Andrew Leigh

Addressing the National Press Club, I talked about a generation of rising inequality, how the Abbott Government's policies will affect inequality and the importance of maintaining Australia's egalitarian ethos (download audio; iTunes podcast):

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

Battlers and Billionaires: Australian Egalitarianism Under Threat*

National Press Club Address

THURSDAY, 27 MARCH 2014

CANBERRA


In 2002, two bombs exploded in Bali nightclubs, killing and injuring hundreds of people. At the local hospital, there was a shortage of painkillers. Graeme Southwick, an Australian doctor on duty, asked patients to assess their own pain levels. He kept being told by patients in the ‘Australian’ ward that they were okay – the person next to them was suffering more.

Coming across this account, historian John Hirst was reminded of the description of injured Australians in Gallipoli nearly a century earlier. He quotes the official war historian Charles Bean, who describes the suffering and then says, ‘Yet the men never showed better than in these difficulties. The lightly hurt were full of thought for the severely wounded.’

Even in the midst of their own pain, the first instinct of many Australians was to think of those worse off than themselves.

Even the military, one of our most hierarchical institutions, is infused with the nation’s egalitarian spirit. Indeed, it has been suggested that this is one reason why our forces are such effective peacekeepers. When the United Nations intervened in Somalia in the 1990s, our troops were more inclined to go on foot patrols than the French and American forces, who tended to stay in jeeps and behind sandbags.

As a result, our troops were more likely to listen to local townspeople rather than just hearing the views of tribal leaders. This in turn made them more effective at solving local disputes. It was, as one account put it, ‘an example of the traditional Australian sympathy for the underdog being put to very good use’.

Egalitarianism goes deep in the Australian character. Most of us don’t like tipping. I’d like to think that’s our egalitarianism at work. There aren’t private areas on our beaches. Audiences don’t stand when the prime minister enters the room. We’re a country that happily dispensed with knighthoods a generation ago, and no sensible person would suggest that the land of ‘mate’ should become the kingdom of ‘sir’.

In Australia, it’s quite normal to sit in the front seat of a taxi. If the plumber drops around, we’ll offer a cuppa. One of our billionaires is ‘Twiggy’ and past Australian Reserve Bank governors include ‘Nugget’ and ‘Nobby’.

Egalitarianism is as much a part of Australia’s national identity as vegemite, Uluru and the Big Banana.

And yet that egalitarian ethos is increasingly under threat from a rise in inequality over the past generation.

Let me give you a few numbers.

Read more

I spoke in Parliament today to celebrate the arrival of the Bruce GP Super Clinic, and to ask what it is about efficient, affordable and accessible healthcare that the Government thinks is ‘nasty’?:

This week saw the opening of the GP Super Clinic in Bruce. Residents in Canberra's north now have better access to general practitioners, nurses, pathologists, dieticians, counsellors and a range of other allied health practitioners. The facility is located on the grounds of the University of Canberra, which means it can integrate teaching, training and research. There are already eight GPs treating patients in the new clinic in Bruce, and there is capacity to expand to 18 doctors and related supporting services.

The super clinic will help to meet the expected demand coming from the growth in Canberra's northern suburbs. It will provide improved access for northsiders to vital health services. I celebrated the opening of the clinic; I helped turn the first sod last year with former health minister, Tanya Plibersek, who is a passionate supporter of GP super clinics, unlike the current health minister.

Read more

Federal Labor will support the triple indexation of military superannuation pensions. Here’s the media release issued today by the Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Don Farrell:

SENATOR DON FARRELL

SHADOW MINISTER FOR VETERANS’ AFFAIRS
SHADOW MINISTER FOR THE CENTENARY OF ANZAC
SENATOR FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA



MEDIA RELEASE



LABOR SUPPORTS TRIPLE INDEXATION OF MILITARY SUPERANNUATION PENSIONS BILL

The Opposition will support the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Legislation Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2014 which allows the “triple indexing” of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits (DFRB) and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) military superannuation pensions for those aged over 55.

Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Senator Don Farrell said an estimated 57,000 retired military personnel will receive a $160 million boost to their pensions from July 1 this year if this legislation passes with the support of Labor.

“As a nation, we are rightly proud of our ex-servicemen and women who have helped protect our nation and its interests,” said Senator Farrell.

“We will support this Bill which ensures DFRB and DFRDB military superannuation pensions are indexed in the same way as aged and service pensions for those aged 55 and over.”

Senator Farrell said Labor had a proud legacy of looking after veterans.

“In the last Budget, we committed a record $12.5 billion to veterans including mental health programs and greater support for veterans and their families,” he said.

“We worked hard to make steady and sustainable improvements to veteran’s pensions and support, even in the face of the enormous challenge posed by the Global Financial Crisis.

“It’s utterly shameful this Government still plans to cut payments to the children and orphans of war veterans who have been killed or injured.

“Coalition MPs and Senators should be standing up to the Prime Minister on behalf for the children of war veterans, not voting to cut their payments.”

Senator Farrell called on the Abbott Government to outline in detail the impact of the legislation on the Future fund and the unfunded liability.

“The Government must explain how it intends to manage the issues associated with the Future Fund and the issues which will emerge in the years ahead.”

WEDNESDAY, 26 MARCH 2014

Crowning glory would be our own head of state, Canberra Times, 26 March 2014

Walter Scott once wrote: ‘Breathes there a man with soul so dead / Who never to himself hath said / This is my own, my native land.’

Alas, these fine words have never been uttered by any Australian head of state about Australia. Under our Constitution, they never could be uttered.

That is because - while no British citizen can ever be Australia’s head of government - only a British citizen can ever be Australia’s head of state.

In 1999, Australia held a referendum. It was a three-cornered contest between bipartisan parliamentary appointment Republicans, direct election Republicans and Monarchists.

As Malcolm Turnbull has pointed out, the monarchists ‘delightedly, if cynically, exploited the division by promising the direct electionists that if the parliamentary model was defeated at a referendum they could have another referendum on a direct election model within a few years’.

We have waited half a generation since then.

Some counsel patience. They argue that the push for an Australian as head of state should wait until King Charles III ascends the throne.

This fundamentally misunderstands the argument for an Australian Republic. Republicans’ quibble is not with Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles and their heirs and successors. Each of these individuals has done their jobs diligently.

Indeed, a belief in the Republic does not lessen our respect for them as individuals. In 2012, when Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall visited Canberra, I was pleased to welcome them on the tarmac of Canberra airport (wearing my Australian Republican Movement cufflinks). Respect and politeness for the royal family sits alongside my passionate belief that Australia should have one of our own as head of state.

Last year, Prince William and Kate Middleton welcomed their baby George into the world, and today, at least 800 babies will be born in Australia. I congratulate William, Kate and all their parents. To be a parent is one of the greatest blessings we can receive.

But I cannot for the life of me see why Baby George is better suited than every Australian baby to grow up to be an Australian head of state. The 800 children born in Australia will grow up around gumtrees and sandy beaches. They will call their friends ‘mate’ and barrack for the Baggy Greens, the Wallabies and the Socceroos. Their success in life will not be decided by their surname. If they say they live in a castle, it’ll be because they’re quoting Darryl Kerrigan.

In short, those 800 babies born today will be Australians.  And every one of them should be able to aspire to be our head of state.

Those who disagree with this view sometimes claim that the Governor-General is the head of state.  At best, a contentious, strained protestation. All members of the Australian Parliament swore or affirmed our allegiance to the Queen, not to the Governor-General.

At state dinners visiting Heads of State toast the Queen of Australia. Her image is on our currency. Australian Government websites say: ‘Australia’s head of state is Queen Elizabeth II.’

The slogan ‘Don’t know? Vote no’ has never been more powerful in Australian public life. Tony Abbott used it when he was campaigning for the monarchy in 1999, and has deployed it relentlessly in recent years, including against a market-based solution to climate change, fibre to the home broadband, and fiscal stimulus to save jobs.

It is a seductively simple line, but one that is more dangerous than ever as Australia grapples with complex challenges.

In the Asian Century, how do we think it looks to our Indonesian, Chinese, Korean and Japanese friends that we cannot shrug off the anachronism of having a member of the house of Windsor as our head of state? How does it sit with our claimed belief in the ‘fair go’ when the qualification to be our head of state is that one must be British, white and preferably male? Is this really the image we want to project?

In parliament this week, I moved a motion calling on the government to hold a referendum to make Australia a Republic.

In so doing, Australia would make it clear to ourselves and the world that instead of a foreign child in a foreign land, we trust an Australian child to grow up and be an Australian head of state. Such a child will be more appropriate for us, more representative of us and more worthy of us ­– a child who knows their own, native land in their living, Australian soul.

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

This morning I issued a release congratulating Federal Labor's former Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury for his new strategic leadership role with the OECD.

ANDREW LEIGH MP

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION

MEMBER FOR FRASER



MEDIA RELEASE



DAVID BRADBURY TO LEAD OECD TAX POLICY AND STATISTICS DIVISION

Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh, has warmly congratulated former Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury on his appointment to a strategic role with the  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

The OECD undertook a competitive and global selection process to choose Mr Bradbury as the new head of the Tax Policy and Statistics Division based in Paris.

From next month Mr Bradbury will be in charge of raising the profile of tax policy analysis work at the OECD.

“David has an international reputation for his strong leadership and understanding of the taxation of multinational enterprises. He and Wayne Swan led the Australian debate on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting and modernising Australia’s transfer pricing laws.”

Mr Bradbury, a former tax lawyer, was Assistant Treasurer under the previous Labor Government, with responsibilities in including taxation reforms. He was instrumental in establishing Australia’s first and vital national regulator of the not-for-profit sector.

“I congratulate David and wish him well in his new and important role,” added Dr Leigh.

TUESDAY 25 MARCH, 2014

CATHERINE KING MP

SHADOW MINISTER FOR HEALTH

MEMBER FOR BALLARAT



ANDREW LEIGH MP

MEMBER FOR FRASER



MEDIA RELEASE

MORE FRONTLINE HEALTH SERVICES BEING DELIVERED BY LABOR



Residents in Canberra’s north now have better access to general practitioners, nurses, pathologists, dieticians, counsellors and a range of other allied health practitioners after the opening of the GP Super Clinic in Bruce.

This facility partners with the University of Canberra and integrates teaching, training and research.

More than 3 million MBS items have been delivered through the GP Super Clinics program across Australia, and GP Super Clinics are providing better access to primary care and delivering healthcare, despite the lack of support for better primary care infrastructure by the Abbott government.

There are already nine GPs treating patients from the new clinic in Bruce with the capacity to expand to 18 doctors along with supporting services.  This will help meet the expected demand coming from the growth in Canberra’s northern suburbs into the future.

‘GP Super Clinics are providing better access to bulk-billing services as well as after-hours access to doctors across the country,’ said Shadow Minister for Health Catherine King.

‘This Super Clinic will also enhance the area’s medical training capacity through a partnership with the University of Canberra and provides access to pathology labs, radiology and pharmacy,’ Ms King said.

‘I have been a strong advocate for a Super Clinic on Canberra’s Northside, and was pleased to attend the sod-turning ceremony in February 2013 with former Health Minister Tanya Plibersek,’ said Member for Fraser, Dr Andrew Leigh.

‘The Liberals have never seen a GP Super Clinic they didn’t want to block. Without Labor’s commitment to better health care and better medical training, Canberrans would not be benefiting from this first-rate facility.’



The funding agreement for this GP Super Clinic was signed in May 2012, construction commenced in March last year and it is officially opening today, having commenced operations in February.

TUESDAY, 25 MARCH 2014

I spoke in parliament about the fact that the government has not yet told us what would replace the charities commission if it were abolished.

Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission, 24 March 2014

Last week, the government announced that there would be a bonfire of legislation. What was in this great vanity of a bonfire? There were three things. There was the repeal of what Fred Hilmer, the father of competition policy, called ‘ghost acts’. These are acts such as the act to repeal another act which could themselves be safely repealed because they were not troubling anyone. Then there was the repeal of protections for consumers of financial advice, which, thankfully, has been placed on pause. As the members for McMahon and Oxley have pointed out today, the coalition's FoFA changes achieved the unique configuration of being opposed not only by consumers groups but also by the Financial Planning Association themselves. The third piece of the bonfire was the repeal of the charities commission.

As so many members of this House have pointed out—Jenny Macklin, the member for Jagajaga, and Senator Ursula Stephens being chief among them—the charities commission was put in place in order to reduce the regulatory burden on charities and to protect charitable donors to make sure that they had an agency to which they could lodge complaints if they were victims of scams. The charities commission has been supported by four out of five charities. In an open letter, charities—including Save the Children, St John Ambulance Australia, Volunteering Australia, Lifeline, the RSPCA, ACOSS, the Sidney Myer Fund, the Hillsong Church, Social Ventures Australia, the YMCA and the Queensland Theatre Company—have called for the ACNC to be retained. Instead, we have a bill from Minister Andrews which repeals the charities commission without saying what will come in its place. This is a bill which reads more like a media alert than a serious piece of legislation. It contains clauses such as:

'The successor Agency is the Agency specified in a determination under subitem (2).'

In fact, it is entirely unclear to the sector what the government intends should replace the charities commission. Perhaps that is why the government has put the debate off rather than having it occur this week as originally scheduled. If the Minister for Social Services will not trust the public with his plans, why should parliament entrust the minister with the power to do as he wishes?

The bill will not take effect until the passing of a subsequent bill which will outline what on earth the government wants to do in the area of charity regulation. For a government which says that is serious about reducing red tape it is striking to read in the explanatory memorandum:

'Since stage one does not detail the alternative arrangements, there are no direct impacts that can be quantified as costs and benefits faced by the civil sector. As a result, no indicative costings are provided in this RIS.'

So, this is the very definition of a ghost bill. If this bill were on the statute books today it would have been repealed in the bonfire of legislation, because it does nothing.

The problem is that the charities commission does something. The charities commission is strongly supported by the sector. Many charities say how much they appreciate an agency that understands their complexities and helps them to focus on what they do best—helping people. It protects donors and acts as a watchdog against scammers and dodgy charities. Indeed, in a few weeks time the ACNC will host an international charities law regulators forum, celebrating what Australia has achieved. The government claims that the ACNC is a failed model, but countries such as Ireland are looking at putting into place a model like the Australian charities commission, which enjoys broad support from the community.

By contrast, the government's plan to put charities law regulation back into the hands of the Australian Taxation Office received support from just six per cent of the charitable sector—that is how persuasive this government has been with the sector. I call on Minister Andrews to not put the ACNC on the bonfire. Do with the plans to scrap the charities commission what the government has done with its ill-thought-through financial advice legislation—press the pause button, help the charities sector and, if you must repeal ghost acts, make that your bonfire instead.

I spoke in parliament today about the 50th anniversary of St Margaret's Uniting Church in Hackett. It's also a good time to mention that I'll be holding my annual Welcoming the Babies event at the St Margaret's Hall this coming Saturday, 29 March, 10.30-12.30.

St Margaret's Uniting Church, 24 March 2014

On 7 December 1963 there appeared in the Canberra Times a notice of a new Presbyterian church and Sunday school to be meeting in Watson, Hackett and Woden. The first meeting of St Margaret's church occurred on 2 February 1964, and it was my great pleasure on 2 February 2014 with my son, Sebastian, to attend the 50th anniversary service for St Margaret's Uniting Church in Hackett. I acknowledge Reverends Kerry Bartlett and Brian Brown, John Goss and St Margaret's community for making us so welcome.

I commend to the House the publication reflecting on 50 years of St Margaret's Church, which tells the story of the church's evolution including the episode in the 1970s where is it notes:

'The appointment of a Methodist minister placed considerable stress on the understanding of cooperation between Presbyterians and Methodists.'

The church has done a great deal to build the local community through its Stepping Stones program, and through Ross Walker Lodge which received a grant through the nation building programs in the global financial crisis to provide housing for Canberrans with disabilities. I commend the St Margaret's community for a great 50 years achievement and the many more decades of achievement to come.

My op-ed in the Drum today is about the ethics of asylum-seeker policy, and the need for more bipartisan decency.

Let's put refugee policy on a bedrock of decency, The Drum, 24 March 2014

If there’s one point that unites people across the political spectrum, it is that the issue of refugees has not been well managed over recent years.

Refugees comprise just one-tenth of permanent migrants to Australia in the past decade. So refugees are not clogging our roads. But the asylum seeker conversation is clogging our migration policy debate, because it’s both controversial and complicated.

Australia takes 13,750 refugees a year, down from 20,000 under Labor. Globally, there are 11 million refugees. Add those who are internally displaced or stateless, and the United Nations High Commission on Refugees counts 39 million people on their list of ‘persons of concern’.

Among developed nations, there are two ways of taking refugees: the ‘knock on our door’ approach, and the ‘go to the UNHCR’ approach. Most developed countries follow the former principle. A few – notably Canada, the United States and Australia – work with the UNHCR. These three nations take nine in ten of those from UNHCR camps.

And then there are the drownings at sea. We will never be quite sure how many people died in the past decade coming to Australia by boat – but the figure probably exceeds 1000. About one in twenty asylum seekers who set out on the sea journey to Australia die on the way. Under Labor, the Refugee Resettlement Agreement with Papua New Guinea – and the previously unsuccessful agreement with Malaysia – were an attempt to close off the channel of refugees coming by sea.

The purpose was compassionate – to prevent events like the SIEV X disaster and the Christmas Island tragedy from ever happening again. But it is undeniable that the approach is harsh even when implemented well. And as recent events at the Manus Island detention centre illustrate, the policy has not been implemented well.

After participating in this debate closely for four years, I’ve come to the view that which approach you prefer depends on whether you think in categorical or utilitarian terms. Categorical reasoning, as you’ll recall, judges the morality of an individual act. Utilitarian reasoning looks at the greatest good for the greatest number. A categorical rule might say ‘never set fire to the Australian bush’. A utilitarian might judge it to be appropriate in a backburning operation.

In the asylum-seeker debate, many people of goodwill simply cannot get past the fact that a person who claims a well-founded fear of persecution comes to Australia and is turned away. This is the categorical approach.

Others of equal goodwill could not abide the approach that prevailed after the High Court struck down the Malaysia agreement – which led to refugees having a strong incentive to travel by boat to Christmas Island, rather than attempt to be processed by the UNHCR. Utilitarians argued that taking more onshore arrivals didn’t make us more generous. Unless you think we should have no cap on refugee arrivals, then for every additional person who arrives by boat, we end up taking one less person from a refugee camp. The utilitarian approach is to meet our refugee quota in the way that jeopardises the fewest lives.

In the asylum seeker debate, we can probably get further if we admit the truth in each other’s positions. Utilitarians should recognise that the Refugee Resettlement Agreement effectively sends away people who have come knocking at our door. Those who prefer the categorical approach should admit that their preferred policy would not achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

In answering most problems, I tend to use utilitarian reasoning. That leads me to believe that we have to deter a sea journey with a one-in-twenty chance of death. At the same time, I think we should at the very least restore the annual intake of 20,00 refugees – taken almost exclusively out of UNHCR camps – and encourage other developed nations to join in this process. (It’s a mark of the prevalence of categorical reasoning in the asylum seeker debate that a one-third cut to Australia’s refugee intake has passed largely without comment.)

I also hope that the coming decade sees asylum seekers becoming less of a partisan issue. Over the past twenty years, Australia has seen Indigenous policy go from being used as a wedge issue in racially-charged elections to commanding bipartisan support. In the early-1990s, conservatives argued that native title would ‘destroy our society’, ‘break the economy and break up Australia’. Today, all politicians support Closing the Gap. I would like to see the same outbreak of bipartisan decency occur with asylum seeker policy.

A bipartisan approach to respecting the dignity of asylum seekers would mean never playing politics with the funerals of asylum seekers. No longer talking about ‘illegals’ engaged in a ‘peaceful invasion’. Not deploying the language of human rights in the service of a partisan agenda. Not making tear-choked over-my-dead-body declarations, and then dropping the issue after your side wins power.

Putting the dignity of refugees at the heart of the policy would also make it feasible for Australia to play a leadership role on the issue of asylum seekers. This means better regional cooperation, and exploring innovative solutions, such as the developed world financially supporting developing nations to take more refugees. To eschew creative thinking is to doom the silent millions in refugee camps worldwide to lives of hopelessness and unfulfilled potential.

Andrew Leigh is the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, and the federal member for Fraser. His website is www.andrewleigh.com. This is an edited extract from a speech delivered to the Lowy Institute.

ANDREW LEIGH MP

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION

MEMBER FOR FRASER

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

TELEVISION INTERVIEW
BREAKING POLITICS - FAIRFAX MEDIA
MONDAY, 24 MARCH 2014

SUBJECT/S: Manus Island detention centre riot inquiries and Regional Resettlement Program; Labor minority government in South Australia; Paul Howes’ career; Australia becoming a Republic.

CHRIS HAMMER: The Papua New Guinean Government is looking to stymie a human rights into conditions at the Manus Island detention centre. This follows a tour of the centre last Friday by journalists led by the head of the inquiry. The Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, has defended the decision, saying it is a matter for the PNG Government. Well joining me to discuss this and other issues is Andrew Laming, Liberal Member for Bowman in Queensland and Andrew Leigh, the Labor Member for Fraser in the ACT, also Shadow Assistant Treasurer.

Andrew Leigh, to you first, Scott Morrison is right isn't he, this is purely a matter for the PNG Government?

ANDREW LEIGH, SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER: It's important that the Australian Government works constructively with the PNG Government and part of the refugee resettlement agreement was always that resettlement would occur as speedily as possible. What I'm concerned about is Minister Morrison's slowness to engage with Papua New Guinea; the fact that we know that he only spoke face to face with his PNG counterpart less than a month ago and the Government hasn't put resettlement at the top of its agenda. The events in the detention centre with the tragic death of an asylum seeker have led Labor to call for an independent inquiry and for a senate inquiry, both of which are now underway and it's really incumbent on the Government to begin that resettlement process as quickly as possible.

HAMMER: Andrew Laming, surely an investigation into the events of Manus Island are required?

ANDREW LAMING: There will definitely be investigations there occurring but I also respect Papua New Guinea's right to determine the kind of investigation that it holds. I've said before that Australia, by virtue of setting up this arrangement owes some sort of informal interest and responsibility here, even though we acknowledge it's completely within the borders and completely run by PNG itself. That is a rule of support that they seek but what they do within their own geography, their jurisdictional boundaries and their constitution is completely up to PNG.

HAMMER: Okay. Now, part of the agreement is resettling people who are found to be genuine refugees. Now that seems to be falling to bits to an extent, with PNG saying they won't take all those refugees and now there's a scramble on to find other Pacific countries to take refugees. So, Andrew Leigh, to you first. This was Labor's policy to begin with. It's starting to unravel isn't it?

LEIGH: It's vital that the Government focuses on making this work because we need that resettlement to occur for that resettlement agreement to stay in place and that resettlement agreement is the main factor in reducing the number of boat arrivals and reducing the number of drownings at sea. That was always why Labor put this into place, to stop people drowning at sea. If the Abbott Government doesn't work more effectively with the PNG Government then I've got concerns about the ongoing viability of the resettlement agreement. I'm also worried about the conditions inside the detention centre; the overcrowding, the riots we've seen recently. I don't feel as though the Abbott Government has given it sufficient attention. They've done very well with sloganeering in immigration but this is about the hard work of public policy to make this effective.

HAMMER: Andrew Laming, isn't this evidence that the Government in general, Scott Morrison in particular, hasn't run the relationships with the PNG Government that well so it's saying, hang on, we're only going to resettle some of these people?

LAMING: You can see that the urgent crowding out the important when Kevin Rudd rushed to get that signature on paper, Julia Gillard in fact to set up the camp on Manus. The hardest decisions are always about where to resettle or repatriate -

HAMMER: Hang on, you can't blame Labor for what's happening now?

LAMING: Oh, you certainly can blame them for a lack of agreement on where successfully identified refugees are placed. It's always the hardest decision to make. There is some history of regional players getting together to solve this problems and you can see that it was probably by Labor, left as the great unanswered question.

HAMMER: If they can't be resettled in PNG, where should they be resettled? Where in the Pacific?

LAMING: Clearly as we know there haven't been any determinations at all yet at Manus. I think that's a concern for all Australians. No one would wish long term detention who need to be processed. But when they are resettled PNG will have a key role, we know, because they're actually the domestic nation doing the processing but numbers haven't been decided. They'll be hard discussions between regional neighbours to find solutions. I'm optimistic that in the past, there are good hearted countries in the region and we'll be calling on them again I suspect.

HAMMER: If we can move onto the South Australian election. Now there'll be a Labor Government for another four years. Andrew Leigh, is this a poison chalice given that Labor's primary vote was so low, something like 30.8 per cent? It's in minority government. Isn't it a poisoned chalice?

LEIGH: I congratulate Jay Weatherill on his win. When Labor has the opportunity to form government in a stable manner we should do so and this appears a stable government going into the future. I've been a little disappointed to see the sort of petulance from people like Christopher Pyne who I think ought to be playing a more statesperson-like role rather than just engaging in all of the sledging of the now successful Weatherill Government.

HAMMER: But very difficult for Labor to claim a mandate there surely?

LEIGH: Forming government is about getting a majority of seats on the floor of parliament. Labor has successfully done that. What we need now is the for the Federal Government to step out of being just a bunch of Coalition barrackers to being the national government for all Australians, willing to work with states and territories regardless of the political complexion of their governments.

HAMMER: Andrew Laming, I saw you nodding your head there. Do you agree with that?

LAMING: Oh, they've won it fair and square. Let's be honest. They've won the most seats on the floor of the parliament. They've done a deal with an independent. My point is it will be a very sad four years. There will be no J-curve with Jay Weatherill. It will be all downhill. This a government that got one more term that it deserved and it has a history. This has been a truculent government as far has Indigenous affairs goes. APY Lands should be their number one focus and hasn't been and to be promising more to regional Australia is a little too late.

HAMMER: Does the Liberal Party there in South Australia need a good hard look at itself? I mean by rights, there will be a lot of people in the Liberal Party saying we should have been a shoe-in here.

LAMING: Steven Marshall is a top candidate for a future premier but in reality they lose too many seats by small margins in the cities and win regional seats by huge margins and this isn't good enough in a democracy to win government, and that's the reality.

HAMMER: So, not a problem with political leadership but with political party machine?

LAMING: No, it's just a geographic distribution issue. You've got one massive city of Adelaide and very little else as major centres go. That means we can look like we have more voters voting Coalition when in reality we can't pull those seats. It's a big challenge for South Australia and for the Coalition ahead.

HAMMER: On another subject gentlemen, Paul Howes is reportedly about to announce his resignation from the union movement. Andrew Leigh, is this a big loss to the wider Labor movement?

LEIGH: It's pretty extraordinary to see a 32-year-old hanging up his boots as a senior figure. It speaks to how young Paul was when he got involved in the union. And he's been very successful, not just for the AWU but also in being a spokesperson for the broader union movement. I think his National Press Club speech earlier this year was important calling for consensus: whether it's Andrew and me, or business and the union leaders, we all need to be putting national interest ahead of sectional interest.

HAMMER: Does it suggest he's lost his way or believes that Labor has lost its way, the union movement has lost its way?

LEIGH: I think he's just looking for a new challenge. He's spent quite a while now at the helm of the AWU and what a great position to be in. When I was Paul’s age I was just finishing university.

HAMMER: Andrew Laming?

LAMING: What perfect timing. If timing is everything in politics and public life, it's the perfect time to be walking away from the unions. Paul Howes can see that. We'll see more of him but not in this capacity as defending the past of Australia's union movement.

HAMMER: Why is it the perfect time to walk away?

LAMING: Well now, we're starting to reveal the reality, we're seeing in Victoria the CFMEU's actions making it almost impossible for Boral to lay any concrete in the entire state due to blacklisting. This is not the time to be defending Australia's union past. Well done Paul Howes, great timing. It's a great time to be leaving.

HAMMER: Now, another subject, let me take you back to last Thursday, the Government was under pressure heading into question time over the resignation of Arthur Sinodinos as Assistant Treasurer. The Prime Minister stood up and announced that there was new and incredible evidence regarding the disappearance of the Malaysian plane MH370. Was that appropriate statement that the Prime Minister gave to the House to speculate if you like about this debris in the Southern Ocean, the use of the Prime Ministerial office if you like [to] make a formal statement to parliament? Was that appropriate, Andrew Laming?

LAMING: Completely appropriate for the reasons that major nations are collaborating together and now Australia has firmly made it clear that they are a part of the search process. I would tend to agree with you that if nothing had been found from that incident but the emergence of Chinese satellite images showing wreckage or at least spots in the same locations suggests that a timely and early announcement rather than an isolated one that has let relatives down. I can't see any reason for suggestion that it was premature of inappropriate.

HAMMER: But, what would have happened if the Chinese satellite evidence, didn't emerge two or three days later? Would you be saying something different?

LAMING: We have now been proven that it is the most credible of evidence that is being pursued and that further enforces the Prime Ministers decision being a correct one.

HAMMER: Andrew Leigh, what is your view about the Prime Ministerial statement last Thursday?

LEIGH: I was a little surprised at the time, but I think it's a matter for the Prime Minister to respond to.

HAMMER: Okay, another issue. There is a report in today's Australian newspaper that Employment Minister Eric Abetz, or people from his office have asked bureaucrats, if you like, to massage projections of job creation figures. Andrew Leigh, are you concerned by this?

LEIGH: It's a brave public servant who stands up to a government that's cutting back the public service jobs in such a way and credit to the public servants who were willing to give frank and fearless advice to their minister. Minister Abetz has no right to be asking public servants to do forecasts in a way that suits his political desires. Australians deserve the most accurate forecasts, not the forecasts that best fit Liberal Party policies. The Liberal Party is of course concerned that it is not going to make its target of a million jobs over five years. It's now that 100,000 short. They have gotten into this kerfuffle because of what they did in the employment forecasting in the budget update last year which then has had the effect of making budget numbers look worse, but now also make it look as if they are not going to make their million job target.

HAMMER: Andrew Laming, this is no way to run a government is it?

LAMING: Well, I really, really love having a government which has a million jobs figure and a target. I mean this is what Australians care about, is just a single focus attention creating more jobs. When it comes to communicating with our public service, everyone knows that they won't be pushed around. Everyone knows that calls from advisors and ministerial officers are always tough and many times can be portrayed as being 'massaged' when they are not. My view is that it is about the jobs and not about the forecasts. Let's see how we go in the next few years.

HAMMER: Well isn't that the point though, that Australian community is not concerned with targets or forecasts. It's concerned about achievements and if cooking the books, if you like, is going to come back and bite you?

LAMING: Well, there'll be real jobs created. You can't cook books around job creation, that's got to be the focus. I accept that there has been some high profile examples of job losses in Australia. But remember every year that we create 650,000 jobs and lose half a million. There will be significant fluctuation. We have got a few years yet and I am looking forward to seeing those jobs numbers improve.

HAMMER: And you are confident of that one million job creation figure?

LAMING: I am very confident of achieving it and if you fall short by five percent I still think it is a fantastic achievement. So setting an ambitious goal is really important for a new government. I'm really glad they have.

HAMMING: Andrew Leigh, you know your way around economics and economic projections, is the a million job creation target a credible one?

LEIGH: Well, we managed it through the Global Financial Crisis, so this is not a high bar for the government to set for itself. A million jobs without a global financial crisis ought to be a walk in the park, if Labor could do it with a Global Financial Crisis. But at the moment they're tracking below projections. They're a hundred thousand jobs short of where they need to be in order to get to a million jobs. Like Andrew, I really hope they get there.

HAMMING: Okay, just finally, later today both of you gentlemen will be speaking on a motion before the parliament on Australia becoming a republic. Why that issue and why now? Andrew Laming, I will pass over to you first.

LAMING: Well I was hoping Andrew would kick this one off because it is his motion.

HAMMER: Oh, okay, sorry. Yes, absolutely.

LEIGH: Very happy to. It has been nearly 15 years now since we had the republican referendum and at the time we were told that if that referendum went down that another model for a republic would come back up. But the 'don't know, vote no' forces have ensured that we haven't had a chance to debate that republic. Now I was delighted when Will and Kate welcomed their new baby into the world. But today about 600 Australians will welcome their own new babies into the world. I actually think that those 600 babies are better deserving to be the Australian head of state than the child of Will and Kate.

HAMMER: Andrew Laming?

LAMING: Well, I don't rate this as a top 10 issue for Australia, I concede that. But I also think that there are times where you have to cross the political divide, be able to debate and discuss what potentially Australia will potentially look like ten or twenty years down the track. I am a strong supporter of the republic and I think it was a good moment for me to support Andrew's motion to re-prosecute some of those ideas, even though they may not be fashionable at the moment. And finally, my sense is that Australia can still be a great nation with minor changes to the constitution that will allow us to have an Australian head of state.

HAMMER: Do you detect any movement on this issue say within the Coalition Government, because that's where the major opponents to a republic reside?

LAMING: No, I see a real focus on delivering on election commitments, so unfortunately not. But it's never a bad time to discuss the issue like a republic versus a monarchy. That's going to happen today.

HAMMER: Okay, gentlemen, many topics covered this morning. Thank you for your time.

LEIGH: And bipartisanship at the end.

HAMMER: Very good.

LEIGH: Thank you.