Andrew Leigh

I spoke in parliament today about the need to retain the Mineral Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) as Labor is committed to spreading the benefits of the mining boom. I look back at the history of taxing resources and its broad support across many and perhaps surprising quarters.

It is my pleasure to rise on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013, which repeals a profits based mining tax in Australia. It is useful to step through some of the history as to how Australia came to this point. In the late 1980s a profits based petroleum resource rent tax was put in place. It was criticised by many of the same voices that criticise this mining tax on the grounds that it did not raise very much revenue in the early years, but the petroleum resource rent tax has now raised billions of dollars and is an established part of the Australian taxation system.

When the Henry review called for submissions it was the Minerals Council of Australia that put forward a submission to the Henry review arguing in favour of a profits based mining tax. The Minerals Council of Australia did so because profits based taxation is just a more efficient way of taxing resources. If we compare the early part to the late part of the mining boom—say, 2000 to 2007—we will see that the Australian taxpayer in the early period was getting one dollar in three in taxes from mining and in the late period was getting one dollar in seven. That is because, under a royalties regime, when the world price goes up taxpayers get none of that benefit. They get the volume effect but not the price effect. If the increase in that world price was somehow due to the ingenuity of Australia's miners then that might be defensible, but it turns out that world prices are out of the hands of our miners. They are ingenious in many ways but they do not control the world price.

So just as the Eureka Stockade, as the member for Bass referred to, was a revolt for fairer taxation of miners, taking the view that royalties would be fairer than mining licences, so too this Labor government put in place a fairer scheme of taxing resource revenues. A profits based tax is a fairer approach than a royalties based scheme. This is not something that ought to be a Labor versus coalition divide. Indeed, Sarah Palin made her name as the Governor of Alaska championing profits based resource taxation. It is just a smarter way of taxing resources and its impact comes not only in the boom when taxpayers see a larger share of the revenue but also in the lean times when the effective burden of taxation falls.

We have seen over recent years benefits of the boom flowing to Australians. The member for Bass, the former speaker, was quite right to note that there have been benefits to Australians of the mining boom flowing through, such as cheaper prices for many of our imports, but the mining boom has also placed pressure on the Australian economy, particularly on the manufacturing sector and the higher education sector, which is the sector I worked in before coming to parliament, where a high Australian dollar has made it tough to attract international students.

It is certainly true that previous mining booms and the resource shocks of the 1950s and 1970s pretty much blew the place up. We saw high inflation and the risks of unemployment that were with that. The Australian economy did not suffer those sorts of shocks in this mining boom but it did suffer some considerable stresses and I think many Australians felt it would be fair if mining firms paid a larger share of their revenue in tax.

The House economics committee held an inquiry into the MRRT bill when it came before the parliament. As part of that inquiry we interviewed Mr Julian Tapp from Fortescue Metals Group. I asked Mr Tapp about the corporate tax paid by FMG, which was then a $20 billion company. I asked:

But, in terms of corporate tax paid, it would not be correct to describe Mr Forrest as a taxpayer, would it?

The response was:

Mr Forrest is not a company; Fortescue Metals Group is the company.

I then asked:

But, as things currently stand, it would not be correct to describe—

The reply was:

We have not cut a corporate tax cheque to date, no.

So FMG, despite describing itself as a taxpayer, was not at that point a corporate taxpayer. I think this raised a concern in the minds of many Australians as to why immensely profitable firms should not be making a contribution to the broader Australian good.

We heard, when the MRRT bill came before this parliament a little over two years ago, from the member for North Sydney. The member for North Sydney foresaw it as follows:

This is a bad tax. It will reduce investment and jobs. It will reduce the wealth and retirement incomes of everyday Australians. It will hamper Australia in global competition for scarce capital and jobs. It will reduce investment and jobs. It will reduce the wealth of retirement incomes of everyday Australians. It will hamper Australia global competition with scarce capital of jobs.

He went on to talk about everything from locusts to the plague. To assess those claims we simply have to look at the numbers. Let us look at estimates of expenditure on annual private minerals exploration: 2009-10, $5.7 billion; 2012-13, $7.8 billion. If we ask ourselves are Australians poorer now than they were when the mining tax was introduced, we find the answer again to be a resounding no. Australians' wealth levels have increased significantly.

In this debate the Treasurer would have you believe that this is the only tax whose repeal will make the public finances better off. Somehow the Treasurer has discovered magic pudding economics, through which he can repeal a tax and add money to the government coffers. The fact is the Treasury costings—this is the Treasurer, so they are effectively his costings—put the lost revenue from getting rid of a profits-based mining tax somewhere in the order of $4 billion. Now if the Treasurer wants to stand at the opposite dispatch box and disavow the costings of his own department, if he wants to say that in fact somehow this is a miraculous tax that will raise a negative amount over the forward estimates, I would be fascinated to hear that exercise. Frankly, like every other tax, if you repeal it you will leave the public finances worse off.

At the same time as the Treasurer is repealing a tax whose burden falls on some of the wealthiest shareholders in the world, he is cutting back the income support bonus, cutting away the Schoolkids Bonus, which is a means-tested program that helps Australian families with the cost of education. I agree with the member for Jagajaga on this: the government should have had the courage to introduce this bill not as the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013, but as the 'Minerals Resource Rent Tax repeal and the Schoolkids Bonus repeal and the low income superannuation contribution repeal and the hit to small business and the hit to income support bill 2013'. Were this government to honestly name its bills, then that is what it would be.

This bill concerns me as somebody who is pretty passionate about inequality. I believe that, as I said in my first speech in this place, too much inequality strains the social fabric and threatens to tear us one from another. That a bill which on the one hand delivers an effective cut to unemployment benefits, and on the other hand delivers a huge benefit at the same time to those at the top of the income spectrum is fundamentally against Australian values. Australians value the fair go. We believe that we are a people who ought to work together. That was the principle of the Eureka Stockade, which was invoked by the previous speaker in this debate, the member for Bass, and it is a principle which I believe runs through the Australian social compact. We are a country that does not like tipping, we sit in the front seat of taxis, we believe in the fair go, and we have a tradition of calling one another 'mate' and not calling one another 'sir'. And yet, this bill will probably do more to widen the gap between rich and poor than any bill that has been brought before the parliament over the past decade.

This is a bill which will take us backwards into a system of taxing mining and royalties, which we know not to be efficient. When Labor considered the issue of mining taxation, we listened to the experts. We looked around at best practice for tackling taxation, and it struck us that the approach taken in the PRRT, a profits-based approach, was a fair approach. That represents a rebalancing of the tax scale, and I do want to quote from an excellent new book, Ross Garnaut's Dog Days: Australia After the Boom, in which Professor Garnaut laments:

More and more of the load is carried by income taxpayers with limited opportunities for avoiding taxation, is economically distorting, unfair and probably politically unsustainable.

That is what we are seeing with this bill and with the carbon price repeal bill. Under Labor, we reduced the tax burden on workers, we increased the tax paid by polluters and we increased the tax paid in a profits-based way by mining companies. But if you are to decrease the tax rates on mining companies, if you are to decrease the tax rates on polluters, then effectively the burden will be higher upon wage earners. This is a tax shift, but it is a tax shift in the wrong direction. It is a tax shift that sees Australians pay a higher burden of income tax because if you are not going to ask big miners and big polluters to pay their fair share, then Australian households will have to pay more.

It comes in the context of a confected budget crisis. The Treasurer has come into this House with all kinds of stories about spendthrift ways and spiders—I think some days he thinks he is still over this side of the table.

But the fact is that, in the 2012-13 budget—we have seen the final budget outcome released recently—we saw a reduction in real spending of 3.2 per cent and a reduction in nominal spending of one per cent. Stephen Koukoulas has pointed out that a one per cent reduction in nominal spending has never happened before in Australia. That is an unprecedented reduction in government spending. So, when those opposite confect these budget crises—by giving $9 billion to the Reserve Bank that they do not need, by giving a tax cut to large mining companies that they do not need—they are effectively hurting future generations.

I spoke before about the politics of profits based mining taxes. I have given you an egalitarian argument for it, as I would, as a member of the Labor Party. But there is a more conservative, Burkean argument for fair mining taxation too. As Burke said, we are not just here for those generations now alive; we are informed by the generations that have gone before us and by the generations to come. If we tax mining revenue unfairly, then we short-change the generations to come and we hurt the future generations of Australians who will not have the minerals and will not have the proceeds from fair taxation. So even a Burkean should oppose the bill before the House today.

The minerals resource rent tax is a tax which I am sure could be improved. If there were reasonable proposals coming forward from the government about ways of improving the operations of the tax, we on this side of the House would be happy to have those conversations about how to better integrate state and federal regimes. But to simply abolish the tax is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is to leave Australia a little less fair, a little less egalitarian and a little poorer than it was before we found it.

I spoke in parliament about Canberra's strong community spirit, and the 50th birthday parties for two of my local communities - Watson and Hackett.

Suburbia is an oft maligned word in Australia, but our suburban communities here in the ACT are something to be proud of. As part of the Canberra centenary, Canberra has been celebrating the unique character, the history of our local communities. As the Parties at the Shops grouping as part of the Canberra centenary has noted, Canberra is probably the only city in the world where you have to have road signs to find the shops, secluded as they are from our leafy avenues.

I want to speak about two celebrations in my electorate. The 50th birthday of the Hackett community on 21 and 22 September was a celebration which brought out Canberra City Band's John Agnew Band, a Reminiscing Corner with early photographs, including from now closed Hackett school.

Hackett Community Association members Greg Haughey, James Walker, Bruce Smith, Terry de Luca, Kay Murphy, Lorraine Mason, Jenny Pierson, Erika Alacs, John Carty and Marian Williams should be commended for their hard work in making the Hackett celebrations such a success. As James Walker noted:

'There are still people here who moved in in 1962, '63, ' 64. We're also organising reminiscing sessions …'

He went on:

'When we were looking to buy when we moved to Canberra, as soon as we looked at Hackett we knew we wanted to be here.'

…  …  …

'The suburb was largely founded for defence people, CSIRO, ANU—so many people were ripped from their previous lives and moved here and had to sort of band together. A tradition has grown up that you know your neighbours and are aware of things happening.'

It is that community spirit in a city in which people really do know their neighbours which is one of the many reasons why I am so proud to represent the ACT.

On most measures of civic life, the ACT tops Australia and indeed postcode 2602, in which Hackett is located, is the most generous postcode in Australia according to donation statistics.

Hackett's Music in the Park organised by John and Christy Murray brings together local bands in the Bragg Street Park again building the community spirit.

Another 2602 postcode is Watson which celebrated its 50th anniversary on Saturday, 16 November. I commend the Watson Community Association, including Julie Smith, Richard Larson, John Real, Gillian Helyar, and the MC for the Watson Community Association's Great Debate, Julie Derrett.

Watson is named after the first Labor Prime Minister who regrettably only served for four months. The streets of Watson are named after lawyers, and so the Watson Community Association asked lapsed lawyers Gary Humphries and me to debate the topic: 'That Federation is a Failure, Canberra is a Catastrophe and Lawyers are Laughable'.

I drew the short straw getting the affirmative case and had to do a little nimble footwork so as not to place myself in an invidious position vis a vis my constituents.

I commend too the work of the Watson Woodlands group, which is working to preserve the local community and also Julie Smith and others who have prepared a brochure on Watson and its history, going back to the 1940s with the CSIRO Dickson Experimental Station being established for agricultural research in Watson and referring also importantly to the history of the Ngunnawal people in Watson.

I believe that better knowing your community, its history and your neighbours is fundamental to our sense of self. I think we are better versions of our selves when we are better grounded in our local communities. I commend the communities of Hackett and Watson on teaching all of us more about our local communities and giving neighbours a chance to get to know neighbours. It is a city which is a great privilege to represent.

I spoke in parliament about cuts to AusAID:

Government is about choices and those choices tell us a lot about people's values. A top priority of this government is to give a $4 billion tax cut to mining billionaires. The beneficiaries will be among the world's richest people. At the same time, this government is cutting over $4 billion from aid to the world's poorest people. That cut will affect aid workers, too. We have seen this government forcibly integrate AusAID into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in a botched process with little care for the passionate development workers who have been involved. We saw a terrible initial briefing in which AusAID workers were herded like cattle into the middle of the DFAT auditorium, while those in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade looked down upon them from the atrium and one of the DFAT officials reportedly mimed machine-gunning the AusAID staff.

We have also seen this government breaking its pledge to new graduates who had accepted jobs with AusAID. There was an assurance from Minister Eric Abetz that, despite Public Service cuts, the government would continue to support graduate recruitment but that pledge has been broken. The government has terminated the contracts of about 20 graduates, many of whom had turned down offers from other agencies and had signed contracts with AusAID. Georgia BurnsWilliamson said:

'When I was first hired it was one of the most exciting days of my life. … AusAID was my dream job.'

She had quit her job as a tutor at the University of Melbourne and had passed the security clearance. She also said:

'It's like being told you've won the lottery and then someone saying, 'Oh sorry, we've made a mistake'.'

Darwin-born Michael Currie had accepted a job with AusAID and then rejected offers of graduate programs at two other government departments. He said:

'I thought I was doing the right thing telling them so they could give those offers out to the other candidates.'

Emily Hadgkiss, 27, had resigned as a researcher in public health at a hospital in Melbourne. She said:

It was a surprise to me that that decision was made.

She says she was 'aware there'd be changes and cuts' but that those were not supposed to affect the graduate program. As Georgia BurnsWilliamson put it:

'The bigger loss is all the people in developing countries who desperately need aid for basic services who are now going to miss out because there's been such a cut to the budget.'

This government has broken its promise to these young Australians and it is going to hurt the world's poorest in order to help some of the world's richest.

As the Shadow Minister for Competition I issued a short media statement today acknowledging the work done by my Labor colleagues to bring supermarkets and suppliers together to agree on a voluntary Food and Grocery Prescribed Industry Code of Conduct.

MEDIA STATEMENT



NEW FOOD AND GROCERY CODE



The Federal Opposition welcomes the work done to get key players to agree on a voluntary food and grocery code, announced today.

This process began under Labor, with considerable consultation with the sector taking place under Labor Ministers including David Bradbury, Joe Ludwig and Joel Fitzgibbon.

We are hopeful this will provide a structure for retailers and suppliers to conduct their negotiations from a position of trust.

The Opposition will monitor developments closely to see how the code works in practice, its effect on small businesses in the supply chain and what impact it has on prices at the checkout.

Thanks to Labor’s competition reforms, many supermarket prices have fallen, helping households with their cost of living. Labor will continue to closely monitor competition issues to ensure any changes by the Government do not come at a cost to consumers.

ENDS

On Sky AM Agenda, I joined Liberal MP Steve Ciobo and host Kieran Gilbert to discuss Mr Hockey's request for a no-doc $500B loan, Mr Abbott's curious statements on human rights in Sri Lanka, and the emerging split in the Coalition over foreign investment.

I spoke in parliament today about the importance of maintaining a cap on carbon pollution.

'You cannot have a climate change policy without supporting this ETS at this time.' It is a marker of how far we have gone in this debate that when I quote Tony Abbott's words from 27 November 2009 the other side interjects. Many Australians believe in the science of climate change and believe in the benefits of a market based mechanism. Yesterday in Canberra, I spoke at one of the major climate change rallies that saw 60,000 people turn out across Australia. From Wagga Wagga to Launceston to Broome to Alice Springs to Cairns and to Frankston, Australians turned out to show their commitment to strong action on climate change.

Among the other speakers were Dave Livingstone, the ACT secretary of the United Firefighters Union, Millie Telford of the AYCC, Josh Creaser from 350.org, Maria Tiimon Chi-Fang, a representative from low-lying Pacific island neighbours for whom climate change is an existential threat. And there was a representative of the Greens Party there as well.

Australians believe in the science and they want a government that will act on climate change, a government that will listen to the scientists, listen to the economists and take action.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Fraser has leave to continue his remarks.

[Debate resumed 3 hours later]

May I at the outset acknowledge a great first speech by the member for Bendigo and recognise the presence of her mother, Jenny Chesters, in the gallery: a terrific inequality scholar with whom I have had the privilege to work.

My earlier speech on this topic was interrupted at the point when I had quoted the words of the then Leader of the Opposition in support of an emissions trading scheme, followed by jeers from the other side of the House. How things have changed since 2009! It was not just the then Leader of the Opposition who was then in favour of an emissions-trading scheme. That is just starting with A.

The member for Dunkley, Bruce Billson, said in this place on 29 October 2009:

'It was actually the coalition that instigated work on the emissions trading scheme … in a report that I helped author back in 1998 which talks about regulatory arrangements for trading in greenhouse gas emissions in 1998 … The coalition's commitment to an ETS is demonstrable.'

The member for Curtin, Julie Bishop, said:

'The Liberal Party has a policy of both protecting the planet and protecting Australia. We support, in principle, an Emissions Trading Scheme.'

That was in her electorate newsletter in September 2008.

The member for Mayo, Jamie Briggs, said in this place:

'I believe an emissions trading scheme is one of the policy levers that can be used to change the energy mix in Australia.'

The member for Moncrieff, Steven Ciobo, said:

'We want to work constructively because we recognise that in the future around the world in most developed economies if not all there will be an ETS of some sort.'

That is on Sky on 21 July 2009.

The member for Bradfield, Paul Fletcher, said:

'When it comes to economic issues, my instinct is for open markets, free competition.'

He said that in this place on 9 February 2010. On ABC News on 1 December 2009 he said:

'I am supportive of the position that the parliamentary party has taken on the ETS and that remains my position.'

The member for Brisbane, Teresa Gambaro, said on 20 September 2007:

'We are also developing a world-class national emissions trading system to further drive investment in low emission technologies.'

The member for Cowper, Luke Hartsuyker, said:

'As members would be aware, the coalition has a strong record in relation to an ETS. Indeed, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, which was put in place last year—

that being 2007—

'provided the platform for the introduction of an ETS.'

That was said in this place on 27 August 2008.

The member for North Sydney, Joe Hockey, told Q&A on 19 February 2009:

'Our very strong view is, we were the initiators of an emissions trading scheme, and we believe in a market-based approach.'

One can only imagine whether perhaps that view would had prevailed in the opposition party room if only Twitter had spoken to the member for North Sydney with a stronger voice.

The member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, claimed very strongly an emissions trading scheme for the coalition, saying:

'Perhaps the most important domestic policy was the decision of the Howard government that Australia will implement a national carbon trading system. … We hope that the new government will take up this proposal.'

That was the member for Flinders on 28 April 2008. Of course, the member for Flinders had a long record of arguing this case. His own University of Melbourne law thesis, 'A tax to make the polluter pay', argued:

'The market is the preferable regime as it better ensures that the polluter bears full responsibility for the costs of his or her conduct.'

The member for Flinders has also referred to his lifelong commitment. He said his lifelong commitment was 'to use economic instruments to do that'.

The member for Swan, Steve Irons, said:

'I understand the need for action to cut the world's carbon pollution … That is why the coalition supports, in principle, an ETS as part of a three pillars approach to climate change.'

That is in this place on 4 September 2009.

The member for Bowman, Andrew Laming, said in this place on 29 October 2010:

'I will be working as hard as I can to have it—

the CPRS Bill No. 2—

'passed. I will be working with colleagues of mine in both chambers to see that it is passed.'

The member for Farrer, Susan Ley, said in this place on 29 October 2009:

'We went to the last election with an ETS policy—many have forgotten that fact.

I have not, Mr Deputy Speaker.

'The coalition had a well-designed policy in 2007.'

I agree with that.

The member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane, said on ABC on 29 September 2009:

'We did take that policy to the last election and it was clearly enunciated as an emissions trading scheme that would be introduced perhaps in 2011 but most likely 2012.'

The member for Cook, Scott Morrison, speaking in this place on 3 June 2009—back in the days when he spoke on days other than Friday—said:

'There are a suite of tools we need to embrace to reduce emissions. I believe an emissions trading scheme, in one form or another, is one of those tools. Placing a price on carbon, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, is inevitable.'

The member for Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer, was quoted in the Stonnington Leader on 1 December 2009:

'Ms O'Dwyer said she supported an emissions trading scheme and would 'support the party's policy' and that 'Malcolm Turnbull as leader has got my full support'.'

The member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, told Sky Sunday Agenda on 27 June 2009:

'Let's not forget it was the opposition that first proposed an emissions trading scheme when we were in government. The idea that somehow the Liberal Party is opposed to an emissions trading scheme is quite frankly ludicrous.'

I do not know how anyone could have gotten that idea. I do agree, though, with the member for Sturt that it is a ludicrous notion to oppose an emissions trading scheme.

The member for Canning, Don Randall, said in his electorate newsletter in September 2007:

'In moving towards the world's most comprehensive domestic emissions trading scheme by 2012 … the Howard Government is committed to setting sensible long-term targets that will not impact on Australia's economy, jobs and families.'

The CPI would agree with him, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The member for Goldstein, Andrew Robb, said:

'We are very supportive of a price on carbon. We introduced the scheme to do that. … We are serious about good policy in this area. We are serious about a price on carbon.'

This was ABC News on 27 July 2009.

The member for Fadden, Stuart Robert, said on Doors on 26 May 2009:

'We went to the last election with an Emissions Trading Scheme.'

The member for Casey, Tony Smith, said:

'… I take my cue from the science and that is to give the planet the benefit of the doubt, and that's why we've always said that an emissions trading scheme is useful …'

That is an interview with Helen McCabe on 16 November 2009.

The member for Boothby, Andrew Southcott, said on Doors on 19 October 2009:

'I think that an emissions trading scheme is an important contribution.'

The member for Murray, Sharman Stone, said in a media release on 20 June 2007:

'Sharman Stone welcomed initiatives announced by the Prime Minister including … a 'cap and trade' emissions trading scheme that would help Australia substantially lower domestic greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest cost.'

And how right that is, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The member for Aston, Alan Tudge, writing an op ed in the Australian on 13 February 2007, said:

'Government's role should be to create the market environment that will lead to the outcomes sought either through putting a price on CO2 or placing a cap on how much CO2 will be emitted and then allowing companies to trade CO2 entitlements … The decisions should be left to the market.'

No recitation of past coalition statements on ETSs would be complete without the member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull, who says succinctly:

'You won’t find an economist anywhere that will tell you anything other than that the most efficient and effective way to cut emissions is by putting a price on carbon.'

That is from Q&A on 5 July 2010. Experts agree with the member for Wentworth. A survey of 35 leading economists conducted by Matt Wade and Gareth Hutchens of the Fairfax papers and published on 28 October 2013 found that 86 per cent favoured carbon pricing. Justin Wolfers, a professor at the University of Michigan, said that Direct Action would involve more economic disruption but would have a lesser environmental pay-off. BT Financial's Chris Caton said any economist who did not opt for an emissions trading scheme 'should hand his degree back'.

The respected former Treasury secretary Ken Henry has described the government's Direct Action con as 'bizarre'. A report by RepuTex on the government's Direct Action scheme has forecast that its costs could be triple the cost of an emissions trading scheme. The OECD's recent report found that carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes are the cheapest way of reducing carbon pollution. Indeed, things have gotten so bad between the minister and his department that the environment department has refused a freedom of information request, according to reports in yesterday's papers, for the incoming government brief on the grounds that it would have 'a substantial adverse effect on the department's working relationship with the incoming minister'. That is what happens when departments deliver frank and fearless advice.

What troubles me most about the coalition's position on this issue is that it is so at odds with the experts. Scientists are telling us that the world is warming and that humans are causing it. We have seen that very impact here, in Canberra. A report by Clem Davis and Janette Lindesay titled Weather and climate of the ACT 2007-11 and decadal trends points to an increase in extreme weather events, an overall decline in annual rainfall since the early 1990s, below average rainfall in the ACT for seven of the last 10 years and increased temperatures at Canberra Airport.

Putting a price on carbon pollution is favoured by all serious economists, me included, because it taps the ingenuity of businesses. I am surprised when those opposite in their speeches speak about their pride in free enterprise. I too am impressed by the ingenuity and innovation that we see in businesses around Australia. It is that very innovation which is tapped by a carbon pricing mechanism. It is such a dour view of Australian business ingenuity to think that Australian businesses are not able to find low carbon ways of producing their outputs, that they are unable to look at the—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Broadbent):  Member for Fraser, I recognise the member for Kooyong.

Mr Frydenberg:  Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Is the honourable member seeking to ask a question or make a response?

Mr Frydenberg:  I seek to make an intervention under 66A of the standing orders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Does the member accept the intervention?

Dr LEIGH:  Not with a minute to go on my time, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Frydenberg:  You are running away from answering the question.

Dr LEIGH:  I would be delighted to debate you on these issues at some point, Josh, but the key point here is that the Liberal Party is running away from markets. We now see in China city-based emissions trading schemes being extended across cities, covering millions of people. China will probably have its nationwide emissions trading system up and running by 2020, joining over 30 countries worldwide that are using emissions trading schemes as the best way of reducing carbon pollution. But while a nominally communist Chinese government is running towards a market approach, the nominally free market Liberal-National parties are running towards command and control—a system so interventionist that it would make Lenin blush.

The number of bureaucrats that will be required to administer Direct Action is far higher than the pricing scheme and the confidence in business expressed by such a scheme far lower than the scheme the nation has in place.

Today in parliament Dr Who fans and colleagues from both sides of the parliament paid homage to The Doctor, fifty years on this month. My contribution noted a few connections Australia shares with the long-standing BBC series and encouraged the latest incarnation of the Time Lord, crew and producers to come Down Under to film an episode here. My speech is below followed by the Private Members Motion that sparked it.

ANDREW LEIGH (Fraser):  In the spirit of bipartisanship that pervades this debate, let me acknowledge the members for Moreton, Mitchell and Dawson for their fine speeches before me. It clearly proves that sci-fi nerdom is a bipartisan gene. The next series of Doctor Who should be filmed in Australia and, indeed, it should be filmed right here, in Canberra, because what better setting to host an attack of the cybermen, the Daleks or the Slitheen than the 'Shine Dome', the home of the Australian Academy of Science, colloquially referred to around town as the 'Martian embassy'.

The member for Dawson has done a terrific job in his motion of highlighting a range of connections with Doctor Who to Australia. I might also point out another one from one of my electors, Peter Martin, that Doctor Who producer Verity Lambert, who essentially set up the program, came to Australia many years later in the 1980s to film 'Evil Angels' in the Central Desert. Peter Martin also points out that several of the lost tapes for the early episodes, which had been binned by the BBC and assumed to be lost forever, were actually found in Australia, archived by the ABC. The love of Doctor Who also extends to Senator Conroy. One can go on Twitter and look at the twitter account, @ConroyMO, which features not Senator Conroy's face but the logo of a Dalek.

Doctor Who turned many Australian kids onto science and technology. It made science 'cool', and in recent episodes it has broadened that discussion to ethics through 'Torchwood'. There are many pieces of advice from Doctor Who which are sage for this government. In season 2, episode 2, the Doctor said: 'You want weapons? They're in the library—books. The best weapons in the world.' It is good advice for a government which is cutting back on science. For those of us who are perhaps mourning a government that fell too short, in season 3, episode 6, the Doctor says: 'Some people live more in 20 years than others do in 80. It's not the time that matters; it's the person.'

I put the call out on Twitter for suggested episodes which one might mention in this debate. @joshgans suggested 'The Green Death', which is about an attempt to effect a corporate takeover that will lead to greater pollution and brainless, brainwashed humans. The member for Moreton has mentioned that one. @davstorm75 suggested 'The Daleks' Master Plan', in which the action takes in the world of Kembel, a place where, as the Doctor says, 'The atmosphere outside is entirely poisonous'—something that I hope this government will avoid in its public relations. @bilbo_fraggins suggested the early Doctor Who episode, 'The Meddling Monk', which focuses on a monk who liked to meddle in history, lending mechanical assistance to, for example, the builders of Stonehenge, despite that clearly not being needed. @acaderama suggested the 'Genesis of the Daleks', in which the species sees the introduction of Davros, who will ultimately terrorise not only his planet but other species.

@StrangeBrew55 suggested 'Aliens of London'—this was a favourite—in which the Slitheen take over the government. They look innocuous, initially, and are terribly popular until it turns out that, in fact, what they want to do is take over the planet. The episodes featured that simultaneously awful and compelling line: 'What's the use of school league tables if we can't use them to decide which children to get rid of?'. @JamesTeach suggested the 'Monster of Peladon', in which a power struggle bisects the miners and the government, with the workers left off to the side.

There is much fruit here. Certainly my own childhood experience, in which the only half-hour of TV I had each day was Dr Who, has made me a lifelong lover of this series and one who believes that the lessons of Dr Who writ large can not only benefit the film industry, as the member for Moreton so articulately put it but can perhaps one of these days give us a better government. I commend the motion to the House.

-

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS



Mr George Christensen: To move—That this House:

(1)   notes:

(a)   that the television series Doctor Who will celebrate its 50th anniversary on the 23 November 2013;

(b)   that the 50th anniversary of the first screening of Doctor Who in Australia will take place on the 12 January 2015;

(c)   the many connections between Doctor Who and Australia including (but not limited to):

(i)    the very first Doctor Who story, ‘An Unearthly Child’, written by Australian scriptwriter Anthony Coburn;

(ii)    the score for the signature Doctor Who theme tune, written by Australian composer Ron Grainer;

(iii)    the incidental music in the series throughout most of the 1960s and 1970s, written by Australian composer Dudley Simpson;

(iv)    Australian actress Janet Fielding, playing an Australian character Tegan Jovanka in the series (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by Peter Davison);

(v)    actress Katy Manning, playing the character Jo Grant in the series (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by Jon Pertwee), and becoming an Australian citizen in 2004;

(vi)    Australian horse racing icon Gai Waterhouse, playing the character of Presta in the Doctor Who episode ‘The Invasion of Time’ (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by Tom Baker); and

(vii)    Australian pop star Kylie Minogue, playing the character Astrid (alongside the Doctor as portrayed by David Tennant) in the 2007 Christmas Special ‘Voyage of the Damned’; and

(d)   the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been the main broadcaster for Doctor Who in Australia; and

(2)   request that:

(a)   in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the first screening of Doctor Who in Australia, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) consider filming the 2015 series of the television show in Australia; and

(b)   the ABC, Screen Australia and the various State-based film funding bodies consider offering finance to entice the BBC to film the 2015 series of Doctor Who in Australia. (Notice given 13 November 2013.)

This morning, in my usual slot with host Tim Lester in the Fairfax Breaking Politics studio, I discussed some of the stories making news today including the stark difference in approach between Tony Abbott and Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron over alleged human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. Here's the full transcript:

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

BREAKING POLITICS

FAIRFAX VIDEO

MONDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2013

Subjects: Sri Lanka and human rights, child care review, shopper dockets, debt ceiling, role of the Speaker of the House of Representatives

TIM LESTER: The approach of two conservative leaders at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka could not have been more marked. Britain's David Cameron visited some disaffected families in one part of the country, also upset the government by calling for a war-crimes enquiry. Australia's Tony Abbott, well he gave the Government a couple of patrol boats to help with asylum seekers and seemed only to praise them. Which leader was right? Well, to discuss that issue and others, we're joined on Mondays in [the] Breaking Politics studio by Andrew Leigh, Labor MP here in Canberra. Andrew, thank you for coming in.

ANDREW LEIGH: A pleasure Tim.

LESTER: Who was right in their approach to Sri Lanka, Britain's David Cameron or our Tony Abbott?



LEIGH: I think when we go overseas Tim, we do a little part of the exercise of telling the rest of the world what Australia is - what we stand for. Through each of our statement and our actions we convey Australian values and to have Mr Abbott in Sri Lanka saying of torture, 'I accept that sometimes in difficult circumstances difficult things happen' was to me pretty troubling.  That attitude seemed to contradict what I would have seen as a long standing principle going right back through Labor and conservative prime ministers of Australia that we would never accept that there are any difficult circumstances in which torture was acceptable. David Cameron conveyed his country's values to the world. Mr Abbott, I think, took a domestic political agenda that was smaller than the big-hearted country he represents.

LESTER: What about those two patrol boats, can we be comfortable they will be well used and will not in fact, become a tool of infringing peoples' human rights?

LEIGH: It certainly something we need to watch. The Sri Lankan navy is said to have behaved less than properly at the end of the civil war. And so I think it's an issue worth bearing in mind, and I do think that David Cameron's call for an international investigation is something that would be beneficial to Sri Lanka itself, allowing it to stand taller on the world stage after a CHOGM in which Canada and India boycotted Sri Lanka.

LESTER: Is it good enough for Scott Morrison, our Immigration Minister to say, 'well we'll work out with Sri Lanka how those patrol boats are used' and wave off questions about Australian oversight on their use?

LEIGH: Tim, I did wonder on the weekend, are there in fact two Scott Morrisons? Was there a different Scott Morrison who went to Malaysia to excoriate them on their human rights record, who held a press conference in Malaysia to say their human rights record wasn't good enough? Is that a different Scott Morrison from the one who's now talking about Sri Lanka? Because I can't see any consistency here, apart from the consistency of supporting the Coalition's political interests.



LESTER: So, the use of those patrol boats needs continuing Australian oversight?

LEIGH: I think the Opposition will be asking appropriate questions about how those patrol boats are to be used. I think it's important for Australians to know that their assistance to other countries is properly used.

LESTER: What strikes you about Tony Abbott joining Canada and rejecting a decision by the summit to push for a green capital fund that would have helped vulnerable island states and poor African countries address climate change?

LEIGH: It doesn't seem in either our economic interests or our strategic interests Tim. I was one of the speakers at the climate rallies around the country yesterday, 60,000 Australians calling for tougher action on climate change. One of the speakers at the Canberra rally where I spoke was a representative of a small Pacific nation that is at risk of inundation from climate change from the sea level rises. Australia is experiencing probably what’s going to be our hottest year on record but for these countries climate change threatens their very existence and they will be raising an eyebrow when they see Australia being unwilling to support them in what they regard as their hour of need.

LESTER: Andrew Leigh, is our system of childcare benefits and rebates, apparently one of the most complicated on earth, in need of a big overhaul?

LEIGH: Tim, many Australians rely on child care in order to stay in the workforce. Certainly, I'm one of those. We have our middle child in childcare at the moment and our youngest will soon be going into childcare. Certainly I expect that many Australian families were concerned when they saw that Mr Abbott intends to review the entire system. No additional money and no guarantees there won't be cuts. Labor's agenda of childcare while we were in office was one of making it more affordable, raising the rebate from 30 to 50 per cent and increasing the quality, recognising that this is early childhood, not babysitting, so we had to increase the qualifications and bring smaller group sizes in those early childhood centres. I worry that much of that is at risk with Mr Abbott's review which might end up given large subsidies to affluent families to use nannies and au pairs at the expense of families in the middle and bottom of the distribution for whom childcare is an essential to get to work.

LESTER: We're not at that stage of course. We're only at the stage of a review. Do you believe the system is strong and healthy enough that it shouldn't be reviewed, that a review is the wrong thing to do?

LEIGH: I think we do have a strong and healthy system and I think that if you're going to initiate reviews, you want to give some assurances to families as to what will come out of that review because I think many Australian families will be concerned about the suggestion by Tony Abbott and Sussan Ley of a root and branch review but a commitment to put no more money in. So the only promise that you absolutely count on from Tony Abbott is that early childhood won't get any more money.

LESTER: Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says there is a need for a moratorium on Coles and Woolworths shopper dockets, the ones that allow us to get us our petrol more cheaply after we've bought groceries. He says that the moratorium should be in while the ACCC concludes an investigation. Is that a good idea?

LEIGH: This is an issue that the ACCC has been looking at for a number of years as to whether it's anti-competitive to have a system of shopper dockets which only work at certain fuel stations. But I'm concerned by the suggestion that parliament might micromanage competition policy down to the level of individual firms. We have the ACCC for a good reason because we need an external watchdog that stands up for consumers and competition. I think it's appropriate they do their review. Labor's time in office was focused on making sure that the ACCC had an Act and the resources necessary to stand up for consumers.

LESTER: On the debt ceiling, do you believe the government will get its way and ultimately get the half-trillion dollar new credit limit that it seeks or do you expect Labor will be successful in frustrating it?

LEIGH: Here's what we got to last week. Joe Hockey came to parliament saying he would like a half trillion dollar loan and provided not a single bit of paper to justify it. Parliament went back to Joe Hockey and said, well without any bits of paper, we'll give you $400 billion. Your debt projected to peak in three years’ time at $370 billion so this gives you a comfortable $30 billion buffer for the point in 2016 when your maximum debt will be reached. Joe Hockey threw a tantrum. I guess we're waiting this week to see what he's going to come back with. But I think he should do the smart thing, recognise that either he puts up the mid-year update and provides some evidence as to how his decisions, the $9 billion handout to the Reserve Bank, the $700 million to multinationals, the $4 billion dollar tax cut to mining companies, what impact those decisions have had on blowing out the debt.

LESTER: To close, Bronwyn Bishop is in the chair in the House of the Representatives and speakers set the tone of the house to a great extent? How's the tone of the House of the Representatives under the new speaker?



LEIGH: We'd been promised Tim that the adults would be in charge, but when the name-calling began on the first full day of parliament, I think people began to wonder whether they could trust that promise. The extent to which the Government has been using parliament as opportunity to sling mud is disturbing to me because ultimately trust in parliamentarians and the institution of parliament is absolutely vital for all of us. I think name-calling in parliament fundamentally diminishes all parliamentarians.

LESTER: Even 'Electricity Bill'? I mean it's as offensive as names go, not nigh in the stakes is it?

LEIGH: We can all come up with nicknames for one another Tim and we can begin to spiral down from there. I don't think that's the right way for parliament to go. I think this is ultimately a debating chamber where the issues of how best to manage our nation are determined and if name-calling rules then I think that that probably ends up with worse decisions being made, less respect for parliament and more people switching off politics...

LESTER: ...And reflects on the Speaker?

LEIGH: I do hope that the Speaker will be cracking down, especially on Standing Order 64 of not allowing name-calling in parliament.

LESTER: Andrew Leigh, grateful as always to have you on Breaking Politics.

LEIGH: Thank you Tim.

My speech in parliament on 14 Nov on the debt cap:

I think Australians are increasingly realising that the government they elected is not the government they were promised. We saw in question time today the minister for immigration refusing to answer basic questions, attempting to hide the boats. We have seen for months now the opposition hiding the ministers—ministers who were everywhere before the election are suddenly nowhere to be seen, because they cannot get permission from the Prime Minister's office. And now we are seeing the hiding of the budget update, a budget update that yesterday the Prime Minister told the parliament sometimes under Labor came out in December. I’m afraid not. The Prime Minister was dead wrong on that. The budget update should be out now—and it should particularly be out now if you are asking for an increase in the debt limit.

The Treasurer is the only person in Australia who thinks he can ask for a doubling of his credit card limit from the bank and not give them a single piece of paper to justify it. And it is always someone else's fault: maybe it is someone else's debt, maybe the Greens did it, maybe 'the dog ate my homework'. But the very fact is that this Treasurer is making decisions that are going to worsen the 2013-14 budget. He is giving a huge tax break to mining billionaires, who I noticed were very well represented in the parliament today. He is giving $700 million back to multinationals because he cannot crack down on profit shifting seriously. And he is giving $9 billion to the Reserve Bank of Australia. Now, he says he is giving $9 billion to the Reserve Bank because they so desperately need it. He says it is because Labor ‘raided’ the Reserve Bank dividends. It is just a pity we can actually go back and look at the facts. When you go back and look at the facts you see that the amount Labor took out per year by dividends was half as much in real terms as what the Howard government took out. So if we, according to the Treasurer's statement, ‘raided’ the Reserve Bank, then the Howard government doubly raided the Reserve Bank.

The fact is that the Treasurer has given the Reserve Bank $9 billion not because they have asked for it—he has not shown us a shred of evidence of that—but because he wants to take out a bigger dividend in future years. He is like the coach who takes over a quarter of the way into the season and wants to blame his predecessor for the finals result. And he is still out here trying to trash-talk the economy, with this ridiculous suggestion that $400 billion would not be enough for the debt cap. The fact is, $400 billion is below projected debt. And if the Treasurer thinks projected debt is going to go higher then he can release an economic statement and explain why. He can explain how the decisions he has made have weakened the budget—why that tax break to mining billionaires, why that tax break to multinational companies, why that parental leave scheme that gives $75,000 to millionaires to have a child have worsened the budget outcome.

Of course, there is a clear pattern here. Before the election, in May of last year, we were told by the Prime Minister that the debt limit should only be increased where there are the ‘strongest possible arguments’ for doing so. Now we are told that you can do it with the wave of a hand and a few mistruths in parliament. Before, we were told by the Treasurer that were they to win election on 7 September, 'We will own the economy from day one'. After, we are told, 'Actually, sorry—what I meant is, I'll own it from day 300, and for the first 300 days in office I'm going to say it was the other guys' fault.' We were told beforehand that we would see a government that would be transparent, in which the adults would be in charge. But after, we saw the misleading of parliament, not once but twice on this very issue. The Prime Minister came in here and said that he had not voted against the debt cap. In fact, he had voted twice against the debt cap. He said that Labor had released the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in December, but we had not done that.

The fact is that if the Treasurer wants an update on the debt cap he ought to listen to serious commentators like Laura Tingle, who said that 'Joe Hockey's failure to prosecute in the parliament a persuasive argument as to why an increase in the debt cap … was needed made it look more like a political stunt than a serious, needed piece of economic infrastructure'. And as Ms Tingle said, 'Why not $400 billion?'

During a doorstop interview with press gallery journalists this morning I urged the Abbott Government to justify to the Australian people why an increase in the debt cap from $300 billion to $500 billion is needed. I also acknowledged the extraordinary contribution of former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who last night announced his retirement from politics.

DOORSTOP INTERVIEW PARLIAMENT HOUSE

THURSDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2013

ANDREW LEIGH: Since it’s the first time in this new parliament doing doors, I feel as though I should acknowledge Peter Veness, whose ghost seems to still haunt politicians around this spot here. We saw the Prime Minister on 7.30 last night, very clearly saying why he needed $500 billion as the debt cap. It was because he wanted to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. There’s nothing more than that for the Government in this. They don’t need a $500 billion cap. Simply, they want it because they don’t believe that they should go back to the Parliament. It speaks to the arrogance of this Government and it speaks also to their secrecy, their unwillingness to release a budget update.

You know when the Prime Minister’s pressed because he starts to mislead the House. Yesterday when he was pressed on the issue of the debt cap, he misled the House twice. First of all saying that the Liberal Party had never voted against an increase in the debt caps and of course they had. And then saying that Labor had released the MYEFO budget update in December. Which of course we never did. The Prime Minister, if he needs $500 billion for his debt cap he needs to tell us precisely why by releasing the budget update which I suspect will tell us about the deterioration of the public finances, perhaps due to things like backtracking on cracking down on multinationals’ profit-shifting and also giving a big tax cut to mining billionaires, who I understand will be well represented in the parliament today.

JOURNALIST: Just in regards to the debt ceiling, is Labor playing a dangerous game given we’ve got the deadline of mid-December for this decision to be made?

LEIGH: Labor has been absolutely clear that we will support an increase in the debt cap to $400 billion. That will be plenty to keep the Government going now and indeed right up to peak debt which let’s not forget is projected to happen after the next election. So, if any party is playing political games here, it is the Liberal Party.

JOURNALIST: [inaudible] has indicated that there may have to be deeper cuts in the Budget in order to keep the debt below that ceiling. Would you own those cuts?|

LEIGH: That strikes me as a nonsensical argument David. We’re talking about peak debt in 2016-17 for which there would be a $30 billion buffer and Joe Hockey is saying he wants to make cuts in 2013-14. Frankly what Joe Hockey is about is he wants to tank the 2013-14 Budget because he wants that to be Labor’s Budget and he wants his books to look better in future years. But he's the Treasurer who took over a quarter of the way into the season. He's got to own the result in the finals. 

JOURNALIST: Will Labor agree to have a confidential briefing with Treasury on it?

LEIGH:  We're always happy to take briefings but fundamentally this is about releasing a regular budget update which would normally be released around this time. When we wanted to raise the debt cap by a mere $50 billion, a quarter of what Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey want to raise it by, Mr Abbott went on 2GB and said you need the ‘strongest possible arguments’ for doing that. Well that argument comes back to him, four times as strongly now. We were looking for an increase in the debt cap detailed in the Budget brought down weeks earlier. Mr Hockey and Mr Abbott have released no paperwork on why they want this increase. What other Australian would go to the bank and say, 'I'd basically like you to double my credit limit but I won't give you a single piece of paper to show you why?

JOURNALIST: Are you going to miss Kevin Rudd?

LEIGH: I will. Mr Rudd has made a great contribution to the Parliament and to the nation. I think on the world stage he strode it in the great traditions of Doc Evatt and Gareth Evans. Somebody extraordinarily knowledgeable about foreign aid. I remember an aid forum in my own electorate which was just packed out and where Kevin's performance was a tour de force. And of course the Apology, Paid Parental Leave and finally getting rid of WorkChoices, these are achievements that will stand the test of time.

JOURNALIST: Wasn't he a very divisive character for the Labor Party and could he cost more than he brought to the job? 

LEIGH: Mr Rudd was a fine Prime Minister and a great Foreign Minister, somebody who has given his all to public life and somebody whose [shown] passion for making Australia better…

JOURNALIST: You don't think there'd be people popping champagne corks last night?

LEIGH: I think people who have served in the role of Prime Minister have the right to decide when they will leave Parliament and when they will move to the next chapter of public life. And, in Mr Rudd's case, that will involve many important contributions in Australia and overseas.

JOURNALIST: Do you think it was the right time?

LEIGH: I think the timing is always a matter for the individual. If it was the right time for Kevin Rudd then it was the right time. Thanks folks.