Andrew Leigh

[caption id="attachment_4320" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Chris Manchester, Wendy Tuckerman, Michael Pilbrow, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Rowena Abbey, Geoff Kettle & John Shaw"][/caption]

I spoke in parliament yesterday about the need to make the Barton Highway safer, ahead of a meeting the PM had with mayors and Labor candidate for Hume Michael Pilbrow.

Barton Highway, 3 June 2013

Last week there was a head-on crash on the Barton Highway, between Yass and Murrumbateman. The drivers of both cars were hospitalised with critical injuries, and the single-carriageway highway was closed in both directions for several hours.

Thankfully, this incident did not claim any lives; unlike a similar head-on collision in February this year in which one of the motorists, an ACT resident, was tragically killed.

The Barton Highway is a part of the national highway system and a key link between Canberra and the national grid, and it is unacceptable that it remains so dangerous. The risks are only going to increase as traffic volumes build, because the Yass valley area is one of the fastest growing regions in New South Wales. For example, Murrumbateman has grown from having a population of around 350 in 1984 to some 3,000 today.

Thanks to pressure from my predecessor, Bob McMullan; Labor's 2007 candidate for Hume, David Grant; and locals, including Murrumbateman resident John Gelling, Labor devoted $36 million to roadworks to address a notorious danger spot, the Gounyan curves. This 4.5 kilometre section of improvements removed seven bends. It was my pleasure to officially open the improved section in November 2011.

Many locals still believe the Barton Highway should be duplicated. The Commonwealth would be prepared to consider a proposal for this, but at present New South Wales has not even listed it as a priority, which is disappointing, given that the National Party's member for Burrinjuck serves in Barry O'Farrell's cabinet—yet she is unable to get the road onto the New South Wales state government short-list for urgent action.

A strong campaigner for duplication of the Barton highway is Labor candidate for Hume, Michael Pilbrow. Like many people in Hume, Michael regularly travels the Barton Highway to attend meetings in Canberra. He sometimes travels the road with his children and he knows the risk it brings.

There is no more passionate champion of duplicating the Barton than Michael Pilbrow. Tomorrow, he will be meeting with Prime Minister Gillard along with Rowena Abbey, the Mayor of Yass; Geoff Ketle, the Mayor of Goulburn; Wendy Tuckerman, the Mayor of Booroowa; Chris Manchester, the Mayor of Harden; and John Shaw the Mayor of Upper Lachlan. The meeting will further push for the Barton Highway duplication, and a petition calling for duplication, initiated by the Mayor of Yass, will be presented to the Prime Minister.

Every day over 6,000 people commute from the Hume electorate to the ACT. As a Canberran, I applaud Michael Pilbrow's activism. He is a candidate who lives in the electorate, who is raising his family there and who is working hard to address local issues such as the Barton Highway duplication. He is a candidate who would serve the people of Hume well in this parliament. I wish him and the local mayors the best in their efforts for improving the safety of the Barton Highway, and I wish Michael Pilbrow my personal best in fighting this election.

My op-ed in today's AFR looks at the prospects for jumpstarting Japan's ailing economy.

Three Arrows on Their Way, Australian Financial Review, 4 June 2013

In the mid-1930s, John Maynard Keynes coined the phrase ‘animal spirits’ to sum up the impact of a country’s mood on its economic environment. When nations get stuck in a funk, it’s hard to escape. Conversely, when growth gets going, exuberance builds on exuberance (sometimes to the point of creating a bubble). Either way, the sentiments of consumers and businesses can build on one another.

For Japan, the post-war decades are a story of astonishing transformation, as the country transformed itself from a developing to a developed country. By the 1980s, airport bookshelves were filled with tomes about the virtues of the Japanese economic model, with titles like Trading Places: How we are Giving Our Future to Japan and How to Reclaim It and Blindside: Why Japan Is Still on Track to Overtake the U.S. by the Year 2000.

But the past twenty years have been a story of malaise. Hard as it is to believe, the Japanese economy – in nominal terms – is almost exactly the same size as it was twenty years ago. The deflation trap has proved devilishly hard to escape, and net government debt is now more than 140 percent of GDP, the highest in the OECD (Australia’s debt share is one of the lowest).

Yet all this may be about to change, thanks to a policy dubbed ‘Abenomics’ after the country’s new Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. In a series of recent meetings with senior economic policymakers, I was struck by the positive impact that these policies appear to be having on the national mood.

Prime Minister Abe has identified three strategies to promote growth, which he refers to as his ’three arrows’. The reference is to a Japanese legend in which a father shows his three sons that a single arrow can be snapped easily, but three together cannot be broken.

The first arrow is monetary policy. In an effort to break out of deflation, the new central bank governor Haruhiko Kuroda has committed to a 2 per cent inflation target, to be achieved via a massive bond-buying program. The second arrow is fiscal policy, focused particularly on reconstruction efforts after the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami.

While monetary and fiscal policy can jump-start an economy, productivity growth is what keeps the engine humming along. So Japan’s third arrow – structural reform – is the one that matters most for enduring economic growth. While previous Japanese governments have typically shied away from major trade liberalisation, Prime Minister Abe has stated that a hallmark of his administration will be pursuit of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trading zone in the Asia Pacific. In Australia’s case, a study by the Productivity Commission’s Dean Parham estimated that half of our productivity growth in the 1990s was due to our trade liberalisation. Japan could reap a similar reward.

Other reforms that people spoke about with me included encouraging more start-up firms, expanding the availability of child care in order to boost female labour force participation, and improving the efficiency of the service sector.

For Australia, the payoff from a growing Japanese economy is considerable. As the government’s Australia in the Asian Century White Paper noted, Japan is our second-largest trading partner and our third-largest source of foreign direct investment. We provide them with minerals, agriculture and energy; they provide us with manufactured products and foreign investment. The Australian and Japanese economies are remarkably complementary. At senior levels, there is a keen awareness that Prime Minister Gillard was the first foreign leader to visit Japan after the 2011 earthquake. Following the Labor Government’s Asian Century White Paper, all Australian high school children will soon have the opportunity to learn Japanese.

Japan’s nascent recovery could still go awry, as the recent downtick in the Nikkei has reminded us. The consumption tax has been legislated to rise from 5 percent to 10 percent by 2015. Demographics remain a serious concern, with the population due to shrink from the current 128 million to 95 million by 2050.

And yet for now, it is pleasantly surprising to see the general enthusiasm with which Abenomics has been embraced. Keynes’ animal spirits are alive and well in Tokyo, and for now, the three arrows seem to be flying towards their mark.

Andrew Leigh is the federal member for Fraser, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. He recently represented the Australian Government at the Nikkei International Conference on "The Future of Asia" in Tokyo. His website is www.andrewleigh.com.

I spoke in parliament today about Coalition costings, and the importance of parliament expressing its confidence in Treasury officials.

Confidence in Treasury, 3 June 2013

Too often the crucial work of our nation's public servants goes unnoticed and goes unthanked. As the member for Fraser I am pleased to say that many of these hardworking public servants are my constituents. I myself have been seconded to Treasury and have seen firsthand the hard work of those public servants. We on this side of the House believe in a frank and fearless Public Service in the great Westminster tradition. Those opposite would prefer to have a flaccid and fearful Public Service. That is their ideal of public service.

It is clear why those opposite have spent three years waging a smear campaign against Treasury. It is because they have an ever-widening costings black hole. They are therefore desperate to avoid scrutiny of their costings, and they see the boffins and the bean counters as an obstacle to that. At the 2010 election, the member for North Sydney concocted bogus allegations of Treasury politicisation to avoid submitting coalition policies to Treasury and Finance. Instead, the opposition had their policies costed by a private accounting firm, who overlooked that they had an $11 billion black hole. That private accounting firm was subsequently fined by the Institute of Chartered Accountants for breaching professional standards. Despite that, the member for Goldstein has in this chamber claimed that those faux costings were 'as good as you can get anywhere in the country, including in Treasury'.

On 19 September, I was witness in this chamber to a savage attack by the member for Goldstein against the institution of Treasury and against then Treasury Secretary Ken Henry, who, as honourable members know, was appointed by Treasurer Costello to that position.

The member for Goldstein claimed the $11 billion black hole was:

‘… something fabricated with the use of Treasury officials to give government a political advantage.’

The member for Mackellar—who in 1992 shot to prominence after attacking public servant Trevor Boucher—joined in, saying:

‘… this Parliamentary Budget Office is something that is simply linked to the coattails of Treasury.’

She went on:

‘I made the point that Treasury and the head of Treasury had been rewarded for things that they had done to assist the government … it is politicised and that is why we cannot trust them.’

The member for Mackellar has even said of former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry:

‘He served the government very well in the latter stages of his appointment, particularly when it came to assessing the budget savings that were put forward by the opposition prior to the last election.’

This is like a rich kid who gets a maths question wrong and, instead of accepting the right answer, goes to the principal asking for the teacher to be sacked.

The opposition in the last election were badly out in their costings, and their pretext now is that budget forecasts cannot be relied on. The member for North Sydney has said:

‘The numbers are just not believable. It is fundamentally a dishonest budget.  … I don't believe they are Treasury numbers. They are Wayne Swan's numbers.’

Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson has directly rejected these allegations. He said on 21 May:

‘I can say on behalf of David Tune, the secretary of the Department of Finance and myself—and get this right—were PEFO to have been released on the 14th of May, it would have contained the numbers that were in the budget.’

PEFO is produced independently by Treasury and Finance in caretaker period without political oversight. Dr Parkinson has told us in crystal clear terms that the numbers in the budget represent the best professional estimates of Treasury and Finance. They have not been tampered with by the Deputy Prime Minister as those opposite would have you believe. They are the best estimates of honest and hardworking public servants.

The member for North Sydney continued his extraordinary slur, saying:

‘I would have expected Martin Parkinson to say nothing different yesterday because he is, quite appropriately, a servant of the government.’

This is continuing in the same vein as the members for Goldstein and Mackellar. He should withdraw that claim. Attacking Treasury is not only unfounded; it is also weak. In public debate, public servants do not have the opportunity to defend themselves as we in this place do. It is wrong to treat them like a political football.

On the other side of politics, Senator Sinodinos, my opposition counterpoint as Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, has worked hard in the Department of Treasury and knows as I do the important work that they do.

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

TOPICS: Asbestos in Telstra pits, DisabilityCare’s location in Geelong, Labor pre-selection for Batman, 457 visas

Kieran Gilbert:                   This is AM Agenda, thanks for your company. With me now Liberal frontbencher, Senator Mitchell Fifield and Labor frontbencher, Andrew Leigh. Gentlemen, on the asbestos issue, obviously very serious. Andrew Leigh, we’ve got this crisis meeting today. The Coalition are saying the buck should stop with the Government, do you accept that?

Andrew Leigh: Well Kieran, it’s important to understand how this process operates. The pits are leased by NBN Co from Telstra, and Telstra’s required to have done the appropriate remediation work beforehand. Clearly in certain of these instances that hasn’t happened and that’s why Ministers Shorten and Conroy are holding talks today in Canberra with representatives from Telstra and NBN Co. I understand Telstra is going to be putting on additional people to do the remediation, NBN Co will be putting on additional people to do the checks, and Telstra will also do a better job of keeping local residents informed about remediation because people are understandably concerned when they see signs talking about asbestos in their street. Telstra has got a hotline too, which I’m sure you’re able to put up for your viewers for anyone who’s concerned [1800 067 225].

Kieran Gilbert:                   Senator Fifield, do you accept that this could have happened under the Coalition alternative as well?

Mitch Fifield:                      Well, no! I mean, this Government, we’ve got to be fair, does have the Midas touch in reverse; everything they touch goes wrong. But everything to do with the NBN has been half-arsed from the outset. There was no business plan, there was no attempt to look at alternatives, there was no cost-benefit analysis. The NBN has been a disaster from beginning to end. The virtue of the Coalition’s alternative plan is that we would use what is colloquially called the existing legacy infrastructure. And that would mean that we would be disturbing far less of the pits than is the case under this Government. But look, when you have a flawed process from the outset, you do have, down the track, unforeseen negative outcomes and this looks like being one of them.

Kieran Gilbert:                   We’ve got the, as I said, those crisis talks, a bit later in the day we’ll take you to any developments when they happen a bit later with the Shorten – Conroy meeting today with the Telstra executives. Live as we speak on multi-view if you want to watch it is the announcement that Geelong is going to be the headquarters for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We’ve got live coverage on multi-view, we’ll take you there live when the Prime Minister speaks but at the moment you can watch it, if you want to, via your multi-view service. Andrew Leigh, Tony Abbott says the Government is catching up here, because the Coalition has already indicated that they were going to do this.

Andrew Leigh: You’re talking about the DisabilityCare announcement?

Kieran Gilbert:                   DisabilityCare, and the headquarters in Geelong.

Andrew Leigh: Well, certainly having DisabilityCare up and running is something that would only ever going to happen under a Labor government. I’m very pleased that the Coalition has supported it, and that’s due in no small part to the advocacy of Mitch Fifield who’s a strong advocate for people with disabilities.

Kieran Gilbert:                   And the headquarters in Geelong?

Andrew Leigh: Well I don’t think anyone in the disability community really believes that we would have DisabilityCare today were a Coalition government to have been in office, it just wouldn’t have come on the radar. So, this is a great reform, it’s great to see that the headquarters up and running, supporting people with disabilities and their families. I’m always a supporter of public service jobs in Canberra, but I’m pleased to see DisabilityCare up and running now.

Kieran Gilbert:                   Senator Fifield, the local member, Richard Marles, says that this is a good development making, you know, moving headquarters for a significant government agency to a regional centre, so I want to get your thoughts on that, and also on Andrew Leigh’s suggestion that this would have never have happened under a Coalition government. I guess you might disagree with that.

Mitch Fifield:                      Well, look the credit for the NDIS has to go Australians with disability, their carers and the organisations that support them; they’re really the ones who put this on the map. But when it comes to the Geelong headquarters, the Government has been playing catch up, but Sarah Henderson, our candidate for Corangamite, and Peter Reid, our candidate for Corio, have been calling for the headquarters in Geelong for quite some time. And we can’t forget that the Victorian government have had $25 million on the table for the best part of the year, to support and encourage the establishment of the NDIS headquarters in Geelong. So, this really is, I think, a Liberal win. The Victorian government were pushing for this hard, and we’ve said all along that the NDIS headquarters shouldn’t be in Canberra. Today is a good day.

Kieran Gilbert:                   Alright, let’s move on. The Batman pre-selection; I’m interested to get your thoughts on that. We heard from Mary-Anne Thomas earlier, the, I think, front runner when it comes to the female candidates at least. But David Feeney, is the front runner overall, the Labor party powerbroker, played a crucial role when having the Prime Minister assume the role and dumping Kevin Rudd. Tanya Plibersek , Penny Wong, Jenny Macklin all endorsing Mary-Anne Thomas, an executive with Plan International, that children’s development agency, but not the Prime Minister. What’s going on?

Andrew Leigh: Ah, look Kieran, my view is that people from different jurisdictions shouldn’t be diving into pre-selections elsewhere. Certainly, as I recall, Mitch Fifield didn’t dive in the pre-selection where Zed Seselja got rid of the incumbent Senator Gary Humphries here in the ACT, and I think he was probably right to do that.

Kieran Gilbert:                   But on the principle of having more women in parliament?

Andrew Leigh: Well I’m a strong supporter of affirmative action, in the ACT Labor has more women than men, Labor has more women than men in the federal parliament; and I think that’s a great thing. Overall you can see our affirmative action program has delivered far more women in parliament, far more women in cabinet then you’ve seen before. Certainly Labor significantly leads the Coalition in terms of women in parliament across Australia, affirmative action is a key part of that, and it’s important that we maintain that.

Kieran Gilbert:                   Including the first female Prime Minister?

Andrew Leigh: Absol –

Kieran Gilbert:                   That’s a decent record. Senator Fifield?

Mitch Fifield:                      Well look, we don’t need affirmative action or quotas in the Liberal party to get talented people, like Julie Bishop, Sophie Mirabella, Susanne Ley, Kelly O’Dwyer into comfortable, um, what you might call safe, conservative seats. So…

Kieran Gilbert:                   So the reason you don’t choose women is because you have few people of talent?

Mitch Fifield:                      No, what I’m saying is, we don’t need quotas or affirmative action to get good women into safe seats in the parliament. The Labor Party does, we pursue a merit approach, but I have to say in relation to Batman, I’ve actually got a bit of a vested interest here; I live in Batman, and I don’t particularly want David Feeney as my local member and I’m very much on the Martin Ferguson it’s-time-to-reconsider-your-decision-and-stay-Federal-Parliament camp. Martin’s a good guy, I think it’s to the discredit of the Australian Labor party that he doesn’t feel that he can remain in this parliament or serve in this Government any longer, so Martin Ferguson, please reconsider, what have the people of Batman done to deserve David Feeney?

Kieran Gilbert:                   Well I don’t think there’s much chance of that. But…

Andrew Leigh: Does he get your vote if he stays, Mitch?

Mitch Fifield:                      Well look, he gets…

Andrew Leigh: But if you want him that much, surely you should be offering to vote for him.

Mitch Fifield:                      Look, Martin has always got my second preference.

Andrew Leigh: [Laughter] oh, come on!

Kieran Gilbert:                   I don’t think your vote counts much. Labor holds it by 25%, don’t they?

Mitch Fifield:                      Well, I’ve spoken to Martin, he does appreciate my second preference.

Kieran Gilbert:                   I’m sure he would.

Andrew Leigh: Look, Martin’s was a great career. There’s no taking anything away from that. The career through the union movement, the career in politics, and those testimonies to him in the House of Reps were pretty impressive.

Kieran Gilbert:                   What does it say about the Labor party today if he doesn’t feel he can continue? He obviously feels that you’ll walk into a brick wall at the election, and wants to get out.

Andrew Leigh: This isn’t a bloke that walked into Parliament yesterday, Kieran. Martin is somebody who has had a significant career in federal politics, longer than most people serve in the federal parliament. He’s chosen to choose to exit at a time of his choosing and I think that that’s a great thing.

Kieran Gilbert:                   Let’s move on, and talk about the 457 visa issue, Simon Crean, another former ACTU boss, long serving minister says that the unions have gone about this the wrong way in calling for a crackdown. He wants to see the evidence of rorts happening if you’re going to announce greater fines and so on.

Andrew Leigh: Sure.

Kieran Gilbert:                   So what’s going on here? Is the Government beating this up to be a distraction to try and play xenophobic card?

Andrew Leigh: No, let me give you the evidence. We’ve done a survey recently of employers who employed 457 workers and that found that 15% said that they could’ve sourced that labour locally. Now that’s against the program. The program is meant to be one which says you can bring in temporary migrants from overseas if you’re unable to find a local to do the job. But 15% of employers say in these surveys that actually there was a local that could’ve done the job. That’s a concern because when you have people breaking the rules…

Kieran Gilbert:                   Simon Crean’s asking, why would employers do this? Why would they be seeking to not go to Australian workers first, it defies common sense.

Andrew Leigh: You have a range of reasons why people might look at overseas workforces. Certainly that one of the things I’ve heard speaking to local unions in areas where they’ve got 457 workers is that employers will sometimes go for overseas workers because they want a workforce that is more compliant, that less likely to band together for better pay and conditions because they’ve only got a temporary stake in the job. Whereas when you’ve got workers who are there for long careers, they’re willing to stand up for occupational health and safety, for good pay and conditions. And they’re principles that I think are important.

Kieran Gilbert:                   If that’s the figure, according to the data that Andrew Leigh has referred to there, 15%. That’s certainly not a small number, that’s something that warrants investigation, isn’t it?

Mitch Fifield:                      Well look, we don’t want to see anyone abusing the system, but the Minister has been spectacularly unsuccessful in actually demonstrating where the rorts are. A couple of weeks ago he just randomly plucked a figure out of the air, I think it was ten thousand cases of rorting, and then when asked to back it up, he couldn’t produce a single example. Now, sure, in any system like this, there will be people who aren’t doing the right thing. But…

Kieran Gilbert:                   Under the Coalition, if the Coalition wins in September as all expectations and polls suggest, will you, would we see an expansion of 457 visas?

Mitch Fifield:                      Well, there’s been a significant expansion of 457 visas under the current Government. Now, 457 visas will reflect the shortages that are there. There’s no target or magic figure for the appropriate number of 457 visas; they’re driven by need. That’s how the system should work. Look, what this Government has been doing is seeking to use 457 visas as a mechanism to raise xenophobia in the Australian community. Now, the Australian public aren’t racist, they’re not xenophobic. I don’t think that this Government’s campaign will work, if the Government proposed some common sense changes then sure, we’ll look at those, but I think that it’s been pretty unedifying; the Government’s approach to 457 visas over the past few months.

Andrew Leigh: For the Party that’s talked about a ‘peaceful invasion’, who talks about ‘illegal arrivals’, to now be suggesting that we are raising xenophobia, is a bit rich.

Kieran Gilbert:                   I’ve got to interrupt gents, in fact we’re out of time for the program, but good timing, Julia Gillard just got to the stage to the lectern there at the launch of the NDIS headquarters in Geelong. Let’s cross there live…

MEDIA RELEASE

Joe Hockey's Golden Rule

Shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, this morning used Channel 7’s Sunrise program to gloat about the fact that Liberal governments drive down house prices in the ACT.

“Joe Hockey: There is a golden rule for real estate in Canberra. You buy Liberal and you sell Labor. Think about it.” Sunrise, 31 May 2013



Joe Hockey has said that he would cut 20,000 public servants from Canberra, 12,000 in the first two years alone.

These promises are eerily similar to what happened when the Liberals were last in government.

Despite promising only modest cuts to public service job numbers before the election, the Howard government slashed tens of thousands of public service jobs in 1996 and 1997.

The flow-on effects of these cuts to Canberra’s economy were devastating. Research shows that they resulted in $25,000 being cut from the price of the average Canberra house.

Today, Joe Hockey proudly jokes about how the same thing will occur should the Liberals win in September.

The Liberals' contempt for Canberra is breathtaking. It’s not enough that the Liberals are planning devastating cuts to Canberra’s economy that will have crippling effects on households, they’re laughing about it too.

MEDIA RELEASE

What cuts will be made to fund Tony Abbott's Direct Action Policy?

Spokesperson for Coalition Costings, Andrew Leigh has today called on Tony Abbott to release the full costings for his Direct Action plan to lower carbon emissions.

Tony Abbott claims his subsidies for polluters policy will cut Australia’s emissions by 85 million tonnes in 2020 by simply by storing carbon in the soil; Mr Abbott’s ‘Soil Magic’.

Climate Change Departmental officials have now told Senate estimates soil carbon and vegetation measures combined can only reduce emissions by around 4 million tonnes in 2020 – less than one-twentieth of the amount Tony Abbott claims.

“If these measures will only cut emissions by one-twentieth of what he originally envisaged, will Mr Abbott abandon the bipartisan emissions reduction target, bust the budget, or propose further savage cuts to meet it?” said Dr Leigh.



The Coalition’s subsidies for polluters policy has been universally ridiculed by scientists, economists, business leaders and even Liberal Party members. It will cost households at least $1300/year and won’t meet Australia’s commitments to being part of the solution to dangerous climate change.

As former Liberal Leader Malcolm Turnbull has noted, “a direct action policy where industry is able to freely pollute and the government is just spending more and more taxpayers’ money to offset it, that would become a very expensive charge on the budget.” (ABC Lateline, 18 May 2011)

“Mr Abbott needs to come clean about how much households will have to pay, what new tax will be introduced, or what cuts will be made to pay for it,” said Dr Leigh

“With the School Kids Bonus, superannuation increases, and cuts to education already on the chopping block, what else will Mr Abbott look at cutting to meet the missing 19/20ths of his emissions target?” said Mr Leigh.

I spoke in parliament today about a bill that will ensure post-election audits, and hopefully encourage the Coalition to let their policies out of hiding.

Parliamentary Budget Office, 28 May 2013

Although this is a topic that I feel very strongly about, there is a large number of bills before the House so I will speak briefly today. The Parliamentary Budget Office was established on the recommendation of a joint select committee of parliament including support from all parties. The aim of the PBO is to ensure that elections are fought around values, so that there are two well-costed sets of policies which face the Australian people. The alternative to the Parliamentary Budget Office is what we saw in the 2010 election where the coalition avoided the Charter of Budget Honesty, a charter set up by Peter Costello, and then went to the election offering policies which instead had been so-called 'audited' by a private accounting firm. That accounting firm was later fined for professional misconduct because they had not conducted an audit. We had the farce of the member for North Sydney claiming that they had only conducted a small 'a' audit. Unfortunately, audit only has a small 'a'. The coalition were, needless to say, embarrassed by this, embarrassed by the $11 billion hole in their costings which Treasury exposed. We saw some deeply disappointing scenes in here when members of the opposition criticised former Treasury secretary Ken Henry for doing his job and simply scrutinising coalition costings.

But what the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2013 will do is now place the role of a post-election audit in the hands of the Parliamentary Budget Office. So even if a party does what the coalition does at the last election and fails to put forward policies under the Charter of Budget Honesty, the Parliamentary Budget Office will still go ahead after the election and assess their costings. It will use its best professional judgement and it will draw on data provided by agencies including the Australian Taxation Office. That is an important reassurance to the Australian people, that if a party attempts to circumvent the Charter of Budget Honesty they will be caught in the noose of the Parliamentary Budget Office's post-election audit. It is a guarantee to the Australian people that they should have costed policies put in front of them. But the Australian people are not yet seeing that from the opposition. The opposition have, on their own admission, a $70 billion gap. That is not my number. That is a number which was first put forward by the member for North Sydney on the Sunrise program on 12 August 2011, when he said:

‘Therefore finding $50, 60 or 70 billion is about identifying waste and identifying areas where you do not need to proceed with programs.’

On Meet the Press the member for Goldstein said:

‘We came out with the figure, right?’

That was on 4 September 2011, and on ABC's AM, on 12 August 2011, the member for Goldstein said, 'It's a case of simple arithmetic.' They did regret it a little later, with the member for North Sydney saying on 8 February 2012, 'Okay, I shouldn't have said any figure because it was part of a debate and now it has been taken as a statement of fact.' But the cat at that stage was well and truly out of the bag.

We have that significant costings hole on the coalition side and the coalition now suggesting to the Australian people that they will do the mathematically impossible, that they will manage to cut taxes, raise spending and pay down debt faster than Labor. At the same time as promising the mathematically impossible, the coalition are repeatedly attempting to avoid scrutiny. They are saying to the Australian people that they will not produce their policies until PEFO, the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Unfortunately, Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson directly rejected the allegation of the opposition that budget numbers cannot be a basis for costings. Treasury secretary Parkinson said, on 21 May 2013:

‘I can say on behalf of David Tune, the secretary of the department of finance, and myself—and get this right—were PEFO to have been released on the 14th of May it would have contained the numbers that were in the budget.’

As Senator Wong has said, the numbers are the numbers. The figures in the budget are not figures which have a partisan hue to them. They are the figures that are the best estimates of Treasury as to the state of the nation's finances.

Based on those figures, the Australian people are entitled to hear what the opposition would do in order to close that $50 billion, $60 billion or $70 billion hole.

The member for North Sydney has said:

‘I would have expected Martin Parkinson to say nothing different yesterday because he is—quite appropriately—a servant of the Government.’

That is a slur on a professional public servant who upholds the best of frank and fearless advice, not the kind of flaccid and fearful public servants that the coalition would like to see but a frank and fearless tradition. The member for North Sydney should withdraw the slur on the Secretary to the Treasury, which is in essence arguing that the Treasury secretary is a liar and a law-breaker.

I commend the bill to the House. I commend the hard work of public servants, particularly Treasury officials, and their professionalism in discharging their duty.

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

TOPICS                                 No confidence motion, live odds, Private Health Insurance Rebate, foreign aid.



Tim Lester:                          Senator Fiona Nash and Andrew Leigh, welcome back to Breaking Politics. Fiona Nash, what happened to the Opposition’s no confidence motion in the Government?

Fiona Nash:                        Well certainly there’s been some discussion around that in the past, but what is really interesting I think we have no confidence in the Government, the big question of course is whether or not the independents, the cross benchers still have confidence in the Government. And I think even more importantly Tim, out there in the community there is no confidence in the Government. And really, when I’m moving around regional communities the thing that is most clear, most apparent, is this lack of confidence in the Government and in the future. So, there’s been a real slow-down, if you like, a real lack of investment, a real lack spend, and particularly in our regional communities, we’re seeing an almost grinding halt happening out in these regional communities.

Tim Lester:                          Ok, so the community’s confidence will be well and truly tested on September 14^th and you might be right about no confidence then but, for now, Tony Abbott had said that he would test it on the floor of Parliament, isn’t it the case that he wouldn’t get the support on the cross-benches he needs to make the motion fly?

Fiona Nash:                        Oh well that’s obviously a matter for the Leader on whether or not there would be support. You know, we’d have to wait and see whether a no confidence motion goes ahead, but that’s a matter for the leader. At the moment I’m focussing on being out there in the communities and I can certainly tell you, out there there’s no confidence in this Government.

Tim Lester:                          The sports advertising for gambling in sports…

Andrew Leigh: Can I just quickly respond on the confidence thing, Tim? It is striking to see a no confidence motion fail for lack of confidence by the people who are going to move it. But there’s a broader issue too, which is that the Coalition, I think, is playing a dangerous game on talking down confidence in Australia. You can see this actually in some of the consumer confidence surveys which are split out by partisanship, and you can see the confidence in the economy among Coalition supporters falling substantially. That’s a dangerous game. The Australian economy is actually performing very strongly by international standards and if you look back over the last couple of decades we’re doing very well; low debt load, good unemployment by international standards, strong growth. You’ve got to be careful about trash-talking the Australian economy; it’s a dangerous game.

Fiona Nash:                        It’s not talking down confidence though, it’s just talking about the facts of the feeling out there in the community, of the perceptions of people out there in the community and there is this continued move from the Government to say, “compared to the rest of the world”. We’ve got countries around this world that are basket cases that you’re comparing us to. That is not a good comparison. So it’s not about the Coalition talking down confidence, trying to create that impression, it’s actually a fact. We’re just reflecting what people out there in the community are thinking.

Andrew Leigh: I think that your leader is doing more than that, Fiona. I mean I certainly notice…

Fiona Nash:                        Well you’re entitled to you opinion

Andrew Leigh: But we’ve had the greatest downturn since the Global Financial Crisis [Great Depression] hit Australia and we’ve come through that remarkably well thanks to the resilience of the Australian economy. I think it is a dangerous game to start, for example, talking up the impact of a carbon price which was CPI impact of 0.7 per cent, very small impact on prices. Or the mining tax, which has not caused towns to be wiped off the map, it has not caused the sort of economic devastation that the Opposition Leader said it would. I think it’s better to talk about the optimism of the Australian people, the resilience of the Australian economy. Then the debate can be about policy, not about just trash talking Australia, which is the game, I think, some members of your party have played.

Tim Lester:                          Let’s perhaps move on to the advertising question, sports advertising question, because it’s an important one to put to you both I think. Andrew Leigh, perhaps first you, there are many who think Julia Gillard has not gone far enough by simply addressing live odds advertising in sporting events and not taking on the bigger issue of gambling advertising anytime in children’s hours. What do you say?

Andrew Leigh: Well Tim, like Fiona, I’m regularly out in the community talking to people about the issue and the strongest feeling that comes back to me is the feeling that live odds are frustrating people. They don’t like watching a game with their kids where live odds are coming on. The measure the Prime Minister announced on Sunday does ensure that from the moment the players run out onto the footy field until the moment the game is over people won’t see live odds. That’s true if the game’s being broadcast in children’s hours, it’s also true if a child is staying up until 10pm to watch a footy game with mum or dad. So in that sense this is a stronger proposal than a proposal that simply cauterize children’s hours.

Tim Lester:                          Fiona Nash, are you able to comfortably sit and watch gambling ads of other sorts in children television hours and go, “that’s ok” or do you think we should have gone further than Julia Gillard and Stephen Conroy have gone?

Fiona Nash:                        Well I think it’s certainly a welcome step in the right direction but our view in the Coalition is very much, this is a particular issue where the outcome has to meet community expectations. Now, we will look very closely to the response from the community as to what the Government has said will now be in place. Whether or not it needs to go further we will very much judge on what the community feedback is, and if the community feedback is that, no, that doesn’t go far enough, of course we’ll take that into account. We’ll be monitoring very closely.

Tim Lester:                          Which is a wait and see approach, I guess. You don’t yet feel you’ve got enough feedback from the community to go, “this is the way my community wants us to go”?

Fiona Nash:                        Well I think it’s just a very common sense and practical way to go forward. We’ve seen a first step from the Government here. It’s been a welcome first step, but what we need to make sure is that the community out there are happy with that being far enough. Now, I suspect there are going to be a lot of people in our community who think that doesn’t go far enough. Our job in the Coalition is to now watch and monitor that, have a look at what the community feedback is, and if it needs to go further, if it needs to be stronger, then we need to take that very seriously.

Andrew Leigh: Sometimes governments, I think, have to lead these debates too and I guess I was worried a couple of weeks ago when Mr Abbott said he would back the industry code. We’ve decided to go further than that. We’ve decided to take a significant step that goes ahead of the industry and I think that was the right thing to do.

Fiona Nash:                        Can I just clarify that though, that Tony Abbott certainly was talking about this issue a lot and he was saying about backing the code, but he very much was saying that if necessary, he would come in and make sure that the proper safeguards were there so I don’t think it’s fair on Tony Abbott to just say he would back the code. He meant much further than that saying that if it was necessary, he was prepared to go further.

Tim Lester:                          On the question of Coalition plans, the Government is now planning to slash 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate over four years saving about $700 million. We’re told in this morning’s press, if you believe it, that the Coalition now supports the cuts to the Private Health Insurance Rebate. Are we seeing a pattern here, Fiona Nash, of the Coalition quietly allowing the Government to cut in to old Howard Government plans among others, to save yourselves heavy lifting when you’re confronted with budget number one next year assuming you win?

Fiona Nash:                        Well that’s something as a party room we’re yet to consider but I think the pattern is very strongly the realisation out there in the community that the Coalition understands that we have to fix this economic mess that the Government has got the nation into. Now, if we are fortunate enough to get into government after the 14^th of September there is going to be a huge mess to fix so we’re being absolutely consistent in saying the priority has to be getting this country economically back on its feet. We’ve got a $257 billion gross debt, we’ve got very little to show in this nation as people just say to me all the time, for all of the money for all the borrowing that this Government has done, what is there to show for it?

Tim Lester:                          So if the Baby Bonus, the Private Health Insurance Rebate and the like have to go, so be it?

Fiona Nash:                        No, not at all. I’m saying that we’re having to consider very carefully all of the legislation that is before us in terms of the ramifications for the nation. We just can’t keep going on this willy-nilly spending spree that this Labor Government has invoked and expect this country to be economically sustainable. So we’re just being sensible and applying common sense to how we have to look at future economic management.

Tim Lester:                          A last question for you both. Bill Gates in town today has been reasonably restrained so far in his comments on our foreign aid cuts, that is, the Government twice in a row, two budgets in a row now pushing back the goal of reaching half of one per cent of gross national income spent on foreign aid. He’s being pretty forgiving of Australia welshing on what was a pretty clear undertaking under Kevin Rudd isn’t he, Andrew Leigh?

Andrew Leigh: Not at all, Tim. He is looking around the world and looking at Australia being a stand-out country for having substantially increased foreign aid now to $5.7 billion: the highest level as a share of GDP in a quarter of a century. That’s an important increase to foreign aid at a time when other countries are cutting their foreign aid budgets. He would like Australia to spend more on foreign aid I’m sure, but he looks around the world and sees a country that is increasing its generosity to the world’s poorest people. And you’ve got to look around the world on issues, whether it’s looking at debt as a share of GDP or whether it’s looking at foreign aid as a share of GDP. All of these issues require a global perspective.

Tim Lester:                          Ok, Fiona Nash, has the Government moved too slowly to that benchmark that Kevin Rudd promised to meet or is the Government right to slow down our reaching that goal?

Fiona Nash:                        I think we have to recognise that as a developed nation, we do have a responsibility to help those other nations that do require our assistance. There’s no doubt about that and I think in the past there has been fairly bipartisan support to how we approach our foreign assistance. But we do need to balance that with what we can and can’t do, what is appropriate and certainly our domestic needs here at home. So, it’s very much a balancing act and we certainly are continuing to contribute to that global task.

Tim Lester:                          And the Government’s balance is the right one?

Fiona Nash:                        Well certainly we need to make sure that we have the assistance there that is necessary. We do have to be prudent on occasion across a range of areas where we’re looking at our financial expenditure but I think certainly that there has been in the past, a bipartisan approach to how we look at assisting those developing nations.

Tim Lester:                          Fiona Nash, Andrew Leigh, thank you for coming back in to Breaking Politics. Nice to have you both in the studio!

Andrew Leigh: Absolutely, thanks Tim. Thanks Fiona.

Fiona Nash:                        Thanks Tim

TRANSCRIPT – DOORS
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
28 May 2013

TOPICS:                Funding the NDIS, advertising of live odds during sporting matches, election disclosure changes, the Government’s efficiency dividend, asylum seekers



Andrew Leigh: In public life it’s not good enough just to say that you support a worthy policy; you’ve also got to front up and say where the money is coming from. In the case of DisabilityCare, a reform that will

transform the lives of 410,000 Australians and their carers, you also need to say where that money will come from. And the Coalition today has said that they won’t back nearly $400 million worth of savings from the Private Health Insurance Rebate in order to fund DisabilityCare. So they need to be very clear with the Australian people today, does that mean they’re backing away from DisabilityCare entirely? Or are they going to make another cut elsewhere? Or are they going to raise another tax? Because it’s not good enough in public life, to support a principle you’ve actually got to say where the money is coming from. Happy to take questions.

Journalist:           Do you expect fiery debate in caucus today over live betting odds?

Andrew Leigh: I think that what the Prime Minister announced on Sunday is an important step forward. I think it really recognises that Australians are sick of seeing live odds throughout sporting matches, sick of having kids watch those and I think there will be a strong recognition in caucus as I’ve sensed in many conversations with Labor colleagues over recent days, that this does substantially change the situation for live odds

Journalist:           Does it go far enough?

Andrew Leigh: In my view it does. I think this manages to ensure that from the moment the players step onto the field to the moment they’re off the field you don’t have live odds and that’s been a chief concern that’s come back to me in my street stalls and my community meetings. It’s that promotion of live odds during the game that is of greatest concern to people.

Journalist:           If Stephen Jones puts forward a motion calling for the ban on gambling advertising before 8:30pm, will you be supporting that?

Andrew Leigh: Stephen is entitled to put forward a motion and I’m sure there will be good quality public policy debate in the Labor caucus as there always is. But it’s important to realise also that in a sense, in one important respect, the Prime Minister’s announcement goes further which is that it doesn’t simply regulate children’s viewing hours, it ensures that if a sporting match is on ten o’clock and the kids are staying up with Mum and Dad to watch it then the kids aren’t exposed to live odds throughout that sporting match.

Journalist:           Should taxpayers be funding the administrative costs of political parties running for the election?

Andrew Leigh: I think you’re referring to some stories that are around today regarding disclosure caps and funding. As I understand it, those discussions are still ongoing at the moment. Clearly the principles of public funding for elections and of disclosure caps are well entrenched in the Australian political system. The Labor Party would like to see those disclosure limits come down from $12,000 to $1,000 as we believe there should be greater transparency in the system

Journalist:           But why the need for tens of millions of dollars more money for the parties?

Andrew Leigh: As I understand it, these discussions are still ongoing. I don’t know where things have landed at, or if there has indeed been a landing on the public funding aspect. Certainly, that’s something that will become clearer in the coming days.

Journalist:           Do you think that political parties, your political party, does need more money [inaudible]?

Andrew Leigh: The principle of public funding for elections has been entrenched in our system for a long time and the notion of public funding is, I think, an important one. Arguing about ideas is healthy for a strong democracy and public funding is one aspect of that. Now, of course I’d like to see  a little more discussion about ideas and a little less mud-slinging in politics. But you can’t mandate what political parties and candidates will use those resources for.

Journalist:           Is your efficiency dividend impeding on the work of some of our spy agencies and security agencies to actually do the best job that they can?

Andrew Leigh: The efficiency dividend has been in place since 1989. It’s a policy that’s existed for a quarter of a century. It exists across government agencies and it’s something that has existed under the Hawke,

Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard Governments. So I think the efficiency dividend is now a regular part of Australian public policy.

Journalist:           [inaudible] agency’s been quarantined from?

Andrew Leigh: I think the efficiency dividend aims to encourage agencies to find savings and efficiencies where they can. But in the case of intelligence agencies, I’d certainly note that ASIO for example has received a substantial increase in funding in the latest budget.

Journalist:           That’s only to pay for the influx of asylum seekers and assessing them for national security, isn’t it?

Andrew Leigh: Well ASIO has received a substantial injection in funding reflecting the challenges that we face in a rapidly changing security environment…

Journalist:           But they’re also facing challenges in terms of cyber-attacks. Last night it was revealed that the blueprints have been stolen to that building. Is this really the time that money should be pulled away from these agencies?

Andrew Leigh: Well as I’ve made clear to you, ASIO has seen an injection of funds not a withdrawal of funds…

Journalist:           Are you concerned with the blueprints being stolen?

Andrew Leigh: …and on operational matters, I wouldn’t comment on specifics,  but I would say on the issue of cyber-attacks that this is an issue that was raised as an important priority for Australia in the Defence White Paper at the start of the year. We’re seeing a rise in cyber-attacks globally. That’s reflected in the United States in particular, but also Australia is at risk of these attacks and we need to make sure we’re prepared to deal with them.

Journalist:           Laura Smyth is going to be arguing in caucus today for more clarity over the ‘no advantage’ test, do you agree with that? Do you think there should be a clearer timeframe around that?



Andrew Leigh: I think the principle of the ‘no advantage’ test is a simple and straightforward one, which is that if two asylum seekers are in a refugee camp, the one who can afford to pay for the people smuggler shouldn’t get an advantage over the family that can’t afford to pay the people smuggler. That’s an issue of fairness but it’s also an issue of safety – about reducing the horrendous number of tragedies we’ve seen with maritime arrivals over recent years. So, that’s a principle I support. I’d like to see the Coalition back in all of the recommendations from the Houston Panel and not just cherry-picking the Houston Panel.

Journalist:           Do you think the Government, though, should be giving a clearer timeframe in terms of how long asylum seekers are going to wait under the ‘no advantage’ test?

Andrew Leigh: Well I think the most important thing with the ‘no advantage’ test is the clarity to asylum seekers. That you should not get on a boat and come to Australia because you won’t receive an advantage for doing that. That’s the point at which clarity is most important because that’s the point at which we can reduce demand for people smugglers and we can also ensure that there are fewer people getting on boats and fewer drownings at sea which is ultimately the thing that troubles my constituents most, it’s the issue that comes up most in community discussions; the horrendous number of ocean tragedies that have occurred over recent years.

Journalist:           [inaudible] yesterday showed 73% of people whose asylum claims were rejected are eventually overturned, does that show that the system is somehow broken?

Andrew Leigh: We have an appeals process and certainly that’s as it should be. I’m not going to comment on the specifics of legal claims except to say that it’s important that that review process exists and I’m a strong respecter of the courts. I was an associate to Michael Kirby a while back and certainly wouldn’t want to be suggesting anything other than these are honest public servants and decent judges striking different views as is normal in a democracy and a legal system like ours.

Journalist:           That data also showed that Hazara people had a much lower chance of having their decision overturned and they were putting that down to illiteracy. Do you think there needs to be more support for people who perhaps don’t have the same education?

Andrew Leigh: Well asylum seekers receive significant support through making claims and also there’s a large number of immigration lawyers who have been offering to act for high profile claimants. So I think there’s certainly support there and again that’s as it should be, that’s fundamental to our system. But you do need to look too at the clear differences between the parties here. There’s only one party in Australia that wants to bring down the number of asylum seekers Australia takes. As I understand it, for the first time in decades, that would be I think a horrendous decision from a moral and ethical standpoint, an awful signal to send to the world – that Australia is now putting up the shutters, taking fewer asylum seekers than we’ve done in the past. I think it’s deeply mean spirited of the Coalition to be bringing down the asylum seeker intake as they’ve now decided to do and of course just shows that they’re really just playing politics all along when they were suggesting to Andrew Wilkie in negotiations that they would increase it substantially.