Andrew Leigh

WHY WE NEED TO FIX FUNDRAISING

Canberra Times, Saturday 29 April

In the year before she took her life, 92 year-old Olive Cooke received 466 letters from charities asking for money. Nearly 100 charities were asking her for money, and many were passing her details on to others. Ms Cooke was a generous donor, but she suffered from depression, and her family said that the pressure from charities ‘led to her feeling distressed and overwhelmed’. Her 2015 suicide led to a spate of media reports on the pressure that British charities were applying to their donors. Trust in charities in Britain is now at an all-time low.

For Australia’s charitable sector, the events in Britain are a reminder of the importance of maintaining public trust and confidence. Every day, thousands of Australian charities help the homeless, clean up our environment, assist people with disabilities, and tackle global poverty. Every year, Australians provide around $11 billion to help our charities do their important work.

Unfortunately, the laws that govern fundraising are hopelessly outdated. Charities in Australia who want to raise money online must register in seven states and territories (only the Northern Territory does not require registration). Each state’s rules are subtly different. In Queensland, charities need to advertise in the paper. Western Australia requires police checks. Some states want bank details.

We don’t make Australian drivers get a new driver license when they want to cross a state border. We don’t make our companies register again if they want to sell a product interstate. So it makes little sense to tell charities that they have to register everywhere if they want to fundraise online.

Faced with such a heavy paperwork burden, small charities often decide not to bother registering everywhere. They just cross their fingers and hope they don’t get caught. Larger charities tend to comply, a process that can cost around seven working days a year. I’m yet to meet a donor who wants to see their money wasted in complying with duplicate rules.

To address these challenges, dozens of charities have joined together on a campaign to ‘Fix Fundraising’, arguing that one set of national fundraising rules should be written into the Australian Consumer Law. Because it’s a law written and administered by states, territories and the federal government, the states wouldn’t need to give up control.

Fixing fundraising would be a sensible step now that the Turnbull Government has come to its senses on charity regulation. The Coalition spent most of its first term in office trying to kill the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission, a body that had been set up in 2012. Supported by four out of five charities and recommended by more than a dozen inquiries, the charities commission was helping reduce red tape – so it always seemed bizarre that the Coalition fought to close it in the basis of ‘red tape reduction’.

Thankfully, the Turnbull Government performed a clumsy backflip on the issue last March, and is now committed to keeping the charities commission. This has allowed states and territories to start working with the national body on scrapping duplicate regulation.

The Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission also plays a valuable role in checking up on dodgy charities – investigating and deregistering about a dozen each year, so that they don’t tarnish the good name of the thousands of great charities that serve our community. If someone knocks on your door, it’s now easy to log ontowww.acnc.gov.au to check out their credentials.

Sensible fundraising laws are fundamental to a strong charitable sector – which is in turn vital to a healthy society. And as any good economist knows, life is about more than money.  As Adam Smith wrote in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ‘to be amiable and be meritorious, that is to deserve love and deserve reward, are the great characters of virtue. Man naturally desires not only to be loved, but to be lovely. To be that thing which is the natural and proper object of love.’

Most people don’t just want to do well, they want to do good. We seek that sense of inner tranquillity that comes from feeling that we are decent, ethical and admirable. In Smith’s formulation, most of us want to be ‘lovely’. Helping voluntary organisations is one way we can do that. Having charities that spend their time on filling hearts rather than filling forms will make us a happier, healthier and more connected community.

This is an edited extract of a speech delivered at the launch of the ‘Fix Fundraising’ campaign, and was first published in The Canberra Times on Saturday 29 April 2017.

ANDREW LEIGH MP

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION AND PRODUCTIVITY

SHADOW MINISTER FOR CHARITIES AND NOT-FOR-PROFITS

SHADOW MINISTER FOR TRADE IN SERVICES

MEMBER FOR FENNER 

SCOMO PRAISES MULTINATIONAL TAX LAWS….THAT HE VOTED AGAINST

With extraordinary chutzpah, the Turnbull Government tried to take credit for the Australian Tax Office’s victory over Chevron in the Federal Court by claiming their own piecemeal tax measures are “working”.

On the day of the Federal Court decision, Scott Morrison tweeted:

But here’s the rub – they voted against the very laws used by the tax office to take on Chevron.

In 2012, the Coalition voted against the then-Labor Government’s Tax Laws Amendment (Cross-Border Transfer Pricing) Bill (No. 1) 2012. At the time, they claimed that the law was retrospective, when in reality it simply clarified the operation of our tax laws, and ensured that multinationals couldn’t exploit loopholes.

It was Labor’s transfer pricing laws – opposed by the Coalition – that were integral to the court decision.

In welcoming the Chevron decision, the Coalition effectively admitted that they got it wrong when they voted against the laws that enabled the judgement.

If the Coalition had gotten their way five years ago, the budget would now be hundreds of millions of dollars worse off, and net debt would be rising even faster than it is already.

If the Turnbull Government is serious about multinational tax avoidance, they can prove it today by backing Labor’s fully costed measures to close debt-shifting loopholes.

If they refuse to take real action on debt-shifting, then just as in 2012, the Coalition is all sizzle and no steak.

FRIDAY, 28 APRIL 2017

ANDREW LEIGH MP

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION AND PRODUCTIVITY

SHADOW MINISTER FOR CHARITIES AND NOT-FOR-PROFITS

SHADOW MINISTER FOR TRADE IN SERVICES

MEMBER FOR FENNER

HELP WANTED FOR SLOMO'S TAX TASKFORCE

Scott Morrison likes to talk up the Tax Avoidance Taskforce, announced with great fanfare in the 2016 Budget (despite primarily consisting of 900 staff in existing programs).

But in answering a Senate Estimates question on notice, the government has now revealed that it has yet to fill 43 of the funded positions.

When it comes to providing a tax cut to the big banks or firing 3000 tax office staff, the Turnbull Government is quicker out of the blocks than Usain Bolt.

But when it comes to closing loopholes or appointing staff to tackle tax avoidance, they are slower than a snail in molasses.

FRIDAY, 28 APRIL 2017

HOW CAN WE REDUCE INEQUALITY?

The Huffington Post, Thursday 27 April

On Sunday 9 April, two jets left Chicago. One was a private jet, with eight leather seats. The other was an overbooked United flight, which only departed after passenger David Dao was forcibly removed, suffering a broken nose and teeth in the process.

The contrast symbolises much of what has changed in society over recent decades. At the top end, some airlines offer in-flight showers to their first class passengers, and the private jet market has doubled. Meanwhile, economy passengers grumble about skinnier legroom and fatter surcharges for snacks and baggage.

Inequality isn’t just in the skies. Over the past generation, earnings have grown three times as fast for the top tenth of Australian workers as the bottom tenth. Since the early-1990s, average CEO pay in large firms has risen from $1 million to $3 million. The top 1 percent share has doubled, and the richest 200 have a rising share of our national wealth.

How might we create a more equal Australia? Let’s start at the beginning. No, actually, let’s start before the beginning. Babies born too light (below 2.5 kilograms) or too early (before 37 weeks) are more likely to have health complications, less likely to do well at school, and less likely to earn a decent income. In richer Australian households, only 3 percent of babies are of low birth weight. In poorer households, that figure is 7 percent.

THE MECHANICS OF COMPETITION

The Daily Telegraph, Thursday 27 April

The neighbourhood where my office is located is changing fast. A generation ago, it was filled with car dealers and mechanics. Now, because it’s close to the city, the hipsters have moved in. Give it another generation, and the only sign of the suburb’s heritage will be bars with names like ‘Grease Monkey’.

The disappearance of independent mechanics from areas like Leichhardt, Bankstown and Rozelle illustrates how Australian cities are losing an iconic part of their light-industrial identity. It also means that competition in the car service sector is shrinking, to the detriment of car owners, as large car manufacturers centralise and corporatise their service businesses.

One of the key areas making it difficult for independent service and repair businesses to compete is the limited access they are given by manufacturers to standard servicing information.

A generation and a half ago, the point of reference for servicing a car was a spanner. Now it is an iPad. Cars in 2017 are basically driveable computers. If independent mechanics can’t access the information and download error reports, it’s hard for them to offer competitive car servicing prices.

Independent car service and repair businesses claim that most manufactures are restricting access to the standard service information. This is despite the Voluntary Code of Practice-Access to Service and Repair Information for Motor Vehicles, which was released by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries two years ago. That voluntary code was meant to establish an information portal like those in Europe, the USA and Canada.

Alas, the key word in the above sentence is “voluntary”. Car makers can choose whether to use the portal, and among the big manufacturers, only Holden has volunteered to do the right thing. With 18 million registered vehicles in Australia, less choice among car repairers hurts most of us.

Whether you own a Toyota Corolla or a Ford Ranger, everyone should be able to choose whether to get their car serviced by the dealership or an independent mechanic. 

According to Stuart Charity, executive director of the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association, “If you want to choose who repairs your car – the dealer or a local repairer – you should buy a Holden, because every other brand finds a way to force you to go back to the dealer and this costs on average 25 per cent more than an independent repairer.”

Like most things in life, the behaviour of car manufacturers can be explained by economics. With car buyers having more information at their fingertips than ever before, the amount that dealers make on sales can be as low as $100. But parts and servicing can bring in steady revenue for years – particularly if you’re charging a quarter more than the independent mechanic down the road.

Yet while Australians overpay for their car services and local mechanics shut up shop, the Turnbull Government has been reluctant to act. Worse, government ministers have continually broken their promises to independent mechanics. First, they promised to review the voluntary code by September 2016, but failed to do so.

Next, the Turnbull Government promised to review the voluntary code by October 2016. Again, that deadline came and went. Although I’ve written directly to Treasurer Scott Morrison about this issue, getting the government going on it seems harder than starting a car without the spark plugs. Their latest wheeze has been to claim that the government doesn’t have to do anything, because the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission is looking into it.

While the government dithers, millions of Australia motorists continue to pay too much for servicing, while more and more of the nation’s 21,000 independent car repairers go to the wall. Our nation’s drivers and mechanics are rightly angry at a government that seems to be asleep at the wheel when it comes to getting them a fair deal.

If the government wants to do the right thing, it’s time to consider making it compulsory for car manufacturers to let everyone access the information on our cars’ onboard computers. That would create a level playing field for all mechanics, and fair competition for consumers. Then we can go back to enjoying those Grease Monkey burgers without feeling guilty.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Telegraph on Thursday 27 April 2017

CHRIS BOWEN MP

SHADOW TREASURER

MEMBER FOR MCMAHON

ANDREW LEIGH MP

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION AND PRODUCTIVITY

SHADOW MINISTER FOR CHARITIES AND NOT-FOR-PROFITS

SHADOW MINISTER FOR TRADE IN SERVICES

MEMBER FOR FENNER

SENATOR CHRIS KETTER

CHAIR, SENATE ECONOMICS REFERENCES COMMITTEE

SENATOR FOR QUEENSLAND

LABOR CALLS FOR DELAY TO GST ON LOW-VALUE IMPORTS

Following revelations the proposed GST on low-value imports may be unenforceable and cause major disruptions for families and small businesses, Labor today calls on the Turnbull Government to delay its implementation for one year, until 1 July 2018.

Labor has supported the removal of GST on low-value imports with a feasible model, and remains supportive in principle. The bipartisan hand has always been extended to the Government to work constructively on this measure.

But today’s hearing found the Turnbull Government has botched its implementation, with Treasury admitting the lack of a Regulation Impact Statement was in breach of the Office of Best Practice Guidelines.

The Australian Taxation Office, lumbered with a vague plan by the Government, were left to explain that jurisdictions like the USA and China will not enforce the measure on their behalf. Platform compliance is largely reliant on the goodwill of overseas operators.

eBay claimed that Treasury officials had told them they expect a 25-30% compliance rate.

Affected retailers raised questions on how platforms (and the independent sellers who use them) would interpret Australia’s unique GST regime and its exemptions.

When asked by Senator Chris Ketter about economic modelling and consultations on alternative models, Treasury and Australian Tax Office officials were left in the awkward position of defending the Scott Morrison’s decision to legislate the ‘vendor-based’ model.

Treasury officials declined to answer questions about whether alternative start dates had been modelled. The measure is due to take effect in just over two months’ time. Yet witnesses – from the Australian Taxation Office to online retailers – all raised more questions than answers on how the measure will be implemented and enforced in overseas jurisdictions.

Both the Conference of Asia Pacific Express Carriers and the Freight and Trade Alliance called for a 12-month delay.

Today’s public hearings clearly show that Scott Morrison has failed to properly consult with stakeholders and develop a workable model for taxing low-value imports.

Scott Morrison likes to talk about reducing the impact of red tape, yet in this case he has failed to produce a Regulation Impact Statement, as the Office of Best Practice Regulation guidelines recommends.

As such, Labor is calling on the Government to:

• Delay the start date to 1 July 2018
• Engage with all stakeholders and review alternative models
• Deliver a Regulation Impact Statement to assure small businesses and consumers that the measure will operate as intended.

Applying GST to imports valued at less than $1,000 has Labor’s in principle support. But Scott Morrison must show that his preferred model is workable and enforceable.

Too many stakeholders now have concerns about the Treasurer’s ability to implement this measure without it severely disrupting this important and fast-growing part of our economy.

FRIDAY, 21 APRIL 2017

How Can We Reduce Inequality?*
‘Just Ideas’ Talk #3

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

Crawford School of Public Policy
Australian National University
20 April 2017

This talk is dedicated to Tony Atkinson

On Sunday 9 April, a handful of well-heeled passengers boarded an eight-seater Cessna Citation Sovereign business jet.[1] Arriving at Chicago’s smaller Midway airport a few minutes before departure, they were whisked onto the tarmac and slipped into their leather seats. After take-off, the passengers on flight EJA342 tucked into their customised meals, along with wines chosen with help from Wine Spectator’s experts. Less than two hours later – quicker than a commercial flight – the twin-engine jet had touched down in Boston.

On the other side of the city, a doctor from Kentucky was sitting on board a plane at Chicago’s largest airport, O’Hare. The airport is one of the busiest in the world, and more than one quarter of all flights are delayed. After everyone had boarded United flight 3411, a flight attendant announced that four passengers would have to get off, to make room for airline employees. The airline initially offered $800 flight vouchers, then when no-one accepted, they announced that they would pick four passengers at random. Three of the passengers left the plane voluntarily. The doctor, David Dao, refused, saying that he had to see patients in Louisville the next morning. United Airlines staff called aviation security officers, who dragged him off the plane.

The contrast between flights EJA342 and UA3411 symbolises much of what has changed in society over recent decades. Over the past decade, the private jet market has doubled, with increasing numbers of Americans (and Australians, for that matter) being willing to pay up to $8000 per hour to charter their own plane.[2] Meanwhile, the flying experience for most passengers has become worse. Most passengers don’t end up with a broken nose and missing teeth like David Dao. But legroom has shrunk, while surcharges for snacks and baggage have grown.[3]

It is doubtless a good thing that flying to new places has become cheaper and more accessible. But in the process, a gap has opened up in how we get around. At the top, private jets abound and Emirates has introduces in-flight showers for first class passengers on its A380. At the bottom, United Airlines recently announced its ‘Basic Economy’ fare, which gives passengers no choice of seating, and allows them to bring on only one small tote bag. Inequality is everywhere – even in the skies.

* * *

This is the third and final of my ‘Just Ideas’ talks on inequality. The first talk, delivered at the University of Sydney, was focused on why inequality matters. The second talk, hosted by Per Capita, sought to explain the rise in Australian inequality. Today, my focus will be on what we can do to reduce inequality. It seems fitting to do this in Canberra, and I am grateful to the Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy for hosting me.

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

TV INTERVIEW

SKY NEWS AM AGENDA

MONDAY, 17 APRIL 2017

SUBJECTS: Liberal Party’s division; wages growth stagnating; housing affordability; Adani coal mine.

KIERAN GILBERT:  With me to discuss the issues of the day, the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh. Andrew, thanks for your time. Tony Abbott says all politicians are on the nose. Is he right about that?

ANDREW LEIGH, SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER: Certainly the Liberal Party is on the nose, with this extraordinary level of in-fighting. It makes you think the only reason they went to the polls early last year was so they could get back to the main job of ripping themselves apart. This is a government that makes Punch and Judy look like a love-in. They're far more concerned with fighting one another than they are with fighting for ordinary Australians. Challenges like climate change, housing affordability, economic growth going by the wayside while the Liberal Party engages in these internal squabbles.

GILBERT: Do you see it as a return of the Rudd-type behaviour or is this just genuine policy discussion on a range of issue? Where he is talking about the need to move - in his view - on renewable energy, on reform of the Senate, and so on. Are these not realistic and viable proposals from a backbencher? 

LEIGH: Tony Abbott is obviously fighting a rearguard action to return to the Prime Ministership. And clearly, a significant portion of the Liberal Party are dissatisfied. You chat to Liberal Party backbenchers and what's evident is that all they're looking for is a clear challenger to coalesce around in order to bring on the challenge to Malcolm Turnbull. The reason this has happened is that Malcolm Turnbull isn't the great centrist that he'd led people to believe but is in hock to the right wing. A man who previously said he supported our race-hate laws but is now going against them. Previously said he supported marriage equality, but now won't bring a vote to the Parliament. Previously said he supported strong action on climate change, but now doesn't even support an emissions intensity scheme that's backed by his own Chief Scientist. Previously said he supported the Safe Schools program, and yet is now trying to destroy this effective anti-bullying program in our schools.

GILBERT: One of the things that Tony Abbott also suggested is that on his pollie pedal he picked up a lack of support for Labor as well. Saying that they're certainly on the nose as well in terms of politicians more broadly being unpopular. What do you say to that?

TIM HAMMOND MP

SHADOW MINISTER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS

SHADOW MINISTER ASSISTING FOR RESOURCES

FEDERAL MEMBER FOR PERTH

DR ANDREW LEIGH MP

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION AND PRODUCTIVITY

SHADOW MINISTER FOR TRADE IN SERVICES

SHADOW MINISTER FOR CHARITIES AND NOT-FOR-PROFITS

MEMBER FOR FENNER

TURNBULL GOVERNMENT FINALLY WELCOMES PC’s CONSUMER REPORT AND…

THAT’S IT

The Turnbull Government is unable or unwilling to commit to protecting consumers with higher penalties for dodgy operators, despite all the positive advice it is receiving.

In fact, it was nearly 8.30pm yesterday evening before Michael McCormack, the Turnbull government’s Minister for Small Business, finally managed to welcome yesterday morning’s public release of the Productivity Commission’s Consumer Law Enforcement and Administration report.

The Turnbull government had been given the report on the 29^th of March, and it made no announcements on the report’s recommendations, beyond a facile explanation of what the Productivity Commission reported.  

Perhaps the Minister just missed its release?

This limp outcome is symptomatic of the Turnbull government’s refusal to take the lead on penalising shonks. With the release of Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand’s report into the Australian Consumer Law due next week, it is time for the government to explain what it will do to look after consumers.

We suggest that, instead of protecting multinationals, the government should listen to Labor and its own experts.

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

RADIO INTERVIEW

ABC CANBERRA BREAKFAST WITH ADAM SHIRLEY

WEDNESDAY, 12 APRIL 2017

SUBJECTS: Decentralisation; Adani mine; jobs in the renewables sector.

ADAM SHIRLEY, PRESENTER: When a number of jobs get shipped out of the ACT for a questionable benefit, ACT residents get a little frustrated. So it has been with the Federal Government's forced relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. A controversial move that is currently the subject of a Senate inquiry. But the inquiry has shown it is not just the government that is keen to move Canberrans on. A number of Labor MPs are after some relocation action for their electorates.

Andrew Leigh is Labor's Assistant Treasury Spokesman and Member for Fenner. Dr Leigh, good morning to you on Breakfast.

ANDREW LEIGH, SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER: Good Morning Adam, how are you?

SHIRLEY: Not too bad. Have you spoken to many Labor colleagues who are keen to get Canberra public servants into their electorates?

LEIGH: Certainly none of my caucus colleagues have come up to me and said that they're keen to take policy-making roles out. Clearly there's a range of local councils – whether they be in Coalition or Labor-held areas - that have made bids under Barnaby Joyce's whacky inquiry. That's to be expected.

SHIRLEY: Would it follow they're whacky bids, Andrew Leigh, from some of your Labor colleagues?