Andrew Leigh

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

ANDREW LEIGH

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION

MEMBER FOR FRASER

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

ONLINE INTERVIEW
‘BREAKING POLITICS’ WITH CHRIS HAMMER

MONDAY, 3 FEBRUARY 2014

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HAMMER: You also abolished the ABBC as well.

LEIGH: Well the Building and Construction Commission...

HAMMER: Sorry, the ABCC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEIGH: Thank you Chris.

ENDS

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

Launch of Chris Aulich (ed), The Gillard Governments

University of Canberra

30 January 2014

Andrew Leigh MP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



Applications for the next round close on 28 February 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMERCIAL BREAK

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

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

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

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

GILBERT: Andrew?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GILBERT: Senator Fifield, any response to that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENDS

The Abbott Government confirmed today that it is closing the Australian Valuation Office in June. I have responded with a media release highlighting that this is a Government continually chipping away at the public service, outsourcing public services without concern for the implications for jobs, especially in regional Australia.

ANDREW LEIGH MP

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

ACTING SHADOW FINANCE MINISTER

MEMBER FOR FRASER

MEDIA RELEASE

MORE JOBS LOST AS ABBOTT GOVERNMENT KILLS PUBLIC VALUATION OFFICE

The Abbott Government’s decision to axe the Australian Valuation Office jeopardises the jobs and livelihoods of almost 200 people across Canberra, Sydney, and Melbourne and in remote and regional cities.

The decision smacks of an ideological preoccupation with cutting government services without regard to their effectiveness.

The 104 year-old AVO, located in the Australian Taxation Office, has been doing an effective job. While the government refers to a projected loss in the future, it fails to point out that the AVO has consistently run a profit.

At the same time that the Minister for Social Services has announced a review of welfare spending, the Government is axing the office that conducts compliance valuations for Centrelink.

The AVO’s team of professionals provide valuation, assessment, risk management and independent advice regarding property and other assets. If the government does not know what its assets are worth, it risks making bad decisions in everything from defence to social security.

Tony Abbott gave no indication of this when in Opposition. The government has not consulted with staff before making this decision.

If there is a compelling case to axe the AVO, the government needs to make it. Scrapping a century-old institution deserves a proper report, not just a short press release from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer.

The Coalition said that they wanted more services delivered in regional Australia, but all they have done is cut jobs.

The decision comes off the back of revelations this week that the ATO plans to close regional tax compliance offices across four states.

Why is the Coalition axing jobs at a time of rising joblessness and insecurity? Is this a preview of the savage cuts to come with the Commission of Audit?

Friday, 24 January 2014

Today I issued a media release about  internal Tax Office discussions regarding the potential closure of regional office across four states. I raise doubts about the Coalition's commitment to regional jobs.

Shadow Assistant Treasurer

Media Release

WRITING APPEARS TO BE ON THE WALL FOR CLOSURE OF REGIONAL ATO CENTRES

Pressure is on the Abbott Government to explain if it's committed to regional Australia after reports that the Australian Tax Office is likely to quit 10 regional sites across Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania.

The ATO has flagged that it’s looking to close offices in Toowoomba, Rockhampton, Mackay,  Cairns, Port Macquarie, Grafton, Orange, Sale, Bendigo, and Launceston.

The regional centres have been run down for some years making the ATO’s decision appear a fait accompli.

Eighty staff and countless small businesses will be affected by this decision.

It’s a blow for regional communities and those families with ATO workers who face being forced to uproot and move to bigger centres or be sacked. This is no way to acknowledge hard-working regional teams.

The Acting Prime Minister Warren Truss claims to have a passion for regional Australia.  But what is the National Party getting out of the Coalition partnership if it can’t defend and keep regional services and regional jobs?

The ATO is a national organisation with national responsibilities. Does the Coalition value the ATO regional network or not?

The ATO’s Bunderberg office shut its doors earlier this month. It sets a bad trend for regional Australia amid increasing insecurity in the public service under Tony Abbott.

ENDS

Today I issued a media release urging the Government to exercise caution as the ATO advances its plans to allow large firms to use their own accountants to sign off on their tax bills.

ANDREW LEIGH MP

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

ACTING SHADOW FINANCE MINISTER

MEDIA RELEASE

BIG BUSINESS LOOKING AFTER THEIR OWN TAX LIKE PUTTING A FOX IN CHARGE OF THE HEN HOUSE



“The Australian Taxation Office’s plans to allow corporate auditors, paid by large companies, to conduct assurance reviews on the ATO’s behalf is concerning,” said Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh.

“Putting big business in charge of their own affairs creates a conflict of interest.

“It appears the ATO is being forced down this path by the Abbott Government cutting public service jobs.

“Why should families have their tax audited by the ATO but big business are given the option of using their own accountants to sign off on their tax bills.”

“This is likely to result in less tax revenue being collected,” Dr Leigh said.

“That means Australian families will need to pay more to make up the difference.”

“The Government needs to explain why the ATO is looking to allow companies to decide how much tax they pay.

“Secrecy and backscratching are becoming hallmarks of this Government. This follows the Assistant Treasurer’s comments that the Government may not go ahead with Labor’s reform to publish the amount of tax paid by Australia’s biggest 200 public companies.

“Australians appreciate that Tax Office staff assess individual and company tax compliance with no personal or special interest in the outcome. The ATO is valued for its independence and should be properly resourced.

“In December the ATO met with major private accounting firms and law firms to develop the pilot, in a sign that it’s keen to get the scheme going as soon as possible.

“But I urge the Government to exercise caution and to weigh up the public interest,” Dr Leigh added.



THURSDAY, 16 JANUARY 2014

Today The Guardian published my opinion piece on reform Labor is proud of that defines and broadens the meaning of charity and charitable purpose.

The Abbott government shouldn't drag charity back to the 17th century

This year the Charities Act, championed by federal Labor, will modernise our country's definition of charity. Social services minister Kevin Andrews' efforts to halt it should be scrutinised

The Abbott government has so far been in the business of looking in the rear view mirror rather than ahead. On everything from the national school curriculum to mining taxation and emissions trading, this is a government which is busy undoing, rather than doing. Another reform the Coalition has recently tried to sneakily unpick is Labor’s reforms to bring Australian charities law into the modern age.

People have always grappled with the meaning of charity and the practice of it. The concept – taken from the Latin and Greek to mean "unlimited loving-kindness to all others" - was linked to hope and faith by the Apostle Paul in the first century; it is also one of the five pillars of Islam. Philosophers and the laity have long tussled with what it means to be charitable; a common image of the practice of charity is of grey soup kitchens in the Dickensian era offering emergency relief for those beaten by hunger. But that image is now dated.

Australian governments have also had to grapple with the meaning of charity, because generous tax concessions are applied to organisations deemed to do charitable work. To decide which ones are eligible, governments in the past have relied on 400 years of case law to define a charity. It has resulted in confusion and costly court cases aimed at getting clarity about the meaning of modern-day charity and charitable purpose.

From the start of this year the Charities Act, championed by federal Labor, came into effect to change all that. It sets out in statute, a historic and uniform definition of "charity" to avoid the ambiguity of the past and to recognise the diversity and vibrancy of a sector that employs more than a million people. It is a sensible development, and the result of years of genuine consultation. Governments, regulators and the broader community will find it easier to define when a charity is a charity and when it is not. The Charities Act clarifies that to be a recognised as a charity, an organisation must be not-for-profit, have only charitable purposes that are for the public benefit, not have a disqualifying purpose and not be an individual, a political party or a government agency.

Modern Australian charities see the need and the cause, and so seek to build capacity and change systems that create disadvantage. The Act restates the existing (judge-made) law in plain English and also recognises charitable purposes such as the protection of human rights, the promotion of reconciliation and tolerance, and by recognising that many modern charities advance causes by preventing, educating, researching and raising awareness. In consultations, many charitable organisations have welcomed the Act’s broad support of advocacy.

Organisations that promote philanthropy say the reform will generate a new era of strong growth for charitable giving in Australia. The money foundations spend on legal advice to work out what they can legitimately fund can now be better spent on organisations doing good and lasting work, including action for the environment and human rights.

The reform also resolves a number of anomalies which stymied particular charities. For instance, the definition of disaster relief has been expanded to enable charities to go beyond the relief of individual distress after a disaster, by including rebuilding, repairing or securing not-for-profit community assets after a disaster. The legislation retains the flexibility inherent in the common law that enables the courts, as well as parliament, to continue to develop and extend the definition to other charitable purposes judged beneficial to Australians over time.

Disappointingly, last year social services minister Kevin Andrews hurriedly sought, without consultation, to delay the introduction of the Charities Act until September 2014, stealthily inserting an amendment to an omnibus bill that would have scuttled the change were it not for the Opposition and minor parties in the Senate.

The sector fought hard for the Charities Bill 2013 and was conceivably alarmed that Andrews sought to delay the new definition and keep charities stuck in the 17th century. During a committee hearing late last year World Vision Australia CEO and Community Council of Australia chair Tim Costello gave evidence that the sector was very surprised by the government’s attempt to take Australian charities back four centuries. “This new definition is extraordinarily important for all of us. With the consultations and over 200 submissions made, I have not heard of anyone in the sector who was troubled by this definition,” Costello said.

And yet the reform is not out of trouble. Andrews may well seek to again scrap or amend the charity definition when the new Senate is in place after 1 July 2014. Perhaps this shouldn’t surprise us, given his determination to abolish many Australian charities amid a raft of repeals (environment advocacy charities especially appear to be in his sights).

We hope the government does not take us back to Howard-era gag clauses. Andrews appears deaf to the sector’s aspirations and hopes of making a difference with a regulatory framework that supports them.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/14/the-abbott-government-shouldnt-drag-charity-back-to-the-17th-century