Andrew Leigh

This morning I issued a media release affirming the value of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission after the release of an ill-informed report into the commission by a conservative think-tank.

ANDREW LEIGH

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION

MEMBER FOR FRASER





MEDIA RELEASE

The Abbott Government Should Keep the Australian Charities Commission

Labor rejects the assertions in a Centre for Independent Studies report that the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission (ACNC) should be scrapped.

The ACNC was created to ensure minimum levels of transparency and accountability in the sector. The Commission is actively working to protect public trust and confidence in Australian charities and not-for-profits.

Feedback from large and respected organisations confirm that the ACNC has been reasonable, responsive and accommodating in its dealings with them.

The CIS report calls for increased transparency at the same time as attacking the very body that is promoting transparency in the not-for-profit sector.

If this is the advice that Minister Kevin Andrews is receiving, is it any wonder that he is hell-bent on scrapping the ACNC despite its almost universal support in the sector and the advice of experts in the field.

Mr Andrews appears ideologically bent on only listening to a narrow band of entities, and repeating mistruths about ‘increased red tape’.

This ignores the fact that the ACNC will facilitate a Charity Passport so charities don’t have to jump unreasonable hoops to access government funds.

The ACNC has a Reporting and Red Tape Reduction Directorate, aimed at freeing charities from double reporting.

Allowed to flourish, Australia’s national and independent regulator will become a must-go-to source of information about which organisations donors can give money to with confidence.

ENDS

Thursday 6 February 2014



Media Contact: Toni Hassan 0426 207 726

My op-ed today debunks claims that Australia is a high-taxing, high-spending nation.

Statistics on Spending Cut Tax Claims Down to Size, Canberra Times and Fairfax Online, 6 February 2014

Last week, Prime Minister Tony Abbott alleged that the ABC was unpatriotic. This week, the ABC’s Fact Check unit found that claims by Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews were wrong. Put the two together, and you can’t help wondering if Mr Abbott’s next step will be to declare that facts are unAustralian.

But much as we can all get a chuckle from the Abbott Government’s media strategy, it’s the substance of Mr Andrews’ assertion that bears scrutiny. He described Australia’s welfare system as ‘not sustainable’, and warned of a European-style fiscal crunch within a decade.

Mr Andrews’ isn’t the only one making dodgy claims about the size of government. Speaking at a Senate inquiry last month, Commission of Audit chairman Tony Shepherd said that Australia’s budget involved ‘unsustainable largesse’, and that his Commission is examining ‘the size and scope of government’. Their remit is simple: cut government spending.

Rather than pursue an ideological agenda, the Abbott Government would do well to start with the evidence on how Australia’s government compares. In 2006, Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello requested a rundown on how Australia’s tax system compares with those in other countries. The report (co-authored by Peter Hendy, now a Liberal MP), concluded simply: ‘Australia is a low-tax country’. It pointed out that we have no wealth, estate, inheritance or gift taxes. For individuals, the report found that we have one of the lowest income tax burdens in the developed world.

Since then, federal Labor delivered significant personal income tax cuts. When Peter Costello was describing us as a low-tax country, our tax to GDP ratio was 24 percent. After six years of Labor, our national tax to GDP ratio is 23 percent. Add in state and local governments, and the tax ratio is around 33 percent of national income. To put this into perspective, the total tax take in New Zealand and the United Kingdom exceeds 40 percent of GDP. And both countries have conservative governments in charge.

Yet there are partisan voices who not only want to ignore the reduction in Australia’s tax take under Labor – they also seem ignorant of where we sit in an international context. Over the past six years, while Labor was in Government, Australia spent less and taxed less than most developed nations. The size of our government is similar to Korea and the United States – yet some on the right would have you think it was in the league of Finland and Sweden.

This matters because unlike the 1996 Commission of Audit, which was carried out by recognised experts and presented its report to the public, the 2014 Commission of Audit is heavily dominated by big business, and will present its report in secret. Everyone agrees that big business deserves a seat at the table – but they shouldn’t get to book out the whole restaurant.

The Commission of Audit excludes any representative of small business, the union movement or the social sector. More important, there is no one representing you – your interest as a taxpayer. There are no nurses or doctors representing the health services and hospitals Australians rely on. There are no teachers or principals representing schools and students.  There are no peak bodies representing pensioners.

Its work will not be scrutinised by the public, but will instead feed directly into Joe Hockey’s savage budget cuts.

Australians are right to fear the consequences of this approach to doing policy. When the chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, Maurice Newman, describes DisabilityCare as ‘reckless’, he strikes fear into the thousands of Australians with a disability. A government that is dragged into a backflip on school funding hardly engenders trust among parents. And as Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen has pointed out, the government’s forecasts suggest that it will fall short of its own job creation target.

Under a government with strong economic convictions, the Commission of Audit’s partisanship might not matter much. But this is not that government. One minute, we see the rejection of Archer Daniel Midlands’ bid to buy GrainCorp (the first time investment from a US company has been turned down). The next minute, the government is announcing that it will overturn laws requiring financial planners to disclose commissions or even act in a client’s best interests.

Abbott’s recent statement that he hoped BHP’s Olympic Dam project would go ahead prompted the company to remind him that the project was shelved. Since coming to government, the government has gone from holding press conferences in front of a ‘debt truck’ to striking a deal with the Greens to remove the debt cap entirely. When it comes to economic policy, it’s hard to tell whether B.A. Santamaria, Friedrich Hayek or the Marx Brothers are in charge.

But don’t take it from me – let’s look at his colleagues. Asked whether he would endorse Tony Abbott, Peter Costello famously replied ‘oh, not on economic matters’. In private, Costello is said to describe Abbott as an ‘economic illiterate’. Covering off the other side of the basic skills test, former Opposition Leader John Hewson has described Abbott as ‘innumerate’.

Lacking core economic convictions, this government is especially susceptible to extreme views. Skewed advice could well push the government into making economic mistakes that will endanger our future prosperity. As a recent International Monetary Fund report noted, Australia engaged in ‘fiscal profligacy’ between 2003 and 2007: failing to invest the tax revenue from the first phase of the mining boom into productive infrastructure. This lost opportunity to invest in our future can be partly traced back to the economic lassitude that set in during the last phase of the Howard Government.

Rather than outsourcing the hard decisions to vested interests, Mr Abbott would do well to open up the process. He should let the Commission of Audit set its own reporting timetable, as occurred in 1996. Instead of continually belittling public servants, he would do well to draw on the expertise of Treasury and the Productivity Commission.  And he could remind the ‘cut cut cut’ brigade that by international standards, Australia is a low-taxing, low-spending nation.

Andrew Leigh is the Shadow Assistant Treasurer and his website is www.andrewleigh.com.

When I was 16, I did two weeks’ work experience for John Langmore, who was then the member for Fraser. It was 1988, the first year that the new Parliament House had been opened, and I remember getting hopelessly lost as I went on errands around the building. I'm not sure that I provided any value to John, but the experience had a profound impact on me – as I learned a ton about the issues and personalities that drove politics in that era.

Over the past parliamentary term, I’ve been fortunate to have a variety of people help out as volunteers in my office, assisting me with speeches and submissions, helping solve constituent problems, answering the phone, assisting with campaigning activities, and looking into data-related issues (I've made particularly good use of economics students). They have ranged from work experience students (typically in years 10 or 11) to university students, to people in the workforce (two Teach for Australia students generously donated me their school holidays).

So I thought it might be useful to put out a formal call for interns, fellows and work experience students.

Keen to apply? See the FAQs below.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the criteria?

Enthusiasm, intelligence, and an interest in helping shape progressive ideas.

How long are the placements?

It depends on you. My office can accommodate anything from a week to a couple of months (though longer stints would probably need to be part-time). We typically only have one intern/fellow at a time. From my experience, people get the most out of doing a solid 1-2 weeks.

What would I gain?

A unique insight into parliament and constituent engagement.

What can you supply?

We can’t promise anything more than a desk and a chair. You’ll probably need to bring your own laptop.You may be working at either the electorate office in Braddon, the Parliament House office, or both.

Is it unfair not to pay people?

This is something we've worried about a lot. If we had an external source of funding, I'd love to run a paid internship program. But we don't. So our philosophy has been to work hard to ensure that interns/fellows have an experience that's stimulating and rewarding (as my time working with John Langmore was for me). There are few better ways to demystify politics than a week or two in an MP's office, and we think it's better to run a stimulating but unpaid internship program than no program at all.

What are my chances?

In the past, we have said yes to about half of the people who apply.

How do I apply?

Email andrew.leigh.mp <asperand> aph.gov.au with a one-page CV setting out your experience and skills, plus a covering email saying why you’d like the position and what period you’d like to work. Either I or my overworked chief of staff Nick Terrell will get back to you within a few weeks. It would be helpful to contact us at least a month before you’d like to start volunteering.

On ABC NewsRadio this morning I highlighted the Abbott Government's inconsistent approach to propping up business. The transcript is below.

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

ABC NEWSRADIO INTERVIEW
TUESDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2014

SUBJECT/S: Industry assistance



PRESENTER: The Opposition says the Federal Treasurer's warning that the age of entitlement in Australia is over displays a double standard. The Shadow Assistant Treasurer says it seems that for Joe Hockey the age of entitlement is coming to an end for the disadvantaged but it's just beginning for the affluent. Dr Andrew Leigh is speaking to Steve Chase.

STEVE CHASE (REPORTER): Andrew Leigh, Joe Hockey's right isn't he, when he says 'the age of entitlement' is over?

LEIGH: I've never been quite sure what Mr Hockey means when he refers to the age of entitlement being over, to be honest Steve. What it seems to mean is that you're going to cut back on income support for some of the most disadvantaged Australians, get rid of the School Kids Bonus which targets assistance to low income families and middle income families on their first day of school; but then put in place unfair and expensive paid parental leave, that gives the most to those who earn the most and get rid of the mining tax which overwhelmingly benefits mining billionaires. Seems to be as if the age of entitlement coming to end for the most disadvantaged, but it's only just beginning for the most affluent.

CHASE: But surely he's speaking in the context of industry assistance?

LEIGH: Well even there, you've got to wonder what the difference is between Cadbury which received an assurance of industry assistance from the Abbott Government before the election and SPC which isn't getting it. The only difference that I can see is that Cadbury is in a marginal electorate and SPC is in a safe Coalition electorate. That doesn't seem to me to be a good basis for determining industry policy.

CHASE: But in the case of SPC, the Government has argued that they're not going to give money to a company that's already profitable. They can dip into their own funds to sort out their problems in Shepparton.

LEIGH: And the same argument would or course apply to Cadbury. So it's then difficult to see how that justification holds up. The fact is that there are two main arguments for industry assistance from an economic standpoint: spillovers to other industries, which is certainly something you see in the automotive sector and regional concentration of jobs, which is there in the case of SPC. Instead we've seen this odd episode of seeing Abbott Government ministers earning generous salaries having a go at workers, whose jobs involve stacking cans, earning 50, 60,000 a year. It's been a bit unedifying I think.

CHASE: You would have seen the Prime Minister on the 7.30 Report arguing the money given to Cadbury was not for their day to day operations but for a tourism project in the area. What do you say to that?

LEIGH: Well, tourism is an industry like everything else. The Prime Minister's argument seems to be a Jesuitical splitting of hairs rather than a substantive argument. If he has a coherent philosophy on industry assistance then I'm yet to hear it. You do recall all of the discussion in Peter Costello's autobiography about Mr Abbott in Cabinet, urging more and more lavish spending for his own electorate. That appears to be starkly at odds with the philosophy he's shown towards low and middle income workers at the SPC cannery in Shepparton.

PRESENTER: That's the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Dr Andrew Leigh, speaking to Steve Chase.

Ends

Yesterday evening, ABC Radio's Richard Glover hosted a political forum with me, Kathryn Greiner, former City of Sydney Commissioner and member of the Gonski review panel, and writer and publisher Richard Walsh. Topics included school funding, industry assistance, and potential piracy of Game of Thrones' fourth season. Listen to the podcast here.

ANDREW LEIGH

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION

MEMBER FOR FRASER

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

ONLINE INTERVIEW
‘BREAKING POLITICS’ WITH CHRIS HAMMER

MONDAY, 3 FEBRUARY 2014

SUBJECT/S: Industry assistance, National Party infighting, unions, childcare affordability



CHRIS HAMMER: Just when should the Federal Government put its hand in its pocket, pull out some tax payers' money and help a struggling business or industry? Well, in recent months, the Federal Government has shown that it's not inclined to do that, refusing to give additional support first to Holden, and then the fruit processor SPC Ardmona. But now, the Agriculture Minister and National Party Member, Barnaby Joyce wants the Federal Government to provide up to $7 billion in drought assistance to struggling farmers in QLD and northern NSW. Well, to discuss this issue of government support. I'm joined by Andrew Leigh, the Member for Fraser here in the ACT, a Labor member and a former professor of Economics. Andrew, you'd support the Government's stance on Holden and SPC wouldn't you? Because it is good economics isn't it?

ANDREW LEIGH: Chris, I think under this government you've seen jobs going left, right and centre. You saw with Holden the goading of the company to leave and that terrible loss of jobs that I think is going to hit South Australia hard. You saw with SPC, Barnaby Joyce unable to persuade his colleagues to give $25 million to the company and yet here he is today in a sort of standard Barnaby Joyce style, going a full court of press on the media about what he's going to be talking about in Cabinet today. If he can't get $25 million for SPC, it's difficult to see how he's going to persuade his colleagues to get $7 billion, but you know Barnaby being Barnaby this is an issue where he's going to run around the country and talk about his...

HAMMER: So are you suggesting this is a bit of political showmanship by Barnaby Joyce to distance himself and the Nationals from the hardline economics that he thinks that Cabinet will pursue?

LEIGH: Absolutely. I mean, you're seeing really interesting dynamics within the National Party with Barnaby Joyce having moved to the lower house. This is somebody who crossed the floor to vote against the Coalition on more than a dozen occasions over the last Parliament, and who very much sees himself as a personal brand. The Abbott Government's...

HAMMER: And an aspiring leader. Do you think that that's what this is all about?

LEIGH: Oh, I think that's inevitable and anybody who watched Warren Truss leave the chamber during Barnaby Joyce's first speech would be aware of the tensions inherent there. But I think it also speaks to what are clearly the incentives within the National Party. So, when they knock off a loyal leader who's been committed to the Coalition and replace him with somebody who's very much a one man band, they'll show again that the Nationals have moved away from the style they had under Tim Fischer and Mark Vaile of very much being part of the Coalition to fragmenting. You saw that over the GrainCorp decision and I think you're seeing this today. It is very strange Chris to go out into the press and talk about what you're going to be saying in Cabinet.

HAMMER: OK, what about the issue itself?  I mean, the drought is not imagined. It is severe and having a severe impact on those farms and graziers in those areas. Should the Federal Government be giving more assistance to those farmers?

LEIGH: Providing smart drought assistance makes sense. It's important that that's done in a way that supports good farmers rather than just in a manner that props up those who've made mistakes in the way in which they run their farms. That's a principle that ought to be applied to industry assistance across the board. Certainly that was always Labor's focus when we were in government - to make sure that we didn't generate perverse incentives in how we provided drought assistance.

HAMMER: Now moving to another issue - Tony Abbott appears to be moving towards having a Royal Commission into trade union corruption. Does Labor have anything to fear from such a Royal Commission?

LEIGH: Chris, while we were in government we tripled penalties for union wrongdoing and increased transparency reforms.

HAMMER: You also abolished the ABBC as well.

LEIGH: Well the Building and Construction Commission...

HAMMER: Sorry, the ABCC.

LEIGH: The ABCC wouldn't have addressed the concerns that are being raised today around corruption. I mean these are allegations, which if they're true, are abhorrent and ought to be dealt with by the police. I'm concerned that the government is more concerned about bashing hard working unionists who are fighting for better pay and conditions than it is on dealing with the abhorrent problem of corruption, which I think is a fairly small scale issue. You're seeing Minister Abetz, for example, attacking SPC workers who, as I understand it, earn less than $50,000 a year for being overpaid. That's pretty rich coming from somebody who's earning over $300,000.

HAMMER: Well if these are isolated incidents of corruption amongst union officials, what do you have to fear from a Royal Commission because surely even if, as you say, the government wants to embark on a campaign of bashing unions, a properly constituted Royal Commission with transparent terms of reference and, one assumes, a senior Australian judge or former judge, it's not going to be open to political manipulation is it?

LEIGH: I think the exercise is a distraction Chris. It's a distraction from the fact that a government which talked a lot about jobs before the election looks like it's going to fall short of its million jobs target on its own projections and has seen jobs go, whether that's in the public service and the city that I represent, or in Holden or potentially in other companies as well. This is a government which wants to distract from the conversation about jobs by attacking unionists, the vast majority of whom work every day to make workplaces safer. It's after all the union movement that's responsible for getting us the eight hour day, for seeing annual leave guaranteed, for seeing better pay and conditions for Australian workers.

HAMMER: Does the Labor Party need to distance itself more from the trade union movement?

LEIGH: I don't believe so Chris. I mean we take advice right across the board. I'm frequently speaking to business leaders, to people in the community sector. I think what's important is you take good advice wherever it comes from, you don't just take it from a narrow sector. You see for example the government's...

HAMMER: The Labor Party receives more than advice from the union movement though.

LEIGH: I assume you're referring to donations which are made in elections. Those donations come to different political parties. It's not just the Labor Party that receives donations from the union movement. And...

HAMMER: And control of a certain amount of preselections too.

LEIGH: Well the union movement contributes to the democratic processes within the Labor Party. It doesn't have a lock on any particular preselections and certainly what we see within the Labor Party is a party that's willing to listen to interests right across the board. It's in contrast, Chris, to the Government's Commission of Audit, entirely dominated by big business. No voice there from the community sector, from the union movement, from the disability sector. The Abbott Government is listening to the few at the expense of the many.

HAMMER: Now, I understand you have some concerns that the Government may be moving towards cutting back on childcare support. What are your concerns here?

LEIGH: As Kate Ellis pointed out yesterday, the government's release of a report on childcare costs which only focused on the costs of childcare before government rebates is deeply misleading. We know that under the Howard government the costs of childcare, after taking account of government rebates, rose faster than inflation. We know that under Labor, the cost of childcare after government rebates rose slower than inflation. That's because we invested in the sector in a range of different ways, not only increasing the rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, but also investing in the quality of early childhood, recognising it's not just babysitting, it's fundamental education. The Coalition is, I think, softening up the ground for attacks - for a reduction in the childcare rebate. And we're already seeing them slash other programs, such as a $5 million program which would work with local governments to increase childcare availability.

HAMMER: So explain to me, I don't quite understand, how does putting out a report that shows that childcare costs are increasing quite rapidly - how does that soften the ground to cut support for childcare?

LEIGH: Well Minister Ley is talking about the childcare system as though the rebates don't exist. But the rebates are absolutely fundamental to what goes in early childhood. They've seen, for example, a family on $75,000 paying 8 per cent of their income on childcare, compared to 12 per cent under the Howard Government. They've made childcare more accessible, while other reforms by the Labor Government made sure that we raised the standards in early childhood centres. If Minister Ley is going to keep on bringing out misleading reports like this, I think Australians will begin to ask' what's her real agenda?' Is it just cuts, cuts, cuts as we're seeing under this government?

HAMMER: OK, Andrew Leigh, thank you very much for joining us today.

LEIGH: Thank you Chris.

ENDS

Last night, I launched Chris Aulich's edited book on the Gillard Governments at the University of Canberra.

Launch of Chris Aulich (ed), The Gillard Governments

University of Canberra

30 January 2014

Andrew Leigh MP

I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people, on whose lands we meet today.

It is a pleasure to be launching Chris Aulich’s edited book The Gillard Governments, the eleventh in the ‘Commonwealth Administration Series’ that has chronicled federal governments back to 1983. The title is plural: referring to Prime Minister Gillard’s Government at the end of the 42^nd parliament and for much of the 43^rd parliament.

As well as being a pleasure to launch this book, it’s also an honour. The editor presumably chose me because of one of the two records that I set during the 43^rd parliament. During that parliament, I served for 99 days as a parliamentary secretary in the Gillard Government, making me the shortest-serving executive member of that government.[1] According to the Guinness Book of Records, people have spent more time in space, as a hostage, travelling by taxi and living in a hotel, than I spent in the executive. The other record is that during the 43^rd parliament, I published two books (one on social capital, the other on inequality).

Or perhaps the honour of today’s invitation is due to the fact that I’m the local MP representing the University of Canberra, which has produced these Commonwealth Administration Series books for over thirty years.

This being Canberra, I can count among the book’s 24 contributors people who have been my boss, my co-worker, and my research assistant.

They are an impressive group, who bring expertise in policy and politics to bear in analysing the Gillard Governments.

If there is a general message that comes out of the policy analysis in this book, it is that Labor can count a significant number of legislative achievements under Julia Gillard’s Prime Ministership.

• We kept unemployment below 6 percent at a time when many developed nations were struggling with double-digit joblessness.


• Our GDP per capita grew more rapidly than most developed nations, taking us from 17^th in the world in 2007 to 8^th in 2013.


• We implemented an emissions trading scheme covering 60 percent of domestic emissions, and saw electricity emissions decline.


• We built a DisabilityCare model that will provide people with disabilities more resources and more choice.


• For the first time in over a century, we struck a deal on the Murray-Darling basin that returned 3 trillion litres of water to the parched river system.


• We won a seat on the UN Security Council for the first time in two decades, helped engineer the rise of the G20, and persuaded other members to schedule the next meeting in Australia.


• We uncapped university places for most courses, allowing places to be set by student demand rather than centralised control.


• We devised a funding model for schools that focused on parental resources and student need, and was underpinned by public reporting of test results and funding for every school.


• We engaged the public service in good policy development processes, including on the Asian Century White Paper and Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians.

The Gillard Government changed Australia for the better, in lasting ways. I particularly liked Jenny Chesters’ discussion of the underreported changes in income-contingent loans for vocational education and Andrew Carr’s recognition of the changing role of Indonesia in our security planning.

Getting a tad more political, I did appreciate Mary Walsh pointing out the crass politicking of the Coalition on asylum-seeker policy; and Andrew Macintosh and Richard Denniss pointing out the strong similarities between the CPRS (which the Greens Party voted against) and the carbon pricing legislation (which the Greens Party voted for).

But legislative achievements aren’t enough. Politics being politics, parties also need to sell their successes. And as our trouncing on 7 September 2013 showed, we did not do this well enough.

It was not for want of trying, even by those of us on the backbenches.

For my own part, I arrived in parliament in 2010, midway through Labor’s six years in office. Upon getting there, I was reminded of Spike Milligan’s account of delaying his response to enlisting in World War II. When he arrived, a senior officer said ‘I suppose you know you are three months late arriving?’. To which Milligan replied ‘I'll make up for it sir, I'll fight nights as well!’.

And yet it doesn’t matter if you’re fighting days and nights if the other side is better prepared, or if you’re copping friendly fire. Once or twice every sittings fortnight, I would dutifully turn out at the doors of the House of Representatives to answer questions of the day on behalf of the government. Almost invariably, I was proud of what we were doing in the parliament, which – as Gwynneth Singleton notes – passed 561 pieces of legislation – 12 more than the last term of the Howard Government.

But all too frequently the questions asked on the doors weren’t about policy, they were about internal management. As Tanya Plibersek said on election night, ‘I’d give us nine out of ten for governing the country.  I’d give us zero out of 10 for governing ourselves.’

As several of the chapters note, some of this tension arose because of the unique environment of the 43^rd parliament. Whoever served as Australia’s first female Prime Minister was probably always going to suffer additional vitriol from their detractors, such as Joe Hockey’s statement that Julia Gillard ‘has never deserved respect and will never receive it’. Elsewhere, Anne Summers has written eloquently on this issue, and Sally Young and Matthew Ricketson discuss the gender dimension in their chapter, with appropriate discussion of shock jocks, placards, fundraising menus and so on.

Another factor that contributed to the pressure cooker environment was the hung parliament. With votes in the House of Representatives frequently passed with a margin of one, the incentive for destabilisation was greater than ever. Another was the technology-driven change in the media environment. As I argued in a 2012 lecture at the University of Canberra, technology may have created a more interesting media for the most engaged news consumers – but for most people they result is a press that is nastier, shallower and more opinionated than in the past.[2]

In the future, Labor is unlikely to face a hung parliament, but it is likely that we will have considerably more senior women than the Coalition. So all of us will need to be ready to push back – firmly at all times, politely when possible – when sexism rears its ugly head.

We also need to adapt to a media environment that is snappier than ever before. The tightening of deadlines. The rising importance of snappy slogans and good pictures. The increasing ratio of opinion to news.

There has never been a better time to be a populist politician in Australia. Correspondingly, these are hard times for anyone who believes in nuance and long-term reform. So those of us who believe that issues are complex and change takes time need to work hard to have our message heard. We need to be wittier and more interesting, tell better stories and have powerful statistics at our disposal. Yesterday’s reformers need to become tomorrow’s SuperReformers™.

But we may also need to look at changing how we talk about our programs and policies. There are a host of ways we could do this, but let me tell you about one that’s been interesting me lately.

In his new book The Righteous Mind, psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that there are six appeals that can be made in politics: Caring, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity.[3] Haidt argues that those on the political left tend to focus on just the first three of these: caring, fairness and liberty, while those on the right are concerned with all six equally. Haidt’s work suggests that if progressives want to convey their messages more effectively, they should learn to emphasise the aspects of loyalty, authority and sanctity.

There are a range of ways that Labor might do this, but here’s one set of ideas, from UK Labour councillor Rowenna Davis:[4]

Labour used to care more about family, high streets, order and community. It used to take a stronger line on gambling and alcohol. It used to have a narrative about what it wanted to preserve as well as change. Look at the influence of co-operatives, mutuals and unions. This work is still carrying on in pockets. Stella Creasy’s work on payday loans; David Lammy on bookies. Jon Cruddas’s approach in Barking and Dagenham is part of a conservative tradition stemming back to George Lansbury. Blue Labour.

No government is perfect, but as this book illustrates, the Gillard Government achieved a great deal during its time in office. Yet there is also much for us to learn in performing even better when the Australian people next entrust us with the chance to govern. And here’s hoping that the next Labor Government is a little more long-lived.

---

[1] Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister from 25.3.13 to 1.7.13, inclusive.

[2] Andrew Leigh, 2012, ‘The Naked Truth? Media and Politics in the Digital Age’, ‘Challenge Your Mind’ University of Canberra Public Lecture Series, 1 August 2012

[3] For simplicity, I have listed the positive attribute of each kind of appeal. The six spectrums are Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Liberty/Oppression, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation.

[4] Rowenna Davis, 2012, Labour needs to rediscover its conservatism, New Statesman, 20 April 2012

On 28 Jan 2014, I spoke with Sky News host Peter Van Onselen about macroeconomics, jobs and how policy might affect the gap between battlers and billionaires.

[caption id="attachment_5582" align="alignleft" width="1024" caption="Out on Lake Burley Griffin with members of the Canberra Ice Dragons Paddle Club, January 2014"][/caption]


Young people can find it difficult to meet the ongoing and significant costs associated with participation at sporting competitions.

The Local Sporting Champions program is designed to provide financial assistance for young people towards the cost of travel, accommodation, uniforms or equipment when competing, coaching or officiating at an official sports event.

The ACT is one of the most active communities in the country, with a sports and recreation participation rate of 80 per cent.



Applications for the next round close on 28 February 2014.

To allocate the latest round of funds for the Fraser electorate, I recently co-judged applications with Australian Dragon Boat President Kel Watt before heading out on the water for a paddle with Canberra’s Ice Dragons Paddle Club (pictured).

To be eligible for the next and subsequent funding rounds you need to be between 12-18 years and have travelled more than 250 km to compete in an endorsed state, national or international competition.

For more information on the Local Sporting Champions program visit the Australian Sports Commission website: www.ausport.gov.au/champions.

On 27 Jan, I joined host Kieran Gilbert and Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield to discuss the evidence against Work for the Dole, the possible sell-off of the National Disability Insurance Agency, Australian of the Year Adam Goodes and speculation about the next Governor General. A transcript is over the fold.

ANDREW LEIGH
SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER
SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION
MEMBER FOR FRASER

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
SKY AM AGENDA WITH KIERAN GILBERT
MONDAY, 27 JANUARY 2014

SUBJECT/S: Work for the dole, privatisation of the National Disability Insurance Agency, Adam Goodes, Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, Peter Cosgrove.

KIERAN GILBERT: Senator Mitch Fifield, if I could put it to you on this work for the dole story, is it fair to say as I said there just a moment ago that it is in general terms a return to the Howard era approach?

MITCH FIFIELD: Well the Coalition since Howard government has been committed to the concept of work for the dole, but more broadly committed to the concept of reciprocal obligation, and that is, if the community is supporting you in a time of need, it is not unreasonable to expect that you put something back into the community. So that's been a long-standing principle of the Coalition and we have made no secret of the fact that if we were successful in gaining government that we would want to revitalise the work for the dole program. Now, how we give expression to that, the details are yet to come, but we will be announcing in due in due course, but look, we want to make people have a sense of value. The best way to do that is for them to have a job. If for whatever reason they don't get a job at a point in time we want them to be engaged in an activity that has meaning and that makes them feel that they are making a contribution to the community.

GILBERT: I don't think you're going to announce all the details this morning, but in terms of the things that are around this morning in the NewsCorp papers, that local government, not for profit groups, that they are being called upon to recruit some of the 800,000 plus unemployed. That all makes sense given your broader point this morning. Is that generally right? Are those details that are out there today correct?

FIFIELD: Well any work for the dole program, any program with reciprocal obligation, is obviously a partnership between government, the individuals taking part in that program, and community organisations and businesses. So obviously in any scheme you need to partner with other organisations. But as I say the details of how we give expression to the program, they are something come.

GILBERT: Andrew Leigh, your response to the notion or reciprocal obligation. Is that fair, if people are receiving welfare that they should chip in a bit as well.

ANDREW LEIGH: Kieran I've certainly got no issue with reciprocity. The challenge with work for the dole is what the evidence says. I am basically an evidence guy, if the evidence points towards a policy I'll go for it. In the case of work for the dole, we have one high quality evaluation done by Jeff Borland of Melbourne University for the Howard government. It found that work for the dole increased joblessness because it ended up diverting people from job-search activities into work for the dole activities. So if the Coalition pursues work for the dole they will be pursuing a policy which, on the evidence, will increase the jobless rate.

When people talk about bad policies they are typically talking about policies that don't have the desired effect. This is worse than that. This is a policy that would actually make the problem worse. Only a government that was really wilfully willing to ignore the evidence in favour of pure ideology would pursue work for the dole. But this is a government whose every policy seems to be jeopardising jobs at a very fragile stage in the labour market. And as Bill Shorten has pointed out, we have seen a worsening of the employment situation since the Abbott Government came to office, we are seeing public service jobs going –

GILBERT: But I think a lot of our viewers watching this morning would like the idea of some of what we are hearing today, like if someone is offered a job, that they can't simply refuse it because they don't necessarily want it or it is not convenient. If they are unemployed and on welfare should they not then be required to take that job?

LEIGH: You want to get the policy settings absolutely right, and jobs are a hallmark of Labor's time in government, saving those 200,000 jobs in the global financial crisis –

GILBERT: But to the point of the question, if someone has a job offer and doesn't accept it, stays on welfare, why not use a bit of the stick? The government is talking about a carrot and stick, giving people bonuses in they take a job, but also a stick if they don't. That's fair enough isn't it?

LEIGH: You do have bonuses if people find jobs in the form of the working credit which kicks in for people who have been unemployed for a long period, and in the case of particular jobs you want to make sure that it's a good match, that you are not simply forcing someone into a job that they are going to have to leave weeks later. That doesn't benefit the person or the employer.
Work for the dole is different though, work for the dole is compelling people into other jobs which Jeff Borland has clearly shown drives up the jobless rate.

GILBERT: Senator Fifield, what do you say to Andrew Leigh this morning, quoting that report out of Melbourne University that the whole thing could be counterproductive if people are required to work for the dole projects and spend less time looking for a job?

FIFIELD: Well we put a policy forward at the election. We were elected on that policy and it is our intention to implement it. But I have every confidence that work for the dole, giving people that experience, giving them that meaning and purpose in continuing to the community at a time when they are receiving a payment form the community, is an unqualifiedly good thing.

GILBERT: Along with a bit of tough love if they don't take the job, that they should lose welfare?

FIFIELD: Well look, we are also doing many things to encourage people into the workforce. From July 1 we are going to have a job-commitment bonus. So for long-term unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 30 if they commit to a job for twelve months they will get a payment. If they stay in work for two years they will get a larger payment. We will also have a mature age employer encouragement scheme for those employers who take on people who've been on a payment who are a little older, that will be an incentive for them. We are also introducing a relocation payment for people who need to go from the city to the country or from the country to the city for work. So we've got a range of things that we are doing to encourage and support people into work, but we want to make sure that people have that positive and good experience that everyone wants.

COMMERCIAL BREAK

GILBERT: Senator Fifield, something you've got responsibility for is the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I want to turn our attention to this now. A couple of weeks ago Tony Shepherd, the head of the government's Commission of Audit, told the Senate that he would refuse to rule out the prospect of a sell-off of the National Disability Insurance Agency, which is set to oversee the rollout of the NDIS, a privatisation of sorts. What do you say in response to those reports and comments in reaction to it at the time?

FIFIELD: Look Kieran, I think the scare campaign that Labor is running in relation to the government and the NDIS is deeply disappointing. I would have hoped that this is something that could have been elevated beyond partisanship, but in relation to the specific issue of privatisation which Labor have been running around taking about, it really is a moot point. The whole essence of the NDIS, the whole design of the NDIS, isn't for government to deliver the services to people with disability, it's for not-for-profit organisations and for private providers to do so. So an individual is assessed, they get an entitlement commensurate to their need, an individual takes that entitlement to the service provider of their choice. So the NDIS is all about contestability, it is all about the individual being in control, it is never –

GILBERT: Can we talk about the Agency though? Can we talk about the Agency that runs and oversees the whole thing, that that prospect wasn’t ruled out by the Commission of Audit?

FIFIELD: Kieran I think Labor are trying to set up a straw man. That somehow government is the deliverer of disability services through the NDIS. Government isn’t the deliverer of disability services through the NDIS, it’s not-for-profit organisations and it’ll be private providers as well. I’m actually very heartened by the Commission of Audit. I’m not worried by their work. One of the principles under which the Commission of Audit is operating is that government should do those things that only government can do and no more. The Commission of Audit, I’ve got no doubt, will find that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is core government business. And look, we’re getting on with the job of implementing it, and I just wish the Australian Labor Party could elevate this beyond partisanship.

GILBERT: Andrew?

LEIGH: Kieran, I share Mitch’s passion for making a difference to the lives of people with disabilities. But when you’ve got a Commission of Audit which is so dominated by big business, which lacks representatives from the social sector, the community sector, the disability sector, then you’re going to find extreme proposals like this, the notion of selling off the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

GILBERT: It’s not a proposal. It was just simply a question put that wasn’t rejected. It’s not a proposal.

LEIGH: Well it has been proposed by various people in the community and the Commission has signalled that it’s something they’re looking at.

GILBERT: They just refused to rule it out. They’re not saying they’re looking at it. They just refused to rule it out. There’s a difference.

LEIGH: Well if they don’t think that the Agency should be privatised they could very easily have said so. But that prospect is on the table and frankly, that would mean that we’d be selling off the Agency that runs disability care just while this initial work is being done. I mean, the Government shouldn’t be running around seeing who it can sell the Disability Insurance Agency to, it should be trying to get the rollout absolutely right.

GILBERT: Shouldn’t Labor be trying to elevate it above politics, as Senator Fifield says?

LEIGH: Kieran I think one of the great truths of these kinds of shows is anytime you see someone saying let’s elevate it above politics, it essentially means they don’t want to answer the question. If the Coalition wants to categorically rule out selling the Agency, I’d be greatly heartened by that. And Senator Fifield had an opportunity to do that on your program today but didn’t do it.

GILBERT: Senator Fifield, any response to that?

FIFIELD: There is nothing to sell. Let me repeat. There is nothing to sell. Labor don’t know the design of the scheme that they themselves legislated. It is not government that is delivering services to people with disability through the NDIS. It’s private providers and it’s not-for-profits. The role of government is to facilitate. The job of providers is to give those direct services to the people who need them. And that’s what’s going to happen.

GILBERT: Let’s move on. I want to talk about Adam Goodes, the Australian of the Year. Your thoughts on that Senator Fifield?

FIFIELD: I think he’s a terrific choice. He is a great role model for younger Australians. He is a very articulate individual. He’s got a lot of views on a range of issues and I think it’s great we have an Australian of the Year who’s going to be able to contribute to a range of debates.

GILBERT: And this is good in the lead up to the constitutional recognition attempts by the Government. Andrew Leigh, the Prime Minister says he wants the draft amendment to the constitution by September of this year. This is something you would hope would be above politics?

LEIGH: Certainly it’s had bipartisan support and I think that’s great. And indeed I saw Adam Goodes speaking about this. I think Australia’s treatment of Indigenous Australians needs to be tackled on a whole range of fronts. So we need to make sure we’ve got support for Indigenous bodies, that we have constitutional recognition. But as Adam Goodes has shown us, in our daily lives, all of us have moments, choices, in which we can speak out or stay silent. His example of dealing with the spectator who used a racist slur against him is just a terrific example to Australians young and old, whether in the school or the workplace, just not to stay silent on those racist quips. Building bridges and reconciliation isn’t just a job for government, it’s a job for all of us.

GILBERT: Mitch Fifield, finally on this matter, the Prime Minister wants constitutional recognition of Australia’s first people. He wants it to be a unifying moment. How hopeful and confident are you that that can be the case?

FIFIELD: I think Australians have open hearts and open minds. And the Prime Minister has really led on that journey. It’s important that there is a draft form of words put to the Australian people for discussion, which will happen by September. And we should let people have their say. If this is to go forward, it’s important that all Australians have a sense of ownership. And I think that can happen.

GILBERT: Finally Minister, I want to ask you about Peter Cosgrove, likely to be announced Governor-General this week. I’m told an announcement is imminent. That would be a traditional appointment. The military have a long history of serving in that role, doesn’t it?

FIFIELD: We’ve been very lucky in Australia with the people who have served in the office of Governor-General. It’s important that the holder is someone who is beyond reproach and above politics. There are many Australians who could well serve in that position after Quentin Bryce. But I don’t think as a Minister that I should be speculating in any way as to who the Prime Minister may recommend to Her Majesty. We’ll all just have to wait.

GILBERT: Good career move I think there Mitch Fifield! Andrew Leigh, your thoughts?

LEIGH: A very worthy Australian Kieran, and somebody who is extraordinarily articulate on our national character. When I wrote my last book about inequality in Australia, I talked about Peter Cosgrove’s view on our egalitarian military, about how our foot patrols get amongst people and hear from common people, not just from elders as some other militaries do. He talked about us as being out in the streets, rather than hiding behind sandbags. So he’s got some passionate views, he’s a worthy Australian and I’ll leave it to the Government to make any announcements that need to be made.

GILBERT: Andrew Leigh, Senator Fifield, appreciate your time.

ENDS