Andrew Leigh

MEDIA RELEASE

What cuts will be made to fund Tony Abbott's Direct Action Policy?

Spokesperson for Coalition Costings, Andrew Leigh has today called on Tony Abbott to release the full costings for his Direct Action plan to lower carbon emissions.

Tony Abbott claims his subsidies for polluters policy will cut Australia’s emissions by 85 million tonnes in 2020 by simply by storing carbon in the soil; Mr Abbott’s ‘Soil Magic’.

Climate Change Departmental officials have now told Senate estimates soil carbon and vegetation measures combined can only reduce emissions by around 4 million tonnes in 2020 – less than one-twentieth of the amount Tony Abbott claims.

“If these measures will only cut emissions by one-twentieth of what he originally envisaged, will Mr Abbott abandon the bipartisan emissions reduction target, bust the budget, or propose further savage cuts to meet it?” said Dr Leigh.



The Coalition’s subsidies for polluters policy has been universally ridiculed by scientists, economists, business leaders and even Liberal Party members. It will cost households at least $1300/year and won’t meet Australia’s commitments to being part of the solution to dangerous climate change.

As former Liberal Leader Malcolm Turnbull has noted, “a direct action policy where industry is able to freely pollute and the government is just spending more and more taxpayers’ money to offset it, that would become a very expensive charge on the budget.” (ABC Lateline, 18 May 2011)

“Mr Abbott needs to come clean about how much households will have to pay, what new tax will be introduced, or what cuts will be made to pay for it,” said Dr Leigh

“With the School Kids Bonus, superannuation increases, and cuts to education already on the chopping block, what else will Mr Abbott look at cutting to meet the missing 19/20ths of his emissions target?” said Mr Leigh.

I spoke in parliament today about a bill that will ensure post-election audits, and hopefully encourage the Coalition to let their policies out of hiding.

Parliamentary Budget Office, 28 May 2013

Although this is a topic that I feel very strongly about, there is a large number of bills before the House so I will speak briefly today. The Parliamentary Budget Office was established on the recommendation of a joint select committee of parliament including support from all parties. The aim of the PBO is to ensure that elections are fought around values, so that there are two well-costed sets of policies which face the Australian people. The alternative to the Parliamentary Budget Office is what we saw in the 2010 election where the coalition avoided the Charter of Budget Honesty, a charter set up by Peter Costello, and then went to the election offering policies which instead had been so-called 'audited' by a private accounting firm. That accounting firm was later fined for professional misconduct because they had not conducted an audit. We had the farce of the member for North Sydney claiming that they had only conducted a small 'a' audit. Unfortunately, audit only has a small 'a'. The coalition were, needless to say, embarrassed by this, embarrassed by the $11 billion hole in their costings which Treasury exposed. We saw some deeply disappointing scenes in here when members of the opposition criticised former Treasury secretary Ken Henry for doing his job and simply scrutinising coalition costings.

But what the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2013 will do is now place the role of a post-election audit in the hands of the Parliamentary Budget Office. So even if a party does what the coalition does at the last election and fails to put forward policies under the Charter of Budget Honesty, the Parliamentary Budget Office will still go ahead after the election and assess their costings. It will use its best professional judgement and it will draw on data provided by agencies including the Australian Taxation Office. That is an important reassurance to the Australian people, that if a party attempts to circumvent the Charter of Budget Honesty they will be caught in the noose of the Parliamentary Budget Office's post-election audit. It is a guarantee to the Australian people that they should have costed policies put in front of them. But the Australian people are not yet seeing that from the opposition. The opposition have, on their own admission, a $70 billion gap. That is not my number. That is a number which was first put forward by the member for North Sydney on the Sunrise program on 12 August 2011, when he said:

‘Therefore finding $50, 60 or 70 billion is about identifying waste and identifying areas where you do not need to proceed with programs.’

On Meet the Press the member for Goldstein said:

‘We came out with the figure, right?’

That was on 4 September 2011, and on ABC's AM, on 12 August 2011, the member for Goldstein said, 'It's a case of simple arithmetic.' They did regret it a little later, with the member for North Sydney saying on 8 February 2012, 'Okay, I shouldn't have said any figure because it was part of a debate and now it has been taken as a statement of fact.' But the cat at that stage was well and truly out of the bag.

We have that significant costings hole on the coalition side and the coalition now suggesting to the Australian people that they will do the mathematically impossible, that they will manage to cut taxes, raise spending and pay down debt faster than Labor. At the same time as promising the mathematically impossible, the coalition are repeatedly attempting to avoid scrutiny. They are saying to the Australian people that they will not produce their policies until PEFO, the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Unfortunately, Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson directly rejected the allegation of the opposition that budget numbers cannot be a basis for costings. Treasury secretary Parkinson said, on 21 May 2013:

‘I can say on behalf of David Tune, the secretary of the department of finance, and myself—and get this right—were PEFO to have been released on the 14th of May it would have contained the numbers that were in the budget.’

As Senator Wong has said, the numbers are the numbers. The figures in the budget are not figures which have a partisan hue to them. They are the figures that are the best estimates of Treasury as to the state of the nation's finances.

Based on those figures, the Australian people are entitled to hear what the opposition would do in order to close that $50 billion, $60 billion or $70 billion hole.

The member for North Sydney has said:

‘I would have expected Martin Parkinson to say nothing different yesterday because he is—quite appropriately—a servant of the Government.’

That is a slur on a professional public servant who upholds the best of frank and fearless advice, not the kind of flaccid and fearful public servants that the coalition would like to see but a frank and fearless tradition. The member for North Sydney should withdraw the slur on the Secretary to the Treasury, which is in essence arguing that the Treasury secretary is a liar and a law-breaker.

I commend the bill to the House. I commend the hard work of public servants, particularly Treasury officials, and their professionalism in discharging their duty.

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

TOPICS                                 No confidence motion, live odds, Private Health Insurance Rebate, foreign aid.



Tim Lester:                          Senator Fiona Nash and Andrew Leigh, welcome back to Breaking Politics. Fiona Nash, what happened to the Opposition’s no confidence motion in the Government?

Fiona Nash:                        Well certainly there’s been some discussion around that in the past, but what is really interesting I think we have no confidence in the Government, the big question of course is whether or not the independents, the cross benchers still have confidence in the Government. And I think even more importantly Tim, out there in the community there is no confidence in the Government. And really, when I’m moving around regional communities the thing that is most clear, most apparent, is this lack of confidence in the Government and in the future. So, there’s been a real slow-down, if you like, a real lack of investment, a real lack spend, and particularly in our regional communities, we’re seeing an almost grinding halt happening out in these regional communities.

Tim Lester:                          Ok, so the community’s confidence will be well and truly tested on September 14^th and you might be right about no confidence then but, for now, Tony Abbott had said that he would test it on the floor of Parliament, isn’t it the case that he wouldn’t get the support on the cross-benches he needs to make the motion fly?

Fiona Nash:                        Oh well that’s obviously a matter for the Leader on whether or not there would be support. You know, we’d have to wait and see whether a no confidence motion goes ahead, but that’s a matter for the leader. At the moment I’m focussing on being out there in the communities and I can certainly tell you, out there there’s no confidence in this Government.

Tim Lester:                          The sports advertising for gambling in sports…

Andrew Leigh: Can I just quickly respond on the confidence thing, Tim? It is striking to see a no confidence motion fail for lack of confidence by the people who are going to move it. But there’s a broader issue too, which is that the Coalition, I think, is playing a dangerous game on talking down confidence in Australia. You can see this actually in some of the consumer confidence surveys which are split out by partisanship, and you can see the confidence in the economy among Coalition supporters falling substantially. That’s a dangerous game. The Australian economy is actually performing very strongly by international standards and if you look back over the last couple of decades we’re doing very well; low debt load, good unemployment by international standards, strong growth. You’ve got to be careful about trash-talking the Australian economy; it’s a dangerous game.

Fiona Nash:                        It’s not talking down confidence though, it’s just talking about the facts of the feeling out there in the community, of the perceptions of people out there in the community and there is this continued move from the Government to say, “compared to the rest of the world”. We’ve got countries around this world that are basket cases that you’re comparing us to. That is not a good comparison. So it’s not about the Coalition talking down confidence, trying to create that impression, it’s actually a fact. We’re just reflecting what people out there in the community are thinking.

Andrew Leigh: I think that your leader is doing more than that, Fiona. I mean I certainly notice…

Fiona Nash:                        Well you’re entitled to you opinion

Andrew Leigh: But we’ve had the greatest downturn since the Global Financial Crisis [Great Depression] hit Australia and we’ve come through that remarkably well thanks to the resilience of the Australian economy. I think it is a dangerous game to start, for example, talking up the impact of a carbon price which was CPI impact of 0.7 per cent, very small impact on prices. Or the mining tax, which has not caused towns to be wiped off the map, it has not caused the sort of economic devastation that the Opposition Leader said it would. I think it’s better to talk about the optimism of the Australian people, the resilience of the Australian economy. Then the debate can be about policy, not about just trash talking Australia, which is the game, I think, some members of your party have played.

Tim Lester:                          Let’s perhaps move on to the advertising question, sports advertising question, because it’s an important one to put to you both I think. Andrew Leigh, perhaps first you, there are many who think Julia Gillard has not gone far enough by simply addressing live odds advertising in sporting events and not taking on the bigger issue of gambling advertising anytime in children’s hours. What do you say?

Andrew Leigh: Well Tim, like Fiona, I’m regularly out in the community talking to people about the issue and the strongest feeling that comes back to me is the feeling that live odds are frustrating people. They don’t like watching a game with their kids where live odds are coming on. The measure the Prime Minister announced on Sunday does ensure that from the moment the players run out onto the footy field until the moment the game is over people won’t see live odds. That’s true if the game’s being broadcast in children’s hours, it’s also true if a child is staying up until 10pm to watch a footy game with mum or dad. So in that sense this is a stronger proposal than a proposal that simply cauterize children’s hours.

Tim Lester:                          Fiona Nash, are you able to comfortably sit and watch gambling ads of other sorts in children television hours and go, “that’s ok” or do you think we should have gone further than Julia Gillard and Stephen Conroy have gone?

Fiona Nash:                        Well I think it’s certainly a welcome step in the right direction but our view in the Coalition is very much, this is a particular issue where the outcome has to meet community expectations. Now, we will look very closely to the response from the community as to what the Government has said will now be in place. Whether or not it needs to go further we will very much judge on what the community feedback is, and if the community feedback is that, no, that doesn’t go far enough, of course we’ll take that into account. We’ll be monitoring very closely.

Tim Lester:                          Which is a wait and see approach, I guess. You don’t yet feel you’ve got enough feedback from the community to go, “this is the way my community wants us to go”?

Fiona Nash:                        Well I think it’s just a very common sense and practical way to go forward. We’ve seen a first step from the Government here. It’s been a welcome first step, but what we need to make sure is that the community out there are happy with that being far enough. Now, I suspect there are going to be a lot of people in our community who think that doesn’t go far enough. Our job in the Coalition is to now watch and monitor that, have a look at what the community feedback is, and if it needs to go further, if it needs to be stronger, then we need to take that very seriously.

Andrew Leigh: Sometimes governments, I think, have to lead these debates too and I guess I was worried a couple of weeks ago when Mr Abbott said he would back the industry code. We’ve decided to go further than that. We’ve decided to take a significant step that goes ahead of the industry and I think that was the right thing to do.

Fiona Nash:                        Can I just clarify that though, that Tony Abbott certainly was talking about this issue a lot and he was saying about backing the code, but he very much was saying that if necessary, he would come in and make sure that the proper safeguards were there so I don’t think it’s fair on Tony Abbott to just say he would back the code. He meant much further than that saying that if it was necessary, he was prepared to go further.

Tim Lester:                          On the question of Coalition plans, the Government is now planning to slash 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate over four years saving about $700 million. We’re told in this morning’s press, if you believe it, that the Coalition now supports the cuts to the Private Health Insurance Rebate. Are we seeing a pattern here, Fiona Nash, of the Coalition quietly allowing the Government to cut in to old Howard Government plans among others, to save yourselves heavy lifting when you’re confronted with budget number one next year assuming you win?

Fiona Nash:                        Well that’s something as a party room we’re yet to consider but I think the pattern is very strongly the realisation out there in the community that the Coalition understands that we have to fix this economic mess that the Government has got the nation into. Now, if we are fortunate enough to get into government after the 14^th of September there is going to be a huge mess to fix so we’re being absolutely consistent in saying the priority has to be getting this country economically back on its feet. We’ve got a $257 billion gross debt, we’ve got very little to show in this nation as people just say to me all the time, for all of the money for all the borrowing that this Government has done, what is there to show for it?

Tim Lester:                          So if the Baby Bonus, the Private Health Insurance Rebate and the like have to go, so be it?

Fiona Nash:                        No, not at all. I’m saying that we’re having to consider very carefully all of the legislation that is before us in terms of the ramifications for the nation. We just can’t keep going on this willy-nilly spending spree that this Labor Government has invoked and expect this country to be economically sustainable. So we’re just being sensible and applying common sense to how we have to look at future economic management.

Tim Lester:                          A last question for you both. Bill Gates in town today has been reasonably restrained so far in his comments on our foreign aid cuts, that is, the Government twice in a row, two budgets in a row now pushing back the goal of reaching half of one per cent of gross national income spent on foreign aid. He’s being pretty forgiving of Australia welshing on what was a pretty clear undertaking under Kevin Rudd isn’t he, Andrew Leigh?

Andrew Leigh: Not at all, Tim. He is looking around the world and looking at Australia being a stand-out country for having substantially increased foreign aid now to $5.7 billion: the highest level as a share of GDP in a quarter of a century. That’s an important increase to foreign aid at a time when other countries are cutting their foreign aid budgets. He would like Australia to spend more on foreign aid I’m sure, but he looks around the world and sees a country that is increasing its generosity to the world’s poorest people. And you’ve got to look around the world on issues, whether it’s looking at debt as a share of GDP or whether it’s looking at foreign aid as a share of GDP. All of these issues require a global perspective.

Tim Lester:                          Ok, Fiona Nash, has the Government moved too slowly to that benchmark that Kevin Rudd promised to meet or is the Government right to slow down our reaching that goal?

Fiona Nash:                        I think we have to recognise that as a developed nation, we do have a responsibility to help those other nations that do require our assistance. There’s no doubt about that and I think in the past there has been fairly bipartisan support to how we approach our foreign assistance. But we do need to balance that with what we can and can’t do, what is appropriate and certainly our domestic needs here at home. So, it’s very much a balancing act and we certainly are continuing to contribute to that global task.

Tim Lester:                          And the Government’s balance is the right one?

Fiona Nash:                        Well certainly we need to make sure that we have the assistance there that is necessary. We do have to be prudent on occasion across a range of areas where we’re looking at our financial expenditure but I think certainly that there has been in the past, a bipartisan approach to how we look at assisting those developing nations.

Tim Lester:                          Fiona Nash, Andrew Leigh, thank you for coming back in to Breaking Politics. Nice to have you both in the studio!

Andrew Leigh: Absolutely, thanks Tim. Thanks Fiona.

Fiona Nash:                        Thanks Tim

TRANSCRIPT – DOORS
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
28 May 2013

TOPICS:                Funding the NDIS, advertising of live odds during sporting matches, election disclosure changes, the Government’s efficiency dividend, asylum seekers



Andrew Leigh: In public life it’s not good enough just to say that you support a worthy policy; you’ve also got to front up and say where the money is coming from. In the case of DisabilityCare, a reform that will

transform the lives of 410,000 Australians and their carers, you also need to say where that money will come from. And the Coalition today has said that they won’t back nearly $400 million worth of savings from the Private Health Insurance Rebate in order to fund DisabilityCare. So they need to be very clear with the Australian people today, does that mean they’re backing away from DisabilityCare entirely? Or are they going to make another cut elsewhere? Or are they going to raise another tax? Because it’s not good enough in public life, to support a principle you’ve actually got to say where the money is coming from. Happy to take questions.

Journalist:           Do you expect fiery debate in caucus today over live betting odds?

Andrew Leigh: I think that what the Prime Minister announced on Sunday is an important step forward. I think it really recognises that Australians are sick of seeing live odds throughout sporting matches, sick of having kids watch those and I think there will be a strong recognition in caucus as I’ve sensed in many conversations with Labor colleagues over recent days, that this does substantially change the situation for live odds

Journalist:           Does it go far enough?

Andrew Leigh: In my view it does. I think this manages to ensure that from the moment the players step onto the field to the moment they’re off the field you don’t have live odds and that’s been a chief concern that’s come back to me in my street stalls and my community meetings. It’s that promotion of live odds during the game that is of greatest concern to people.

Journalist:           If Stephen Jones puts forward a motion calling for the ban on gambling advertising before 8:30pm, will you be supporting that?

Andrew Leigh: Stephen is entitled to put forward a motion and I’m sure there will be good quality public policy debate in the Labor caucus as there always is. But it’s important to realise also that in a sense, in one important respect, the Prime Minister’s announcement goes further which is that it doesn’t simply regulate children’s viewing hours, it ensures that if a sporting match is on ten o’clock and the kids are staying up with Mum and Dad to watch it then the kids aren’t exposed to live odds throughout that sporting match.

Journalist:           Should taxpayers be funding the administrative costs of political parties running for the election?

Andrew Leigh: I think you’re referring to some stories that are around today regarding disclosure caps and funding. As I understand it, those discussions are still ongoing at the moment. Clearly the principles of public funding for elections and of disclosure caps are well entrenched in the Australian political system. The Labor Party would like to see those disclosure limits come down from $12,000 to $1,000 as we believe there should be greater transparency in the system

Journalist:           But why the need for tens of millions of dollars more money for the parties?

Andrew Leigh: As I understand it, these discussions are still ongoing. I don’t know where things have landed at, or if there has indeed been a landing on the public funding aspect. Certainly, that’s something that will become clearer in the coming days.

Journalist:           Do you think that political parties, your political party, does need more money [inaudible]?

Andrew Leigh: The principle of public funding for elections has been entrenched in our system for a long time and the notion of public funding is, I think, an important one. Arguing about ideas is healthy for a strong democracy and public funding is one aspect of that. Now, of course I’d like to see  a little more discussion about ideas and a little less mud-slinging in politics. But you can’t mandate what political parties and candidates will use those resources for.

Journalist:           Is your efficiency dividend impeding on the work of some of our spy agencies and security agencies to actually do the best job that they can?

Andrew Leigh: The efficiency dividend has been in place since 1989. It’s a policy that’s existed for a quarter of a century. It exists across government agencies and it’s something that has existed under the Hawke,

Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard Governments. So I think the efficiency dividend is now a regular part of Australian public policy.

Journalist:           [inaudible] agency’s been quarantined from?

Andrew Leigh: I think the efficiency dividend aims to encourage agencies to find savings and efficiencies where they can. But in the case of intelligence agencies, I’d certainly note that ASIO for example has received a substantial increase in funding in the latest budget.

Journalist:           That’s only to pay for the influx of asylum seekers and assessing them for national security, isn’t it?

Andrew Leigh: Well ASIO has received a substantial injection in funding reflecting the challenges that we face in a rapidly changing security environment…

Journalist:           But they’re also facing challenges in terms of cyber-attacks. Last night it was revealed that the blueprints have been stolen to that building. Is this really the time that money should be pulled away from these agencies?

Andrew Leigh: Well as I’ve made clear to you, ASIO has seen an injection of funds not a withdrawal of funds…

Journalist:           Are you concerned with the blueprints being stolen?

Andrew Leigh: …and on operational matters, I wouldn’t comment on specifics,  but I would say on the issue of cyber-attacks that this is an issue that was raised as an important priority for Australia in the Defence White Paper at the start of the year. We’re seeing a rise in cyber-attacks globally. That’s reflected in the United States in particular, but also Australia is at risk of these attacks and we need to make sure we’re prepared to deal with them.

Journalist:           Laura Smyth is going to be arguing in caucus today for more clarity over the ‘no advantage’ test, do you agree with that? Do you think there should be a clearer timeframe around that?



Andrew Leigh: I think the principle of the ‘no advantage’ test is a simple and straightforward one, which is that if two asylum seekers are in a refugee camp, the one who can afford to pay for the people smuggler shouldn’t get an advantage over the family that can’t afford to pay the people smuggler. That’s an issue of fairness but it’s also an issue of safety – about reducing the horrendous number of tragedies we’ve seen with maritime arrivals over recent years. So, that’s a principle I support. I’d like to see the Coalition back in all of the recommendations from the Houston Panel and not just cherry-picking the Houston Panel.

Journalist:           Do you think the Government, though, should be giving a clearer timeframe in terms of how long asylum seekers are going to wait under the ‘no advantage’ test?

Andrew Leigh: Well I think the most important thing with the ‘no advantage’ test is the clarity to asylum seekers. That you should not get on a boat and come to Australia because you won’t receive an advantage for doing that. That’s the point at which clarity is most important because that’s the point at which we can reduce demand for people smugglers and we can also ensure that there are fewer people getting on boats and fewer drownings at sea which is ultimately the thing that troubles my constituents most, it’s the issue that comes up most in community discussions; the horrendous number of ocean tragedies that have occurred over recent years.

Journalist:           [inaudible] yesterday showed 73% of people whose asylum claims were rejected are eventually overturned, does that show that the system is somehow broken?

Andrew Leigh: We have an appeals process and certainly that’s as it should be. I’m not going to comment on the specifics of legal claims except to say that it’s important that that review process exists and I’m a strong respecter of the courts. I was an associate to Michael Kirby a while back and certainly wouldn’t want to be suggesting anything other than these are honest public servants and decent judges striking different views as is normal in a democracy and a legal system like ours.

Journalist:           That data also showed that Hazara people had a much lower chance of having their decision overturned and they were putting that down to illiteracy. Do you think there needs to be more support for people who perhaps don’t have the same education?

Andrew Leigh: Well asylum seekers receive significant support through making claims and also there’s a large number of immigration lawyers who have been offering to act for high profile claimants. So I think there’s certainly support there and again that’s as it should be, that’s fundamental to our system. But you do need to look too at the clear differences between the parties here. There’s only one party in Australia that wants to bring down the number of asylum seekers Australia takes. As I understand it, for the first time in decades, that would be I think a horrendous decision from a moral and ethical standpoint, an awful signal to send to the world – that Australia is now putting up the shutters, taking fewer asylum seekers than we’ve done in the past. I think it’s deeply mean spirited of the Coalition to be bringing down the asylum seeker intake as they’ve now decided to do and of course just shows that they’re really just playing politics all along when they were suggesting to Andrew Wilkie in negotiations that they would increase it substantially.

I spoke tonight on a Coalition bill that calls for disclosure of taxpayer data - but only for MRRT and PRRT taxpayers.

MRRT Taxation - Private Member's Bill, 27 May 2013

It is worth reviewing briefly how we got to where we are today. When the mining boom hit Australia with commodity prices hitting century highs and mining profits going sky high, this government decided it would be an appropriate time to do for the mining sector what we had done in the petroleum resource sector a quarter-century earlier. That is not to use the old, outdated system of royalties to tax mining but to use a far more economically sound approach and to tax profits in the mining sector. Profits based taxation, Brown taxation, makes eminent sense. It recognises that the world price is not a price that is driven by the ingenuity of miners, ingenious as they may be, but it is a price which is driven by the demands of the world for our commodities. China and India are demanding our coal and iron ore because they need them to build skyscrapers for their industrialisation and that has driven the price through the roof. Yet until this government put in place an MRRT the Australian taxpayer did not see an extra cent when the prices went up. They got maybe a little extra for the volume but nothing for the price. So whereas at the start of the decade mining taxes were a dollar in three of company profits, by the end they had gone down to a dollar in seven.

This government decided to put in place an MRRT, a profits based mining tax, indeed the same mining approach which had been recommended to the Henry tax review by the Minerals Council of Australia. That is right: when the Henry review asked for suggestions on how to do mining taxation, the Minerals Council of Australia said, 'You ought to do it through a profits based tax.' It is not a radical suggestion. Indeed, Sarah Palin made her name in Alaska on profits based commodity taxation. So if you think that is a radical idea, I guess that means you think Sarah Palin is a moderate.

We put in place an MRRT and that MRRT is a fairer way of taxing commodity revenue. That commodity revenue is going to go up and down, but what this government has announced is that we are introducing legislation to allow the publication of revenue that reveals individual taxpayers. The bill that we are bringing before the House is a comprehensive approach. It will apply not only to the MRRT and the PRRT but also to other taxes paid by large corporations and multinationals. It is a considered, properly thought-through approach to transparency. It is not an opposition thought bubble; it does not simply attempt to grab a cheap headline. It actually takes a substantive approach to improving transparency.

What frustrates me most in this debate is hearing insinuations from those opposite that the government has been trying to hide MRRT taxation. This is information that the government did not have access to in the first quarter. The Commissioner of Taxation made a determination that under current arrangements he was legally unable to provide the data to the government or to release it publicly. That advice was not political advice, it was based on advice from the Australian Government Solicitor.

So what we really have here is those opposite cooking up a bogus debate so they can go into bat for the mining sector. The mining sector is a sector that the opposition has pledged to give a big tax cut to. When it comes to the election, those opposite will be going to the polls promising voters that they will give a tax cut to Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer and that the tax cut will be paid for by taking money away from kids on their first day of school. That is the values, that is the priorities of those opposite. They do not believe that mining companies should pay their fair share; they believe that mining companies are paying too much tax. The repeal of the mining tax and the repeal of the carbon price are going to create a revenue shortfall of $26 billion, over $1,000 for every Australian. How do you make up for that? You either raise taxes on middle Australia or you savagely cut spending.

If those opposite are speaking about transparency then the key issue that Australians are demanding transparency on is coalition costings. Australians expect that when they go to the polls they will have the chance to make a decision between two sets of properly costed policies. Governing is about trade-offs, it is not about promising everything to every special interest that wants a tax repealed, every special interests that wants more spending.

Government is about making choices. When Australians hear those opposite say that they can deliver higher spending, lower taxes and pay down debt faster, they should know they are being told porkies. They should know that this is magic pudding economics.

We have seen some of that through independent experts, through the Parliamentary Budget Office and through Treasury, confirming that under Labor the budget will steadily improve over the coming years; independent experts who have recognised that the world economy has taken an axe to government revenues; independent experts who have also recognised that the sustainability of former Prime Minister John Howard's fiscal decisions in the early 2000s was deeply questionable. The Parliamentary Budget Office report on the structural deficit has confirmed the recent International Monetary Fund report, which found that, when you look back over Australian history back to World War II, the Howard-Costello government was the most wasteful government in Australia's history.

The opposition now are in a deep fiscal hole. They have on their own admission a $70 billion black hole, which is in the order of $3,000 per Australian, and that is before the recent significant write-downs to company revenue. They are planning on skating to the election on a mysterious commission of audit—the same commission of audit tactic that Campbell Newman attempted to use prior to the Queensland election to hide his harshest cuts from the voters. What Campbell Newman has delivered to Queenslanders is 14,000 job losses and savage attacks on health and education.

Much of the coalition's fiscal hole comes from policies like the deeply regressive paid parental leave scheme. I do not have to go about criticising that scheme, because so many of those opposite have done it for me. We have heard comments from the member for Tangney, who said:

‘Certainly I'm aware of a number of colleagues that have similar concerns on this policy. … There hasn't been a detailed policy debate on this issue in the party room, but I think that it is one that needs to be had.’

We have had the member for Mitchell, who says:

‘Most importantly for Australians, the policy does not pass the fair-go test.’

We had the member for Moore say:

‘The Labor Party scheme is quite good—‘

and questioned how the coalition scheme would improve productivity. Former Liberal Minister Peter Reith has said: 'It is obviously bad policy. I have no doubt a lot of people in the coalition are unhappy about it. It was a decision by Tony.’

The opposition have claimed that they can pay for this highly regressive, unfair paid parental leave scheme through company taxes, which all sensible-thinking economic folks know are ultimately levied on workers. So this will mean more expensive prices on groceries and driving up the cost of mortgages because it will be imposed on banks, all for a scheme which is not going to be available to those working in government. That means not only the public servants in my electorate but the teachers, the police officers, the local government childcare workers—none of these workers will have access to the paid parental leave scheme that the opposition is putting in place. It will be extremely expensive. It will hit them, but it will not help them.

I also want to note in closing some of the to and fro that has been taking place over the past week over the allegations of the member for North Sydney about government. The member for North Sydney has suggested that in some way Treasury forecasts are politicised. Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson has come back and responded to that in crystal terms. He has said:

‘Let me be very clear. Treasury does not provide the government with a range of numbers. Treasury provides its best professional estimate to the government. It is up to the government of the day - and this applies back through history - to do what it wishes with those forecasts.’

So the Treasury secretary has been crystal clear with the member for North Sydney that the forecasts produced by Treasury are a number, not a range. That has been the case under previous governments. It is the case under this government. To say otherwise is to deceive this parliament.

I spoke in parliament tonight on same-sex marriage, the fifth major speech I've given on this topic (and the fourth in parliament). (Links to previous speeches)

Same-Sex Marriage, 27 May 2013

This is the fourth occasion on which I have risen in this place to speak on the topic of same-sex marriage so I do not intend to recite the arguments and the cases that I have spoken about in previous speeches nor my respect for those who have a different viewpoint on this.

What I do want to do in the short time available to me is to broaden the philosophical basis for same-sex marriage. The case has, I believe, been made on the basis of equality—a value which many Australians hold dear and which is fundamental to our unique Antipodean notion of egalitarianism. People have spoken about same-sex marriage in the context of social justice and the recognition and protection of fundamental political and civil rights. But in my view the equality case is equally matched by a small 'l' liberal case for same-sex marriage and by a conservative case for same-sex marriage. Recently, conservative leaders in the United Kingdom and New Zealand have moved to allow conscience votes on the floors of their parliaments to take place on same-sex marriage—a marker as to how quickly attitudes are changing on this critical issue.

Prime Minister Cameron has said that he supports same-sex marriage not in spite of his conservatism but because of it. He says:

‘I think marriage is a great institution - I think it helps people to commit, it helps people to say that they're going to care and love for another person. It helps people to put aside their selfish interests and think of the union that they're forming. It's something I feel passionately about and I think if its good enough for straight people like me, its good enough for everybody and that’s why we should have gay marriage and we will.’

New Zealand conservative Prime Minister John Key said: 'My view has been that if two gay people want to get married then I can't see why it would undermine my marriage'. In New Zealand's parliamentary debate over the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill earlier this year, conservative MP Maurice Williamson delivered a rousing speech that went viral on the internet. He spoke from what I would regard as a small 'l' liberal perspective when he said:

‘… all we are doing with this bill is allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage. That is all we are doing. We are not declaring nuclear war on a foreign state. We are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our agricultural sector for ever. We are allowing two people who love each other to have that recognised, and I cannot see what is wrong with that for neither love nor money. I just cannot. I cannot understand why someone would be opposed. I understand why people do not like what it is that others do. That is fine. We are all in that category.

‘But I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill right now. I give you a watertight guaranteed promise. The sun will still rise tomorrow. Your teenage daughter will still argue back to you as if she knows everything. Your mortgage will not grow. You will not have skin diseases or rashes, or toads in your bed. The world will just carry on. This bill is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on. So do not make this into a big deal. This bill is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.’

That is a beautiful exposition of the small 'l' liberal case for same-sex marriage.

I want to speak briefly about the personal experience of Reverend Janis R Huggett, a constituent of mine who wrote to me last year and said:

‘I am a retired Uniting Church ordained minister who would certainly have experienced both personal joy and legal benefit from being able to marry my partner before she died three years ago. Instead, I had to cope with her brother challenging her will and being forced to continue to declare my legal as 'never married' rather than 'widowed'. After all our years together, that is so unjust. The church has been much more supportive than the government, in case you are wondering about Christian views on this subject.’

I would like to recognise many of those on the other side of the house who would like to vote for same-sex marriage if a conscience vote were allowed, including the member for Longman, the member for Higgins, the member for Wentworth, Senator Sue Boyce, Senator Simon Birmingham, and New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell.

I come to this from a perspective of equality. I acknowledge the hard work of Rainbow Labor, of activists such as Matthew Donovan, who worked as an intern in my office and helped prepare these remarks. But I hope that others will recognise that there are many good philosophical bases on which to ground same-sex marriage. It is not a battle between gay and straight, conservative and progressive, or left and right. It is an issue which ought to allow all of us to speak for our own electorates, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will allow his party to do just that—a value that is in the spirit of his party.

I spoke in parliament today about the launch of Entry 29, Canberra's newest place for start-ups.

Innovation in Canberra, 27 March 2013

Last Wednesday, I attended the launch of Entry 29, a co-working innovation space located just on the edge of the ANU campus in Acton. The name Entry 29 has a terrific connection to Canberra's history. In the federal capital design competition to design Canberra, 137 entries were submitted and the winner was the 29th entrant. In memory of Canberra's history and with an eye to Canberra's future, the Canberra community decided to call this innovation space Entry 29.

Entry 29 is a community-driven, not-for-profit company, whose aim is to provide a social and inspiring work space, where entrepreneurs can connect, create and collaborate on new and exciting opportunities. It also offers meeting facilities, access to mentors and service providers, including access to business advisers and financiers. Entry 29 has been driven by Canberra's start-up community in direct response to the need for affordable, collaborative accommodation for entrepreneurs and start-ups. It adds significantly to Canberra's track record as Australia's ideas capital—and we need to turn these ideas into business ventures. This is where Australia has great potential but has historically been weak.

Canberra has a wonderful record of innovation: Wi-Fi from the CSIRO; Nobel Prize winner Brian Schmidt's work on the expanding universe at ANU; and the great public policy entrepreneurs who populate the Australian Public Service. But the success of Entry 29 will be when one sees the office spaces around the ANU precinct being taken up by new business innovators, as one sees around the campuses of MIT and Stanford in the United States.

The hard work of volunteers from this community has gotten the facility ready for business. I want to thank Rory Ford, Nick McNaughton, Marcus Dawes, Craig Thomler, Anna Pino, Mick Cardew-Hall from the ANU, Peter Davison as well as my friend Andrew Barr, the Minister for Economic Development, for the ACT government's support for this vital innovation space.

I have spoken many times in this parliament about the need to support innovation. It was my pleasure last year to participate in a roundtable at Government House, along with Senator Sinodinos, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. The roundtable was organised by Brian Schmidt in order to boost innovation in Australia. I regularly hold breakfast meetings for social entrepreneurs in my electorate because I believe we need to do more to encourage start-ups in the not-for-profit space. Entry 29 adds to that. It fills the gap that Australia has between the creation of ideas and the commercialisation of them. I wish the team at Entry 29 every success.

Here’s the fiscal challenge for the Coalition

Budget seasons is a time for parties to elevate debate above political point scoring and sloganeering, and to outline to the Australian people their respective visions for our future and their agendas for government. For this reason, it’s probably Tony Abbott’s least favourite time of year.

Instead of howling ‘no’ at every policy put forward by the government, Mr Abbott needed to step up as Leader of the Opposition and present an alternative. Instead of using nominal figures and juvenile scare-mongering on the state of the economy, Mr Abbott’s own policies – assuming he has any – will have to undergo scrutiny from the Parliamentary Budget Office and then the Australian public.

Tony Abbott is taking it for granted that he will become Australia’s next Prime Minister in September. This misguided sense of entitlement has distracted him from his current job. It’s simply not good enough for him to persist with catch phrases; he must come clean with the Australian people on his plan to fund his laundry list of bizarre policies.

As Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson has pointed out, if the Pre-Election Fiscal and Economic Outlook (PEFO) had been released last week, it would have contained precisely the figures that were in the budget. This means that Tony Abbott knows the numbers. The election is now less than four months away, so he must have some idea what his policies are. The Parliamentary Budget Office is standing ready to cost the Opposition’s policies. The time for bluster is over; the time for details has arrived.

The fact is that Australia is facing a significant budgetary challenge, with the high dollar weighing heavily on government revenues. The amount of tax revenue that the Government has collected this year is $17 billion less than was forecast in our Budget last year.

Labor has made the tough decisions to accompany our spending with structural saves; for example by means-testing the private health insurance rebate. This is a structural save which generates more money in the longer term and can be used to support important priorities like DisabilityCare.

Only Labor has put forward a plan to make sure no Australian will be left behind, through introducing initiatives such as DisabilityCare, the National Plan for School Improvement and increases to pensions and superannuation. We know these are important investments in Australia’s future and we know the value of achieving these reforms now. The Coalition does not share this vision. It persists with their policy of giving tax cuts to big miners and big polluters, which must ultimately be paid for by middle Australia.

The Opposition doesn’t want to take these tough decisions before the election, because they know that Australians will be concerned with their plans to drastically cut spending. If Mr Abbott wants to be taken seriously as a manager of the economy, he should have used his budget reply to outline the tough decisions he will take and the details of how he will fund his policies. Unfortunately, he spent too much time talking the Australian economy down, and not enough time outlining the cuts he will need to make. Mr Abbott has demonstrated time and again that he does not take the task of managing the economic future of this country seriously.

This article originally appeared in Inside Canberra Vol. 66, No. 17

TRANSCRIPT – CAPITAL HILL
Andrew Leigh MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
Member for Fraser
22 May 2013

E&OE



TOPICS:                Coalition costings.

Lyndal Curtis:                     Being Shadow Treasurer in budget week can be a little like being the understudy. You get to help prosecute your side’s case in the media, but the glory of the parliamentary reply goes to the Opposition Leader. It may be a little under a week since the formal budget reply, but Joe Hockey got his day in the spotlight today with the now traditional Shadow Treasurer’s post-budget address to the National Press Club. The government was calling on Mr Hockey to reveal the Coalition’s policy and costings – he didn’t do that, but he did make one or two announcements. Joining me this evening is the Shadow Small Business Minister Bruce Billson, and Labor Parliamentary Secretary Andrew Leigh. Welcome to you both. We’ll start this evening with Mr Hockey’s explanation of why, when the Coalition says there’s a budget emergency, it’s still electing to keep the carbon price compensation by way of tax cuts and pension rises.

Footage of

Joe Hockey:                        …We make no apologies for delivering tax cuts, I think it was every year for our last five or six years. And in fact Labor were so impressed with that that they went on to deliver our tax cuts when they got into government – and thank you for that. I think the challenge going forward is to have stability in tax. Now, we do not apologise for tax cuts that involve the abolition of the carbon tax and the mining tax, because they are a handbrake. Those two taxes are a handbrake on the Australian economy, and I think, if there is a change of government on the 14^th of September, there will be a surge of confidence. I believe that in my heart, and it’s true. And if that is the case, then part of that will be about the fact that the mining industry is not going to have a mining tax, and every household is going to be liberated from additional costs associated with the carbon tax. So we make no apologies for those.



Lyndal Curtis:                     Bruce, does it seem a bit odd that if you declare a budget emergency, and then you don’t elect to take $4 billion of savings you could have had by pulling back the carbon price compensation, which I assume you’d think would be needed because there’s no carbon price?

Bruce Billson:                     Well, Lyndal it’s not just the Commonwealth government that has a budget emergency because of the reckless spending and waste of the Labor government, it’s households as well. Households have budget emergencies, you’ve seen figures released this week about the pressure in household rising right across Australia. Cost of living pressures keep coming at them, very little opportunity for discretionary expenditure, real concern about paying the bills at the end of each month. And that’s something that we recognise; Australian’s want to get ahead, it’s a country that’s built a reputation of getting ahead from one generation to the next. That’s not what the Australian people feel night now, and our approach to remove the cost of living keeps those income tax and pension payments is about releasing the budget crisis in many Australian households.

Lyndal Curtis:                     But you doing it effectively twice over? You say the price of electricity and gas goes down if you remove the carbon price, that cost of living pressure is presumably eased if that happens. And then you relieve it again, by keeping the tax cuts and pension rises.

Bruce Billson:                     Well, an excellent account about how positive this is for the households, Lyndal. Removing the cost pressures that are created by a carbon tax that’s way out of step with anything that’s going on in the rest of the world, putting upward pressure not only on the costs of households face but Australian businesses face as they seek to compete internationally and seek to secure markets. And some opportunity to relieve the budget pressures in those households, with the tax cuts and also the additional pension payments paid fortnightly.

Lyndal Curtis:                     We might go now to some of the announcements in Joe Hockey’s speech. Andrew, it seemed like a pitch to small business to make the Tax Office nicer, to make it more accountable, have the Tax Commissioner appear as the Reserve Bank governor does before a parliamentary committee, have an inquiry into the structure of the tax office, and perhaps even break it up into administrative and policing functions. Do you believe that there’s anything wrong with what Joe Hockey proposed?

Andrew Leigh: Well Lyndal, I look at this as a federal representative for the ACT, and it’s pretty strange here when you see that the Coalition’s promise is to get rid of 20 000 Canberra public servants –

Lyndal Curtis:                     I think they’ve only actually said 12 –

Andrew Leigh: Mr Hockey has repeatedly referred to there being 20 000 more public servants than there were, and the need to cut back. I think that it is pretty clear that he is moving up –

Bruce Billson:                     It’s 12.

Andrew Leigh: - from 12 to 20. But regardless, there will be a big hit on the ACT economy and as a result to that, many small businesses will be sent into a tailspin. And yet at the same time that he wants to get rid of 20 000 hard-working public servants, Mr Hockey wants to add more senior public servants into the Tax Office. I mean, the first policy position Mr Hockey comes up with that is actually consistent will be his first. There is nothing for ACT small businesses in Mr Hockey’s smash-and-grab plans, and small businesses across the nation are going to be hard hit by the tough austerity that the Coalition has in promise. What we’re going to see if Mr Abbott is elected is similar to what the United Kingdom has seen, where David Cameron’s brutal austerity is closing libraries, and sending that economy back into recession. That’s clearly their textbook.

Lyndal Curtis:                     If we could just stay on the Tax Office for a minute – Bruce, if the Tax Office is split into two, isn’t that effectively creating a second bureaucracy?

Bruce Billson:                     My head is still spinning after Andrew Leigh, he must be on that Labor kool-aid, hardly anything that he said was actually grounded in facts, but let’s try and bring it back to what Joe was actually saying. He was saying the Tax Office has been particularly insensitive to the real life and commercial realities that small businesses are facing. He pointed to a potential conflict where the agency has its administrative function – the day to day work of collecting taxes that are needed to fund the important work and services of the Commonwealth provides – sitting alongside those that are in a prosecution role. And we’ve seen for instance the number of garnishees issued against small business up by about 450%. I get reports every day, every day about an insensitivity to the pressures that small businesses are facing, that there are assumptions of profitability that lead to claims of tax avoidance when the reality is margins are very thin, things are very tough out there, this ongoing attack against independent contractors. And those extra bureaucrats that Andrew is talking about are actually second commissioners with business experience out in the real economy making sure that the executive group in the Tax Office has a reality check about what is going on in the real economy, and that people have an opportunity to be treated with respect whilst adhering to their lawful obligations to pay tax. And that’s perfectly reasonable, perfectly adult, perfectly sensible.

Lyndal Curtis:                     We might move on now to the bigger picture, Joe Hockey is continuing to dispute the government’s budget figures. It’s the reason he’s saying the Coalition costings can’t be released until the pre-election fiscal outlook into the election campaign. The government says a speech by the Treasury secretary yesterday shows he’s wrong.

Footage of

Penny Wong:                     …Dr Parkinson made clear that the budget numbers are the numbers, he made it clear that if the – what’s know as the PFO, the pre-election fiscal outlook – had been released on budget day, the numbers would have been the same. You know what that adds up to? It adds up to Joe Hockey’s excuse for not releasing his figures being completely destroyed, that’s what it means.



Lyndal Curtis:                     Andrew, your side of politics is continuing to pressure the Coalition to release all of its policy and costings now. But if you look at it from the Opposition’s point of view, why would they put the out before election time? It just gives you more chance to attack what you perceive to be the holes in it.

Andrew Leigh: Well the question Australian families have to ask, Lyndal, is if the Coalition’s polices were so good for families, would they really be sitting in the bottom drawer rather than being out in public view? And we have a taste of where the Coalition is going from some of the policies that they’ve announced. They’ve said, for example, that they want to give a tax cut to Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer, and that’ll be paid for by raising superannuation taxes on low-income Australians. They want to give a tax cut to the biggest polluters in Australia, and they want to pay for it by taking away money from kids on their first day of school.

Lyndal Curtis:                     But you also had a rise in family benefits you promised at the last budget that you rescinded at this budget.

Andrew Leigh: Lyndal, we have never cut back on income support for families, unlike the Coalition who has said it is going to take away an income supplement that benefits hundreds of thousands of Australian families. They’ve said that they’re going to decrease the tax-free threshold , which means that a million more Australians are going to be filing tax returns. Every one of their policies that is out is a policy that is going to hit those at the bottom to help those at the top. It’s a standard Coalition playbook, and the cuts in the bottom drawer are, if anything, going to be worse.

Lyndal Curtis:                     Bruce, the Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson disputed things some Coalition spokespeople have said, that the Treasury gives the government a range of economic forecasts and the government gets to choose which one it wants. He says that is not true, and he also said effectively that if PFO had been released now, the figures would have been the same, that he doesn’t expect to see much difference. Why do you take him at this word and say the economic forecasts that are produced in the budget are those that come from Treasury?

Bruce Billson:                     Well the Treasury secretary is doing what he’s paid to do, and that’s to provide advice and support the government of the day. That’s perfectly reasonable and that’s the expectation of senior public servants as they work hand in glove with the government of the day. So there’re no surprises in what the Treasury secretary said. What is surprising is some of the assumptions that are embedded in that document, spectacular assumptions about the carbon price movement and what’s happening in the mining industry, about a miraculous ending to the boat arrivals and the millions of dollars that have been blown out there, about some mucking around with the rate of indexation in the rate of education. That’s what the concern was, and in relation to PFO, Lyndal, it was only a few short weeks ago that in the space of about twelve days that the supposed revenue loss went from $7 billion, to $11 billion, to $17 billion over the course of twelve days. Now there’s ten times that period of time between now and the next election, who will believe none of that will change?

Lyndal Curtis:                     But some of that was measuring MYEFO to that period, and other bits of it was measuring budget to budget, that’s why it seemed to jump so rapidly.

Bruce Billson:                     So this is where you had the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Finance Minister roll out this $10 billion change in supposedly revenue lost in under a fortnight, yet we’re to believe that these numbers released recently are not going to change over 120 days? I mean, you can’t be serious about that suggestion Lyndal, there’s no evidence whatsoever under this government that they are competent and capable of nailing any of these economic forecasts and it’s perfectly reasonable for the Coalition to wait and see the last word on the state of the finances which is PFO – the pre-election fiscal outlook – before responding to this chorus call from Labor.

Lyndal Curtis:                     We might move on just quickly because we’ve only got a couple of minutes left. It seems that an analysis of the structural budget surplus or deficit is now the new black, we’ve had two today, one from the Parliamentary Budget Office. Bruce it does seem to suggest that the tax cuts delivered by the Coalition and then in the first in office by Labor have contributed to the structural budget deficit. It does show that decisions made have had an effect over a long period of time, doesn’t it?

Bruce Billson:                     Well of course decisions made have an effect Lyndal, and in terms of the budget cuts that were funded, affordable and reasonable under the Howard government – and they were thought to be so reasonable that the incoming Labor government kept them – what that structural budget outlook shows is that for every year that was analyses, that the Coalition was delivering surpluses, that there was a structural surplus. A structural surplus, so those tax cuts were responsible and measured and kept the budget in a structural surplus. Contrast that with the Labor years, every year  not only is there a deficit, there is an enormous structural deficit.

Lyndal Curtis:                     A quick response Andrew?

Andrew Leigh: Lyndal it’s pretty clear from this analysis that what the IMF said recently holds up: that the Howard government wasted mining boom mark one. I also want to return to a point that Bruce made about forecasts. When he is attacking the integrity of the Treasury secretary, he is doing so because the Coalition want to use a dodgy private accounting firm to do their costing, rather than the experts in Treasury and the Parliamentary Budget Office.

Bruce Billson:                     My attacks are on a dodgy Treasurer –

Lyndal Curtis:                     I’m sorry Bruce, we’ve run out of time, that’s where we’ll have to leave it. Andrew Leigh, Bruce Billson, thank you very much for your time.

MEDIA RELEASE

Andrew Leigh to represent the Australian Government at the 19th International Nikkei Conference on the future of Asia

Tonight, I depart Australia for Japan to represent the Australian Government at the 19^th International Nikkei Conference on the Future of Asia.

This will be my first visit to Japan as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

The Tokyo conference will examine the future of economic growth and development in the Asia-Pacific region, with a particular focus on Southeast Asia.

Whilst in Japan I will be meeting the Bank of Japan’s Assistant Governor, Mr Kazuo Momma to discuss ‘Abenomics’ - Japan’s new fiscal and monetary strategy under the Abe Government.

I will also be meeting with senior officials from Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Finance, and the Cabinet Office.

During the Conference I will participate in a Roundtable with foreign policy and economic commentators from the University of Tokyo, Keio University and the Japan Centre for Economic Research.

This trip will be an opportunity to discuss the Australian Government’s Asian Century White Paper and to reaffirm the importance of our economic and security relationship with Japan.

Australia has an important contribution to make to the region’s economic growth and stability and I look forward to representing our country at this conference.