Andrew Leigh

TRANSCRIPT – ABC RADIO NATIONAL BREAKFAST WITH FRAN KELLY
Andrew Leigh MP
Member for Fraser
1 July 2013

Topic:                          ‘Battlers and Billionaires: The Story of Inequality in Australia’

Fran Kelly:                           Quarter past eight on breakfast. The gap between rich and poor has focused the minds of economists, politicians and others for centuries. While perfect financial equality for everyone is unrealistic – and probably undesirable – when the gap between the haves and the have nots gets too great, it can fray or even tear the social fabric. And if we need proof of that, we just look around us. Look at what happened in Britain in recent years.

So, where and how to live in the vast space in between? They’re the questions that Andrew Leigh tries to answer. He’s a former ANU economics professor, and at the last election he was voted in as the Labor member for the Canberra electorate of Fraser. His new book is Battlers and Billionaires: The Story of Inequality in Australia. Andrew Leigh, good morning.

Andrew Leigh:                  Good morning Fran.



Fran Kelly:                           Andrew there have been rich and poor since the beginning of time, and presumably for all time to come. Why is this getting a picture of the wealth equality, or inequality rather, important to policy making?

Andrew Leigh:                  Well Fran, I think the distribution on income matters, as well as the increase in averages. And that’s because if you ask people whether they’d rather live in a society where the wealth was concentrated among a very small group of people, or in a place where the wealth was more evenly shared, the overwhelming majority of us want to live in a more equal society. It’s more interesting, and I think we also regard it as being fairer. Given that while the amount of resources we have is partly a reflection of effort, it’s also a reflection of luck, of being born with certain traits. And so we shouldn’t think of the market distribution of income as something that has to be left untouched.



Fran Kelly:                           And you make this point in effect, there’s a questionnaire that I think you recount in the book, where that question is always answered ‘yes, we’d like to be fairer’. And you talk about the foundation myth in Australia, we’re the great classless egalitarian society, a fair go for all is our mantra. And yet Australia at this moment, according to your research, the gap between the rich and the poor is wider than it’s been for a long time.

Andrew Leigh:                  That’s right. So you see over the last couple of hundred years you see Australia start from a very equal point in the late 18^th century to go to become very unequal around World War I, become much more equal again and then since the 1970s again the gaps widen between rich and poor. For example, over the last 30 years the top 1 per cent share has doubled, the top 0.1 per cent share has tripled, and CEO salaries in the top 100 firms have gone from an average of $1 million to an average of $3 million. So we’re seeing this increasing, increasing gap between the rich and the rest.



Fran Kelly:                           And does it matter in real terms? Because although there’s an increasing gap, you also note that the bottom half of earners, if you like, in Australia, the bottom half are also financially much better off on average than they were 30 years ago. So does the gap matter more than the reality of people’s standard of living?

Andrew Leigh:                  It does matter, and let me use a sporting analogy to explain why. Let’s compare the AFL and the English Premier League. So over the last 20 years the English Premier League has seen one team, Manchester United, win in 12 out of 20 seasons. In the AFL, no team has won more than 3 out of the 20 seasons. And there’re structural reasons why that’s true. In English Premier League, each team gets to keep the TV revenues, in AFL it’s shared. In English Premier League, you can spend what you like on salaries, in AFL there are salary caps. And so those institutions, including the draft in the AFL, have made for a more interesting game in the AFL. And when I’m saying interesting I’m also saying it’s a more egalitarian game than English Premier League.



Fran Kelly:                           So it makes for a more interesting game, how does that translate to society? A more interesting society, a better functioning society, a society with a stronger base and a stronger economy? Tell us how it translates.

Andrew Leigh:                  Certainly a fairer society, also I think a society with more social mobility, where the circumstances of your birth don’t determine your destiny. Also potentially a society that doesn’t have the high involvement or heavy investment of the interests in politics. So for example you look at the US system recently, where you’ve seen incredibly affluent people getting extraordinarily large campaign donations, and for me that’s a bit of a concern as well. So I think they’re the main reasons we should be worried about inequality: effectively they’re what I would think of as the intrinsic reasons that we are creatures who are made to enjoy fairly equal distributions, not to give everything to one person.



Fran Kelly:                           Sure, but to stay with this notion of what kinds of creatures we are, I mean I think if you asked a poorer person ‘would you like to stay poor with only a small gap between you and the richest people, or would you like to be better off but with a bigger gap between you and the top’, people would probably say they’d prefer the latter. And as we saw when Wayne Swan, for instance, took aim at some of the rich billionaires in our society, a lot of people came to the defence of someone like Twiggy Forrest, arguing, you know, he’s made his wealth, good on him.

Andrew Leigh:                  Well on average relativities certainly matter. You can think about this again in a sporting sense, it’s great if you’re the only person standing up at the footy, but once everyone else stands up suddenly you don’t get a better view after all, and you need to get a box to stand on. And that holds also if you ask people about their ideal distributions of incomes. One US survey for example said ‘would you rather have $100 000 with everyone else having $200 000, or would you rather have $50 000 with everyone else having $25 000?’ And more people preferred to have a little less income, but be on the top of the heap.



Fran Kelly:                           You’re listening the RN Breakfast, our guest this morning is Labor MP Andrew Leigh. He’s a former ANU economics professor, and he’s written a book called Battlers and Billionaires: the story of inequality in Australia. And you do go into the history, and just to talk about that foundation myth that we talked about before, a fair go being a principle we live by in Australia. You give us an example of how that was on display in a Japanese POW camp. Tell us about that.

Andrew Leigh:                  So in the Japanese POW camps there were two ways of organising your society.  The Japanese gave a little more money to officers than they did to enlisted men, and there were only a certain amount of tents to go around. And the British decided that the best way of dealing with that was to have everyone keep what they were given. The Australians, under Weary Dunlop, took a different approach. They took the notion that the resources should be shared and that the sickest should take the tents and have a little bit more food. And as Tom Uren said in his first speech to parliament, only a creek separated the two camps, but on one side there was the law of the jungle and on the other side egalitarianism. And that affected survival rates as well: cholera ripped through the British camps, the Australians largely survived.



Fran Kelly:                           And in Australia we do have some very rich, and the mining boom has created some very very rich, there’s no doubt about that. But we also have quite a high degree of social mobility now, don’t we? We’ve seen changes, the western suburbs of Sydney for instance, we hear people talk about the McMansions and the wealth on display there. Much of that, is it fair to say, is the result of changes to government policy?

Andrew Leigh:                  I think it’s important that government policy improves social mobility. We see big impacts on early childhood development, for example. So by the age of 3 a child from an advantaged household has heard 30 million more words than a child from a disadvantaged household. And we know that there’s a range of other impacts through the family, as well as through resources, that affect social mobility. Australia’s not top of the pack in terms of how mobile a society we are, but we’re not as static a society as the United States, where it’s extremely hard to move from rags to riches over the course of a lifetime.



Fran Kelly:                           The point you make there though is that it’s not just about the dollars. The dollars have an impact on every other level of opportunity, including as you say the number of words spoken, the kind of education, the kind of parenting. Now you can’t make just widespread characterisations of people based on how much money they earn, but you do go to some of that in this book.

Andrew Leigh:                  That’s right, and for a progressive like me, it’s the hardest bit of the book to write. For example, one of the stats that shocked me was that among Northern Territory Indigenous babies, 1 in 3 now don’t have a father’s name listed on the birth certificate. Now I don’t think the solution to that is simple by any means, but I think that it’s certainly a factor that’s driving inequality and immobility in Australia and we need to look inside the black box of families and see the extent to which government policies can help ensure that every child has a great start in life.



Fran Kelly:                           The Gillard Government was working on that with the Close the Gap strategy, in terms of life opportunities and years lived, and education opportunities for Indigenous Australians. Bu the fact is the starkest gaps in wealth inequality in Australia do involve Indigenous Australians. Has that changed much over the years, indeed over the two centuries?

Andrew Leigh:                  It’s very hard to get good data on Indigenous Australians. Certainly what we know is that at the time of settlement, Indigenous Australia was an extremely equal community, and a simple way of understanding that is to imagine how equal Australia would be if each of us could only keep the possessions we could carry on our backs. Similarly, the early settlers were quite an egalitarian community. The early invitations to dinner at Government House from Arthur Phillip apparently carried the request ‘please bring your own bread’. And then we saw an increase in inequality across the population and we’ve probably seen an increase in inequality within the Indigenous population over this period as well.

Fran Kelly:                           And just finally, it probably is important for all of us to understand what the picture of wealth is in Australia because government policy tries to focus on it quite carefully. It looks at means testing, we’ve had all the discussions about middle class welfare, what is middle class? If we take a household for instance where one parent’s a teacher, one parent’s a policeman, they’re combined income is around $150 000, that sounds like a reasonably typical middle income household. No one would say they’re rich, but in fact, according to most of Australia, they are better off. What is the median average?

Andrew Leigh:                  So the median income in Australia is around $80 000 –



Fran Kelly:                           - for a household?

Andrew Leigh:                  That’s the typical household income.



Fran Kelly:                           $80 000. So how many Australian households would be on that level?

Andrew Leigh:                  So, I guess, I need to think about household size. Let’s say the household size is 2.2, that gives us 10 million households, so we’ve got 5 million households below $80 000 a year, and 5 million about $80 000 a year. So it’s useful I think to understand that broad distribution when you’re thinking about any question of public policy.



Fran Kelly:                           Ok Andrew thank you very much for joining us on Breakfast.

Andrew Leigh:                  Thank you Fran.

I spoke in parliament yesterday about one of the Labor Government's biggest economic reforms - putting a price on carbon pollution.

Matter of Public Importance, 26 June 2013

We really should not be surprised that the opposition is continuing this line of attack. For the past three years this has been their standard tactic to avoid engaging in any substantive policy debate. They hurl accusations at the government to whip up fear based on factual inaccuracies. In talking about the government's economic policies on confidence and the budget, the member for North Sydney appears to be completely oblivious to the economic reality in Australia. That is because the economic reality is an uncomfortable one for the opposition because it so clearly reflects the economic policy successes of the Labor government.

There is no clearer example of a successful economic policy than this government's carbon pricing scheme, and it is good to see the member for Wentworth at the table as I say that. Not only has the sky not fallen in since the scheme was introduced, but also we are now seeing early stages of its success. Every day it is becoming clearer that the carbon price has been the most sensible way to address climate change. Many of those opposite know in their heart of hearts, and indeed their own leader has said, that if you want to address climate change why not do it with a simple tax? Every day it is becoming clearer how effective this economic policy of pricing carbon is in addressing the challenge of climate change.

Since its introduction the carbon price has resulted in a 7.4 per cent drop in emissions in the national electricity market. That is almost 12 million tonnes less pollution from the electricity sector. Renewable energy generation is rising by almost 30 per cent. This is not a change in consumption, as those opposite would have you believe. We can contrast carbon intensity. So, in 2011-12 for every megawatt hour of electricity generated in the national electricity market, 0.92 tonnes of carbon pollution were released into the atmosphere. Since the price's introduction, the amount of pollution for every megawatt hour has gone down to 0.87 tonnes—a five per cent decline in emissions intensity in just a matter of months.

The carbon price has also had a lower impact on the cost of living than was expected. Those on this side of the House always said the impact of the carbon price on the cost of living would be moderate. It was projected at 0.7 per cent increase in the CPI, less than a third of the impact of the GST. But we now see new evidence that the impact of the carbon price on prices has been less than that.

Those opposite are well aware that Australia is the fourth-largest economy in the world—up from being 15th largest when this government came to power. We are the 15th largest polluter in the world. That is, if you look at more than 190 nations, Australia is the 15th largest polluter. Per capita, we are the largest polluter in the world. So, this gives us a great responsibility to act to tackle climate change. Climate change is not someone else's problem. It is Australia's. At no time is that better illustrated than in January this year. January 2013 was the hottest month on record in Australia since 1910. It should have left no doubt in the mind of any Australian, including the climate sceptics opposite, that climate change is real, is happening now and that we need to act. I love the fact that the tin hat corner goes off when I say that.

Opposition members interjecting—

Dr LEIGH:  The Bureau of Meteorology is to be believed. I know the member for Tangney has taken on the Bureau of Meteorology on Twitter but the climate records are very clear on this. We have experienced the hottest summer on record.

Mr Turnbull:  Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order. The honourable member, for whom I have the greatest respect, has described that corner as a 'tin hat corner'. It is 'cockies' corner' and if they wear any hat it is an akubra.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms O'Neill):  Thank you for your contribution. The shadow minister will resume his seat. The parliamentary secretary has the call.

Dr LEIGH:  If those opposite had the same view on climate change as the member for Wentworth did, then my suggestions would be quite unjust. But when climate change is raised, it is from that corner of the House that we hear the greatest cries. We refer to 'dangerous climate change' and it is as though a set of crackers had gone of in the seats on that part of the House. We have a fixed price in our emissions trading scheme which will conclude in June 2015. From then the carbon permits can be auctioned and traded allowing the market to determine the carbon price. That will ensure that emissions are reduced in the cheapest and most effective way.

In July 2015 there will be an annual cap on the number of permits, which means there will be a cap on pollution. The current low market prices we are seeing in the European emissions trading system, to which we will link in 2015, does not detract from the environmental integrity of our pollution cap. Sound economic policy, sound social policy, sound environmental policy—that is this government's economic legacy.

The Leader of the Opposition has claimed that the carbon price would destroy thousands of jobs, that it would wipe Whyalla off the map. The reality is that since the price started employment has grown by more than 150,000 with the total number of jobs gained since Labor came to office now close to one million, at a time when unemployment has grown by 28 million worldwide. The latest consumer price index figures show the inflation rate was 2.5 per cent in the year to March—in the middle of the Reserve Bank's target zone for inflation. Westpac's economics team has estimated that the carbon price has increased the CPI by just 0.4 per centage points, less than Treasury's estimate of 0.7 per centage points.

The member for North Sydney, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wentworth know this, but it is a measure of the opportunism of the opposition that they choose to ignore it. The Australian Industry Group has '…long argued that an emissions trading scheme is the most flexible path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions at least cost'. Lord Stern, possibly the greatest world authority on the economics of tackling climate change, wrote a letter to the member for Lyne, which he has given me permission to quote in this place. That letter of 11 June 2012 recognises the benefits of Australia's carbon pricing scheme. Lord Nicholas Stern says:

‘The carbon price addresses a key market failure. Emissions of greenhouse gases represent an externality in that they cause great damage to the prospects of others. Australia is acting to address these crucial market failures.’

Nicholas Stern also sees our economic policy as good public policy:

‘A clear, credible and stable climate change policy regime represents a unique opportunity for Australia: it could drive a new energy-industrial revolution, similar to past waves of innovation and technical change, such as the continuing ICT revolution. There is great potential for new products, processes and technologies to be developed across the economy and society. This fits well with Australia's entrepreneurial culture. Indeed, it fits well with Australia's long tradition of innovation and culture of creativity. Institutions such as the CSIRO are already making strong progress.’

Nicholas Stern also notes Australia is also acting to address these other crucial market failures—for example, the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation could help to reduce long-term risk around financing for low carbon infrastructure.

The strength of Labor's economic policies is being recognised internationally, but not just in the UK. President Obama himself has recently said:

‘Nearly a dozen states have already implemented or are implementing their own market-based programs to reduce carbon pollution. More than 25 have set energy efficiency targets. More than 35 have set renewable energy targets. Over 1,000 mayors have signed agreements to cut carbon pollution.’

And as the Prime Minister noted in question time, 'President Obama remains strongly of the view that an emissions trading scheme is the most efficient way of dealing with dangerous climate change.'

But the commitment to a market-based mechanism for dealing with dangerous climate change also extends to China. Nominally a communist country, it saw a pilot emissions trading scheme launched on 18 June in Shenzhen. Pilots in Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Hubei and Guangdong are expected to be launched this year. There is a deep irony in that the Liberal and National parties, which are nominally parties of the free market, are standing against the use of a market-based mechanism to deal with climate change, while nominally communist China is supporting a market-based mechanism. They are doing so for a very simple reason: it is the most efficient way of dealing with dangerous climate change.

Labor's economic legacy is a strong one. The Australian economy has grown 14 per cent since 2007, a period when the United States has only grown a couple of per cent and Europe has actually shrunk.

I spoke in parliament yesterday on the 25th anniversary of Parliament House.

25th Anniversary of Parliament House, 27 June 2013

Burley Griffin's original plan for Capital Hill provided for a 'capitol' on the current location of Parliament House, with residences for the Governor-General on one side and the Prime Minister on the other. Parliament House was to be on a lower level, at the head of the government triangle on a site known as Camp Hill, in direct line with the axis running from the capitol to the summit of Mount Ainslie. The capitol building, atop the inner city's highest hill, Kurrajong—now Capital Hill—was to have been a ceremonial building, a pantheon that would commemorate the achievements of the Australian people. Instead of what Burley Griffin called 'the inevitable dome', the building would be capped by a stepped pinnacle or ziggurat. For Walter Burley Griffin, this form expressed 'the last word of all the longest lived civilisations'. However, it was not to be. In 1954, the Senate appointed a select committee to inquire into and report on the development of Canberra. The report recommended:

'… the permanent Parliament House should not be constructed on Camp Hill where Griffin intended, but on Capital Hill on the site allotted to the "Capitol" …'

It noted that Griffin himself had considered such an alternative. I have to confess that I am still quite partial to Burley Griffin's original design—to the notion that the highest place, the capitol, should be taken by a building that acknowledged the greatest of Australians.

An honourable member:  With a ziggurat.

Dr LEIGH:  With a ziggurat. But some eggs cannot be unscrambled, and here we are today. In April 1979, the NCDC announced an architectural competition for the design of what was then known as New Parliament House. The National Capital Development Commission consulted with the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, and the Parliament House Construction Authority issued a brief and competition documents. Key aspects of the brief included that Parliament House must be more than a functional building and should be a major national symbol in the spirit of Westminster or Washington's Capitol dome. It was important that the building reflect the significance of the national parliament, the executive government and the nation's political and social context. The extent to which the building asserted that significance was to be related to questions of its scale and monumentality. The building and the site treatment were to respond to qualities of the environment that were uniquely Australian—the Australian climate, landscape, vegetation and quality of light.

The philosophy and its popular success, the brief said, would depend in part on the extent to which public access and involvement was encouraged by the design. Parliament House was not to appear remote or inaccessible. Access to the site and to the building was to be facilitated, and within the building connotations of a people's parliament and open government were best to be established if people could penetrate the building and observe its operation. Parliament has succeeded to the extent that one can walk over the top of the parliamentarians—a great design feature, I believe—though its structure is somewhat different from, say, the US Capitol where voters can walk to the offices of their elected representatives, going to see them directly without the security screening we have here.

On 26 June 1980, New York-based architectural company Mitchell, Giurgola & Thorp was announced as the winner of stage 2 of the Parliament House design competition. Interestingly, Romaldo Giurgola had initially been asked by Sir John Overall, the then head of the National Capital Development Commission, to be an assessor for the design competition for the new Parliament House. Giurgola wrote back stating:

‘I am honoured by such an offer, but I would rather enter the competition.’

Aren't we lucky that he did? The winning architectural team, Romaldo Giurgola, Richard Thorp, Harold Guida, Rollin La France, Pamille Berg, Tim Halden-Brown, Peter Rolland, Peter Britz and Mervyn Dorrough, was responsible for the design, conception, siting and architecture as well as the interior design, furniture design, landscape and coordination of the art and craft program for Parliament House. Construction began in 1981 and the building was opened on 22 August 1988.

Romaldo Giurgola moved to Canberra to implement his design and lives here to this day. He brought a team of eight people from his New York office, and three others, as well as Romaldo Giurgola, stayed in Australia after the project's completion. It is a great contrast from the way in which the Sydney Opera House construction eventuated. It does make you think, if only Jorn Utzon had had Romaldo Giurgola's patience and his negotiating skills, how much more glorious the interiors of the Sydney Opera House would be today.

The assessors' report on the winning scheme noted its unpretentiousness and accessibility where, 'children will not only be able to climb on the building, but draw it easily too'. Speaking of children, I was pretty much a child when I first came here in 1988 to do work experience for the then member for Fraser, John Langmore. It was something of a coincidence to have done work experience for the member for Fraser given that at the time I was living in the electorate of the Father of the House, the member for Berowra. My father, who was a university academic, knew John Langmore and so it was with John that I spent two weeks in this building. I have never before, or since, gotten lost so many times inside a building. The key to this building, I believe, is to like the art. I did not like art in 1988, but I do today. A think art lovers have a far easier time navigating Parliament House than those who glide by ignoring the beautiful works on the walls.

To the successful architect, a matter of crucial importance was the relationship of the structure to individual Australians and whether people would feel comfortable approaching and entering the building. For the winning designers this was basic to their plan. As Romaldo Giurgola once said:

‘We felt if Australia’s new Parliament House was to speak honestly about its purpose, it could not be built on top of the hill as this would symbolise government imposed upon the people.’

And:

‘The magic relationship between geometry and land configurations of that plan, after that, often became the object that country often became the object of my architectural dreams. The brief for the design of the parliament compiled by the NCDC was possibly the best I had ever encountered in my professional career.’

Another great tribute to the extraordinary public servants who helped build Canberra. Giurgola spoke of how he came to understand Australia by saying:

‘I plunged into Australian literature rather than into guides and travelogues. Patrick White, Miles Franklin, Henry Lawson and Les Murray became my real instructors, while the sonorous voice and accent of Richard Thorp, the Australian in our office, produced the right atmosphere.’

I think it speaks well of Australia that we are in a city designed by a Chicagoan and in a building designed by a New Yorker, because Australia at its best engages with the rest of the world, taking the best ideas not just from within our continent, but around the globe. So it is with this extraordinary building—Parliament House. I wish it a happy 25th birthday and hope it will stand for longer than the 200 years for which it was originally built.

TRANSCRIPT – ABC 666 WITH ROSS SOLLY
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
27 June 2013

Ross Solly:                  Let’s go to Andrew Leigh, now, who is the Member for Fraser. Andrew Leigh was with Adam Shirley yesterday afternoon saying that he would stick by Julia Gillard. Andrew Leigh, good morning to you.

Andrew Leigh: Good morning Ross, how are you?

Ross Solly:                   I’m ok, how are you feeling today?

Andrew Leigh: These decisions are always gut-wrenchingly difficult, Gai would have found exactly the same thing. I looked around the faces in the Caucus Room yesterday, and nobody was smiling. These are incredibly hard decisions for us all. People of good will made different decisions yesterday, and I certainly respect that.

Ross Solly:                   Were you tempted at any stage yesterday, Andrew Leigh, to switch allegiances?

Andrew Leigh: No, I’ve always been a strong supporter of Julia Gillard’s, but in everything that I’ve said, I’ve always said that the big differences in Australian politics are not between individuals, they’re between parties. Gai rightly pointed out the risks to Canberra if Tony Abbott is elected Prime Minister and the risks to the important reforms like the price on carbon, like the schools reforms, like, you know, even making the best of Australian international diplomacy with the UN Security Council seat. There’s very much that’s at risk at the next election.

Ross Solly:                   Andrew Leigh, you have spent a lot of your life studying political trends and the like, why in the end did a majority of your colleagues lose faith in Julia Gillard?

[Audio interruption - line drops]

Ross Solly:                   Let’s go back to Andrew Leigh. Hello Andrew Leigh.

Andrew Leigh: G’day Ross. Don’t know what happened there.

Ross Solly:                   I don’t know. I thought maybe a question was too pointy, but you’ve never run away from a question before so I didn’t think you were this time. No, I was just asking you, Andrew Leigh, why you think all of a sudden the majority of your colleagues turned against Julia Gillard?

Andrew Leigh: I think that the honest view of people in the caucus was that Kevin Rudd could do a better job in the next election, and I very much hope that that’s the right view.

Ross Solly:                   Are you convinced that’s the case?

Andrew Leigh: I made a different decision from Gai and from a majority of my caucus colleagues. When you sit in a Labor caucus surrounded by extraordinary people, you’ve got to have a respect for that team as well. That team has come to a different decision than mine, and there is a huge amount of accumulated wisdom, knowledge and understanding in that room, so I respect it, I’ll run with it, and I will be backing Kevin Rudd every day until polling day.

Ross Solly:                   Do you hope to hold on to your job as a Parliamentary Secretary?

Andrew Leigh: I’ve said to people around Kevin Rudd that if they would like me to step down, I’d be happy to do so. It’s really whatever’s most useful for Kevin and for the new leadership team.

Ross Solly:                   But if the opportunity is there, you’d prefer to hold onto it, you think you can still do good things even though you backed a different leader?

Andrew Leigh: I’ll do whatever the Prime Minister wants me to do. If he thinks that somebody else can better serve in my role, I’ll very happily step back. Because he has to have those opportunities, if he wants to use the position that I have the honour to occupy at the moment for somebody else, he should absolutely be able to do that.

Ross Solly:                   Kevin Rudd did say there would be no retribution so I suppose this is a chance to test it. Yourself and Kate Lundy, who both showed loyalty to your leader, an opportunity if you want to continue on, for Kevin Rudd to show that he’s a man of his word. Maybe the first test for him, Andrew Leigh?

Andrew Leigh: Look, I wouldn’t see it as retribution, Ross. I mean I do...

Ross Solly:                   That’s how politics works though, isn’t it, Andrew Leigh? Let’s be honest about it.

Andrew Leigh: Not at all, no. I genuinely think that there are many people of talent in the backbench, and I think if Kevin comes to the view that he wants to use one of those people in the role that I occupy, that he wants me on the backbench, and that he thinks he’s got a better chance of Labor winning the election, then I’m entirely happy to do that. I mean I’m a very low ranking member of the executive team, and so I...

Ross Solly:                   Oh, Andrew Leigh stop talking yourself down.

Andrew Leigh: But you’ve got to think of the team.

Ross Solly:                   Gai Brodtmann says that she thinks she’s seen a changed man in Kevin Rudd, a changed man from the man who caused so much divisiveness in the party when he was leader. Have you seen changes, do you believe that a leopard can change its spots?

Andrew Leigh: I’ve never criticised Kevin, Ross. I’ve always thought that he’s an extraordinary person, ever since I first…

Ross Solly:                   A good leader though? A good team-builder? A good team man?

Andrew Leigh: Look he’s somebody who I think achieved extraordinary things in his first period as Prime Minister, then as Foreign Minister. He’s somebody who’s incredibly articulate and thoughtful across policy areas ranging from foreign policy to health.

Ross Solly:                   But a good team man, Andrew Leigh? Is he a good team man, was he a good team man?

Andrew Leigh: I think he’s worked well with people in the past, clearly there’s been personal frictions around the place, but I’ve never experienced any of that. He’s always treated me with respect and decency. And again, we’re going to go into this election with a choice between parties, and that has always been the biggest choice. The policy differences that separate Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd were never large. The policy differences that separate Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott are massive, and as Gai has so articulately pointed out, are incredibly damaging for Canberra if a Liberal Party government were to be elected, and that’s why I’ll be fighting hard right up to polling day.

Ross Solly:                   And what were your thoughts when Bill Shorten went public last night just before the vote, to say that he was going to support Kevin Rudd, and saying he was doing so because he thought this was in the best interests of the Labor Party?

Andrew Leigh: I think that that’s the only right basis on which to make this decision. You can’t make these sort of decisions from self-interest or career advancement, you have to make them based on what’s best for the party. And I respect that there were a 102 people in the room yesterday and people came to different views. But I think the vast majority of people did so based on what they thought was best for the Party.

Ross Solly:                   Good to talk to you Andrew Leigh, thank you.

Andrew Leigh: Thank you Ross, have a good day.

On 25 June 2013, I spoke with Sky host David Speers and Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos about the government's proud record on jobs, pricing carbon and creating DisabilityCare; and the future reform agenda on education and innovation.

On ABC Radio National Drive program, I spoke with host Waleed Aly and Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos about party leadership, temporary migration, and asylum seekers. Here's a podcast.

TRANSCRIPT – ‘BIG IDEAS' RADIO NATIONAL DRIVE WITH WALEED ALY
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
24 June 2013

Topics:                         Leadership, 457 visas, immigration.

Waleed Aly:                        So Parliament has resumed for the final sitting week before the election and again, or should we say still, three years after Julia Gillard became Prime Minister and just three months out from an election, we’re talking about whether or not she’ll survive as leader. She was speaking to the media in Canberra today, she said she absolutely still has the support of Labor MPs to remain PM.

Julia Gillard [CLIP]            This issue was settled in March by the Labor Party. This week, what I’ve achieved is better schools for our nation which means a better future for our nation. That’ll be my focus. Now, you may choose to focus on something else but that’s exactly what I’ll be focussed on.

Waleed Aly:                        Mmm, and so it went. The leadership is still the story. She may not want it to be, but it is what’s dominating news coverage and it’s what all of her colleagues are talking about. So to discuss the politics and the policy during this election year, we’re joined once again by the men that we’ve dubbed our shining knights of politics the Parliamentary Secretaries of the Opposition Leader and the Prime Minister respectively, Senator Arthur Sinodinos and Dr Andrew Leigh. Gentlemen, thank you. Welcome.

Arthur Sinodinos:             Thanks mate.

Andrew Leigh:                  Thanks.

Waleed Aly:                        Good to have you with us again. Andrew, I’m going to start with you because I suppose that’s the thing that you have to do today, isn’t it? Why are we still having this conversation about leadership?

Andrew Leigh:                  Well Waleed, I’m just here to answer the questions. You’re the one who’s asking them.

Waleed Aly:                        Well, yes -

Andrew Leigh:                  - so I guess I could naturally throw that back to you.

Waleed Aly:                        Ah come on, let’s be honest about this. If I did not ask you it would be a ridiculously strange omission because so many of your colleagues want to talk about it, and want to talk about it with journalists off the record.

Andrew Leigh:                  I’m sure there are people who are interested in petty gossip. I’ve got to say there’s more petty gossip in this building than any other building I’ve ever worked in. But I’d much rather be having a conversation about health policies, about education policies, about the National Broadband Network. I was out doorknocking in Kaleen in my electorate on the weekend and I’ve got to tell you that inside the so-called beltway the issues that people are talking about are not the stuff of gossip and speculation, but they’re actually ‘how will policies affect my day-to-day life?’…

Waleed Aly:                        No doubt.



Andrew Leigh:                  Which can be the impact of the National Broadband Network policy the Government’s got, or the Coalition alternative.

Waleed Aly:                        No doubt that’s true, but how can you have a policy conversation when you’re not exactly sure who is going to be the Prime Minister the next day, and then what they are going to do with the policies that are on the table.

Andrew Leigh:                  Kevin Rudd said there were no circumstances in which he could see himself returning to the leadership.

Waleed Aly:                        He said he believed -

Andrew Leigh                    - I take him at his word.

Waleed Aly:                        Ok, so I’m going to take it from you right now, if all of this is just petty gossip you can guarantee me on air, right now, that nothing is going to happen that even approximates a leadership challenge between now and the end of the week.

Andrew Leigh:                  Yes. Julia Gillard is going to lead us to the next election.

Waleed Aly:                        Is that the same thing as saying there is absolutely nothing to this, and there will definitely not be a challenge of any description?

Andrew Leigh:                  That’s certainly my understanding from talking to colleagues.

Waleed Aly:                        Ok. What does this look like from the other side of politics, Arthur Sinodinos? I mean, broadening this about a bit, you’ve seen some leadership in your time on your side of politics as well, this is the sort of thing political parties do, although this time it seems particularly self-wounding this close to an election.

Arthur Sinodinos:             What I find interesting about this, Waleed, is that it’s gone on for so long. As you say, the older you get, you probably see more leadership contests than, you know, than eating hot pies, but I’ve never seen a process in which a party wants to put itself through so much agony for so long and in the end, for what? I mean, I don’t see any philosophical or ideological issues at stake here to say that this is a great fight for the soul of the Labor Party. I mean, maybe Rudd has some different ideas about the role of the unions in running the Labor Party perhaps, or whatever, but I can’t see that there are any differences between the two protagonists. So apart from that personal angst around who is the Prime Minister, it’s hard to see why we have to go through this. In the Liberal Party, to be honest, it would have been settled a while ago and basically it would have been settled on the numbers on the polls; that’s the cold, hard reality. It’s all about arithmetic and I can’t see why they’ve put themselves through all this agony. From our point of view as an opposition it’s a funny situation because we are quite happy to go on policy because there’s all sorts of stuff we can attack the Government on and we can talk about our own stuff but everybody keeps getting derailed by this leadership stuff.

Waleed Aly:                        We’ll come to those things in a moment. But, I mean, there was a lot of tortuous conversation around in 2007 when there was a suggestion that Peter Costello should have taken over from John Howard. This just seems a little bit more dramatic, but in essence is it really any different?

Arthur Sinodinos:             Well I think there were a couple of times during 2007 when change was contemplated but was never consummated,  but I’ve never seen anything as drawn out as this. And, as I say, it really is a bit of a distraction from other things. And where I disagree with Andrew is I think the public see what is going on and think there’s too much focus in Canberra by the Government on themselves and not enough on the issues that affect me.

Waleed Aly:                        Well to be fair, Andrew’s trying hard not to talk about it today, so he can hardly be…

Arthur Sinodinos:             And he is and I give him credit for that but the fact of the matter is something is going on because the journalists are not making this up.

Andrew Leigh:                  I think Arthur has nailed it in saying the big differences are not within parties; they’re between them. And the differences, much as we get on well, the ideological differences that separate Arthur and I are the much more interesting question here. Historians to come will probably look at the role of fast-paced media technology in affecting the stability of leadership in the modern age. I think there’s a reason why parties have more leaders in the years since 2000 than they did in say, the 1950s and 1960s. But that doesn’t change the core role of people like Arthur and me which is to talk about ideas and values, to have a good contest about the kind of Australia we want to be living in.

Waleed Aly:                        And it doesn’t also change the role of your colleagues who are keeping this stability, or this instability, alive; Kevin Rudd among them. And the fact that he will not answer the question unequivocally when it is put to him about what his intentions are, and he says things like, ‘I will do anything it takes to stop Tony Abbott becoming the next Prime Minister’, and that causes an invitation to interpret this to suggest that he’s undermining Julia Gillard, and he would know that. Do you have a message to him as your colleague?

Andrew Leigh:                  Mr Rudd has in fact been unequivocal and he has been parsed and diced with the skill of those old Kremlinologists who used to look at the words coming out of -

Waleed Aly:                        - Well you’re not giving him much of a compliment if you think he doesn’t understand the consequences of his inexactitude.

Andrew Leigh:                  I’m actually reading the same comments as you, Waleed, and I take them pretty unambiguously.

Waleed Aly:                        Ok. We’ll see how just unambiguous it is. Let’s go to some policy issues, the 457 visa legislation. This is the Government’s so-called crack down. Now Arthur Sinodinos, I’ll start with you, the legislation that’s been introduced into the Parliament really just gives the Government the ability to monitor and enforce compliance with the law, because at the moment they don’t have that. What exactly is wrong with that as an idea?

Arthur Sinodinas:             I think what’s wrong with this is the context. I mean, we’ve had something like a record number of 457 visas issues under this Government, the program’s been going for years and years including five or six years under this Government and all of a sudden, close to an election, people start worrying about Aussie jobs being taken away. The coincidence is just too much. I mean, I think that Minister O’Connor has been caught out contriving to create a scandal and an issue by concocting some numbers around how many of these visas are allegedly being misused. I saw the report on the ABC the other night on the 7:30 Report about what might be happening in the IT sector. My view of that has always been, and that was always about one company that was the focus of the report, and then the implication is what? That you generalise from that and say that the whole program is being rorted? I mean, that one of the -

Waleed Aly:                        - Isn’t that the implication just that rorting does happen and therefor it makes sense that there’s some sort of mechanism in place for policing it?

Arthur Sinodinos:             But my point is they’ve been monitoring this program for years and what? They’ve only just realised now that there’s possibly a little bit of rorting going on? I’ve no doubt that any program might involve an element of rorting but certainly nothing along the lines of what O’Connor tried to concoct in his own office to suggest that this was such a wide-spread problem. Essentially what’s been done here is that they’ve been stung by the success of the Coalition in raising the whole issue around asylum seekers and they’ve looked for a way to get back into that debate and they think this is the way to do it. That’s the bottom line of this and it’s not very edifying stuff, and the Minister is just basically doing whatever it takes to try and make an issue out of it.

Waleed Aly:                        Andrew Leigh?

Andrew Leigh:                  I think Arthur is being overly harsh in suggesting this is pure politics, Waleed. The Migration Council did a survey of 457 visa holders and they asked them whether employers had been meeting their obligations and whether they were getting equal working conditions with Australians. Five per cent said their employers weren’t meeting their obligations, 7 per cent said they weren’t getting equal working conditions with Australians, and from a pool of about 190,000 primary and secondary 457 visa holders that gives you something in the order of 10,000 457 visa holders who themselves said their employers weren’t meeting appropriate obligations or weren’t getting appropriate working conditions with Australians. So you want to keep that figure in perspective; yes, it’s five, seven per cent. But on the other hand it’s 10,000 people whose employers don’t seem to be meeting the rules of the program. And you’ve got to have these rules properly enforced otherwise I think you erode public confidence in the migration system.

Waleed Ally:                       That does raise the question that Arthur Sinodinos has asked, which is why you would move on this now? You’ve had six years in government, three years since the last election. If it’s a serious issue, if it’s significant enough to make the song and dance about it that we’re seeing in trying to push legislation into Parliament in the last session before the election, why leave it so late?

Andrew Leigh:                  Well the Migration Council report that I’m referring to has just recently come down and so this is a matter of fine tuning the program to make sure that it’s got appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Arthur and I are two extremely strong supporters of migration, but we would both share the view that without good enforcement of migration rules, you risk eroding public confidence within the entire system. So that’s what this is aimed at doing. The Migration Council themselves recommended that in the case where 457 workers weren’t being properly treated, that there ought to be some look at enforcement by employer peak bodies, the ACTU and the government. So I regard this as flowing out of that. You know, I was marching on the weekend with the Walk Together folks recognising the great benefits that Australia has gotten from migration in the post-World War II era. I was very proud to be part of that march and I don’t see any inconsistency between that and trying to get proper enforcement to make sure that 457 visa holders are looked after.

Waleed Aly:                        The question of the rhetoric that surrounds it and Arthur this brings me to a really interesting point with respect to the Coalition I know when you lost the election in 2007, you were one of the wise-heads that came out of that to explain that and one of the points you made was that the Coalition’s rhetorical position had not been inclusive of all the diversity here in Australia and at times had been divisive. Do you think that the rhetoric -

Arthur Sinodinos:             - Did I say that in 2007, did I?

Waleed Aly:                        I think you did!



Andrew Leigh:                  How these words come back to haunt you!

Waleed Aly:                        Feel free to dispute it but if you don’t dispute it, do you think the Coalition’s rhetorical settings, particularly on an issue such as asylum seekers, have really changed at all?

Arthur Sinodinos:             This is a real paradox. People just say this is an issue of wedge politics but in fact it goes to a point Andrew was making in the context of 457s, if it looks like you can’t control your borders, and we can have a big debate about numbers involved and all the rest of it, it does undermine support for the migration program. So, if the greater good is to have a strong and hopefully rising immigration program you want to deal with the issues that otherwise give people reservations about having a large program. And that, I think this is a really important point, my point about divisiveness versus inclusiveness is at every stage you should try, the best way to get people onside and earn their loyalty is to make them feel included, and so, you know, the idea of simply dividing the Australian population whether it’s class, gender, one race against another is equally abhorrent.

Andrew Leigh:                  I certainly share that view.

Waleed Aly:                        Mmm, it’s just interesting because the allegations are of different, but perhaps of equal dog whistle, aren’t they?

Andrew Leigh:                  Arthur is right to suggest that you want to be very careful accusing anyone of racism in these debates and also to maintain a strong tenure of respect. The language around ‘illegals’ that some members of Arthur’s party have used has been unfortunate. I’m fairly sure he doesn’t use that language, and I think that’s an important marker. It’s not illegal to seek asylum in another country, and we want to be very measured and balanced in everything we say about migration.

Waleed Aly:                        Well it seems that either of you can see the dog whistle on the other side politics and in your hearts of hearts; can you recognise it within your own?

Andrew Leigh:                  There are two pitches of dog whistles you think, Waleed? We’re uniquely attuned to the wrong pitch?

Waleed Aly:                        Yes, well they seem a semi-tone apart and it’s awful to listen to.

Arthur Sinodinos:             No, no, no, my point is that we have to be careful to maintain the overall support for the immigration program. I don’t think the way to do that is to deal with the issues that potentially can undermine it. So it’s not about dog whistling, it’s about dealing with issues that can deal with the greater good that you’re seeking to encourage.

Waleed Aly:                        Sure, sure, but you don’t call asylum seekers ‘illegal’ when they’re not.

Arthur Sinodinos:             Look, look, that to be honest, that debate rose in the context where, it’s not illegal to seek asylum, but the question was it was illegal to land, you know, without papers and authority and everything else. You can get into all sorts of semantics about this, so I just call them asylum seekers or boat people or the rest of it and people know what you’re talking about and we just go from there.

Waleed Aly:                        Yes, I wonder if they know what you’re talking about when you say “illegals” as your boss does, though?

Arthur Sinodinos:             He’s, I think, tried to clarify the context in which that happened

Waleed Aly:                        Ok, we’ll await further clarification. Gentlemen, it’s been wonderful to have you putting on your armour again and going in to fight for us, well joust, I’m not going to say fight because it’s been a little more dignified than that.

Arthur Sinodinos:             I think on the same side today!

Waleed Aly:                        Yeah! It’s good. Lovely to hear two erudite men..

Arthur Sinodinos:             Against the interviewer!

Andrew Leigh:                  Exactly. Exactly.

Waleed Aly:                        Well I just got a text: “lovely to hear two erudite men discussing policy. Well done Waleed and team.” It’s nothing to do with me. You’re the knights in shining armour, so thank you. Thank you so much for your contributions, we’ll have to do it again soon.

Arthur Sinodinos:             Thanks.

Andrew Leigh:                  Thanks Waleed.

I spoke in parliament tonight about the need to reduce cyberbullying.

Reducing Cyberbullying, 24 June 2013

Bullying has long posed a challenge for schools, parents, workplaces and, most significantly, its victims. It also poses a challenge for us legislators, and it is a challenge the Gillard government has sought to address through initiatives such as the National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence, through directing more than $20 million to the Fair Work Commission to provide victims of workplace bullying with a quick and effective way to resolve bullying at work and prevent it ever happening again.

But, as online communications become increasingly prevalent in our offices, our schools and our social lives, it is clear that combating bullying needs to adjust to take this new dimension into account. It is especially important we recognise the safety and security needs of young people, who are growing up in a world with greater digital use than any previous generation.

As a parent, I recognise that the use of the internet my three little boys engage in is vastly different from my own. They have never known a world without ubiquitous internet. To them, being able to touch the screen of a device is just what you do. The ease with which my four-year-old comfortably navigates the internet sometimes sends a shiver down my spine.

That is going to present my three little boys with opportunities I cannot pretend to foresee, but it will also bring new threats. Between Facebook, Vine, Twitter, YouTube and Snapchat, there is a rapidly developing world of online communication. We have to embrace those technological developments while at the same time doing what we can to safeguard the security of users now and into the future.

Bullying may be an old problem, but cyberbullying is different in a number of important ways. Firstly, it provides a degree of anonymity to the perpetrators, meaning they can behave with more aggression and malice than they may dare to in person. A famous study by researchers at the University of Texas, Austin paired up young university students and just asked them to engage in conversations over email. By the end, the researchers were stunned at the extent to which these otherwise placid young university students had begun to engage in conversations that were either lewd or rude. We know that cyberbullying can occur 24/7. We also know that it is nearly impossible to escape. We know it can reach a far more public arena and that online activity can quickly be shared with a larger audience than was possible with bullying in the past.

The Labor government takes the issue of cyberbullying very seriously. In 2008, this government committed $126 million towards a range of cybersafety programs targeted at informing and educating young people as part of our broader cybersafety plan. The government's cybersafety plan is combatting online risks to children. It is helping parents and educators protect children from inappropriate material and inappropriate contacts while online.

The funding supports measures for cybersafety support, education, awareness-raising initiatives and law enforcement, such as funding for the expansion of the Australian Federal Police Child Protection Operations team to detect and investigate online child sex exploitation, funding to increase the capacity of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure prosecutions are handled efficiently and funding for education and awareness-raising through the Think U Know program, which aims to assist parents and children to deal with the risks posed by online predators.

I particularly acknowledge the Youth Advisory Group, some of whom met last year with Minister Stephen Conroy and me at Amaroo School to discuss their inputs into making sure that these cybersafety advances by the government are appropriate and useful to young people. That Youth Advisory Group helped to develop online tools, such as the Cybersafety Help Button and the Easy Guide to Socialising Online website. The government has also provided funding for the Australian Communications and Media Authority's Cybersmart program, which is a national cybersafety and cybersecurity education program.

All this investment is based on some pretty concerning research. Studies undertaken by the ACMA and partly released on 19 March 2013 have found that 14- to 15-year-olds are the most vulnerable to cyberbullying. Thankfully, they are also the most likely to stand up and speak out about it. The research indicates that more than one in five 14- to 15-year-olds have experienced cyberbullying. It shows that levels of cyberbullying among Australian children remain generally steady, despite increases in online participation. That is a good thing.

That indicates that the cybersafety messages underpinning programs such ACMA's Cybersmart program are getting through to the people they are intended to help. The ACMA's research also indicates that eight to 11-year-olds use more than two devices to access the internet. While computers are still the main point of access, a quarter have gone online using a mobile phone and half have accessed the internet using another kind of mobile device, such as a tablet or gaming device.

Thirty five per cent of eight- to 11-year-olds have their own mobile phone, rising to 94 per cent of 16- to 17-year-olds. Recent research by Pew has indicated that young Americans are essentially now plugged in for every moment that they are not sleeping or in school.

Industry and organisations are coming together to address issues of cyberbullying and cybersafety. Organisations like McAfee are engaging in research, education and awareness raising. McAfee's research which Minister Conroy launched on 21 May 2013 was released as part of the 2013 National Cybersecurity Awareness Week which was 20 to 24 May. The research tells us that education needs to start early. On average young people are using many more internet enabled devices. The McAfee research tells us that one in five tweens have chatted to a stranger online and six per cent of teens have met up with a stranger. That is a statistic that would cause great fear for many Australian parents.

Professor Donna Cross of Edith Cowan University has completed a landmark study on cyberbullying commissioned by the government. She reports that children who had been bullied are much more likely to suffer depression and anxiety. Professor Cross said:

‘We know that probably the most significant effects on children who've been bullied are effects in their mental health. They're much more likely to feel depressed, anxious, their self-esteem is affected. There are some students that report suicide ideation. It has very serious immediate effects and long-term effects.’

Twenty thousand Australian school children were surveyed using a combination of anonymous questionnaires and interviews. According to that survey work, about 10 per cent of young people reported they were being cyberbullied. This government has done the research, we have recognised the problem, and we are acting on it. It is terrific to see the coalition now adopting similar policies in the fields of cybersafety and cyberbullying.

To quote Dr Judith Slocombe, the chief executive of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation: ‘there is no difference between someone who bullies online and one who bullies face-to-face. They are just using different methods. They both can cause enormous harm.’

It is important we talk about those issues because online communications are developing rapidly. Rollout of Labor's National Broadband Network - fibre to the home for 93 per cent of Australians and ubiquitous broadband for the whole population - is happening fast. Last Friday I was in Gungahlin with Minister Conroy to see nearly 11,000 new Gungahlin homes switched on to the National Broadband Network. People in Amaroo, Ngunnawal, Palmerston and Mitchell now join the nearly 15,000 Canberrans in and around Gungahlin that are enjoying superfast broadband. By mid-2016, construction in the ACT will have commenced or be complete to 180,300 homes and businesses. Gungahlin is also leading the country with the sheer number of premises that are signing up to the National Broadband Network. In an area switched on only six months ago more than half the population has signed up for an NBN service. In another area that has only been switched on for three months take-up of the National Broadband Network is already 40 per cent. The myth that the opposition peddles that no-one wants the National Broadband Network is being disproved every single day in the ACT and all across Australia.

[email protected]

Australians come up to me in my mobile office, my community forums and when I am doorknocking and they never ask me, 'Why are we getting fibre to the home?' The question they ask me is, 'When do I get fibre to the home?' Australians recognise the importance of fibre to the home and we recognise the importance of a cybersafety plan to make sure Australians are safe online.

I spoke in parliament tonight about the sad news that Australia has lost our 40th soldier in Afghanistan.

Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird MG, 24 June 2013

Tonight this parliament pays tribute to Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird MG, a member of the Special Operations Task Group from the 2nd Commando Regiment based in Holsworthy Barracks. Corporal Baird was killed in action by small arms fire during a firefight with Afghan insurgents on Saturday in the Khod Valley. He was noted for his leadership, his spirit and his unwavering respect for his colleagues. Corporal Baird was an experienced and decorated special forces soldier. This was his fifth tour of Afghanistan, and this relatively young man had also served in Iraq and East Timor. He died aged just 32.

Among the many honours that Corporal Baird received was the Medal for Gallantry for actions during close-quarters combat in Afghanistan on Operation Slipper. When his platoon came under heavy fire during a close-range firefight in the initial clearance phase of the operation, then Lance Corporal Baird took his team to recover their wounded members and took them to a position of cover. Following this, he was able to lead his team to re-engage with the enemy and successfully complete the clearance. ADF chief General David Hurley described Corporal Baird as an iconic figure within the ADF. He said:

‘In combat and as a team commander, he was the man to watch and was never happier than when the situation demanded decisive action and courage.’

In the past Australia has been very clear about our commitment to Afghanistan. Our efforts, as other speakers have noted, have come with a heavy price. We have lost 40 ADF members, and 254 personnel have been wounded.

Australia's operations in Afghanistan have been a long and often gruelling commitment. We have invested a great amount of resources, equipment and, most significantly, personnel in these efforts. That work included the special task force deployment—around 150 personnel in the wake of 9-11 and then, in September 2005, the Special Operations Task Group of 190. To this task we also committed two Army CH47 Chinook helicopters and 110 personnel. The next year, a 240-strong reconstruction task force, with an extra 150 personnel to follow. 2007 saw the redeployment of around 300 Australian special forces personnel to Uruzgan. The ADF peak deployment was expected to be 1,000 personnel in mid-2008—a combination of the reconstruction task force, their protection company group, the Special Operations Task Group and RAAF air surveillance.

Our strategy placed a great emphasis on training and mentoring the Afghan National Army in Uruzgan province in early 2008, in recognition of the need for the government of Afghanistan to build its own security forces and take charge of its citizens' ongoing security. Australia therefore deployed a 50-person operational mentoring and liaison team, and that brought our total personnel supporting Australian operations in Afghanistan to around 1,100. This was again increased in 2009, bringing the personnel to 1,550, which included extra support for projects run by the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force and by the election support force. We have been working closely with the US, Singapore and Slovakia, as well as the civilian director of the Uruzgan Provincial Reconstruction Team. It was my pleasure last week to have lunch as part of a group meeting with the finance minister of Afghanistan, Dr Omar Zakhilwal, and he noted the willingness with which Australian forces worked in Uruzgan province, one of the least developed provinces in Afghanistan.

Last October we assumed management of the transitional process from the United States, making it now our duty to assist these responsibilities to move to Afghan security control. It is a huge responsibility and, as we have been recently and tragically reminded, one that carries inherent risk for our personnel. In November the Australian government announced that all four infantry Kandaks of the ANA 4th Brigade in Uruzgan province were operating independently without the need for Australian advisers. With this development, the ADF was able to transfer control of joint forward operating bases and patrol bases to the 4th Brigade.

In March this year the Prime Minister and defence minister welcomed the decision by the International Security Assistance Force to close multinational base Tarin Kot in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan by the end of 2014. That decision to draw down and close the base indicates that we are now transitioning to full Afghan-led security forces. We have to continue the transition but we need to also be aware of the challenges that remain. The Taliban continue to target the ANSF and the Afghan authorities. Propaganda motivated attacks, particularly suicide bomb attacks, are still widespread, as we have seen in Kabul. These attacks are part of operating in a counterinsurgency environment.

This morning Minister Warren Snowdon, shadow minister Senator Michael Ronaldson, the member for Canberra and I spoke at a ceremony to mark the Boer War Memorial. It was remarked by a number of speakers at that event that, like Afghanistan, the Boer War was a conflict that saw Australians operating in a counterinsurgency environment, an environment that is extremely risky, an environment that leads to loss of life, as with the 40 brave Australians that we mourn today.

I pay tribute to Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird. I offer my condolences to his parents, his brother and his partner. I again echo the words of General Hurley, 'We share their loss and we feel their pain, and we will support them through the difficult days ahead.' His sacrifice will not be forgotten.

Remarks at the opening of the National Arboretum playground

22 June 2013

Check Against Delivery

[Acknowledgments omitted]

I’m here today representing Federal Minister Catherine King, who I think perhaps has the best excuse in history for not being at an event: it is Catherine’s son’s 5^th birthday today.

So she is organising his 5^th birthday and I think if ever there was a reason to miss a playground opening, then that’s a pretty darn good one.

There are some events for a federal politician that aren’t so family friendly.

I was out doorknocking Kaleen this morning, and I’ve got to say when I asked my three little boys if anyone would like to join me, I didn’t get any hands going up in the air.

But for the Leigh family, being here is pretty special.

My middle son Theodore had a one-word description of this play space: he said it’s ‘great’.

And like Katy [Gallagher], I suspect I will be back on a very regular basis.

Gweneth’s work at the Arboretum really means that she has a love for this place.

But I wanted to say a bit too about the evolution of the playground, because I think the structure behind me really illustrates what an extraordinary journey play spaces have been on.

In order to have playgrounds, you had to first have childhood.

For most of human history, you didn’t really have a thing called childhood.

People were young adults, who weren’t ready to work, and then when they were ready to work they were sent off into the fields or into the factories.

And finally in the 19^th century that we get the idea of play – the notion that there should be a period known as childhood, where kids really explore opportunities.

In 1859, the first playground is opened in Manchester.

And playgrounds steadily expand around the world, and there was a huge explosion of playgrounds in Australia after World War II.

And now we’re seeing what I regard as the next stage of playgrounds, because we’ve got a big challenge in Australia now with childhood obesity, with more and more kids living sedentary lifestyles.

Part of that is because of technology – those electronic games, the PlayStations and the Xboxes – are just getting better and better. And so the only way to fight that, I reckon, is for the playgrounds to get better and better.

So what you see over here is technology’s response to the Xbox.

This is playground designers saying ‘Fine, if you’re going to build some amazing electronic games, we are going to build you the most phenomenal playground you’ve ever seen.’

And it’s fitting that there’s acorns in there, because acorns – as you know – are those little things from which huge things grow.

And a great playground does the same thing, it’s a space in which children can have the opportunity to start off having that activity and doing that play that is so critical to evolving into a stronger person.

This playground is unusual – it’s got federal funding.

I know many Australians would regard the Commonwealth Government as already devoting a fair bit of money towards games that are played in Canberra.

But this is, I think, a fairly unusual initiative.

And the Federal Government’s done that because we believe this National Arboretum for all Australians.

This is going to be a spot where Australians come and say ‘this is my National Arboretum, in my national capital.

It’s got trees from around the world and it’s got a playground unlike any other.’

It’ll be a space for the whole family, and I’m delighted with Katy today opening this extraordinary playground.

Thank you very much.

TRANSCRIPT – 'BREAKING POLITICS' WITH TIM LESTER
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
24 June 2013

Topics:                         Leadership, Coalition’s plan for northern Australia



http://media.smh.com.au/news/national-times/bring-on-the-policy-debate-4514917.html

Tim Lester:                          Kelly O’Dwyer, Andrew Leigh, thank you for coming in this morning. Andrew Leigh, what should Kevin Rudd do for Labor’s and the country’s best benefit this week?

Andrew Leigh: Well Kevin has clearly said, Tim, that there’s no circumstances in which he believes he could lead the Labor Party to the next election. We have a Prime Minister and I think the important thing is to be focussed on the policy differences between the major parties.

Tim Lester:                          So, Kevin’s said enough in terms of ruling himself out for leadership? He doesn’t need to be clearer in that regard?

Andrew Leigh: I think he has and I think that if there’s a choice in Australian politics it’s a choice between parties. I suspect this is an issue with which Kelly would agree with me: there are big differences between the parties. In my view, an Opposition which doesn’t have an education policy, a health policy, whose Northern Australia plan is a rehash of things that are already happening, and whose broadband plan delivers fibre to a cabinet down the street rather than fibre to your home. They’re big questions in Australian politics and they’re ones that deserve greater scrutiny.

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Surprisingly though, I don’t agree with you. I know you’re going to find this shocking…

Andrew Leigh: You don’t think the big differences in Australia are between the parties?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  I think your analysis is somewhat off, but the point I would make is this: there is clearly extraordinary dysfunction in the Labor Party right now. It’s the third year anniversary of Julia Gillard taking over from Kevin Rudd, the ‘faceless men’ installing her; they openly declared this on Lateline three years ago. She said that she was going to fix a number of problems facing Australia. On each of those three things; on the economy, on the mining tax, on boats, she has most abysmally failed. She has divided caucus, she has divided Shadow, well I was going to say Shadow Cabinet but it is actually the Cabinet that’s, they’re behaving like a Shadow Cabinet…

[Tim Lester:                        Give it time]

Andrew Leigh: This is measuring the curtains going on already, Tim.

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  No, no, no, they’re behaving, though, like a Shadow Cabinet. They’re behaving as though they are in opposition rather than in government because they take no responsibility for any of the decisions that they make. I take your point though, that there are clear differences between the Opposition and the Government. One is competent, one is incompetent. You have got a Coalition that knows how to handle an economy, knows how to handle a budget. We have seen this current Treasurer deliver five budget deficits. We are going to go past the $300 billion gross debt ceiling – a ceiling he said we would never reach, a ceiling he has increased from $75 billion. We are paying interest bills now of $8 billion a year. I mean, this is incompetence writ large.

Tim Lester:                          Ok, pretty standard political positions from you both. But just on the question, dare I ask you to counsel Labor, Kelly, but what does Kevin Rudd need to do to give Labor, and give the country frankly, the certainty it needs?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Go to an election.

Tim Lester:                          But should he stand up and fight the leadership? Is there a time to ‘put up or shut up’ here, or isn’t it that simple?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Well look, I wouldn’t actually give the Labor Party any advice other than this: the Australian people are sick of the farce, they’re sick of the soap opera, they’re sick of incompetence in government and they’re sick of a Prime Minister who is totally focussed on trying to keep her own job rather than concerned about the Australian people. They want to go to an election right now to ensure that we have certainty in our government and to restore confidence so that business can get on with what it does best which is growing our economy and employing people.

Tim Lester:                          Andrew Leigh, you want a…

Andrew Leigh: Well I just understand certainly why the Coalition are banging this ‘election now’ drum; it’s because they hope to skate into power without proper scrutiny of their policies and there are massive policy differences. The tax rise the Coalition would impose on the superannuation of low wage workers would cost a childcare worker $75,000 in lost savings over the course of their career…

[Kelly O’Dwyer:                Because of your borrowing, those children are going to be paying increased taxes for generations to come.]

Andrew Leigh: …And in the case where Kelly’s spoken about economic management, if you look at the savings made in the last five Labor budgets there’s eight times the savings made in the last five Howard budgets…

[Kelly O’Dwyer:                You’ve increased the [inaudible] more than $100 billion a year]

Andrew Leigh: …The difference is a global financial crisis and significant revenue write-downs seeing the tax as a share of GDP fall from 24 per cent to 22 per cent.

Tim Lester:                          Ok, just a couple of quick wrap up issues on the leadership question. This morning, the Australian has a Newspoll that mirrors last week’s Nielson poll, and Fairfax papers have a piece in which Gillard backers argue that actually the problem in the polls at the moment is that there is the focus on Kevin Rudd. Leadership is damaging Labor in the polls, do you agree?

Andrew Leigh:                   Certainly I think the Coalition are the favourites at the moment and we are the underdogs. That’s reflected in Kelly’s comments suggesting Labor already has a Shadow Cabinet. And that sheer arrogance that characterise the Coalition…

[Kelly O’Dwyer:                No, I’m saying you’re behaving like an opposition is what I’m suggesting]

Andrew Leigh: …Certainly I think if you look at the track record of this Government: 586 Bills passed through the House of Representatives, a price on carbon pollution (which the experts agree with), a Murray-Darling Basin plan finally settled after over a century of argy-bargy, and a seat on the UN Security Council thanks to assiduous diplomatic work. These are big and important achievements.

Tim Lester:                          Ok, can I ask you both, our paper the Age, Fairfax media’s the Age, dared to editorialise at the weekend that Labor should change leaders from Gillard to Rudd. First you, Andrew, was that a fair thing for a major daily newspaper like the Age to do?

Andrew Leigh: I don’t think most people take their cues from editorials and I think that is true also of the Labor caucus. Prime Minister Gillard will lead us to the next election.

Tim Lester:                          As an enlightened Member of Parliament from Melbourne, what did you think of your daily newspaper doing that, Kelly O’Dwyer?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Well I think it certainly made a splash, but look, it’s a matter for the Age to determine its own editorial policy so I’ll leave it at that, I think.

Tim Lester:                          The Coalition’s ‘Developing Northern Australia Plan’ was released last week. What evidence do you see that a change of plan like this, an emphasis on the north can double the country’s agricultural output?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Well absolutely this is part of the vision for the future of Australia, and for northern Australia. For too long it has been ignored, too long have we seen people not make decisions in the national interest. What we’ve said is that we need a plan for northern Australia; we need to have a proper infrastructure plan that survives not one, not two but more than three elections time.

Tim Lester:                          Plan? Or pie in the sky?

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  No, no, no, you’ve got to have a vision and a plan for northern Australia before you can implement it and that’s what we’ve said, we’ve said that we need to actually have this discussion underway. We need to ensure that we work together with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, with the State Premiers in the north to get the right infrastructure so that we can capitalise on our competitive advantages as a country. We know that we are a clean and green agricultural producer; we know that we are going to see increased demand from Asia; this is something that Australia can greatly benefit from if we put the right infrastructure in place.

Tim Lester:                          Andrew Leigh, plan? Or pie in the sky?

Andrew Leigh: I certainly agree with Kelly about the importance of infrastructure spending. That’s why if you look at infrastructure spending under this Government, road spending is double the Howard Government level, rail spending four times the Howard Government level. I think perhaps the most enlightening thing that you can learn about this policy is that it recommends the creation of a set of ministerial meetings that already happen. If Mr Abbott spent a little bit more time using Google and a little bit less time coming up with catchy slogans he might actually realise that what he’s recommending out of all this already exists.

Tim Lester:                          What, that this kind of planning is already down the track?

Andrew Leigh: Absolutely, there’s a strong focus on the importance of Northern Australia. There are ministerial meetings taking place and the strategy of improving our food exports to Asia is one that’s at the core of the government’s Australia in the Asian Century White Paper.

Tim Lester:                          Andrew Leigh, Kelly O’Dwyer thank you for coming in this morning.

Kelly O’Dwyer:                  Great to be with you.

Andrew Leigh: Thanks Tim. Thanks Kelly.