Andrew Leigh

On Sky AM Agenda this morning, I spoke with host Kieran Gilbert and Liberal MP Kelly O'Dwyer about the killing of the US Ambassador to Libya, why profits-based taxes are more efficient than mining royalties, and what the savage cuts in Liberal-run states tell us about Tony Abbott's secret plans.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/G2hxYhsp5mQ

I spoke in parliament today about the importance of early childhood education and the United Voice Big Steps campaign.

Early Childhood Education and the Big Steps Campaign, 13 September 2012

As a parent of two young boys, I am a heavy user of early childhood centres. I remember with great fondness taking my then one-year-old to daycare on the back of a bike. These days I tend to drop them off in the car but it is always a pleasure to see their great enthusiasm when arriving at the Acton Early Childhood Centre. It is a place where they not only have friends but are also learning. One of the great changes over the last couple of decades has been the broad recognition that early childhood is not babysitting; it is education. And high-quality childhood education is fundamental to the future of those individual children and collectively to the productivity and the social wellbeing of our society. I pay tribute to the hard working staff at the Acton Early Childhood Centre.

The fact is that Labor has put record investment into early childhood. We are investing $22 billion dollars over the next four years—more than triple that of the former Liberal-National government. We have raised the childcare rebate to from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of parents' out-of-pocket costs and increased the cap from $4,354 per child per year under the coalition to $7,500 now. Despite this, the United Voice Big Steps campaign has pointed out, there are challenges with the low wages currently paid to workers in the early childhood sector. The Big Steps campaign estimates that 180 educators leave the sector every week due to low wages and conditions.

I have been grateful for the passionate advocacy from United Voice workers Yvette Berry, Rebecca Garden and Verity Mays as well as centre directors, Catherine Konkoly and Timothy Toogood among them, who came to see me to speak about the importance of raising wages and qualifications. The two big challenges for the government in the early childhood space are to improve affordability and access; as well as increase quality. The number of Australian children in childcare last financial year reached 1.3 million, an increase of 20 per cent over five years.

As I have noted, the government has increased the share of the out-of-pocket costs borne by the federal taxpayer, but at the same time it is vital that we improve the wages and conditions in the sector. The Big Steps campaign calls on the federal government to improve funding for the early childhood sector so that the turnover decreases and we are able to ensure that the sector continues to attract and retain the very best educators. In a recent survey I did of childcare issues in my electorate of Fraser, I asked parents how happy they were with their child's care. Forty per cent said they were very happy and another 39 per cent said they were happy. Only 10 per cent were rather unhappy or very unhappy. That is a big tick across the Fraser electorate for the great work being done by early childcare educators. I also asked parents how they received the childcare rebate and discovered that 11 per cent received it annually and 35 per cent received it quarterly. That means that only around half of all parents are receiving the childcare rebate in the two new ways that federal Labor has enabled them to receive it—paid either fortnightly or directly to the centre, perhaps the most convenient way of receiving the childcare rebate.

Even more concerning are figures from Kate Ellis, the Minister for Early Childhood and Child Care, that 100,000 families across Australia and 1,400 families in the ACT are eligible for the childcare rebate but are not receiving it. I encourage all families to check whether they are eligible for the support and to consider whether they are receiving the childcare rebate in the way that best meets their needs. I also asked parents whether, if they used formal care, they would be willing to pay higher fees in order to increase the salaries of staff and reduce staff turnover. The question was evenly split: 55 per cent in favour, 45 per cent against. The work of early childhood educators is vital to Australia's future and I commend them for it.

With last week's launch of the 2013 Centenary of Canberra program, I'm particularly keen on the local angle. Portrait of a Nation, of which I'm a patron, will encourage Canberrans to use 2012-13 to learn more about the people after whom their streets and suburbs are named.

Of course, no history is complete without a counterfactual history, and that's where celebtrity suburb names come in. This is the game where you see who can come up with the silliest suggestions of celebrities after whom your suburb could have been named.

Earlier this year, I posted a list of suggestions from Maryann Mussared, and then called Twitter for more. Here are some of those that came back:

• @ArabellaSL - Pearce must be named after Guy Pearce & Russell after Russell Crowe


• Nicholas Ellis ‏ - Weetangera after hip-hop band The Wu-Tang Clan


• Karen Hardy ‏ - real housewives of the OC - o'connor.


• Policy Australia ‏ - Had Bruce Hawker double dipped?*


• Karin - Lyneham after Paul Lyneham (the late ABC journalist)


• @TinyTheCabbie - Theodore after the chipmunk


• David Mathews - Hughes after Merv Hughes

* This suggests another game. Who are the celebrities named after two suburbs? The only other I can think of is ANU economist Bruce Chapman.

Update: They keep coming.

• @MarciaKKeegan - Harrison Forde


• Ian Warden alerts me to this 2011 Canberra Times article, featuring adult film actress Paige Turner, Test cricketer Phillip Hughes, ABC journalist Russell Barton and retired English soccer goalkeeper Gordon Banks.

I spoke in parliament this morning about the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

NDIS, 12 September 2012

On 24 August it was my pleasure to join with parliamentary secretary Jan McLucas and member for Canberra, Gai Brodtmann, at the Griffin Centre in Canberra to hold a forum on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is the second forum in my electorate on the NDIS that I have helped organise. A previous forum in Belconnen was well attended by a range of carers, people with disabilities and people of goodwill who are committed to building a national disability insurance scheme. I also met in my electorate office with a range of people with disabilities and their carers to discuss what an NDIS will mean for them.

Some of the stories of people who care for people with disabilities are profoundly shocking. As the Every Australian Counts website says, 'Which developed country would expect someone to live with two showers a week?' That is Australia. We heard the story of a Queensland woman who has to reapply every 15 days for emergency care. We heard about mothers of children with Down syndrome who have to constantly prove that their child's chromosomes have not changed. They have to be constantly reassessed. We heard stories about a child in the Northern Territory who has to hand in his hearing aids when he leaves school at the end of each day.

Building a national disability insurance scheme must be done in collaboration with people with disabilities and their carers. We need to ask, 'What do you want and how can we deliver it?' Assessments under the National Disability Insurance Scheme need to be done no more frequently than is necessary. Over-frequent assessments are enormously frustrating for people with disabilities and their carers and sometimes contribute to carers losing their jobs.

The parliamentary secretary had three asks for people at the forum and I share them with the  House. She wants people to go to the Every Australian Counts website and sign up. Go to www.ndis.gov.au and learn more about the NDIS, and talk about the National Disability Insurance Scheme with all Australians. Recognise that we need to build a nationwide national disability insurance scheme.

I am very proud that the ACT is one of the launch sites for the NDIS. I was pleased to join the Prime Minister and Chief Minister Katy Gallagher at Black Mountain School on 26 July to discuss the issues. Canberra is one of the sites that is leading the way in improving care for people with disabilities, but we still have a long way to go. I applaud the passion of the parliamentary secretary, the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister, Minister Macklin and many others. This is an important task and it is a mark of a civilised society that we do it.

I spoke on Ten News yesterday about my Child Care Survey results and the Gillard Government's work to improve the quality and affordability of child care.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/JSKV-ebo43M

I spoke in parliament last night about one of the central questions in the refugee debate - why have many countries in our region chosen not to sign the refugee convention?

Dealing with Non-Signatories to the Refugee Convention, 11 September 2012

In recent months much of the debate in Australia over refugees has centred around whether countries with which we deal have signed the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol. For the coalition I think this is largely just another excuse to say no. Let us face it, refugee policy in the Howard years was hardly characterised by a great deference to international law. But there are many people of goodwill who I meet at my community forums and mobile offices who ask me, quite reasonably, why the government wants to deal with a non-signatory country. I wish to use the chance this evening to answer that question.

Broadly, there are three sets of countries. There are rich countries that are able to enforce their border protection—for example, OECD nations are almost entirely signatories. Then there are poor countries to which many refugees would not wish to go. Somalia is one country that comes to mind. Again, they are happy to sign the convention. Then there is a third group of countries—those poorer countries situated close to refugee sending nations. In many cases these countries are not signatories. As a branch member in the ACT, Barbara Phi, has pointed out to me, countries like India, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia are non-signatories, and they are non-signatories for various reasons. Chief among those reasons is that they do not wish to attract refugees from neighbouring countries.

The reality is that the refugee convention was created to deal with the mass flight of refugees from war ravaged Europe in the 1950s. The reality now is that people are fleeing in much greater numbers. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, at the end of 2011 Pakistan had 1.7 million refugees. As a result, there are substantial resource implications for such countries of signing the refugee convention. The costs of processing asylum seeker claims and meeting education, health and housing obligations can be prohibitive for poorer nations. For those bordering refugee-sending nations, these obligations are a very real resource issue.

In April 2007, the Malaysian foreign ministry's parliamentary secretary told the news outlet Malaysiakini it would not officially recognise refugees since:

The government is of the opinion that if Malaysia becomes party to the Convention, considering its strategic geographical location in the region, it would be a drawing factor for refugees to come to Malaysia.

Malaysia is concerned that, were it to sign the refugee convention, it would be obliged to resettle close to 100,000 people in its camps. A recent UNHCR evaluation on the protection of urban refugees reported Malaysia 'considers the task of providing refugees with protection, assistance and solutions to be the responsibility of the international community'. It went on:

While refugees and asylum seekers are tolerated, it was on the clear condition that UNHCR provides any resources and services associated with their presence.

I am committed to international agreements; I support the aims of the refugee convention. But we must realise the context in which the refugee convention was built. Even the opposition spokesperson, the member for Cook, has said the refugee convention 'no longer reflects the practical reality'. The practical reality is that we are in a region in which many of our neighbours are non-signatories to the convention, and if you want a regional framework then that necessitates dealing with non-signatory countries.

The Houston report recommended that we establish bilateral agreements in the short term while working towards a longer term regional framework under the Bali process. That means that we have an international agreement that is able to share appropriate responsibility for the 3.6 million refugees in our regions. That is why we have endorsed the recommendations of the Houston report and have made the necessary compromises, many of them painful, to stop the politicking and make sure people do not risk their lives at sea.

I spoke in parliament this evening about a bill to give the National Portrait Gallery its own piece of legislation.

National Portrait Gallery of Australia Bill, 11 September 2012

It is my pleasure to follow the member for Hinkler and to agree with so much of what he had to say in his very articulate speech. There is much that divides us in this place, but I think it is often the arts which can bring us together. I particularly appreciated the member for Hinkler's comments about the great wisdom and prescience of the Whitlam government.

The National Portrait Gallery was something I remember first thinking about when I lived as a whippersnapper in London for a number of years. I was there on my own and loved the opportunity to visit the British National Portrait Gallery. It has that great combination of art and history you get in a portrait gallery. Wandering amidst the portraits there, I remember thinking to myself, 'It would be great if Australia had one of these.' As previous speakers have noted, Tom Roberts had had that idea in the early 1900s, but it was not until much later, 1999, that Australia got its National Portrait Gallery.

For its first ten years, the National Portrait Gallery was in Old Parliament House—a beautiful venue but not one which was created as an art space. The new National Portrait Gallery space is a unique spot. You get that sense of what an interesting location it is going to be when you approach it and see the imbalance of the architecture on the front—it looks as if it is not possible for the cantilever to hold up. Then, as soon as you enter, you are struck by portraits which range right through Australian history, such as Ah Xian's ceramic bust of John Yu, Bill Henson's triptych of Simone Young and Howard Arkley's portrait of Nick Cave.

Mr Neville interjecting—

Dr LEIGH:  As the member for Hinkler points out, it is the way the light strikes those works which really makes it such a success—as is the case in any great gallery space.

I have two favourite portraits at the gallery. One, in common with the member for Hinkler, is the portrait of Michael Kirby by Ralph Heimans. I was associate to Michael Kirby at the time the portrait was done and it sat in the corner of his office for the first few months while he wandered forwards and backwards past it, trying to work out what he thought of it. It is of course not the most modest of portraits. It portrays the judge as, I think, a sort of Romanesque figure standing out—the only one facing the artist—amidst an array of judges. I think it is quite befitting of Michael Kirby's career as a judge—constantly with his face to us, not just writing the judgements but engaging the polity.

My other favourite portrait is the one of Deborah Mailman painted by Evert Ploeg. Deborah Mailman is just looking directly at the viewer with a sense of boldness and a sense of power. There is such strength coming out of the portrait.

The National Portrait Gallery is engaged in digital portraiture as well. My favourite portraits, I confess, are the oils, but so many of the new portraits these days are screen based digital portraits. On 2 August, the National Portrait Gallery announced the inaugural winner of its $10,000 iD Digital Portraiture Award. The artist judged to have made the most outstanding screen based digital portrait was Laura Moore. Her portrait was titled Animation 1. Other finalists were Aaron James McGarry, Nina Mulhall, Clare Thackway and Bridget Walker. Those portraits can be viewed in the National Portrait Gallery until 28 October.

This bill gives the National Portrait Gallery its own piece of legislation. That will be important, as previous speakers have noted, in allowing the gallery to stand on its own two feet and to engage, as the other cultural institutions do, with other entities and with other government departments. As the member for Canberra eloquently noted in her speech, the National Portrait Gallery will be involved in the extraordinary Centenary of Canberra celebrations which start next year. The theme of the Centenary of Canberra, curated by the energetic Robyn Archer is: 'seed now, blossom in 2013, flower for another hundred years'.

Not surprisingly, the National Portrait Gallery is involved in the centenary as well. It is going to feature a number of exhibitions coinciding with centenary themes through next year. A particular highlight will be Elvis at 21, an exhibition toured by the Smithsonian Institution Travelling Exhibition Service, with Canberra the only Australian venue. It consists of a collection of photos of Elvis Presley that are 'remarkably candid, intimate and fresh' according to the publicity material.

Although it is not at the Portrait Gallery, the Portrait of a Nation project will form part of the Canberra centenary celebrations. Portrait of a Nation will remind Canberrans that our nation's rich history lies in our street and suburb names. Portrait of a Nation, for which I am one of the spokespeople, will encourage Canberrans to rediscover the significant national figures after whom their streets and suburbs are named and learn a little bit more about the history of those people, perhaps even make a family link. For example, the relatives of one of those people might attend a Christmas celebration in your street which is named after that person.

If Canberra were a person, I think it would be an egalitarian patriot, someone who understands the past but is not bound by it—and the National Portrait Gallery is very much part of that. It recognises our rich history and the great value of design in nourishing the soul as well as the mind.

Another design event recently brought to the national capital was the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects national landscape architecture awards, which I attended with pleasure last week. I want to briefly acknowledge the award winners. The 2012 Australian Medal for Landscape Architecture went to UDLA. The AILA National Landscape Architecture Award of Excellence went to Plan (E). Other awards went to Jeavons Landscape Architects for their Clifton Hill railway project and to Fresh Landscape Design for their Roogulli project in Bywong, New South Wales. ASPECT Studios won an award for their innovative work at Pirrama Park and another for their project at Jack Evans Boat Harbour in Tweed Heads. Andrew Green received an award for their SW1 project; Ecoscape Australia, for Mueller Park Universal Playspace; Vee Design for the Robelle Domain in Ipswich; and McGregor Coxall, for the Australian Garden and the new entry of the National Gallery of Australia—and it is great to see such high-quality design here in the nation's capital.

Taylor Cullity Lethlean received an award for their Wild Sea exhibit at Melbourne Zoo. They are a really innovative firm of landscape architects. I know they are still mourning principal Kevin Taylor, who, tragically, died in a car crash last year. He was an alchemy of extraordinary qualities, being not only a great designer but also an extraordinary teacher.

Spackman Mossop Michaels received an award for the Humanities and Science Campus in the Parliamentary Triangle; John Mongard Landscape Architects, for Bingara and the Living Classroom; UDLA, for the Kimberley LNG precinct strategic assessment report; and the City of Bendigo, for the Bendigo Botanic Gardens Master Plan. Harris Hobbs received an award for the Bonner P-6 School and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Learning and Cultural Centre, a project in my own electorate of Fraser. Clouston Associates received an award for the Clarence River Way master plan; and Fitzgerald Frisby Landscape Architecture, for Lollipop Creek.

Zoe Metherell received a research and communication award for a comparative study on Melbourne's freeway planting designs; Oxigen Landscape Architects, for Green Infrastructure; HASSELL, for their project, Local-area Envisioning and Sustainability scoring system; Spackman Mossop Michaels, for their Chinatown Public Domain Plan, a really innovative re-design of Sydney's Chinatown area; and Taylor Cullity Lethlean, for their Victoria Square project. There were also two leadership awards, which went to Lucinda Hartley and Gweneth Leigh. I would like to acknowledge the national jurors who worked to select the award winners: Niall Simpson, Paul Harding, Alison Breach, Catherine Brouwer, Gary Rake and Catriona McLeod. Again, it was a great showcasing of design here in the national capital.

So much of what makes Canberra extraordinary is that meld of design and history of which the National Portrait Gallery is such a strong part and one that I am enormously proud to be engaged in as a Canberran. I commend the bill to the House.

I spoke in parliament last night on an amendment calling on the Coalition to submit their costings to the independent Parliamentary Budget Office.

Coalition Costings and the Parliamentary Budget Office, 10 September 2012

The motion which we are debating this evening is moved by the member for Mayo, who is one of the self-appointed group of modest members. The term 'modest members' is not only a current misnomer but also a historical reference to the great Bert Kelly. In thinking about speaking to the member for Mayo's motion I thought perhaps I would go to my bookshelves and pull down Economics Made Easy by Bert Kelly. As I listened to the member for North Sydney, I was struck by the words in Rod Carnegie's introduction. He says, 'When confrontation and mutual name calling are stock forms of debate it does us all a service to learn and relearn that shouting loud and long need not be as effective as gentle persuasion.'

We have just had 10 minutes of long, loud shouting from the member for North Sydney. It is not quite clear what the member for North Sydney is saying about the coalition's position on preferencing the Greens in the electorate of Melbourne. The historical record shows that the decision by the Liberal Party to preference the Greens Party in Melbourne saw the first election at a general election of the current member for Melbourne. In his speech, the member for North Sydney said, 'We don't back frauds,' and, 'You'll suffer,' but it is not clear whether they are words which ought to be taken as gospel truth and carefully scripted remarks or whether they are merely off-the-cuff rhetoric to be thrown around in a debate and have no matter when it comes to the Liberal Party's decision on preferencing at the next election.

I would be delighted to have a modest member alive and well on the coalition's side of the parliament, but the fact is that they are dead as a dodo. Bert Kelly has no heir. Doug Anthony is alive and well, as Senator Joyce showed us in an extraordinary interview with Marius Benson this morning. The only thing that remains of Bert Kelly is a great sense of humour. You have to admire the humour that the member for Mayo brings to this chamber in moving a motion on transparency of costings. That is because we are speaking about an opposition which has a $70 billion crater in its costings, requiring $70 billion of cuts. Were the member for North Sydney in the chamber, he would doubtless shout that that is a Labor Party fabrication. Let me quote from an interview from the member for Goldstein on ABC 24 on 18 August 2011:

‘The $70 billion is an indicative figure of the challenge we've got … if we start to impose some discipline we should be able to stop spending in the order of $70 billion …’

Or on Meet the Press on 4 September 2011:

‘Q: It's not like a furphy, then?

‘A: No, it's not a furphy. We came out with the figure, right?’

Seventy billion dollars is the equivalent of stopping the Family Tax Benefit for three years; it is the equivalent of cutting the age pension for three years; it is an extraordinarily large sum of money. The amendment simply says that if the coalition has to find cuts of that magnitude it ought to follow the Parliamentary Budget Office process.

We have a Parliamentary Budget Office which came into being as a result of a bipartisan parliamentary committee—the member for Higgins and Senator Joyce signed on for the recommendations of that committee. The amendment calls on all parties to submit their costings to the Parliamentary Budget Office. Once upon a time the coalition was going to do just that. The coalition had some problems in the last election. According to Treasury, they had an $11 billion crater in their costings as a result of having them audited by a private accounting firm. Curiously, the member for North Sydney said that what they had done was an audit with a small 'a'. It is a bit strange, because there is no such thing as a big 'a' audit. 'Audit' is one of those words that comes with a small 'a'. They did not do a small 'a' audit. In fact, WHK Horwath was subsequently found to have breached professional standards in the context of the coalition's costings. So, you would think that the coalition would now be embracing openness and transparency in their costings but, sadly, they are doing anything but.

The shadow immigration spokesperson, the member for Cook, has had costings done by a catering firm, suggesting that using a private accounting firm might be the high point in quality of the coalition's costings. There have been suggestions that this might involve cooking the books and that at best we could expect to see some pie charts from the opposition, but they are lines which I will leave the member for Mayo to deliver, given that he is the great prankster in the parliament this evening. The member for Goldstein has told Sky Sunday Agenda:

‘I've got on my desk, as co-ordinator of our policies, 49 policy documents with covers—‘

It is great, isn't it, that they pick the covers? They haven't got any of the numbers checked, but they have picked the covers. It has a great Hollowmen aspect to it.

‘… narrative, a list of policies, what Labor has done wrong and the costings.’

Apparently, the costings have been done. What we are calling on the coalition to do is no more than they indicated they would do when a joint bipartisan report was brought down by the member for Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer, Senator Joyce and others backing the Parliamentary Budget Office.

The member for North Sydney has said he might use the new budget office in one report. Then he has told The Insiders on 6 May 2012 that:

‘…we want to submit policies to it. In addition to other services, we want to submit policies to it for costing.’

And then in a doorstop on 30 May 2012:

‘Journalist: So you are giving a commitment to submit your election promises to the Parliamentary Budget Office?

‘Joe Hockey: We will give some policies.’

This is the equivalent of Mr Howard's immigration policy: 'We will give choose the policies we give to the Parliamentary Budget Office and the circumstances in which we give them.'

The Australian people deserve better than that. There are coalition policies that are all over the shop. The coalition wants to continue the superannuation increases but repeal the minerals resource rental tax—the profits based tax—which is a tax so supported across the political spectrum internationally that Sarah Palin signed on to a profits based tax for taxing resources. It is not a left-wing way of taxing resources; it is just a sensible way. When the price goes up, because the price is set by the world, the taxpayer deserves a bigger share of the money. Instead, the coalition wants to go back to the old royalties regime. It also wants to cut taxes on polluters. First it is tax cuts for big miners, then it is a tax cut for big polluters and then it is unwinding the means test for private health insurance. Of course, when the private health insurance rebate was first put in place it did not generate a bump up in the take-up of private health insurance, and we have seen no evidence so far that the means testing of the private health insurance rebate has seen high-income earners drop their private health insurance. But they are getting a tax cut, too, from the coalition. So that is big miners, big polluters and very high-income Australians. If you are a millionaire, you are getting back your 30 per cent private health insurance rebate under the coalition. The coalition says it will support the National Disability Insurance Scheme, but we have no idea how it will go about paying for it.

What Australians are worried about is that what they are seeing from the coalition has a lot of the smell of what is going on in Queensland. Before the election the coalition gives the notion that everything will be okay, but after the election it slashes and burns. The member for Mayo himself is on record in his so-called Modest Member column as saying:

‘Pensions, disability support, family tax benefits and childcare support, among others, create a cycle of dependency for millions of Australians.’

That is just a hint as to where the money might come from. The Australian people deserve better than to have the opposition hiding behind the veil of secrecy. They have the right to expect that they will get what Kelly O'Dwyer and Barnaby Joyce promised them: coalition promises that are properly costed. The amendment calls on the coalition to do just that. I commend the amendment to the House.

I spoke in parliament yesterday about Private Robert Poate, a young Canberra man killed in Afghanistan.

Private Robert Poate, 10 September 2012

Among the fallen that we remember today is Canberra-born Private Robert Poate. This young, promising and highly qualified soldier's life was cut short by a rogue Afghan solider in Oruzgan province last month. He was on his first tour of duty. Today we offer our deepest condolences to Private Poate's colleagues, friends and, most of all, his family: Hugh, Janny and Nicola. As a soldier, a mate, a brother and a son, this tragic loss has been keenly felt by Canberra's close-knit community.

After enlisting in 2009, Private Poate rapidly earned a reputation for his professionalism and his leadership qualities. Private Poate completed specialist training as a Protected Mobility Vehicle Driver one year after his initial employment training and went on to complete training as Protected Mobility Vehicle Commander last year.

He was also renowned for his strong leadership skills, completing a promotion course for corporal, also in 2011. Private Poate was recognised for his achievements and was awarded the following awards: the Australian Active Service Medal with clasp ICAT, the Afghan Campaign Medal, the Australian Defence Medal, the NATO Non-Article 5 Medal with clasp ISAF, and the Infantry Combat Badge.

But, beyond the official acclamations, Private Poate will also be remembered for his larrikinism. His close friend rugby paralympian Cody Meakin remembers Private Poate as being 'just a lad'. He said:

‘He was cheeky, always had a cheeky grin. Nothing ever phased him … He was just a top bloke, one of the most genuine and loyal blokes I had the pleasure of hanging out with. He always had time for me. Not because he felt sorry for me, but because he genuinely wanted to hang out.’

Cody Meakin has since had his wheelchair inscribed with a special tribute to his fallen friend. He says:

‘… hopefully it'll give me a bit more in the tank, to try that little bit harder …’

Private Poate's brothers by choice in the 6th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment offer a similar portrait:

‘Private Poate had a reputation for creating mischief without getting caught and was proud of his family, his military service, his Canberran origins, and his red hair, which he vehemently defended as being strawberry blonde.’

The broader Canberra community also share warm memories of Private Poate. Justin Garrick, the head of Canberra Grammar School, where Private Poate spent 15 of his too short 23 years, recalls:

‘… an open and purposeful young man and an all-rounder in the academic, sporting and co-curricular life of the School. He was also the son of Mrs Janny Poate, who recently retired as receptionist at the front office of the Senior School after more than two decades’ association’

The service that was held at Canberra Grammar to remember Private Poate reminds me of that quote sometimes attributed to the Duke of Wellington that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. All the descriptions of Private Poate paint a portrait of a talented, spirited and fiercely loyal young man. His death is a loss for the whole nation.

He died in a green-on-blue attack, part of a worrying trend in Afghanistan. This year over 30 NATO troops have died from such attacks, more than twice as many as last year. The leader of the US war effort in Afghanistan, Marine General John Allen, is convening a meeting of all US and NATO flag officers to assess the phenomenon. I am not sure that we know everything about what is causing these green-on-blue attacks, but I do think in part that they reflect our success in changing the Afghan military for the better. I think what we are seeing with these green-on-blue attacks is the desperate attacks of an extremist movement that knows it has run out of all other options apart from infiltrating the Afghan military. I do hope we are able to revamp the screening processes for Afghan soldiers, because the abuse of trust that these green-on-blue attacks cause is extraordinarily damaging for Australia in Afghanistan.

The loss of Private Poate reminded me of those classic words from Pericles's funeral oration—2,500 years back, but they ring through the ages. He said:

‘… for the Athens that I have celebrated is only what the heroism of these and their like have made her … none of these allowed either wealth with its prospect of future enjoyment to unnerve his spirit, or poverty with its hope of a day of freedom and riches to tempt him to shrink from danger … reckoning this to be the most glorious of hazards, they joyfully determined to accept the risk …’

As Pericles said:

‘So died these men as became Athenians. You, their survivors, must determine to have as unfaltering a resolution in the field, though you may pray that it may have a happier issue.’

The selfless bravery of Private Poate and the other brave men who have lost their lives in Afghanistan, their dedication and their service should provide this House with a great perspective on our own responsibility. His contribution has made a difference. It will not be forgotten. May he and his fellow soldiers rest in peace.

I opened the new national office of the Australian Republican Movement last night.

Opening the National Office of the Australian Republican Movement
10 September 2012

[Acknowledgements omitted.]

There is no more appropriate place for the ACT National Office than in Canberra, the one jurisdiction in Australia that voted for a Republic in 1999.

Of course, Canberra also voted for Waltzing Matilda as our national song.

So if the rest of Australia was like Canberra, we’d be a Republic with a national song about a sheep rustler.

This is also a great suburb in which to have the ARM office.

Not only are we a stone’s throw from my home in Hackett, but the suburb of Watson carries a great lineage.

Chris Watson was Labor’s first Prime Minister.

He only lasted 3 months in the job but I am sure your term of office here will far exceed this.

There are also similarities between the ARM and Watson.

Courtesy and tact.

The ability to turn defeat into victory.

Having lost office to George Reid’s conservatives, Watson later helped to end Reid’s Government.

In similar fashion I know the next referendum for an Australian Head of State will favour Republicans.

Watson is also home to the Australian Catholic University. And ACU Vice Chancellor (and Republican) Greg Craven has a neat line in his book Conversations with the Constitution that sums up the challenge of the Republican cause.

‘Saying the Australian Constitution does not have a strong hold on our popular imagination is like saying fish survive better in water than on land: a statement so obvious as to be remarkable only because someone could be bothered making it.’

But that does not make it an insurmountable challenge.

The more time I spend observing and studying politics, the more I realise the importance of opportunity and timing.

I do believe that when the opportunity presents itself for change our Constitution will have a stronger hold on the imagination of Australians.

The challenge is create a sense of urgency and need for Constitutional reform.

However, I fear the task just got more difficult.

Prince Harry might be doing too good a job of promoting the attractions of the Monarchy.

But more seriously, we are now in a new media space that will require a new and innovative strategy if we are to create the desire for change.

Inane repetition of slogan and appeals to the lowest common denominator are an easy path for Monarchists, and frustratingly do gain traction though the media.

Phrases like ‘Don’t know? Vote no.’, and ‘Vote no to the politicians’ Republic’ were used effectively against the Republican cause.

Their architect, Tony Abbott, is still putting to use the strategies he first deployed in 1999.

The good news is that they eventually lose their potency.

It proved true – over a century on – for the anti-Billites who opposed federation.

It is proving true now with the Coalition.

It will prove true for our progression to being a Republic.

Conclusion

People often suggest that the timing of Australia’s Republican revival depends on the demographics of the Royal Family.

But I think Australia’s demographics matter more.

Australia’s future lies in our region. We have been enriched by Asian migrants, and so many of us now work, study and holiday in Asia.

In a submission to the Asian Century White Paper process, Senator Lisa Singh and I argued that a corollary of our engagement with Asia is Australia becoming a Republic.

The other demographic change is generational.

I want the children here today  to be able to aspire to be Australia’s head of state.

They deserve no less.

It is with the greatest pleasure that I open the new national office of the Australian Republican Movement.

And while I am pleased to do this, I will be even more delighted when we return to close it.

When the work of the ARM is done, and Australia has finally become a Republic.