Family Dynamics Affect Poverty
Family Dynamics Affect Poverty, Australian Financial Review, 3 August 2012, R7
There are two polar views on why poverty persists across generations. On the hardline conservative view, poverty is the result of bad choices: not staying in school, not taking a job, not waiting to have a child. At the other end of the spectrum is the view that poverty is simply a lack of money. Provide enough income support, and intergenerational poverty will disappear.
In our hearts, most of us know that neither of these views can be right. And yet many progressives have found the conservative view so harsh that we have recoiled from any discussion about the role that families play in determining children’s outcomes.
Friendly fire can also be a risk. When US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan issued a report in 1965 finding that poverty among African-Americans was partly driven by high rates of lone parenthood, he was criticised by many on the left for ‘blaming the victim’. Moynihan’s point – that it’s easier to raise a child with two adults than one – was misinterpreted as an attack on black sole parents.
In Australia, 19 percent of Australian children (and 34 percent of Indigenous children) live in lone parent households, up from about 10 percent in the late-1970s. The rise in lone parent households doesn’t have much to do with separation; it’s mostly driven by lower partnering rates.
Crunching census statistics, Monash University’s Genevieve Heard finds that the decline in partnering is strongly related to socioeconomic status. By their early-40s, 16 percent of university-trained men were not in a partnership, compared with 32 percent among men without qualifications. A similar story emerges for women. Since the 1990s, there has been a divergence across educational lines. University graduates are just as likely to partner up as they were in the 1990s, but partnering rates have fallen for the least educated. The result? Disadvantaged children have fewer parents in their homes than in the past.
Nothing has made me more in awe of single parents than having children. When both our boys are ill, my wife and I sometimes shake our heads and ask ‘how do sole parents do it?’. From speaking with constituents who are raising children on their own, I know what enormous sacrifices they make. Part of the problem with the current debate over family structure and child outcomes is that it ends up making single parents feel guilty, while letting absent parents off scot free. A better approach is the one that Barack Obama took in a speech delivered on Father’s Day 2008: ‘What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child – any fool can have a child. That doesn’t make you a father. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.’
Until now, I’ve focused on the impact of family structure on children’s outcomes. But an emerging literature suggests that parenting style matters too. In the US, researchers have shown that children of higher-educated parents are more likely to read books, and less likely to watch television. Affluent parents are less likely to use corporal punishment. Observing a small sample of families with toddlers, a pair of researchers found that professional parents addressed about 2000 words per hour to their children, while parents receiving welfare benefits addressed about 500 words per hour to their children.
We know less about this issue in Australia, but the evidence that exists seems to point in the same direction. In her analysis of Australian data, University of Chicago researcher Ariel Kalil and co-authors compare pre-schoolers with a university-educated mother with pre-schoolers whose mother does not have a high school qualification. They find that children with more highly-educated mothers average 22 minutes a day of reading and colouring, while children with lower-educated mothers average 16 minutes a day. Consequently, the two groups of children arrive at school with quite different levels of preparation. As a politician, this work screams out to me the need to get Australia’s best teachers in front of our most disadvantaged pupils.
The University of Chicago’s Susan Mayer once wrote a book titled What Money Can’t Buy, in which she discussed how her thinking on poverty had evolved. Over time, Mayer acknowledged, she had come to focus less on money, and more on social and cultural explanations for poverty. Understanding the family dynamics of poverty can help us craft smarter policy solutions.
For too long, progressives have been scared off issues of family structure and parenting by a fear of being misinterpreted as blaming some of the hardest-working people in society. But we should not ignore the body of scholarship showing that if we want to cut poverty and boost mobility, we must think seriously about what happens inside families.
Andrew Leigh is the federal member for Fraser, and the author of Disconnected (UNSW Press, 2010). His website is www.andrewleigh.com.
Sky AM Agenda - 2 August 2012
ABC24 interview about media and politics - 1 August 2012
The Naked Truth? Media and Politics in the Digital Age
I gave the inaugural 'Challenge Your Mind' lecture at the University of Canberra today, speaking on the topic of the media and politics.
The Naked Truth? Media and Politics in the Digital Age*
Andrew Leigh MP
Federal Member for Fraser
www.andrewleigh.com
‘Challenge Your Mind’ University of Canberra Public Lecture Series
1 August 2012
The Truth, Naked
At the end of 1992, a team of us got together at Sydney University to run for the student newspaper, Honi Soit. We needed a name with a hint of journalistic credibility and a bucketload of electoral appeal, and so we opted to call ourselves ‘The Naked Truth’.
We threw ourselves into the campaign with the kind of frisky eagerness only a dozen 20 year-olds can muster. By day we sang our campaign song to bemused classes, removing much of our clothing to reinforce the team name. By night we put up posters and chalked ‘The Naked Truth’ around the campus. One of our team, Verity Firth, even brought along her younger brother Charles to help out. A class of medical students promised to vote for us en bloc if a member of the Naked Truth team would streak through their lecture hall. One of us obliged.
And so my year as a journalist began. I interviewed Andrew Denton, Henri Szeps and Dorothy McRae-McMahon, went inside Long Bay jail and a submarine, spoke to a magician, a monk and a basketball commentator, and wrote about child sponsorship, biblical literalism and virtual reality machines. In a display of youthful chutzpah, I also reviewed a handful of sports cars, making me (I hope) the only motoring writer in the history of student journalism. When the 1993 election came around, I managed to get Keating and Hewson to answer twenty questions apiece.[1] The year even got me my first article in the Sydney Morning Herald, on illegal street racing.
I loved journalism, but even at the level of student journalism I found it hard. Pitching stories. Separating beef from bulldust. Staying objective. Since writing for Honi, I’ve written hundreds of thousands of words in newspapers: all of them opinion.
Because of that, I approach the topic of journalism with a modicum of trepidation. Plus, because I’m a politician, you should probably regard my views on journalists as akin to the views that a kangaroo has about gun ownership.
Innovation & Health Care
Address to Public Sector In-House Counsel
Andrew Leigh MP on behalf of
The Hon Nicola Roxon MP
8th Annual Public Sector In-House Counsel Conference 2012
30 July 2012
Ministerial Keynote Address:
In-house counsel: Delivering the benefits while avoiding the risks
Acknowledgements
First, may I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land we meet on – and pay my respects to their elders, both past and present.
Introduction
It is a pleasure to join you here today for the 8th Public Sector In‑House Counsel Conference.
I regard myself as a lapsed lawyer, having practiced for only a short period in the mid-1990s, for Sydney law firms Coleman & Grieg and Minter Ellison. My last job in the legal profession was as Associate to former High Court Justice Michael Kirby.
Justice Kirby once told the story of how he became an in-house counsel. He had been offered a job at the firm Ebsworth & Ebsworth, but they withdrew the offer when one of the partners lost his seat in the federal election and had to take his old office back. (Politics has always had a little less job security than most occupations!)
Michael Kirby then took up a job with Hickson, Lakeman and Holcombe. He said of this experience: ‘Bruce Holcombe wanted me to be a kind of in-house counsel for the firm. ... I began appearing in court as advocate for a growing number of insurance companies willing to use a young solicitor in place of unloved barristers. ... It was very demanding. Returning to the office at the end of a hard day of advocacy before a judge, I had to pick up the threads of my work as a solicitor. I had to see witnesses and draft subpoenas. I came to realise that, without support within the firm, it is very difficult to combine the life of an advocate with the ordinary life of a solicitor. ’
My time as associate to Michael Kirby was vital in shaping who I became in later life. Who knows – perhaps if the work of in-house counsel had been less demanding, he would never have joined the bench, and I might not be standing before you today!
The Commonwealth Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, has asked me to pass on her apologies for not being able to join you today, and she passes on her best wishes for a productive conference.
She actually referred to you as having a difficult, challenging and potentially dangerous job… not unlike lion tamers. I’m not sure who are the lions in that analogy – perhaps a few people come to mind for you!
Nicola has set a clear agenda in her seven months as the Commonwealth Attorney, ranging from improving access to justice for one-off litigants, and expanding diversity within the judiciary, through to consolidating and harmonising anti-discrimination law and strengthening Australia’s cyber security.
But she is also focussed on her role overseeing legal conduct, and legal expenditure, by the Commonwealth. And of course the expanding in-house legal teams across government have a big impact on government legal costs and legal capacity.
And those costs are significant: in the 2010-11 financial year, Commonwealth legal expenditure reached $676 million, split roughly evenly between internal and external spending.
That’s why I’ve titled my speech “Delivering the benefits while avoiding the risks”. There are undeniable reasons why in-house teams make sense, not least the efficient use of taxpayer dollars. But there are risks, too – maybe the lions I mentioned earlier – that you face every day: potential compromises to your independence and objectivity that mean in-house teams and Counsel must be always on guard against complacency.
And beyond your own team and agency, it is a task for Government to ensure the benefits of in-house teams are not simply short-term savings leading to long-term costs.
This includes recognising that a strong, cost-effective, sustainable Australian Government Solicitor remains vital to government legal work. In-house teams and the AGS must complement each other, in a competitive environment – a balance that is sometimes difficult to achieve in practice.
This morning I’d also like to discuss recent examples of where in-house teams have contributed strongly to the Government’s policy agenda, and responded swiftly to major decisions.
And I want to outline some structures this Government is putting in place that will ensure you are able to work in a strong, supportive environment with appropriate oversight and career development opportunities.
The role of in-house government lawyers
As Government lawyers you are uniquely placed, both within the legal profession and within the Australian Public Service. The expectations on you, and the environment in which you operate, sets you apart from your colleagues in the legal profession more broadly.
In recent years, there has been significant growth of in-house government legal practices. Your practices provide vital services to agencies and to the Commonwealth more broadly. However, as recent reviews of government legal expenditure have acknowledged, the largely uncoordinated expansion of government in‑house practices has also created some problems.
For example: potential inefficiencies and duplication of legal advice.
This in no way intends to undermine the importance of independent practices within Commonwealth agencies. Government lawyers are critical in supporting individual agencies strategic objectives.
You have an intimate understanding of your agency’s business, and can contribute significant value to your legal advice using your subject matter expertise.
However, the Attorney considers the Australian Government as a whole must be better equipped to draw on your expertise. The key, as always, is to ensure that lawyers across the Commonwealth are better connected to each other and to the role of the Attorney-General as First Law Officer.
Government lawyers should be connected with their practice area and agency’s executive – that’s the best way to ensure you are responsive and providing high-quality, reliable advice – but more broadly be connected with the government legal profession and the Commonwealth.
Recent action involving in-house teams
The Attorney-General, as First Law Officer of the Commonwealth, is the government’s principal legal advisor, with a special obligation to ensure the government complies with the law. This of course makes her role quite distinct from that of any other Minister, with additional requirements and considerations to take into account.
This combination of Ministerial and First law Officer duties was brought into sharp relief in the Government’s response to the High Court’s decision in Williams.
I think more than a few of you are still having nightmares about this decision and its aftermath!
For those of you without a shiver going up your spine at its mere mention, Williams involved a challenge to the constitutional basis for the Commonwealth's activities and expenditure in relation to the National School Chaplaincy and Welfare Program.
The Government conducted extensive contingency planning for a wide range of possible outcomes, particularly analysis by in-house teams as to portfolio programs potentially at risk in the event of an adverse decision.
In the event, the High Court judgment invalidated an agreement made by the Commonwealth under the National School Chaplaincy Program by a 6:1 majority – but with split reasoning amongst the majority.
The Williams decision overturned the understanding on which the Commonwealth had acted since federation, that the Commonwealth could develop and administer spending programs without the need for legislative authority for those programs.
To put it frankly, this was not the result the Government expected – but it was one that the government was prepared to address.
The Attorney recently referred to the Government’s response, involving drafting and enacting legislation within 8 days of the decision, as extraordinarily efficient, and sensibly pragmatic - but a bit lucky too.
The efficiency lay with the in-house teams at the forefront of the response, alongside colleagues from AGS and the acting Solicitor-General, and parliamentary drafter (apparently drafting in shifts, which creates a vision of a Dickensian workhouse!).
The Attorney, of course, had a dual role of interpreting the implications and leading the Executive response to the decision.
And the luck resided in the timing of the decision itself, with a week of Parliament to go ahead of a long break. Had Parliament not been sitting for an extended time, what would the public officials spending money on these other programs have done?
Another of the topical issues facing government lawyers right now is the Government’s defence of legal challenges to the plain packaging of tobacco products, a world first tobacco control reform which the Government introduced last year.
This is an excellent example of where in-house teams, AGS and counsel have worked together for a common goal.
The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 requires all tobacco to be sold in drab dark brown packaging, with no industry logos, brand imagery, colours or promotional text, from 1 December this year. Plain packaging eliminates one of the last remaining avenues for tobacco companies to market their products.
As you will no doubt be aware, the tobacco industry has launched a concerted legal campaign to fight plain packaging.
The Government is defending itself in the High Court, WTO and the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
While investor-State disputes are relatively common in other regions, this is the first time one has been brought against Australia. This is just one example of the sorts of evolving issues being faced by government lawyers in AGD, DoHA and DFAT.
Commonwealth Legal Services Reforms
Figures on Commonwealth legal services expenditure have captured the media’s attention over the last couple of years.
As mentioned earlier, the 2010-11 Commonwealth Legal Services Expenditure Report showed that Commonwealth agencies spent $676 million on legal services in the last financial year. To break this figure down, Commonwealth agencies spent $365 million on external legal services and $311.5 million on internal services.
This is taxpayers’ money and it’s important we ensure that we actively pursue whole-of-government reforms to reduce that expenditure.
I acknowledge that this raises a significant challenge – on the one hand we need to reduce what we spend. While on the other, we need to ensure that the Commonwealth continues to receive high quality advice, delivered on time, and on budget.
The Legal Services Multi-Use List is a key part of the reforms the Australian Government is rolling out to enhance the delivery and management of legal services.
Ultimately, this reform will help the Australian Government get value for money when purchasing its external legal services through cutting red tape and driving cost-efficiency.
You might be familiar with the Gruen report. The report found that in the 2009-10 financial year, a staggering 89% of professional fees were earned by just 10 law firms.
The Gruen report suggested that the high proportion of fees to such a small number of firms was largely due to the way legal panels acted as a barrier to entry into the Commonwealth legal services market.
This situation led to duplication in tendering costs with some 72 legal services panels being established across the Commonwealth. It is estimated that each panel cost agencies an average of $120,000.
The Legal Services Multi-Use List addresses this unnecessary duplication by centralising the pre‑qualification of legal services providers to the Australian Government.
It should also make your job easier – instead of your agency or team having to go through extensive tendering for each piece of work, the list will allow to spend more time ensuring work is allocated efficiently and according to expertise internally and externally.
While many of you will not be required to start using the List immediately, this new-found flexibility will allow you to scope the market and start to draw on the benefits of the List during the transition period.
Another key feature of the List is that it provides a platform for sharing information at a whole-of-government level. Agencies from across the Commonwealth can now easily exchange notes on the performance of listed law firms.
Increasing information sharing will enhance the Commonwealth’s role as an informed purchaser of legal services. Becoming an ‘informed purchaser’ of legal services is yet another example of the unique set of skills government lawyers are required to possess.
Government Legal Network
Another key element of the reforms includes the establishment of an Australian Government Legal Network. This reform is designed to enhance existing legal and practice management skills across government, and to attract the best lawyers to the public sector.
I am very pleased to announce today, on behalf of the Attorney, the appointment of nine members who will make up the first Australian Government Legal Network Board. They are:
Ms Libby Carroll - Principal Lawyer, Murray Darling Basin Authority;
Air Commodore - Paul Cronan – Director‑General, Australian Defence Force Legal Service;
Mr Anthony Field - Chief Lawyer, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs;
Ms Elissa Keen - Deputy General Counsel, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;
Ms Liesl O’Meara - Special Counsel to CEO Defence Material Organisation;
Mr Cliff Pettit - Executive Director, Legal, Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate;
Ms Janean Richards - Assistant Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department;
Ms Janine Webster - Chief Counsel, Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman; and
Mr Brett Walker - General Counsel, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
The appointed members have an impressive range of skills to bring to the Board. I congratulate them on their appointment and welcome their contribution to establishing the Network.
While there is still a way to go to build a better practice model in the Commonwealth and this Government is committed to progressing important reforms to delivery of legal services both by, and to, government agencies.
The introduction of the Legal Services Multi-Use List and the establishment of a network for government lawyers are obviously steps in the right direction.
Court and AAT reform
The last significant reform I would like to touch on today is reform of our judicial and administrative review systems.
Many of you engage in litigation on behalf of your agency, so you have a direct interest in a strong, functioning, reliable and efficient court system.
The Attorney have been working with the federal courts to implement a reform agenda to foster openness and transparency, accessibility, efficient administration and timely resolution, as well as introducing legislation to establish the new Military Court of Australia, and Bills to provide a clear complaints-handling process against Judges.
You may also be aware that the Government recently released the Skehill review into agencies within the Attorney-General’s portfolio, including the AAT.
The Government supports the Review’s recommendation to establish a forum encompassing the five major Commonwealth merits review tribunals to identify initiatives for further efficiencies between them.
The Attorney has also appointed a new President of the AAT, the Hon Duncan Kerr SC, to lead this forum and to take an active role in spreading best practice amongst all Commonwealth administrative tribunals, as well as leading culture change within the AAT itself.
Conclusion
With that, let me bring my remarks to a close.
You have a splendid lineup of speakers ahead over the next two days. Your next presenter, Christopher Behrens, has kindly shared with me his paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution and its role in timely resolution of disputes. He will make some powerful points about the impact of delays – a reminder of Gladstone’s great maxim: ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’. Christopher’s discussion of how effective ADR operates also made me recall a quip my ADR lecturer used to describe high-powered contract mediations in Sydney. To choose a mediator, each party writes down in order the ten people they would most like to have facilitate their dispute. Then they choose Sir Laurence Street.
On behalf of the Attorney, I thank you for your hard work and dedication in delivering high-quality legal services to your portfolio and the Government. We appreciate the time that goes into preparing various reports, such as reporting on significant issues to the Attorney-General’s Department.
The key message I would like to leave you with today, is that there is one government legal profession. As individual lawyers and practices across the Commonwealth, we must work more collaboratively with our colleagues in other agencies to continue to provide world-class legal services to Government.
Thank you and enjoy the rest of the conference.
Six Score Years On
Andrew Leigh & William Isdale, 'Labor's Proud History', Lobby, July 2012
There is no unambiguous birth certificate for the ALP, but the most common account is that during a bitter pastoral strike in 1891, some 3000 shearers came together and formed the party under the speckled shade of a gum tree that came to be known with affection as the ‘Tree of Knowledge’, in Barcaldine in rural Queensland. On other accounts, the party sprung to life in bustling Balmain in the same year – an area known for its shipbuilding and boilermaking.
As Nick Dyrenfurth and Frank Borgiono put it in A Little History of the Australian Labor Party, whichever story is true, “the party of the legendary bushman also belonged to his sturdy city cousin”. The authors tell the story of Billy Hughes in 1895 being moved to tears when three Irish migrants approached him at a campaign event and offered him £150 – all their combined savings – as a commitment to the cause of getting working people represented in parliament.
Labor candidates contested their first general election in New South Wales only a few months after having formed. Astonishingly, we won 35 of the 141 seats on offer in the Legislative Assembly. This explosion onto the political scene occurred at a time of great change in Australian society, as the economy continued to transition from pastoral to industrial. Work that had previously been done in small workshops or as one’s own boss was now done in large factories, often in Dickensian working conditions. The rise of the Labor party, then, was part of a greater cause: that of ensuring working people could live a civilized existence at a time when state support for citizens was largely non-existent.
A global depression in the 1890s further convinced workers of the need to protect their rights and living standards as wages were slashed and many went hungry. In the words of New South Wales Labor MP George Black in 1891, Labor had set as its agenda, not to “support government or oppositions” but “to make and unmake social conditions”.
By 1899 Labor was the second-largest party in Queensland. There, later that year, a former miner, Anderson Dawson, formed the world’s first Labor government. Alas, it lasted only a week. Nonetheless, Labor was by now a movement that was recognized and respected throughout the country. At the first election for the new national parliament, Labor won 24 of the 111 spots available in the House of Representatives and Senate. Like so many before them, they came from often unexpected backgrounds: one was a felt hatter, another an insurance salesman. There was even a clergyman among them. As Dyrenfurth and Borgiono point out, 13 of those 24 men were born overseas.
The Labor movement now also had the support of branches that had sprung up all over the country. The branches involved ordinary people in the political process. Their grassroots engagement, debating of ideas and policy, and support in campaigning and fundraising, was hugely successful in advancing the Labor cause. Between 1901 and 1903, when the second Federal election was held, Labor’s primary vote almost doubled. One year later, on 27 April 1904, John Christian Watson became Prime Minister in our first national Labor government.
The Australian Labor Party was never a revolutionary party, which frustrated some on the left. Disheartened by the early Labor reformers, William Lane and 220 of his followers sailed to Paraguay in 1893 to set up a socialist colony called ‘New Australia’. Twenty years later, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the father of the Russian Revolution, criticized the Labor Party for the fact that it did not aim to overthrow capitalism. Lenin may have over-egged the pudding when he called the ALP a ‘liberal-bourgeois party’, but he was fundamentally correct that the ALP was a party that sought to temper the excesses of the market, not replace it with a socialist state.
The ALP has outlasted ‘New Australia’ by more than a century and the USSR by two decades. And while we should recognize the part played by early Labor governments, it’s also worth noting that the mould for a successful Labor government was truly forged in the 1940s. In NSW, William McKell’s government improved workers compensation and the right to bargain, gave annual holidays to workers who had not been guaranteed one before, built thousands of new homes, and founded the Kosciuszko National Park.
Federally, the 1940s saw John Curtin stand up to Churchill and demand that Australian troops return to defend the homeland. Curtin also laid the foundations of our modern economy, with universal taxation introduced to fund a major expansion of the social security system, and a recognition that open markets drive economic growth. In their own way, all successful state Labor governments are heirs of McKell, and all successful federal Labor governments are heirs of Curtin.
Our founders weren’t perfect (we cringe to read their praise for White Australia and the condemnation of working women). But in many respect they were well ahead of their time. Thanks to the determination of people like Prime Minister Andrew Fischer, who started off in life as a child miner; and Dorothy Tangney, who overcame all odds to become Australia’s first female Senator, Australians have come to enjoy some of the highest living standards in the world.
If you’re a member of the ALP, you’re part of the party that won reforms like the 44-hour week, child endowment and widows’ pensions, and fought continually for higher wages, better industrial conditions, regular holidays and decent housing. The Labor Party is the party that brought in the Racial Discrimination and Sex Discrimination Acts, created Medicare and built major national infrastructure projects like the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric scheme.
Ours is the party that abolished the imperial honours system and helped bury the White Australia policy. The economic reforms of Hawke and Keating – trade liberalization, floating the dollar, competition policy and enterprise bargaining – laid the foundations for the productivity surge of the 1990s. The Rudd and Gillard governments have built on that legacy, saving hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Global Financial Crisis, building a better education and health system, and putting a price on carbon pollution.
In its fundamentals, the history of Australia is largely the history of the Australian Labor Party. As we celebrate passing the Labor Party's 120th anniversary milestone, it’s time to reflect on all that we’ve achieved so far and all that we stand for today.
Andrew Leigh is the federal member for Fraser & William Isdale is a law student at the University of Queensland. This is an extended version of their article in Lobby Magazine.
Go forth, and be unreasonable
Progress rarely plane sailing but dare to do it anyway, The Australian, 25 July 2012
In 1931, the British air ministry decided to experiment by commissioning a new fighter aircraft. The bureaucrats wanted aviation engineers to abandon past orthodoxies and create something entirely new.
The initial prototypes were disappointing. But then a company called Supermarine approached the ministry with a radical new design. A public servant by the name of Henry Cave-Browne-Cave decided to bypass the regular process and order it. The new plane was the Supermarine Spitfire.
The Spitfire was one of the greatest technological breakthroughs in aviation history.
One British pilot called it "a perfect flying machine". It fundamentally changed aviation wisdom, which had been that countries should focus on bomber fleets.
It's no exaggeration to say that without the Spitfire, Britain may not have been able to fight off the Luftwaffe to win the Battle of Britain. Asked what he needed to beat the British, a German ace told Hermann Goering, "I should like an outfit of Spitfires."
As economist Tim Harford points out, without the Spitfire, Germany might have occupied Britain. The course of world history was changed because a public servant decided to experiment with something new.
I am interested in the virtues of experimenting and taking risk, and their flipsides: making mistakes and being wrong. Having doubt is a good thing. As US judge Learned Hand famously said, "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right."
IN 1984, a young psychologist called Philip Tetlock had the job of summing up expert opinion on how the Soviet Union might react to Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies. He was struck by how often the leading US experts flat-out contradicted one another, so he designed an experiment.
Tetlock asked 300 expert commentators to make specific forecasts about the future. Then he waited to see their results.
From nearly 30,000 predictions, he found the experts were as accurate as dart-throwing monkeys.
Among these professional pundits, the least accurate were those who viewed the world through the lens of a single idea - what philosopher Isaiah Berlin once called hedgehogs. As new facts came in, these pundits stuck inflexibly to their initial views. Those who did a better job were the group that Berlin called foxes, who based their analysis on observing as much as possible. They were much more willing to change their analysis as the world shifted.
While we should remember what we've said in the past, we shouldn't be slavishly bound to it. If it helps, remember that there are virtually no atoms in our body that were there seven years ago.
It's OK to change your mind. And when you do, you might as well admit it. As John Maynard Keynes once put it when asked why he had changed his position on monetary policy during the Great Depression: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'
Investor Nassim Taleb argues when it comes to adjusting to a changing world, some people are better than others. Entrepreneurs are very good at it. Senior businesspeople are often too reluctant to admit a mistake. Politicians, Taleb argues, are the worst of all.
In her splendid book On Doubt, ABC journalist Leigh Sales writes that "Politics is littered with the carcases of the indecisive". In 2004, US president George W. Bush used the flip-flopper tag to devastating effect on rival John Kerry. Yet it's hardly radical to imagine that the world would be a better place if Bush had been a little more self-reflective.
A good way of achieving this is to surround yourself with people who disagree with one another. Abraham Lincoln is one of the greatest leaders in history, partly because he chose a cabinet who argued among one another, what historian Doris Kearns Goodwin called "a team of rivals".
And yet it is too easy to see groupthink on all sides of politics. Take the case of anthropogenic climate change, where scientific evidence has grown stronger while political support has weakened.
As psychologist Jonathan Haidt puts it, "once group loyalties are engaged, you can't change people's minds by utterly refuting their arguments".
It shouldn't be this way. Any politician who is truly committed to evidence-based policymaking ought to be willing to admit when their policy doesn't work.
In her book Being Wrong, Kathryn Schulz compares the feeling of being wrong about something fundamental to feeling like a toddler lost in Manhattan.
But if you can master the art of experimentation and learning from your mistakes, you'll achieve a great deal. Without the willingness to risk failure, you may never truly succeed.
You should also be open to serendipity. Accidents can lead to breakthroughs. In 1928, Alexander Fleming's dirty laboratory led to him discovering the world's first antibiotic in a contaminated petri dish. Serendipity is literally in our DNA.
Evolution is a series of random experiments carried out by nature. Each of us is the product of millions of years of experiments by nature.
When experiments succeed, the result can be an extraordinary breakthrough like the Spitfire. But very often, experiments fail. That shouldn't stop you from pursuing life with a spirit of sceptical experimentation.
Apply the same principles to those around you. Don't try to surround yourself with people who are infallible, but with people who try to learn from their errors. In your workplace, try to create an atmosphere in which people are able to take risks.Being sceptical doesn't mean lacking passion. You can be passionate about the change you want to see in the world yet willing to be guided by evidence on the right way to achieve your ideals.
Sales points out that many of the great breakthroughs in history have begun from a position of scepticism. Copernicus asked whether the earth sat at the centre of the universe.
Martin Luther asked whether God's forgiveness could be purchased with money.
Mary Wollstonecraft asked why women didn't have rights. Nelson Mandela asked why South African blacks were kept separate. Each refused to accept the prevailing wisdom.
As the saying goes, the reasonable person adapts to the world; the unreasonable person adapts the world to him or her. Therefore all progress depends on unreasonable people. So go forth, and be unreasonable.
Andrew Leigh is the federal member for Fraser. This is an edited extract of his address to graduating students at the Australian National University.
More funding for NBN local services in Gungahlin
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband, Communications
and the Digital Economy
Katy Gallagher MLA
ACT Chief Minister
Dr Andrew Leigh MP
Federal Member for Fraser
JOINT MEDIA RELEASE
Gillard Government provides $360,000 to the ACT Government to deliver NBN enabled local services
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, and the Member for Fraser, Dr Andrew Leigh MP, today announced that $359,951 will be provided to the ACT Government to develop improved local services using the National Broadband Network (NBN).
The ACT Government will use the funding to deliver better support services for ACT residents using high-definition videoconferencing technology that takes advantage of the fast broadband provided by the NBN. The project will deliver enhanced online services, enabling Gungahlin residents to engage and transact more easily with the ACT Government.
“The NBN allows local governments to put residents and ratepayers at the heart of local government service delivery-where they should be. Ultimately, this means better, more accessible and more convenient services, delivered more efficiently and with less hassle,” Senator Conroy said.
“Delivery of improved online local government services is yet another way the NBN is now starting to benefit Australians. The ACT Government is to be congratulated for realising the benefits that the NBN can provide to its residents,” Dr Leigh said.
The funding is in addition to the $827,709 from the Gillard Government announced earlier this month for Gungahlin Library to run NBN training services for individuals, small businesses and not-for-profit organisations.
“Thanks to this funding, Gungahlin Library is the model of what a twenty-first century library should be: a friendly and accessible facility, connected to the world’s knowledge,” Dr Leigh said.
ACT Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher, said the ACT Government contribution of $132,948 to the Digital Local Government project through in-kind support would assist the project to develop its online community engagement portal.
“When the project comes on-line, Gungahlin residents will have another contemporary channel through which to engage with Legislative Assembly members and government officials via interactive video platforms. The project will also provide the necessary infrastructure for new online services and forums, starting initially in Gungahlin, but moving across the ACT as the NBN is rolled out.
“It is great to see new technologies becoming more widely available for community engagement, building on our commitment to Open Government processes,” the Chief Minister said.
Under the three year rollout plan, construction of NBN fibre services will have started or be completed for 152,400 homes and businesses across the ACT by mid-2015.* This includes the Fibre Serving Areas (FSAs) of Belconnen, Civic, Crace, Deakin, Kambah, Manuka, Monash, Queanbeyan and Scullin. Residents of the ACT who live outside the NBN fibre footprint will be able to connect to the NBN via next generation fixed wireless or satellite.
The $17.1 million Digital Local Government program is providing funding to local governments in communities that are among the first to get the benefits of the NBN. The program helps these local governments to use the NBN to improve the quality, availability and timeliness of services provided to homes and businesses.
For further details on the Digital Local Government program visit: www.dbcde.gov.au/digitallocalgov
* Note: this figure may include premises located in neighbouring local government areas that fall within the same FSAs.
Speech to ANU Crawford School Public Policy Week
On 20 July, I spoke to 60 'rising star' academics at the ANU Crawford School’s Policy Priorities Luncheon. The theme of the session was: what is government NOT thinking about in public policy priorities over the next decade that it should be thinking about?