Andrew Leigh

On Sky AM Agenda, I spoke with host Kieran Gilbert and Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield. I outlined Labor's positive plan for education and infrastructure, and noted the Coalition's $30B of regressive spending - in the form of their $22B unfair parental leave scheme and their $8B restoration of the private health insurance rebate for higher income earners. I also discussed the impact that tens of billions in Coalition cuts would have on health, education and jobs. A transcript is over the fold.

KIERAN GILBERT:

This is AM Agenda, thanks very much for your company. With me now from Melbourne, Liberal frontbencher Senator Mitch Fifield and in Canberra, Labor MP Andrew Leigh. Andrew, first to you, I want to ask you about this commitment made by Tony Abbott yesterday. This plan, over a decade, to have surpluses of 1 per cent of GDP, defence spending back to 2 per cent of GDP and to have each year government as a smaller percentage of the economy. They’re all noble aims aren’t they?

ANDREW LEIGH:

The surplus pledge is a noble aim indeed, Kieran. And people may have noticed that it’s the same as you’ll see in the Budget papers. So after railing against Labor running small, responsible deficits, Mr Abbott is now committing to the same macroeconomic timetable as Labor has already done in the budget papers. But he has a problem, Kieran, I mean he has this extremely expensive parental leave plan, $22 billion. And then on top of that, he’s got $8 billion in restoring the private health insurance rebate to millionaires. Two policies that benefit the rich far more than middle Australia and which will blow a $30 billion hole in the budget. Now the back of my envelope says if you do $30 billion of cuts, you’ll drive up unemployment by about 1.5 percentage points. That’s nearly 200,000 Australians who’d lose their jobs to pay for these two policies which disproportionately benefit millionaires. And really is…

KIERAN GILBERT:

Okay, let’s get Senator Fifield’s thoughts on that. That specific point that Andrew made there about the cuts necessary to fund these big spending initiatives.

MITCH FIFIELD:

Kieran, it’s all we hear from the Labor Party are baseless allegations of cuts and seeking to draw analogies with other governments. Kieran, Labor are operating on the assumption that the Australian economy has reached its growth limits. That the Australian economy will never grow faster than it’s currently growing. We’ve got a plan to create two million new jobs over the next decade. We want to broaden and diversify the Australian economy. We want to see the limits that this government have placed on economic growth removed. So we don’t see the Australian economy as a stagnant equation. We see the Australian economy growing. We have plans to see that happen. We’re going to abolish the carbon tax. We’re going to abolish the mining tax. We’re going to cut company tax. We’ve got a great plan to introduce a HECS style scheme for apprentices where there are skill shortages. So we have a clear plan…

KIERAN GILBERT:

Ok, well let’s put that to…

MITCH FIFIELD:

…to see the economy grow. Kieran, Andrew and the Labor Party are assuming that the Australian economy can be no better than it currently is.

KIERAN GILBERT:

Let’s put that to Andrew then, because that’s the point here Andrew, isn’t it? You either, because the way you’re looking at that, is it not factoring in the possibility that the economy does kick back into gear and we do see strong growth over the next decade?

ANDREW LEIGH:

Kieran, I’m entirely with Mitch in being committed to policies that further strong growth. But those policies, as the mining investment boom tapers down, involve more investment in education. A six year plan which requires the states not to take school funding out, rather the Coaltion’s four year plan which says that it’s okay for states to rip out schools funding as the Federal Government puts money in. And if you really believe that you want to boost the economy’s growth potential, then you’d want to keep the current industrial relations settings rather than to go back to WorkChoices, the lousiest period of productivity growth over the last generation. And you’d want to continue investing in the National Broadband Network, because that’s the infrastructure of the 21^st century. I’m yet to meet anyone when I’m out doorknocking who says the real problem with the NBN is the fibre ought to stop in the cabinet down the street rather than come straight to my home. And that’s because people realise the productivity gains that you get from the National Broadband Network.

KIERAN GILBERT:

Well there’s one, there’s a flaw though in your argument though, because, the argument about WorkChoices, it’s irrelevant, they’ve never, Tony Abbott has made it pretty clear that that’s not where they’re heading. So that’s one big component of your argument there which has a flaw in it. And I put it to you again, that if the economy does grow, much more strongly admittedly than Treasury’s forecasting, that they will be able to meet those goals anyway. And they’re saying they’re going to take the burden of those taxes, carbon and mining taxes off, red tape off and then that will foster growth in the economy. What do you make of that argument?

ANDREW LEIGH:

Kieran, I’m all for growth. As you know, my background’s an economist, we love growth. But you need to have clear policies that are going to do that. The Coalition’s policies, giving the private health insurance rebate back to millionaires won’t boost growth. As Saul Eslake has pointed out. Giving $75,000 to millionaire families to have children, that’s not going to boost growth. The Coalition, they look at a kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth and they say the real problem is you don’t have a golden spoon. Here’s a golden spoon for you and by the way here’s a plastic one for the working class kid down the road. That’s not going to boost growth Kieran. And at the same time, the savage cuts that they have to impose, that will hurt growth.

KIERAN GILBERT:

Let’s bring in Senator Fifield on the cuts, because this is the question that’s being asked. I spoke to Christopher Pyne about it. I suppose people are just wondering where the numbers are going to come from. It’s not going to all come from the public service, is it? You’ve said they’ll be 12, I think it was $5 billion saved through cuts to the public service. But where’s the rest of the money?

MITCH FIFIELD:

Kieran, we will have responsible savings. We’ve announced $17 billion of savings so far. We’ll have a little more to say about savings later this week. And we’ll produce our full reconciliation after we’ve announced all our policies. And we’ll do so before Labor did in the last two campaigns, five o’clock the Friday before the election. Don’t worry, we will do much better than that. But Kieran, I’ve just got to pick something Andrew said before. He said ‘we’re all for growth’ and they’re for surpluses too. The only problem is they’re incapable of delivering stronger growth. They’re incapable of delivering a budget surplus. It’s great to be for something but you’ve actually got to have the capacity to do it. And this government, not in a single budget has delivered a budget surplus. And what they’re saying to us is, look we know we couldn’t deliver a budget surplus in our first term, we know we couldn’t deliver a budget surplus in our second term, but no, wait, trust us, believe us, in our third term or fourth term, maybe, maybe, we might deliver a budget surplus. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. These guys can’t manage money.

KIERAN GILBERT:

What about the cuts that are out there already, this $5 billion cut that’s been put out there, booked, when it goes to the public service, Senator Fifield. The Government argues that advice from the Parliamentary Budget Office suggests that to get $5 billion in savings, it’d have to be 20,000 bureaucrats would lose their jobs, not 12,000 as you’ve previously said.

MITCH FIFIELD:

Kieran, it’s quite strange. This government say that they’re for surplus budgets. They say they’re for savings. But apparently the only savings which are good and decent are Labor savings. Apparently any savings proposed by the Coalition are inherently bad and evil. This is absurd. We all know that the government is living beyond its means. We all know that this current government is practising intergenerational theft. That they’ve refused to live within their means. They’re reaching their hand forward to take money out of the pockets of future generations. Government has to cut its cloth. We’ll do so responsibly. We’ll do so carefully. We’ll do so prudently. We did it under the Howard-Costello government. We repaid $96 billion of Labor debt. We did so responsibly and we’re going to do that again.

KIERAN GILBERT:

Is the government not trying to have it both ways here, Andrew Leigh? You say that they’ve got to provide the numbers and on the other hand you’re saying when they do provide savings that they’re making the wrong cuts. You’ve got to, it looks like, as I say, you’re trying to have it both ways here. They’re providing the savings and you’re critical of those when they don’t, well you’re critical anyway.

ANDREW LEIGH:

You’re telling me we can’t have both transparency and accountability, Kieran? Certainly what we’ve seen from the Coalition is very different from what we saw from Labor in 2007. And even the Coalition in 2010. In both those campaigns, every time oppositions put out a policy, they laid out very clearly how it would be paid for. The Coalition’s done that with one of their policies. The repeal of the carbon price and the mining tax, all of their saves, $12 billion, add up to the $12 billion they lose there. That means their company tax cut is unfunded. It means their paid parental leave plan is mostly unfunded because the company tax levy covers less than half of it. And it means that their $8 billion of private health insurance rebate give back to millionaires, that’s unfunded too. And so the Australian people are entirely entitled to say, well you guys probably have in mind what Campbell Newman did in Queensland which cost jobs and drove up unemployment. Or what the British conservatives have done which has cost jobs and driven up unemployment. Kieran, we’re performing extraordinarily well by global standards. After the global financial crisis, we rose from the 15^th to the 12^th largest economy in the world. Took on debt equivalent to about 10 per cent of GDP at a time when other countries around the world have debt loads that well exceed their annual income. And we’re on track to pay down that debt over the next term of government, which is, let’s face it, the same debt timetable that the Coalition has committed to.

KIERAN GILBERT:

Twelve days to go. Senator Fifield, what’s the mood like in the Coalition.

MITCH FIFIELD:

Kieran, we’re just focussed on seeking to earn the trust of the Australian people and laying out our plan for jobs and for growth.

KIERAN GILBERT:

You must be pretty optimistic though.

MITCH FIFIELD:

Kieran, 12 days is a long time in an election campaign. We take nothing for granted. The Australian public expect political parties that are putting themselves forward for government to earn the trust every single day of the election campaign. And that’s what we will be doing. And we’ll be talking about plans such as for apprentices, to give them access to HECS style loans. We’re going to be talking a lot about jobs and employment. We need to lift the speed limiters from the economy, to see the economy grow, to see that more people get jobs. And that Australian businesses can look forward, hopefully, to seeing a change of government which will be the biggest boost to business and consumer confidence that they can get.

KIERAN GILBERT:

Andrew Leigh, only 30 seconds left as well, your thoughts, the morale within Labor. Next time we speak will probably be after the election.

ANDREW LEIGH:

We’re certainly the underdogs, Kieran, but I’ve found being out in the electorate just to be terrifically stimulating. Really enjoyed those local conversations in Belconnen and Gungahlin over the weekend. And I think there is a sense that Labor’s positive plan for an economy in transition is the right one. This is the time to build the National Broadband Network, to invest in education, to reduce the burden of the GST from small businesses.

KIERAN GILBERT:

Andrew Leigh, Senator Fifield, thanks if I don’t see you until after the election. All the best and we’ll chat to you then.

ANDREW LEIGH:

Thanks Kieran, thanks Mitch.

MITCH FIFIELD:

See you Kieran.

On ABC666 this morning, I joined a 'pollie panel' with other candidates for the seat of Fraser. We discussed the Coalition's regressive paid parental leave scheme, and their additional 12,000-20,000 job cuts, plus Labor's plans to invest in education and the NBN. Here's a podcast.

On Monday 26 Aug at 2pm, Bill Shorten will deliver the 13th Fraser Lecture at the Finkel Lecture Theatre, John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University.

The title of Bill’s talk is “The Battle of Ideas and the Good Society” and is hosted by the ANU Labor Students’ Club.

The lecture is open to the Canberra community, but places are limited.

Please RSVP on 6247 4396 or Andrew.Leigh.MP {AT} aph.gov.au.

This morning, Liberal candidate Zed Seselja and I spoke with hosts Rod and Biggzy on Mix 106.3. Topics included risk management, Coalition costings, the sacking of Raiders coach David Furner, and catching Biggzy's cousin on one of my phonecalls to electors. Here's a podcast.

My letter to the Canberra Times today (with an apt heading):

Libs vow to decimate PS

Several commentators in The Canberra Times have recently argued that Labor is ''driving down the road'' towards the Liberals' promised public service job cuts.

This misses the fact that the Liberals' policy is to cut between 12,000 and 20,000 public service jobs at the point when they are elected.

The Liberals will not undo the efficiency dividend or our targeted reduction in EL/SES positions. Their cuts will come on top of our recent decisions, not instead of them.

A vote for the Liberals on September 7 is a vote for 12,000-20,000 fewer public servants. For Canberra, that means higher unemployment, more bankruptcies, and lower house prices.

Andrew Leigh, federal member for Fraser

I spoke this morning on 2CC with Mark Parton. We discussed how the new UC Sports Hub will benefit Canberra and the region, and why the alternative to acquiring a modest level of debt was dire joblessness for hundreds of thousands of people. Here's a podcast.

On 19 August, I spoke with Waleed Aly and Arthur Sinodinos about the Coalition's paid parental leave plan. It was a thoughtful conversation as always, but I couldn't resist pointing out that the plan gives five times as much to the richest as the poorest, and is yet to be properly costed. Here's a podcast. Transcript over the fold.

Transcript

19 August 2013

ABC Radio National Drive Interview – Waleed Aly

WALEED ALY

Will that levy hold or will it break? Senator Arthur Sinodinos and Andrew Leigh join me now, respectively Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition and Member for Fraser, previously Parliamentary secretary to Julia Gillard when she was PM. Gentlemen welcome.

ARTHUR SINODINOS

Thank you Waleed.

ANDREW LEIGH

Thanks Waleed.

WALEED ALY

Arthur start with you: that’s not really a good enough answer is it? Might be this, might be that, I’m not really sure.

ARTHUR SINODINOS

Well I don’t know what papers Joe had in the car with him, but I think what he was saying is that all will be revealed in due course in the sense that there is a definitive set of costings coming out, which will cover not only this, but all the other commitments we have made during this campaign. He made a reference to 50-70% of the cost of the scheme being covered by the levy and then there are offsets because the Government scheme no longer applies. States potentially make a contribution if State public servants are covered by the Federal scheme. So there are things like that which would have to be sorted.

I mean what’s definitive is that the levy would be on the bigger businesses that we’ve talked about I think before, but they will also be subject to a tax cut, so they are not worse off in that sense. They just don’t get the benefit of the tax cut in the same way smaller businesses do.

WALEED ALY

Yeah I understand that point, but a margin of error of 20% of the cost, I mean if it’s a $5 billion scheme, that’s a billion bucks.

ARTHUR SINODINOS

To be fair to Joe, I don’t think it’s right to say there is a margin of error. I mean he will give the more precise figures when all the costings come out together and as you can appreciate policies are being announced as we go and then when they’re all tallied up, you’ll have all the savings attached and then they’ll be a further contribution towards the budget bottom line.

WALEED ALY

Not a new policy though that’s been around three years. I would have thought he’d know the figure off the top of his head, unless of course the costings aren’t done yet in which case there is no way that he or your colleagues can stand before us and tell us that it’s responsible.

ARTHUR SINODINOS

No, no I think he, to be fair to Joe, all these costings will come out together in due course, by the last week of the campaign.

WALEED ALY

That’s when they come out, but he would know what the figures are.

ARTHUR SINODINOS

But I think what he is doing is, he is saving up all the stuff so you can see everything together, see the overall impacts on the budget bottom line and the impact on where we end up on the deficit and surplus for a particular year, for the budget.

WALEED ALY

Allright, Dr Andrew Leigh, I might get your reflection on this. If there is a productivity case to be made here that a Paid Parental Leave Scheme like this is a productivity measure, not a welfare measure, doesn’t this show that the Government is really behind on this, that it doesn’t have, at least there is a blind spot here in the way in which it’s approaching productivity.

ANDREW LEIGH

Well if that were the case Waleed then that might be true, but I am not aware of any serious economist who argues that the Coalition’s Parental Leave Scheme would boost productivity or participation relative to the existing scheme, which has already benefited around 300 thousand Australian parents.

The thing about the Coalition’s scheme is that it gives the most to those who have the most and in that sense it is completely at odds with the way in which the Australian social safety net has always worked. Ours has been a very targeted social safety net, that’s why it’s done so much to reduce inequality, this scheme will dramatically increase inequality and it’s very unclear where the money is coming from. I can just imagine what Arthur would have told John Howard when he was working as his Chief of Staff, if Labor’s Shadow’s Parliamentary Spokesperson had said that they didn’t know what a policy would cost, whether it would cover 100 or 50% of the cost. My back of the envelope says that the Company Tax increases raise 2.3 billion, the policy cost 5.5 billion a year so it only covers 42% of the cost.

WALEED ALY

Well ok that’s 5.5 but then there’s your policy as it stands currently costs about what? 2 point something? So you take that off the 5.5, because that 5.5 is not net. That 5.5 is for the whole program, but if that applies then the ones that currently apply don’t need to…

ANDREW LEIGH

And this is the thing Waleed, if we had what we had from the Coalition in 2010 and certainly from Labor in Opposition in 2007, costings policy by policy, then we’d be able to go through this. The real concern with the way the Coalition are doing costings this time around is they’re not producing costings for every policy, as Oppositions in all past elections have done. And so it’s left to the rest of Australia to worry where the rest of the money is coming from.

WALEED ALY

Well hang on, before that though, you can’t go too hard on that point. I mean they’re going to release costings in the last week of the election campaign. By all indications they’re going to release with a lot more time for public and for media to digest than you did in 2010 or in 2007.

ANDREW LEIGH

That’s simply not right Waleed. What we did in 2007, was each time we released a policy, we described precisely how that policy would be funded. Then at the very end, in the last couple of days in the campaign it was clear how all of those things added up.

The coalition are taking a different step, they are not announcing policy by policy how things will be funded, so their Company Tax cut had no supporting documentation as to how the policy would be funded. They haven’t even met their own, fairly low standard from 2010, an election we subsequently they had an $11 billion costings gap and the accountants who’d done the costings were fined for breaching professional standards. That’s deeply concerning I think and it does raise the spectre of hidden cuts to pay for these policies.

WALEED ALY

They’re not doing that this year, they’re going by the budgetary office, which they’re perfectly entitled to do. The same kind of people with the same sorts of qualifications as Treasury. But isn’t part of the problem with asking the Opposition to put costings up that the system’s rigged against them, because they submit their policies and then the boffins look at it and cost it and release it straight to the public instead of going back to them in the kind of iterative process that happens with costings for a Government, so the Opposition only gets stung by doing this.

ANDREW LEIGH
Well you can do it either way, you can put your costings up before then election period and then they are yours privately to release as you wish, or you can do them during the election campaign and they get released as you say but this is not Labor’s costings process, by and large the Charter of Budget Honesty is a creation of Peter Costello and John Howard.

WALEED ALY
As amended by Labor..Yeah.

ANDREW LEIGH

Well we’ve provided more transparency and accountability around it but I’ll give Arthur his due, I’m sure he was involved in the production of the Charter of Budget Honesty in its inception, it is a very good charter and I just wish that the Coalition were adhering  to it better in this election.

ARTHUR SINODINOS
Waleed, can I just comment, in 2010, the Government seemed to send all its costings to Treasury and Finance, at the end of the last week of the campaign, so there was very little time to adequately scrutinise them now that’s a Government, presumably, that would have had the benefit of doing some of these costings while they were in Government, using the resources and incumbency to do that.

So, you know, really in a sense we’ve got to get on and look beyond the current debate on costings, judge what the Coalition will put out in the last week of the campaign and there will be time for people to adequately scrutinise what is put out and I think it is good to end the campaign with having a debate around costings as a basis for discussing economic policy options. Beacuse I think the major issue we face as a country is our budgetary options going forward. There’s no two ways about it and it’s actually good to end the campaign with a debate about economic management.

WALEED ALY
Ok and I want to come to some of the substantive questions about the policy in a second, but you’ve got to admit that they are a lot of people who are perfectly entitled to look at this and say there is a lot of money, a lot of spending promises coming out of the Coalition. A side of politics that has run almost entirely on fiscal restraint over the last 3 years and none of it is being explained. Exactly how it’s going to be paid for.

ARTHUR SINODINOS
Well look Waleed, this is a real dilemma for the Coalition, because if we run on a complete policy of fiscal restraint then Labor would be saying they have no agenda, they have no priorities…

WALEED ALY
But you’ve running on that Policy…

ARTHUR SINODINOS
…then when you put out your spending priorities, people say well you’re spending money on this, you’re spending money on that, but if we can demonstrate that we are spending money on X, Y & Z this is how we pay for it, this is how we make a contribution to reducing the pressure on the budget bottom line then I think we’ve done our job.

WALEED ALY

All right, we’ll come back to it, [inaudible] get a chance for costings, I just want to ask you though, Arthur Sinodinos, what exactly is the productivity case for this, because this is what Tony Abbott says but it’s unclear exactly how forceful the argument is that a Paid Parental Scheme of this scale aids productivity.

ARTHUR SINODINOS
Well one aspect of this is what the Productivity Commission noted in one of its enquiries around Paid Parental Leave, which was the health gains, which not only benefits families, but society at large. Lower long term health costs, the likely long run productivity benefits from kids getting a minimum period of exclusive care and breastfeeding…

WALEED ALY
That’s highly speculative isn’t it?

ARTHUR SINODINOS

Well they were consistent with the recommendations of both the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the World Health Organisation in terms of the minimum period that’s good for both mothers and kids.

WALEED ALY
Well that’s fine but that’s different from saying that there’s a productivity gain by funding woman to breast feed their kids more down the track because they were breastfed longer they will more productive.

ARTHUR SINODINOS
And I said there were aspects to this and the second aspect of this is to extent that it is maintaining attachment to the Labor force at various levels up the chain of jobs if you like, right, promoting labor force participation, particularly in a context where we have an ageing population, I think there is a major productivity benefit in an generic sense. Using productivity in its broadest interpretation if you like.

WALEED ALY
It doesn’t quite sound like the big winning argument that Tony Abbott is presenting as though it’s a productivity gain, it sounds like, it’s very watery I have to say.

ARTHUR SINODINOS
Well, he’s talked about it in generic terms I’ve given you some specificity and granularity

WALEED ALY

Ok…

ANDREW LEIGH
Can I just respond on those..

WALEED ALY

That was almost Rudd-esque

WALEED ALY
Yes you can.

ANDREW LEIGH
Just a , you know, there’s always a risk when three blokes sit around and talk about parental leave but I mean Arthur’s suggestion is first of all that there will be a productivity increase through children, I mean that may be the case but if you’re born in 2013, we won’t see that until at least the 2030’s when you’re entering, when that child enters the Labor force. And if there is a benefit in terms of participation, my read of the evidence is that attachment to the labour force is most fragile at the bottom of the income spectrum, rather than the top of the wage distribution. It’s early childhood workers who are wondering whether or not it’s worth their while to stay attached to the labour force, less so accountants and lawyers…


ARTHUR SINODINOS
Well can I just give a quick comment on that Waleed, because someone on average earnings will get I think $21,000 more under the Coalition scheme than they will under the Government scheme so for someone on average full time earnings, which admittedly may be be higher than that of childcare workers and there are actions being taken on that front, will get that $21,000 extra, so in fact it is very supportive of those who have a wage above the actual minimum wage.

WALEED ALY
Yeah but those who’ve got a low wage would be worse off under this scheme wouldn’t they?

ARTHUR SINODINOS
No, no they wouldn’t be, because they get their actual wage or the minimum wage whichever is the greater, from memory.

WALEED ALY

Ok, sure, just one thing I want to pick up on Andrew is the superannuation element…

ANDREW LEIGH

The Compulsory Superannuation that’s right…

WALEED ALY

The Coalition scheme includes Superannuation as part of this entitlement, Labor’s scheme doesn’t, because its not connected to work place entitlement, it’s a welfare programme effectively. Isn’t that a massive blind spot in Labor’s plan, particularly given the differential levels of Superannuation that happen at the other end for woman, in relation, compared to men.

ANDREW LEIGH
Waleed, our approach to Superannuation for low income earners is that low income earners, have traditionally been in a particularly unusual situation where their superannuation is taxed higher than their earnings, so we’ve taken away the tax on superannuation for those earning below $37,000. That’s of much greater benefit than providing superannuation for the period of Parental leave.

The Coalition may well provide Superannuation as part of Parental Leave, but they will raise the taxes on superannuation contributions for low income workers, for everyone earning under $37,000, two thirds of whom are women. So that’s I think going to be a much bigger hit to superannuation for low income earners and to the gender superannuation gap which I do think matters.

Just one other quick thing, Arthur’s claim about a Mother on average earnings being $21,000 better off, was rated mostly false by PolitiFact today and they did that on the basis that Mr Abbott appeared to have used an overly high figure for average female earnings.

ARTHUR SINODINOS
This was average salary for women who worked full time.

WALEED ALY

Indeed, so…

ARTHUR SINODINOS

That was the definition which is around $65,000. So it may be PolitiFact or whoever are looking at the average salary for women, we were looking at the average salary for women who worked full time.

ANDREW LEIGH

Indeed, and so, but Mr Abbott’s claim was the generic one, a mother on average earnings and to exclude part timers I think is a significant blind spot, particularly  given that there is quite high part time participation among women. I don’t like to get into too many of these scrappy things because Arthur and I do enjoy having a consensus on most of the big questions, but I think this is an important difference.

ARTHUR SINODINOS
Well, a bit of specificity and granularity is good from time to time.

WALEED ALY

You’ve gone there twice Arthur!

ARTHUR SINODINOS

Well it’s Kevin Rudd being back as you say, it’s sort of you know, a bit of programmatic specificity

WALEED ALY

Ah it’s in the ether I, look forward to your ascension to some sort of leadership role and the various other managerial words that  you can come up with Arthur, I’ll keep track of them and I’ll watch with interest.


Gentlemen we are out of time, but I look forward to us locking horns again…

ANDREW LEIGH

Thanks

ARTHUR SINODINOS

Thanks

WALEED ALY
On other issues of granularity or something, I can’t even keep track of it, Andrew Leigh, Labor MP for Fraser and Arthur Sinodinos, Liberal Senator for NSW, Parliamentary secretary for the Opposition Leader.

ENDS

On last night's ABC702 Political Forum, I joined Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull and David Smith from the US Studies Centre in a congenial conversation with host Richard Glover about the philosophical differences between the parties (I argued Labor is the party of egalitarianism and liberalism), the Coalition's uncosted paid parental leave scheme, negative advertising, and the situation in Egypt. Here's a podcast.

Today I joined my parliamentary colleagues to launch our 2013 election campaign. We also announced $10 million for the second stage of the University of Canberra's Sports Hub, a new sport and health research, training and administration facility to inspire and engage young people in sport and fitness across the capital region. My thanks to our volunteers and the ACT Labor team including Chris Sant who is running for the second Senate seat and candidate for Hume Michael Pilbrow.

CAMPAIGN MEDIA RELEASE

10 MILLION INVESTMENT IN REGIONAL SPORTS INFRASTRUCTURE AND HEALTH PROGRAMS

The Rudd Labor Government today announced $10 million towards the University of Canberra Sports Hub project, which will provide state-of-the-art sports facilities and community engagement programs for Canberra and the surrounding region.

The Sports Hub project includes the building of a sport and health research, training and administration facility. The project will also establish a mobile sports fitness and health clinic which will work to promote the benefits of an active lifestyle through community engagement and participation.

The UC Sports Hub project is a collaborative effort between the Rudd Labor Government, the ACT Government, the University of Canberra Union and the ACT and Southern NSW Rugby Union.

ACT Senator, Kate Lundy, Member for Fraser, Andrew Leigh MP and Member for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly MP made the Regional Development Australian Fund announcement today during a visit to the University of Canberra.

Senator Lundy said the Rudd Labor Government is serious about investing in Canberra to meet future challenges and opportunities.

“The Sports Hub will provide world class shared sporting and research facilities, sports testing, talent identification and coaching clinics for students and coaches in regional communities, access to research support,” said Senator Lundy.

“Establishing an internationally recognised Sports Hub will ensure the region has the expertise in the sport and fitness fields, which will in turn attract more businesses and research to the region, driving economic growth and sustainability

“This project will add to the state-of-the-art facilities that already exist at the Australian Institute of Sport and will help to further increase Canberra’s international reputation for sporting excellence and engagement,” said Senator Lundy.

Member for Eden-Monaro, Dr Mike Kelly said this project reaches out beyond Canberra’s borders and will be a massive boost for the entire region.

“The establishment of mobile sports fitness and health clinics will allow the project to deliver real benefits to a number of communities in the ACT and surrounding region,” said Dr Kelly.

“Sports clubs across the region will have the benefit of working with these clinics to boost sports participation and promote healthy and active lifestyles especially in our children.

“I commend the foresight of the project in reaching out to communities in Queanbeyan, Cooma-Monaro and down to the South Coast,” said Dr Kelly.

Member for Fraser, Andrew Leigh said the building and construction phase of the project will also provide jobs and an economic boost to the Canberra community.

“Canberra plays a significant role as a regional hub city to a broader population of around 600,000 people, and is committed to building connection, belonging and collaboration within the region,” said Dr Leigh.

“This is an investment in sports research and industry and this project will continue to give back to the community and will provide an ongoing economic benefit to the local and regional economy.

“This is another exciting project for Canberra and the region following an announcement from the ACT Brumbies and the University of Canberra to partner up to build a new $16 million ACT Brumbies' headquarters at the University of Canberra,” said Dr Leigh.



The funds for the project are from the latest round of the Regional Development Australia Fund. Funding for this project is already included in the budget

This morning, I spoke on Fairfax TV about polling, optimism and Paid Parental Leave Scheme. The Government's Paid Parental Leave scheme, which has been used by over 300,000 parents, is fair and financially sound. By contrast, the Opposition's plan is regressive and at odds with the Australian social safety net that aims to give more to those who need it most. Here's a vodcast of the conversation.