Andrew Leigh

Update, 6 March: Here's the audio from a doorstop interview I did on the topic this morning.

MEDIA STATEMENT
Andrew Leigh MP
Labor Spokesperson on Coalition Costings
Member for Fraser

5 March 2013

Hockey Exposed Over Cuts

Joe Hockey has been exposed on the Coalition’s plans to lower the tax-free threshold after an embarrassing press conference this morning.

At the press conference, Joe Hockey shamelessly attempted to justify his commitment to scrap low and middle income tax cuts.

Yet, mysteriously, the transcript distributed to the parliamentary press gallery had this exchange omitted from the text.

“Mr Hockey and Mr Abbott are at odds over the Coalition’s policy to scrap income tax cuts for over 7 million hard working Australians”, said Labor Spokesperson on Coalition Costings Andrew Leigh.

“Lifting the tax free threshold delivered tax cuts to all taxpayers with incomes of up to $80,000, with most receiving at least $300 a year, and many part time workers receiving up to $600.

“It’s bad enough that the Coalition are hiding their policies. Now they’re trying to hide their own words.”

THE ‘EDITED’ TRANSCRIPT

JOE HOCKEY: We have said, repeatedly, it is one of the initiatives that we cannot afford because it is based on the proceeds of the mining tax and the mining tax has been a complete failure. Now the Government is borrowing money to pay those things. It is unsustainable. You can’t hand out money that is being borrowed from the next generation. It is not what people want.

[The following two lines were omitted from Mr Hockey’s distributed transcript]

JOURNALIST: The tax free thresholds changes (inaudible)

JOE HOCKEY:  $3 dollars. That is what you said? [Turning to Lib candidate for Parramatta] $ 3 dollars!

JOURNALIST:[inaudible] It is part of the compensation package for the carbon tax. You have said you [inaudible].

JOE HOCKEY: You will see our final tax proposal after we see the books ten days into the election campaign.

On Sky Lunchtime Agenda, I spoke with host David Lipson and Liberal Senator Scott Ryan about the importance of treating asylum-seekers with dignity and compassion, and the value of making sure we have more and better-trained workers in the aged care sector.http://www.youtube.com/v/SuePSI9bkqQ?version=3&hl=en_GB

MEDIA STATEMENT
Andrew Leigh MP
Labor Spokesperson on Coalition Costings
Member for Fraser

3 March 2013

Abbott’s Costings Soar With the Eagles

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has made another unfunded promise, pledging up to $70 million for the redevelopment of Brookvale Oval, home of his beloved Manly Sea-Eagles.

Mr Abbott made the pledge at a function for Manly’s season launch at Brookvale Oval on Friday night.

“Mr Abbott needs to explain where the money to redevelop Brookvale Oval would come from”, said Labor Spokesperson on Opposition Costings Andrew Leigh.

“When Warringah Council estimated the cost of adding 7,000-10,000 undercover seats to Brookvale Oval, they put the cost at $70 million.”

“Would Mr Abbott take money from Western suburbs teams? Would it come from other sporting codes? Or would he raise taxes on all Australians to pay for it?

“Mr Abbott said last Tuesday that everything the government does should be subject to cost-benefit analysis.* Has he done such an analysis on Brookvale Oval? Or is this just another case of fiscal rectitude in public, and pork-barrelling in private?

“Mr Abbott’s willingness to play favourites with taxpayers’ money contrasts with his refusal to level with the Australian people about where his $70 billion of cuts will come from.

“The Coalition owe it to the Australian people to take all their policies to the Parliamentary Budget Office immediately.”

ENDS

* “Now, it’s more important than ever that everything the Commonwealth does that involves new spending which is subjected to rigorous cost benefit analysis and I guess that’s what I’d like to see. I’d like to see careful, objective, disinterested cost benefit analysis of this proposal and that would make it much easier for the Coalition to come to a hard and fast position.”
TONY ABBOTT, ABC NORTH QLD – 26 FEBRUARY 2013

MEDIA STATEMENT
Andrew Leigh MP
Labor Spokesperson on Coalition Costings
Member for Fraser

2 March 2013

Abbott Serves Up Stale Leftovers

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has re-announced one of his old ideas for the fifth time, Labor Spokesperson for Coalition Costings Dr Andrew Leigh said today.

“The Coalition today promised $50 million to fund closed circuit television cameras in Sydney”, said Dr Leigh.

“This is the same policy previously announced by the Coalition on 24 July 2010, 30 August 2011, 8 October 2012 and 14 February 2013. John Howard took a similar policy to the 2007 Election.”

“Mr Abbott’s policies are staler than leftovers in a bachelor’s fridge”, said Dr Leigh.

“He knows he has to make $70 billion in cuts – the equivalent of stopping Medicare payments for four years or the pension for two years.

“To disguise this, he’s decided to put his CCTV policy on repeat, and hope no-one notices they’re watching re-runs.

“The people of Western Sydney deserve better than five-times recycled policy stunts, alongside secret plans for Coalition cuts.

“The Coalition owe it to the Australian people to take all their policies to the Parliamentary Budget Office immediately.”

I've just put in a submission to the inquiry into the size of the ACT Legislative Assembly. Full text below.

Submission to the ACT Electoral Commission’s Expert Reference Group

Andrew Leigh MP
Federal Member for Fraser

28 February 2013

Introduction

As a federal representative for the ACT, my view is that the optimal size for the ACT Legislative Assembly should be chosen by the Assembly itself. The Gillard Government has put the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill before the House of Representatives to transfer this decision-making power from the federal parliament to the ACT parliament. Naturally, I support this bill. The ACT Legislative Assembly is a mature parliament, and should be able to set its own size, as state parliaments currently do.

In addition, I thought that it might also be useful for me to provide a federal perspective on the question being considered by the ACT Electoral Commission’s Expert Reference Group. My focus in this submission is primarily on questions of representation, as it affects the work of all the ACT’s parliamentary representatives. My view is that the Legislative Assembly should be significantly increased. At a minimum, it should include 25 members, with five electorates each returning five representatives.

A Comparative Perspective

The ACT has fewer political representatives per capita than any other state or territory in Australia. Our Assembly holds the dual responsibility for both territory and local functions, making the workload of our current MLAs uniquely high. Unlike most other states, we have no upper house. All other jurisdictions in Australia – including the Northern Territory – have a local government body at a city council level.

By any objective standard, the ACT Legislative Assembly has too few representatives. In most jurisdictions, assembly size is roughly the cube root of the population it represents (see the research of Rein Taagepera and others). For example, the Australian Parliament has 226 members, which is relatively close to the cube root of the nation’s population of 23 million (284). The New South Wales Parliament has 135 representatives, not far off the cube root of the state’s seven million residents (191).

If we apply this rule to the ACT’s population of 375, 000, our assembly size should be 72, four times larger than the current assembly. Or we can put the question of size the other way, and ask ‘for what population would an assembly of 17 representatives be appropriate?’. The answer is a population of about 5000 people (about the number of people who live in Palmerston). This isn’t as flippant as it sounds. If we look at communities covered by the federal seats of Canberra and Fraser, we see that Norfolk Island, with a population of 2000 people, has an assembly of 9 representatives; while Wreck Bay, with a population of 200, has a community council of 9.

The Workload

Last year I hosted half a dozen community forums on federal issues such as aged care reform, and around a dozen mobile offices across north Canberra. These community events always attract a great deal of attention. The ACT population has never been hesitant about contacting their MPs, perhaps because many of them are current or former public servants and feel comfortable navigating the system. This is an indicator of a politically engaged city and it is a terrific thing for democracy, but it does increase the demand upon local politicians. Consequently, I manage a large number of inquiries from the people of the ACT. Approximately one-third of the constituent casework my office manages directly relates to ACT Government issues.

Our current 17 MLAs are exceptionally hard-working. I know my ALP colleagues best, and I can attest to their commitment: from Chris Bourke, Mary Porter, Mick Gentleman and Joy Burch’s numerous mobile offices; to Yvette Berry’s doorknocking; to Katy Gallagher, Simon Corbell and Andrew Barr’s hectic public speaking schedules, there is no doubting the level of time and effort associated with being an MLA. Hare-Clark is tough on candidates, and it is similarly tough to be one of 17 MLAs in a parliament that has responsibility for everything from schools to garbage collection.

When you also take into account the fact that the current Ministry is fixed at five MLAs, this means that that many government members hold between four and six ministries. For example, Joy Burch is presently the Minister for Education and Training; Minister for Women; Minister for Multicultural Affairs; Minister for Disability, Children and Young People; Minister for Art; and Minister for Racing and Gaming. Shadow ministers have similarly high workloads, holding between two and seven portfolios.

In addition, there are significant responsibilities associated with committee work, and parliamentary business (which requires a speaker, party whips and so on). Our present MLAs do terrific work, but they are too thinly spread. I worry that the harder we make them work, the more difficult it may be in the future to continue to attract talented people to run for the Legislative Assembly.

A Growing Constituency

Although the focus of the Expert Reference Group is on the ACT Legislative Assembly, it should not ignore the fact that the ACT is home to the two largest federal electorates in Australia. In my own electorate of Fraser, there are 131,698 people on the electoral roll (compared to an average of 94,000 per federal electorate in the most recent election).

Since 1989, the ACT has had two Federal Members of Parliament (briefly three), two Senators and 17 MLAs, giving the Canberra population a total of 21 parliamentarians. Between 1989 and 2012 our population has increased from 275, 000 to 375,000, or by 36 per cent. Back in 1989, we had 1 parliamentarian per 13,000 people. Now, we have about 1 parliamentarian per 18,000 people.

As a territory, we currently fall just below quota for a third seat in the House of Representatives, and population growth projections suggest that this quota is unlikely to be achieved. ACT population growth needs to outpace the Australian average for us to get a third seat in the House of Representatives. On current projections, this will not occur, which means that the ACT is likely to have the most populous electorates in Australia for many years to come.

The Gillard Government’s reforms to facilitate automatic enrolment will see traditionally underrepresented groups such as young people have more of a voice at the ballot box. However, the introduction of this practice will not impact upon the quota, which is determined by population (not enrolment). Although it is trending a little below the national average, Canberra’s population continues to rise: by 2031 we are expected to have a population of 438, 000 people. The problem of underrepresentation through the current Legislative Assembly numbers will only become more pronounced as Canberra’s population increases.



Proposed Increase

As the population of Canberra continues to increase, the interests of the community could be disadvantaged by ongoing underrepresentation. Increasing the Assembly to 25 MLAs (consisting of five electorates, each returning five members) would provide the people of Canberra with a total of 29 elected representatives, or 1 per 12, 931 people. This would still be well below other states and territories (and less than half of what the cube root rule would suggest), but it would be a significant improvement on the current situation. A 25-member Assembly would provide Canberra with a level of representation per-person comparable to that in 1989, when the territory attained self-government.

In my view, a 25-member Assembly is the smallest that ought to be considered. If the Assembly is increased to 25 members, I believe that it should only be done with an indexation formula built in, which would (for example) allow an increase from 25 members to 35 members (seven electorates, each with five members) once the ACT population has increased by a certain amount (eg. 10 per cent) from today’s level. Legislating such an increase would provide a defensible and predictable default for future generations, who could always choose to vary it if they wished.



Conclusion

Expanding the Legislative Assembly to at least 25 members would bring the ACT a little closer to the national average level of representation, and help provide the local community with more avenues to raise issues of importance to themselves and their families. A growing Canberra population requires parliamentary representation equal to its needs. A greater number of local representatives would improve the currently over-concentrated distribution of ministerial responsibilities and allow MLAs to continue their excellent community advocacy work more efficiently.

The folks behind the proposed Boer War Memorial are looking for support from descendents of people who served in the war. If you think a family member might have fought for Australia in that conflict, you can look them up using this handy search engine (which thoughtfully also lets you download the entire database).

On 6 March, I'll be giving the Inaugural NATSEM Annual Lecture, entitled "Estimating Top Wealth Shares in Australia Over the Past Century" (based upon some analysis I've been doing with Pamela Katic).

It'll be held at the University of Canberra from 5-7pm. Event & RSVP details here.

On Sky AM Agenda, I spoke with host Kieran Gilbert and Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield about the choice between economic debt of 10% of GDP and a social debt of 200,000 unemployed; about the government's plans for better schools; and about the passing of former House Speaker Joan Child.http://www.youtube.com/v/qKYWuHgcrKE?hl=en_GB&version=3

With rain forecast all morning, we've decided to cancel today's Welcoming the Babies. Apologies for any inconvenience.

I have an article in today's Canberra Times about the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Let Many Shoulders Take Some of the Burden, Canberra Times, 20 February 2013

Disability touches the lives of millions of Australians. Almost one in five Australians either have a disability, have a family member with a disability or are a carer for someone with a disability.

Yet our response to disability has not reflected the scale or severity of its impact. In a prosperous nation like ours, it is profoundly wrong that heart-breaking, often shocking, stories of life with disability are not exceptional.



In parliament recently, I shared a letter from one of my constituents, Denise Reid. Ms Reid wrote to me about her son Tim, a 21-year-old man with Down syndrome. She wrote about Tim’s sense of humour and love of music. But she also told of the demoralising task of continually having to prove her son’s disability to maintain the modest payment she receives:

‘My son has an intellectual disability. There is no cure and he will never grow out of it. ... The payment is small and sometimes I feel like giving up the bureaucratic battle. But I don’t. I fill out the form and visit the GP to complete another form and wait to hear if I’ve been able to prove disability. That makes me sad.’

If this situation, where mothers of children with Down syndrome have to constantly prove that their child’s chromosomes have not changed, sounds like an unfortunate quirk of the system, we only have to consider some of the other indefensible anomalies in the current system.

Imagine you rented a car from Canberra airport, and had an accident as you drove out of the airport that left you a paraplegic. Your payout eligibility might differ depending on whether the hire car company had registered that vehicle in Victoria or Queensland.

The same disability is treated differently if you got it falling off the roof while cleaning your own gutters or being while paid to clean someone else’s.

That is how much of a patchwork our current system is.

Such stories have been heard so often in discussions around the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

People with disabilities and their loved ones don’t need is a system that makes living with disability a bureaucratic battle.

It is with that spirit and with a recognition that past governments have not provided adequate support to people with disabilities and their carers that the government is putting in place a National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Underpinning the rationale for the Scheme is the appreciation of an uncomfortable truth: disability, itself, does not discriminate. Each of us is just a car crash away from a profound disability, a dice roll in the genetic lottery from giving birth to a child with a congenital abnormality.

Under the current system, the risk of falling foul of that lottery—and of the emotional and financial costs that often follow—is heaped on the shoulders of those people with a disability and their carers. It is, effectively, privatised.

What the National Disability Insurance Scheme will do, like other landmark reforms such as Medicare and universal superannuation before it, is transfer that risk across society. It will ensure that those citizens not in a position to meet their own care needs are supported, not swamped.

The Prime Minister emphasised this in a recent address to the National Press Club, saying that the Scheme sets out to ensure ‘those hit with life’s cruellest blows get the help they need.’

A National Disability Insurance Scheme system comes with a serious price tag. But that should not prevent us from transferring the risks and costs of disability to where they rightly belong: on the shoulders of the many, not the few.

The Scheme will provide people with a disability individual care and support based on their needs, giving them real choice and control over these supports, fostering innovative services that are delivered and coordinated locally, and bringing long-term certainty to the resourcing of disability care and support.

Chief Minister Katy Gallagher lost no time pledging her commitment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme at the outset. As a result, when the ACT becomes one of the NDIS launch sites later this year, around 5,000 Canberrans with a disability will benefit.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a long-overdue reform, helping to make Australia’s social safety net a little stronger and our nation a little fairer. Hopefully it will help thousands of Australians—like Tim and Denise Reid—who should be getting more support and doing less paperwork.

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

Thanks to last week's parliamentary intern, Thomas Baker, for assistance in drafting this piece.