Andrew Leigh

My Chronicle column this week focuses on some terrific Canberra community activists.

Strong Fibre in Canberra Fabric, The Chronicle, 7 May 2012


One of Canberra’s great features is the strength of our civic fabric. And it’s no more apparent than among young Canberrans who are giving back to our community.

Recently, I held a breakfast roundtable for a group of these ‘social entrepreneurs’, to discuss the opportunities and challenges they’re facing. Let me tell you about some of them.

• The Raising Hope Foundation, led by Ben Duggan, provides opportunities for students in the ACT to develop esteem and self-belief.  Raising Hope works with local schools to make sure that schoolkids at risk of slipping through the cracks get the support they need.


• Created by Sunny Forsyth, Abundant Water raises money to help people in the Southeast Asian nation of Laos get clean drinking water. Effective water filters can be made at a relatively low cost, and Abundant Water works to support communities getting them.


• Focused on Canberra, Brad Carron-Arthur’s work with the Youth Suicide Prevention Network aims to help reduce the scourge of youth suicide. A young man who ran from Canberra to Cape York to raise awareness of mental health, I’m sure he’ll make an impact on improving suicide prevention.


• Most social entrepreneurs focus either on local or international disadvantage. Raize the Roof, chaired by Danielle Dal Cortivo, aims to do both. They support the Starlight Children Foundation in Australia and SOS Children’s Villages in Botswana. And they’re doing it in a unique way: building a house in Bonner with help from local tradespeople, and then selling it off to raise money for charity.

There are many peak bodies and larger organisations in Canberra, and we appreciated the insights of people such as Rikki Blacka of Volunteering ACT and Julie McKay of UN Women.

Navigating the murky waters of charitable foundations and managing to keep your volunteer base upbeat is no easy task, and it was useful to hear different experiences from those at the roundtable. With increasing numbers of government agencies and companies allowing their employees time off to volunteer, Volunteering ACT plays a critical role in ‘matchmaking’ volunteers and charities.

Just as in business, growth in the community sector depends crucially on building new organisations. The activists who joined my latest social entrepreneurship roundtable are living proof that Canberra’s community sector is faring well.

From suicide prevention to better water in Laos, they’re focused on issues that go well beyond themselves. Each of these social entrepreneurs faces challenges in making their group successful. But with the support of others I’m confident they will continue to grow.

Andrew Leigh is the federal member for Fraser, and his website is www.andrewleigh.com. If you’d like to assist any of these organisations, please email [email protected] or phone 6247 4396.

TRANSCRIPT – 2CC with Mark Parton
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
6 May 2013

TOPICS:                                Inequality, Australian egalitarianism, Liberal Party advertising

MARK PARTON:                What is the definition of rich in 2013? To some extent the definition of rich I don’t think ever changes. Anyone who earns about three times as much as you do is rich, that perception applies to pretty much every one. Andrew Leigh’s got some more specific figures for us though, in 2013 in Australia, to be ultra-rich you need $210,000 a year; that sounds pretty fair. Now there’s even a filthy rich figure, Mark Sullivan are you listening? The uber-rich figure is $688,700. Can you imagine the changes that it would make in your life, not even if you were on that salary all the time, but just if you had it for a year, just if you get three quarters of a million dollars in salary for a year. Now Andrew Leigh’s calculated the new cut off points as part of his research for his coming book on inequality in Australia which is titled Battlers and Billionaires, this is research that he started years and years ago when he was a professor of economics at the Australian National University, he’s updated the calculations using tax office data from 2010-11 from the financial year and these are figures released last week and I’ll get him to explain. Andrew good morning,

ANDREW LEIGH: G’day Mark how are you?

MARK PARTON:                Not bad, how do you determine who’s ultra-rich and I’ve used the term filthy rich, I don’t think you have.



ANDREW LEIGH: I haven’t used any of these terms at all Mark, I think they’re… they all seem to be political dynamite. So my study with Tony Atkinson simply looked at what it takes to be in the top 1% of the top 0.1%, so as you said, $210,000 takes you into the top 1%, that’s the individual income and over $690,000 takes you into the top 0.1%; the richest 1/1000th of income earners.

MARK PARTON:                Okay, what this data has shown is that there is a growing gap between the rich and poor.



ANDREW LEIGH: That’s right, so if we go… if we take say the top 1% share; that’s doubled over the last generation, that’s about 1980 or so. Take the top 0.1%, they’ve tripled their share of national income over that period, and it’s a pattern which you see in other English-speaking countries as well; US, UK, New Zealand, Canada.

MARK PARTON:                It’s a fascinating thing that when you start having a conversation about it, and you find out what peoples definition of rich is, aside from the actual dollar value, because to me the definition of rich is being able to pay all of your bills-without stress, eating good food, and having a holiday every now and then. As far as I’m concerned, you got that, you’re rich.



ANDREW LEIGH: But of course Mark you could always have bills that exceed your income, any of us, regardless of our income, you know, you take that three-quarters of a million, I’m sure you could rack up enough bills that that salary wouldn’t cover it.

MARK PARTON:                And that goes back to that original definition that I said right at the start of the interview and I think it pretty much always applies; the definition of rich for most people is anyone who earns about three times as much as you do.



ANDREW LEIGH: Exactly, exactly, so it’s very much from the perspective you’re looking from and you know; I think in some sense, the bill thing comes back to that old Dickens’ quote that if your income is 19 shillings and your expenditure is 20 shillings, you’ll be miserable, if your income is 19 shillings and your spend is 18 shillings then you’ll be happy.

MARK PARTON:                Okay, what evil policy directions do you think you could come up with out of these figures, Andrew?



ANDREW LEIGH: Well, this is really just describing the world. Tony Atkinson and I did the original study a decade ago and each year as the tax data comes out I update it. I’m really keen as to see if we can have more of a discussion around inequality,

MARK PARTON:                Yep



ANDREW LEIGH: I think talking about how much the gap between rich and poor we want is pretty fundamental to the kind of nation we want to live in.

MARK PARTON:                Is it a bit silly though talking about equality, I mean, no-one’s ever going to have the same, there’s always going to be people who have more than others, there are going to be people who are luckier than others, or have worked harder than others, you know, what’s the point in talking about equality?



ANDREW LEIGH: Well of course we’re never going to have perfect equality Mark,

MARK PARTON:                That would be a complete communist structure wouldn’t it?



ANDREW LEIGH: Exactly, and we have good evidence as to what a disaster that would be, but just because we don’t want everyone to have exactly the same incomes doesn’t mean we can’t have a conversation about how the gap between rich and poor has grown over recent  years. We’re still a much more equal country than say the United States, but inequality has risen a lot over the course of my life time and I think having a national conversation about that is a productive use of time.

MARK PARTON:                You seen the headless chook ad, Andrew?



ANDREW LEIGH: I haven’t Mark, no.

MARK PARTON:                Look irrespective of the political message, and I know you won’t agree with me on this; it’s as funny as hell.



ANDREW LEIGH: Well humour is sadly lacking in politics Mark so maybe that’s the only reason to like it. But I tend to think there’s enough nastiness around in modern-day politics.

I chatted with Kieran Gilbert and Senator Mitch Fifield about the Coalition's divided stance on Paid Parental Leave, and about my research on inequality in Australia.

TRANSCRIPT – SKY AM AGENDA

Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
30 April 2013

TOPICS:                                Paid Parental Leave, government revenue and spending, inequality.

Kieran Gilbert:                   This is AM Agenda, thanks for your company this Monday morning. With me now, Liberal frontbencher Senator Mitch Fifield joining me from Melbourne and here in the Canberra studio Labor MP Andrew Leigh. You’ve heard the discussion with Christopher Pyne this morning Andrew Leigh. It’s healthy for parties to have internal debates about the merits or otherwise of policies, but from the front bench, it’s a very clear message isn’t it?

Andrew Leigh: Well Kieran, I’m very different ideologically from Alex Hawke, but I do appreciate that fact that he enjoys a good intellectual argument. And what he’s been saying here over paid parental leave, this is isn’t just an inequitable scheme, as Labor has been arguing – someone on $200 000 gets $100 000 of government support – but it’s also an illiberal scheme. And Alex is concerned that it represents a slide into illiberalism from the Coalition. It’s a Coles and Woolies tax funding a scheme which is much more European-style. I think even Christopher Pyne –

Kieran Gilbert:                   Most of the OECD does have more generous paid parental schemes. As an economist, don’t you think that it is a productivity measure to get women back in, to provide the encouragement to get women back in the workforce?

Andrew Leigh: I think you should always look internationally, Kieran, but the thing that marks out the Australian social safety net is that traditionally it has been much more targeted to those most in need. This is the opposite. This is a scheme that is most generous to someone on a six or seven figure income.

Kieran Gilbert:                   But doesn’t it make sense as a productivity measure to encourage those women back into the workforce? You don’t see the merits of that?

Andrew Leigh: I don’t think there’s going to be any tangible productivity lift compared to Labor’s paid parental leave, which is a much more equitable scheme, and I think a much more economically liberal scheme. I mean, if Tony Abbott is concerned about gender equity, he might think about the fact that his raising of superannuation taxes on low income earners will disproportionately impact low income women. He might think about the fact that his IR policy will take away penalty rates disproportionately from women. These are the kinds of gender issues that matter.

Kieran Gilbert:                   To be honest we don’t know what the workplace policy is, so that’s a bit presumptuous. Let me go to Senator Fifield and ask you about this, because Alex Hawke, I get the sense hasn’t done this – well he’s written this piece on his own, but it reflects a broader sentiment within the Coalition.

Mitch Fifield:                      Kieran, Alex is a good guy, he’s a friend of mine and he’s a thoughtful contributor to public policy debate. He’s put forward the view that the PPL should be reviewed. That’s not a view that I share. We have a good paid parental leave scheme policy, we will take it to the next election, and should we be fortunate to form government we will legislate it in the parliament and if I’m manager of government business it will be my job to see that that gets through. And that will be a good thing for women in Australia. It’s 26 weeks at your own salary up to a maximum of $150 000 and as anyone who has had kids knows, it is when you have kids that you can least afford to lose that money so this will be important for Australian families, and I’m a strong supporter of Tony Abbott’s policy.

Kieran Gilbert:                   But is this a battle over where the Liberal Party is headed, the presumption that you will win in September, and the economic dries are trying to pre-empt or preclude a big tax and spend policy like this?

Mitch Fifield:                      I don’t think so Kieran. I think it reflects the fact that we, unlike the Labor Party, have a vigorous party room that is used to having debates, that is used to having discussions. We don’t shy away from individual members in our party room having views and expressing them. Alex doesn’t have shadow executive responsibilities so he is perfectly at liberty to put his views. There’re not ones that I share, I think that we have policy that we should take to the next election which will make a real difference to many families when they have kids.

Kieran Gilbert:                   Just finally Senator Fifield, you heard what Christopher Pyne had to say: reminding colleagues that there are only 131 days left until the election. I suppose it was a pretty clear warning to them to pull their heads in. He didn’t say it in those words, but discipline has been strong to this point, do your colleagues need to avoid complacency or hubris?

Mitch Fifield:                      The Australian Labor Party can win this election. Australian federal elections are always competitive and every member of the party room is very much aware of that. But that’s not at odds with colleagues having views and expressing them, but it’s incumbent upon all of us to recognise that this election could go either way, Kieran.

Kieran Gilbert:                   Ok, let’s move on. The Financial Review reporting today, Andrew Leigh, that Treasury is now working on the basis that economic growth this financial year and next is at 2.75 per cent, that’s down a quarter of a per cent on the mid-year budget update. Does that make sense to you, given where the broader parameters are at?

Andrew Leigh: It struck me as an odd story actually, to be honest Kieran. I find that, as we know, economic growth is one of those parameters that you want to estimate based on everything, all the available data. We’ve got a number of data releases coming out this week, we’ve got an RBA decision. I’d actually be pretty surprised if that forecast has been locked down at this stage. But you know, the fact that Australia is talking about growth somewhere around 3 per cent would to many countries in the world be an extraordinary luxury. We’ve grown 13 per cent since 2007. Europe has shrunk, the US has enjoyed only a couple of percentage points of growth.

Kieran Gilbert:                   But things are looking a bit more sluggish now and there is a sense that the outlook is not as good as it has been. Do you think that the RBA is being too cautious? Because many economists do: Ross Garnaut, Bob Gregory, John Hewson.

Andrew Leigh: The RBA makes its own decisions and I don’t think there’s an advantage in me putting my oar in in that, but we’ve got a cash rate now sitting at 3 per cent, and that’s –

Kieran Gilbert:                   But there’s room to move, isn’t there? A lot of room to move.

Andrew Leigh: Well there’s certainly, and again compared to other countries who’ve hit that lower bound and then need to engage in more unconventional practices like quantitative easing, that’s an advantage. Yes, the high dollar has posed challenges for some sectors of the economy. The Prime Minister talked about that from the revenue standpoint last week. But let’s look around the world and let’s realise that most economic policy makers would love to have the set of numbers that Australia has today.

Kieran Gilbert:                   So despite the criticism that the Coalition has had on government spending, of course it’s a very contestable space whether the government has spent too much or enough to keep jobs and growth going. What’s your view then though when you look at the broader picture as Andrew Leigh put it there. Global growth has been sluggish, we’re doing very well compared to other nations, aren’t we?

Mitch Fifield:                      Look Kieran, this government presents themselves as hapless victims of circumstances beyond their control. The budget is just something that happens to them in complete isolation, apparently. The problem here is that every budget that this government has delivered has been predicated on everything going right, predicated on the most optimistic revenue forecasts, predicated on the most optimistic growth forecasts, and predicated on the most unrealistic assumption of all, and that is that the Australian Labor Party could exercise some self-discipline and restraint when it comes to spending. So Kieran, Labor will point to, they will grab on to reduced growth forecasts like a lifeline as another excuse as to why their budget is in such an appalling situation. But we’ve got to keep coming back to the fact that government has about $70 billion more in revenue than in the last year of the Howard government. Revenue, even this financial year, will be $25 billion up on the previous financial year, but the big problem is that despite the fact there are growth in revenues, spending is growing by even more. Spending $100 billion a year more than in the last year of the Howard government. That’s the problem. We don’t have a growth problem, we don’t have a spending problem – sorry, we don’t have a revenue problem, it’s a spending problem.

Kieran Gilbert:                   We will have this debate, no doubt, many times over the next couple of weeks in the lead up to May the 14^th and after Wayne Swan’s sixth budget. I do want to look now to some analysis you’ve done, Andrew Leigh. You’ve got an upcoming book called Battlers and Billionaires, as a follow up from your research at university as a professor of economics. Looking at wage levels – who’s in the top 1 per cent, the top .1 per cent – and looking at inequity in the wake of the global financial crisis, what have you found?

Andrew Leigh: Well Kieran, the big story of the last generation is rising incomes at the very top, and incomes at the top outpacing the middle. The top 1 per cent share has doubled over the last generation. The top .1 per cent share has tripled. In order to get into those groups, $210 000 takes you into the top 1 per cent, nearly $700 000 in the top .1 per cent. And so it’s important, I think, to engage in a national discussion around how much inequality Australia wants and whether too much inequality is threatening to strain our social fabric.

Kieran Gilbert:                   Do you think that this is a short term phenomenon after the global financial crisis, which has exacerbated this, or do you see any sign that things were becoming more equitable?

Andrew Leigh: We actually saw a small drop in the top incomes as a result of the financial crisis, Kieran, and now we’re seeing a rise again in the post-GFC years, getting nearly up to the point where top incomes were. But it’s a picture you see around the world. It’s a challenge -

Kieran Gilbert:                   You go to a Scandinavian sort of system where people cap, where companies cap executives?

Andrew Leigh: I don’t think that would make a lot of sense in an Australian context, then you have the loss of talent as well. Really what Battlers and Billionaires is seeking to do is to spark a debate, much more in the spirit of my old job as a professor than my new job as a policy maker. I do think a national conversation about the gap between rich and poor is important. I know Mitch will have views on that and they’ll be different from mine, but what I’m keen to do is just to have more of a conversation about these matters.

Kieran Gilbert:                   You’ve heard what Andrew Leigh has had to say, Senator Fifield, any thoughts on that this morning?

Mitch Fifield:                      Well it’s good to be part of the Andrew Leigh book club this morning. Andrew makes observations about the gap between rich and poor. As important – if not more important – is the absolute level of income that people have rather than the relative gaps between the incomes that individual people have. We want to see the economy grow, we want to see incomes grow for everyone. We don’t want to be in a situation where you’re looking at someone a bit above you earns, that’s always the definition of a wealthy man, someone who earns more than you do. What we want to do is make sure that everyone is earning more.

Andrew Leigh: I certainly agree with that point, Kieran. I guess the ideal though is growth with equity, rather than having to choose between growth and equality. And in certainly in Australia we’re fortunate that incomes have grown at the bottom as well as at the top. That’s not something they see, for example, in the United States, where once you adjust for inflation where incomes in the bottom 10 per cent have barely budged in four decades. So we’ve done well in Australia. I guess what I’m flagging up is a concern that the great Australian tradition of egalitarianism might be under threat.

Kieran Gilbert:                   Senator Fifield, thanks for being with us on AM Agenda and the Andrew Leigh book club, I appreciate it. And Andrew thank you for your time as well.

Andrew Leigh: Thanks Kieran.

The SMH, Age, Canberra Times and West Australian today have reports of my updated top income inequality data. If you're curious, here's a link to the raw figures (warning: large Excel file), and here's a link to the methodology paper.

I've also done a couple of interviews today about it:

• ABC702 with Richard Glover (coming shortly)


• 2CC Canberra with Mark Parton


• ABC774 Melbourne with Red Symons

On March 6 I visited the University of Canberra for the Inaugural NATSEM Lecture. I spoke on the topic of 'Estimating Top Wealth Shares in Australia over the Past Century'.

I launched Paul Frijters and Gigi Foster's new book last night, titled Economic Theory of Greed, Love, Groups and Networks.

Speech launching Economic Theory of Greed, Love, Groups and Networks by Paul Frijters (with Gigi Foster)

Andrew Leigh
Federal Member for Fraser

Australian National University
2 May 2013

If you want a quick way to assess a piece of academic writing, try starting at the end. A skim through the reference list can tell you a great deal:

• Is it long, or so short you get the impression the author thinks they’re the only one to have considered the problem?


• Does the author’s own name dominate the reference list, or is there a sense that other people have sensible things to say too?


• Are the references all by people from the author’s country, or are they international?


• Are the references all in the same discipline, or are other disciplines cited too?


• How old are the references? (Frighteningly, the typical reference in an economics article is just five years old)

So, what does starting at the back tell you about Paul and Gigi’s book? They’re extensive, global and interdisciplinary – like the authors themselves. You’ll see references to Fox’s Behaviour of Wolves, Dogs and Related Canids; to a Sherlock Holmes novel; to Bourquin’s ‘The Zulu Military Organisation and the Challenge of 1879’; to Dr Seuss; and to Besse’s 1910 classic Hermits.

Indeed, the book betrays little sense of the authors’ national origins, and only a few pointers that they both work at Australian universities. The book contains more references to China than Australia, and only hints like the reference to the ‘Solow-Swan growth model’ give it away. Indeed, the only clue that the lead author is Dutch is that it contains over a dozen references to sex.

Speaking of Paul, I see that there is some uncertainty in the book as to how he has been treated by the profession. Is this the man who has been ‘labouring for 20 years mostly without acknowledgement’ (p.xii), or the man whose work ‘features regularly in the global media’, and was the second-ever winner of the Economics Society of Australia’s medal for the best Australian economist under 40 (back cover)?

Something of the same tension relates to the book itself. Is this the book that ‘heralds a new dawn in social science’ (p.xiii) or is it the case that ‘with one exception, none of the specific observations or individual theoretical arguments in this book is new’ (p6)? Is this groundbreaking, or a gentle seasonal tilling the soil?

I’m going with groundbreaking, perhaps because I learned some fascinating things from this book. Let me share a few of my favourites:

• In experiments in the mid-1940s, René Spitz followed infants who were raised in a foundling home, where seven infants were allocated to each nurse, and sheets prevented them from seeing out of their cribs. By age two, only one in ten of them could walk and talk. (p98)


• The output collapse in Eastern Europe in the 1990s can be partly explained by a collapse in people’s social ties (p257), exacerbated by a refusal to hand over control to local party bosses and bureaucrats (p264).


• If a life events – like being fired or promoted – happens to your spouse, then it has about 1/10^th the impact on your mental health than if it happened to you (p105)


• The ‘golden rule’ of ‘do unto others’ can be found in surprisingly similar form in the teachings of Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism.


• In a 1968 experiment conducted the day after Martin Luther King’s assassination, third grade teacher Jane Elliott divided her class of white children into brown eyed and blue eyed. She watched as they formed strong bonds, and eagerly discriminated against one another. (p171)


• On average, workers spend at least one-seventh of their time on ‘information seeking’ activities (p237)


• 12 percent of Chinese men – but only 2 percent of women – are Chinese Communist Party members (p288)


• If social norms are the main driver of littering behaviour, then Clean Up Australia Day is likely to be more effective in discouraging littering than higher spot fines (p323)

I also read some outrageous sentences, which reminded me of the differences between my former profession (where scandalous statements are encouraged) and my current one (where it is not so rewarded). Indeed at some points you feel as thought Paul and Gigi doing their best to provoke the reader. Try some of these for example:

• ‘From a simple cost-benefit point of view, then, self-interested individuals in advanced economies should be paying much less in taxes than they are.’ (p20)


• ‘Women are attracted to power’ (p126)


• ‘I would expect the poor to be loath to band together as a group of “losers” and instead to become more fervent members of religious groups, patriotic groups, and other large reciprocal groups.’ (p212)


• ‘Australia has no comparative advantage in banana production, and … from an efficiency perspective it should not therefore have a banana industry in the first place’ (p318)


• ‘A politician who says he loves his country is merely wasting time on irrelevant and even nonsensical statements.’ (p325)

Not to mention the fact that Paul describes his colleagues with the well-known Marxist appellation ‘fellow travellers’.

Paul and Gigi draw on a wealth of prior research, but they are essentially economists. Both are very comfortable with mathematical models. Yet this doesn’t stop them making fun of their own discipline, saying at one point ‘Much like an army sergeant successfully makes a platoon sergeant out of a selfish recruit by physical exhaustion, so too does the complexity of economic theory force clever yet ambitious young students to accept the group beliefs inherent in it.’ (p431)

This book is heavily informed by the advances in behavioural economics over recent decades. As they point out, the key challenge for behavioural economics now is not to keep identifying quirks (that way lies psychology). Instead, it is to attempt to build a coherent model that incorporates the new behavioural insights.

These insights are rich indeed (ten years ago, Thomas Schelling once told me that he thought behavioural economics had already contributed more to our discipline than game theory). But Paul and Gigi cite Drew Fudenberg, who argues that behavioural economics must ‘devote more attention to the foundations of its models, and develop unified explanations for a wider range of phenomena’ (p222).

* * *

At the core of this book is love. As those of you familiar with the economics of the family will know, we often put love in the error term. Indeed, I myself have written down models in which love is implicitly an independent and identically distributed random variable.

But Paul and Gigi want to know about love itself. They define love as ‘caring about [a] thing or person regardless of any observable reward’ (p74). [i] Their notion of love overlaps with what we might also call loyalty, and so covers parents and soldiers, sports fans and honest judges. They argue that love is a form of submission, and contrast it with greed, which they describe as a form of dominance.

Going further still, they contend that the ‘main game’ of life is a struggle between love and greed (p307). In the Frijters-Foster scoreboard, love wins in the short-term, greed wins in the medium term, but that the ‘thrust of history’ is towards love winning in the long term.

This is heady stuff.

The book is also incisive on the value of groups. As the authors point out, ‘No individual alone can produce procreation, defence, knowledge or insurance in meaningful amounts.’ (p198-9). Perhaps more persuasively to an Australian audience, they also say ‘No individual worker, machine, customer or supplier on his own would have produced or consumed beer.’ (p274)

We can drink to that.

* * *

This is a big, bold, ambitious book. As social science has grown increasingly complex, people have naturally come to focus on narrower fields. Most of us don’t have brains big enough to add to the literature on optimal income taxation, let alone to link it to psychology.

In the breadth of its subject matter and the sweeping nature of its claims, it has more in common with Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments than the typical article written by an academic economist these days. This also means that it has the feel of a very good dinner party conversation with Paul and Gigi. And that’s no bad thing.

I notice also that the book refers to another work – cited as ‘Frijters and Foster 2013’, but tantalisingly omitted from the reference list. I eagerly await its arrival.

So, a final question: is this a book about greed or love?

In the former camp, we have the fact that entry tonight was contingent on purchasing a copy of the book. (Is that greed, or merely a convenient pricing model? I’ll leave you to decide.) But like most Australian authors, I expect that their hourly wage for working on this book is likely to be measured in cents rather than dollars.

Moreover, this project perfectly fits their definition of love. The production of this book demonstrates a care for us – the readers – regardless of any observable reward.

I thank them for it, and am pleased to launch, Paul Frijters and Gigi Foster’s Economic Theory of Greed, Love, Groups and Networks.

---

[i] The authors relate their formal model to the identity model of Akerlof and Kranton. But I regard their model of greed and love (set out in the book’s technical appendix) as better cast than Akerlof and Kranton’s, since it does not simply add a term into the utility function.

On ABC666, I spoke with presenter Ross Solly and Liberal Senator Gary Humphries this morning about how DisabilityCare Australia will help change lives, and the importance of ensuring it has a stable funding base. Here's a podcast.

TRANSCRIPT – ABC666 WITH ROSS SOLLY
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
2nd May 2013

TOPICS:               DisabilityCare Australia, Medicare Levy

Ross Solly:           Andrew Leigh, the Labor Member for Fraser, has joined me in the 666 Breakfast Studio, good morning Andrew.

Andrew Leigh: Good morning Ross.

Ross Solly:           And joining us on the phone this morning is Liberal Senator Gary Humphries, good morning Gary.

Gary Humphries:        Good morning Ross.

Ross Solly:           Can I ask you first Andrew Leigh, is there danger that this whole issue, this important issue, is going to be politicised? And has it already?

Andrew Leigh: Well Ross, I think that’s a question best put to Tony Abbott. If he is willing to back a secure line of funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, then we can change forever the support that is provided for people with a disability in Australia. I spoke in Parliament about a local Canberra woman Denise Reid who’d written to me about her son Tim, who has Down Syndrome, and she spoke about the frustration about having to get Tim reassessed continually to prove that his chromosomes haven’t changed. She finds that it’s just a complete waste of her time, and it’s one of the many examples of this patchwork of support, and inadequate set of supports, that we provided for people with disabilities and their carers.

Ross Solly:           You understand though, why the Liberal Party will want to see all the detail and would want some explanation of where the rest of the funding is going to come from before it agrees to sign up to something?

Andrew Leigh: Ross, what we’ve said here is that there is going to be a secure line of funding through an extra .5 per cent Medicare levy, that’ll cover about 60 per cent of the costs of DisabilityCare Australia. This is, as Craig said, quite a similar approach to Medicare, a levy that doesn’t fund everything but acts a bit like an insurance premium, because all of us know that if you fall of the roof of your house while cleaning your gutters and you become a paraplegic, you’re treated very differently than if you become a paraplegic as the result of a car accident, and this patchwork means that we need another pillar in the social insurance system. And the notion of paying 96 cents for that insurance is, I think, a pretty good insurance premium against something that could happen to any of us and any of our children.

Ross Solly:           Gary Humphries, is the Liberal Party likely to support the NDIS as it stands at the moment?

Gary Humphries:        Well I can’t answer that question because I don’t know where we are with these discussions. Obviously, we’ve had another new policy direction from the Labor Government. They’re policy making is a bit like a fly in a bottle at the moment, going every direction. We need to look carefully and what this represents and we need also to know where the rest of the money is coming from. On my calculations, when the NDIS is rolled out, the levy will only represent about 40 per cent of the cost of the whole scheme, so there is a very substantial amount of money yet to be identified as a source of funding for this. And we need to bear in mind that over the last five years, living standards in Australia have stagnated, in large part because government taxes have been rising across the board. This is the 29th or 30^th new tax, or increased tax this government will have introduced, and we need to be clear that while it’s easy for us in the parliament to sort of wave a wand and say yes, we’ll have a new tax to pay for this new scheme , it’s ordinary Australians that have to pay for this and it will impact on living standards as these sorts of taxes keep mounting up.

Ross Solly:           Do you think, Gary Humphries, that most Australians are happy – it certainly seems most Canberrans are happy – to pay a little bit extra for this important cause? Do you not think generally that most Australians do?

Gary Humphries:        Look it may well be the case, I really don’t know what most Australians think about this, I think you know, most Australians will not look forward to the prospect of, on average, paying another 350 dollars or so a year on taxes to pay for another government scheme. Bearing in mind that we’re yet to find the money for the Gonski changes, there’s a dental scheme that the government is talking about, and you know, there’s a collapse in the government’s revenue which is presumably having to be paid from somewhere as well. I don’t know how we’re going to pay for all of this and at the end of the day there’s only one source, and that’s the tax payer. Look having said all that Ross, I absolutely agree that the NDIS is important. I was the chair of the parliamentary committee back in 2007 which called for a comprehensive funding increase for disability services in Australia. If my party chose to have a levy to pay for that, I would be comfortable with that and I would support that. But I acknowledge that to do this comes at a cost to the living standards of ordinary Australians as they put their hands deeper in their pockets to pay for these schemes.

Andrew Leigh: Ross I’m really pleased to hear Gary supporting, at least in a personal sense, that levy there. I do also just want to point out there that the strength of the economy over recent years; our economy is now 13 per cent bigger than it was in 2007. Over a time period where all of Europe has shrunk, Europe has twice our unemployment rate, and the US has grown by nothing like what Australia has grown by, and in that period too, the tax take has actually gone down, so Commonwealth taxes are now 22 per cent of GDP, they were 24 per cent in the mid-2000s under the Howard government. We’ve had inflation that’s actually been running well below the historical average, meaning that the cost of living hasn’t increased as rapidly according to that measure as in the past.

Ross Solly:           Which is all good when you say it, and it looks good on paper, what Gary Humphries is saying that when people actually turn around and have to put their hand in their pocket, and when their 350 dollars worse off because there is a new tax that has been introduced, that is never going to come across all that well.

Andrew Leigh: Ross I would be delighted if regular consolidated revenue was so strong that we didn’t need to look to a levy. I mean that’s why the Prime Minister when asked about this last year said that she didn’t want to fund it using a levy.

Ross Solly:           So what’s changed?

Andrew Leigh: What’s changed is the budget position, and clear statements from a number of states and territories – particularly Campbell Newman – that he wanted to make sure that the Commonwealth had a sustainable funding source before he would sign on to the national disability insurance scheme. So if this is going to be a way of making sure that a Queensland paraplegic doesn’t have to fundraise for their own wheelchair, then that seems to be a pretty powerful reason for me. The budgetary collapse in revenues is pretty substantial, $12bn revenue down since last October, $30b over the last few years –

Ross Solly:           Which prompts the question Andrew Leigh, and I’ll go to you in a minute Gary Humphries, is this the time to be introducing big new spending measures?

Andrew Leigh: DisabilityCare Australia, Ross, is an idea whose time has come. You have listeners now who were up at 3 o’clock in the morning because they were taking care of their adult son go to the bathroom because he’s not able to go there himself. To say that somebody on 70, 000 dollars can’t afford 96 cents a day so that family gets better care to look after their son, so they don’t have to face that agonising question of who will look after my adult child when I’m no longer here… I think that is worth doing.

Ross Solly:           Gary Humphries?

Gary Humphries:        Look, I mean, the cause is fantastic, the idea of what we’re trying to do with this money is great. But let’s be clear, this is part of a pattern of o the government to rapidly and very significantly increase the amount that the government is spending in order to pay for a whole range of schemes, which – worthy though most of them are – does represent an imposition on the living standards of most Australians. The government's revenue since the last year of the Howard government has increased by 70 billion dollars, the government is raising 70 billion dollars a year more from Australians than they did since the last year of the Howard government, the problem is then that the government's spending has risen by 100 billion dollars a year. The result of that is that there is a huge gap that has to be bridged by yet another new tax. I acknowledge that the cause is good, I acknowledge that we have a great moral obligation to not let our citizens with disabilities to be second class citizens, to have a lower prospect of life than what other Australians have, that is an important imperative of public policy. But we’ve got to acknowledge that to do this will be a painful one for the Australian community and we still don’t know where the other 60% or whatever the figure is of this funding is going to come from, or for that matter what the other schemes the government thinks are important, where they are going to be paid from. That’s the important question.

Ross Solly:           Do we need to know that Andrew Leigh? Do we need to be told where the rest of the money is coming from?

Andrew Leigh: I’m very happy to tell you that Ross, it will come from consolidated revenue, from the budget revenue that is raised from company tax, from the mining tax, from income taxes. That’s where the rest of that money will come from.

Ross Solly:           But that money would already be pencilled in for other projects, so what would you cut?

Andrew Leigh: We’ve been making a set of savings, we made available 1 billion dollars for the initial work on DisabilityCare in the last budget. That wasn’t an easy save, it was done by doing things like means testing the private health insurance rebate, means testing the baby bonus, which Joe Hockey then compared to China’s one child policy. These aren’t easy savings that we’ve made, but we’re on track to cut real government expenditure which will be something that never happened under the Howard government. This drop in revenues, from 24 to 22 per cent of GDP means that tax revenue hasn’t kept pace with the economy. Gary’s talking about those nominal figures, but you’ve got to think about what’s the tax take compared to the economy because that tells you the demand for health services for the pensions, that’s the budget challenge we’re facing.

Ross Solly:           Gary Humphries?

Gary Humphries:        We’re still talking about having to find that money from pockets of Australians, and again I emphasise this is more policy on the run from a government which told us only a few months ago that they’d have a surplus budget that would help us pay for these sorts of things. Now the budget’s in deficit again, as have all the previous budgets under this government have been. We just don’t know where we’re heading and that worries me greatly. We’re asking for all Australians to take us on trusts, that we can somehow pay for this and all the other important things without actually knowing how it’s going to happen. It’s not responsible decision making and to answer that earlier question, Ross, there is a lot of politicking going on board with this, and Labor senators in the federal parliament keep talking about Labor’s NDIS, and this is Labor’s achievement, there’s a lot of positioning Julia Gillard in this for some issue that may carry her through the election, rather than necessarily a piece of national building.

Ross Solly:           Alright, we’ll just go to Mike. Hi Mike.

Mike (caller):     Hi, I’d just like to say that this is an opportunity, this is an issue that should be above politics –

Ross Solly:           And you don’t think it is at the moment?

Mike (caller):     It isn’t. And I’d like to compare it to the Apology. The first thing that Kevin Rudd did was reach across the corridor to Brendan Nelson and say this is an apology from all of us. The first thing that Julia Gillard did was to say I want to pick a fight with Tony Abbott on this, and I think it was completely the wrong way to go, and the politics that have started today in your studio, it is really sickening.

Ross Solly:           Alright, well thanks for your thoughts on this Mike. Let’s go to Darren.

Darren (caller):  Hi Ross, my concerns is that you’ve got two members of parliament there, one from the Senate and one from the other place, and it’s very frustrating from my perspective that you’ve asked a specific question about funding. The .5 per cent I think is a great idea but it doesn’t fund the total amount, and your question is where is the money coming from, and for Andrew Leigh to say that it’s coming from consolidated revenue, knowing the Treasury have got it wrong in the last 12 months, and the last two years, and the mining tax has not generated the revenue that’s expected, and I would suspect it’s not necessarily going to do that into the future, how can he say that its actually coming from consolidated revenue?

Ross Solly:           Alright Darren, Andrew Leigh?

Andrew Leigh: Most taxes are not tied directly to particular items of expenditure, a hypothecated tax like the Medicare levy or this new disability care levy is unusual. Like Medicare this is going to be a small levy that doesn’t cover the cost of all of the scheme, but guarantees that half is there, the rest of those income company taxes, through the revenue that is raised by the government, we will build this, because this is something we are passionately committed to.

Ross Solly:           Andrew Leigh, thank you for coming in this morning. Senator Humphries, thank you for joining us on the phone.

Andrew Leigh: Thanks Ross.

Gary Humphries:        Thanks Ross.

On 27 March 2013, I spoke at the Australia Institute's "Politics in the Pub" about strengthening community life, drawing on some of the ideas in my 2010 book Disconnected. In case you missed it, here's a video of the event.

On the Forum last night, I spoke with Richard Glover, Joe Hockey and Hugh MacKay about my favourite Australian food, teaching the ANZAC tradition in our school curriculum and the latest revenue projections coming out of Treasury.

702ABC Sydney The Forum with Richard Glover

Last night I had a chat with Richard Glover, Joe Hockey and Hugh MacKay about my favourite Australian food, teaching the ANZAC legend in our school curriculum and the latest revenue projections coming out of Treasury