to pass good legislation. Only if that is complete should parliament waste time on trivialities.”

‘Regards, Mark’

It is for others to decide whether this speech is trivial, but the topics on which Professor Hughes worked clearly were not. Her provocative writings enriched Australian politics and economics, and Australia is poorer for her passing.

In closing, I acknowledge the bipartisan spirit with which Helen Hughes' goals were shared. She wrote in Lands of Shame that only when we have attained equality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians ‘will Australia be able to hold up its head because a fair go will have become reality’.

Rest in peace, Helen Hughes.

MEDIA RELEASE

ACT Residents now able to enrol to vote online

People who move to the ACT for work or study are now able to update their electoral details online.

Member for Fraser, Dr Andrew Leigh today joined Attorney General Mark Dreyfus at a live demonstration of the Australian Electoral Commission’s new application for PCs and tablets.

“The development of this application will mean that Canberrans will no longer have to rely on printers, paper and stamps to update their details,” said Dr Leigh.

“Citizens can enrol online in less than five minutes using a computer, smart phone or tablet device

“This development will promote democracy by allowing for greater participation. This is vital in Canberra, a city with many unenrolled young people,” said Dr Leigh.

“In last year’s ACT elections, enrolment rates were around 60% among eligible 18-year-olds, 50% among eligible 19-year-olds, and 80% among eligible 20-24 year-olds.

“Too many young Canberrans are missing a chance to have their say.

“With many young people relocating to Canberra for work and study, this application will make updating their details fast and convenient,” said Dr Leigh.



[caption id="attachment_4382" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Andrew Leigh, Attorney General Mark Dreyfus are taken through a live demonstration but two young Canberrans"][/caption]