Andrew Leigh

I spoke in parliament yesterday about the government's reforms to address problem gambling.

National Gambling Reform, 27 November 2012


May I start with a story from an email sent to me by one of my constituents, Gary Hatcliffe. He wrote to me as follows:

'My name is Gary Hatcliffe. The pokies have taken away the past 25 years of living for me. Some would say I had a choice; unfortunately, the addiction overpowered my logical thought processes. As a result, I have just completed 7 months of live-in rehabilitation and I now reside in a half-way house in Canberra. Eight months ago I was destitute in Melbourne (having hit rock bottom once again) and I was going to kill myself.

'I have, only just this weekend, opened up the third meeting of Gamblers Anonymous in Canberra.'

He finishes up his email:

'PLEASE KEEP UP YOUR GOOD WORK FOR POKIE REFORM. MY LIFE WILL FOREVER BE AT RISK UNTIL MY ACCESS IS TAKEN AWAY FROM ME. I envisage, down the track with the mandatory pre-commitment and a nationally regulated card system, to be able to ban myself from using any machine in Australia. This will allow me to still be social and go into a club with friends, have a meal and a couple of drinks, and know that I cannot use the pokies because I will not have access to a 'pokie' card.

'Warm regards,

'Gary Hatcliffe.'

Mr Hatcliffe's story is sadly all too common across Australia. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald last year noted the phenomenon in St Johns Park Bowling Club where at 2.30 on a Sunday morning the club starts handing out $100 notes. In order to win those $100 notes gamblers need to swipe their membership cards at a reward centre and wait. The article went on to talk about other incidents and other factors that ensure that gamblers are unable to take themselves out of the zone, unable to stop, reflect on how much they have spent and decide whether they want to stop playing. It pointed out that the machines in St Johns have an attendant button—a sort of room service so pokie players do not have to leave their machines to get a drink. The practice is banned in Victoria but popular in New South Wales.

The article tells the story of a tense Fijian woman, aged about 70, who tells the journalist:

"I've lost $400 tonight,'' she says, snorting involuntarily each time she smacks the machine and chases her losses. ''I lost $3000,'' she adds, snorting again, before locking eyes back on the spinning reels, too distracted to explain.

A counsellor by the name of Wendy who works with problem gamblers in that part of Australia says:

'Once they are on that machine, the world could blow up around them, and they really wouldn't notice.'

She goes on to say:

'Often people will say to me: 'I looked up and, oh my God, I've been there for five hours. I didn't eat anything, I didn't drink anything, I didn't go to the toilet.''

And then I will ask them how much money did they put into the machine and they'll go: 'I don't know, I was just feeding it money.'

A player named Yvonne from Wentworthville says:

'Your mind stops, you don't think.'

The article finishes up with the story of Toai Thi Nguyen, an illiterate 55-year-old Vietnamese mother of four who racked up debts of $28,000 to loan sharks through her gambling and found herself eventually succumbing to the threats of the loan sharks. She flew to Vietnam, where a gun was held to her head. She returned with 10 kilograms of pseudoephedrine, used for making ice, and was intercepted by Customs. She is now serving five years in jail for this.

A Parliamentary Library FlagPost article by Amanda Biggs noted that the prevalence of problem gambling is highest in low socioeconomic areas of Australia. It noted, for example, that in Greater Dandenong the average weekly income is $426 and pokie losses are $1,110 per adult. By contrast, Boroondara has an average income of $836 a week and average losses of $153 an adult. So this is very much a social justice issue. This is an issue where those of us who care about the most disadvantaged in Australia are compelled to act.

I found it surprising that the member for Menzies was saying that it is not appropriate for the federal government to step in here, that this is an area where we ought to respect states rights—whatever that means. As a representative of the ACT, I could not help thinking: is this the same member for Menzies who introduced a private member's bill to override the rights of the territories on the issue of euthanasia? I think it might be. I think it might be the very same member for Menzies. So, when it suits him, he is happy to come into this place and use federal authority to override other jurisdictions, but, on an issue that he does not think is appropriate, he will not do that.

I think in this case it is appropriate to have a national approach. It is a national approach that is grounded in behavioural economics. The great thing about precommitment is that no-one is forced to do anything. You are simply asked to set your limit. That limit that you set can be as high or as low as you want it to be. All we are doing with mandatory precommitment is allowing people to keep the promises that they make to themselves. We are allowing people to set a limit and to have the club assist them in sticking to that limit. We know—as the stories I read out this evening illustrated so powerfully—that people get in the zone. They walk into a club or pub intending to spend no more than $200, and they walk out scratching their head wondering where the $500 went. They chase their losses. They lose track of time. They lose perspective on how much they are willing to gamble. All mandatory precommitment does is that it ensures that people set that number and that the clubs help them stick to it.

Here in the ACT, a trial of mandatory precommitment will be taking place. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, has set up a Trial Oversight Committee that includes representatives from ClubsACT, the Tradies, the ACT Council of Social Service, the ACT Club Managers Association, United Voice, the Australian Institute of Family Studies and the ACT and Australian governments. That committee has been welcomed by participants in this debate. The CEO of ClubsACT, Jeff House, has said:

'Whilst there is a large body of work that needs to be completed before the trial can commence, the establishment of this Oversight Committee is a key step in the timeline which will allow us to make some initial progress on completing that body of work. I look forward to continuing to work with Minister Macklin and her department.'

I commend Mr House for the constructive way in which he and his members have worked with this government. I know the same is true of ACT clubs that are outside ClubsACT. I welcome the constructive way in which the ACT Minister for Gaming and Racing, Joy Burch, has worked. She has said, for example:

'A trial of mandatory pre-committment in the ACT will build on the substantial reforms already underway in the ACT.'

That commitment to evidence based policymaking is a hallmark of this government. I am very pleased that the Australian Institute of Family Studies and their head, Alan Hayes, have been actively involved in thinking through the way in which the ACT trial will operate and thinking through the best way of evaluating this.

I want to go to something that you often hear from those opposite—that, because Queanbeyan clubs are not affected by mandatory precommitment, such a trial would automatically fail. The thing about this criticism is that it fundamentally misunderstands what mandatory precommitment does. With mandatory precommitment, the government does not set a cap on what you can bet; it asks you to set your own cap. Those opposite suggest that people will flee to Queanbeyan in order to avoid the cap. You do not need to do that. If you think at the outset that you want a higher limit, you set that higher limit yourself. That is the thing about mandatory precommitment. We are helping you to keep the promise that you make to yourself. If you say that you want to stop when you spend $200, we help you to stop when you hit $200. So people are not going to flee to Queanbeyan as a result of this.

What is going to happen is that we are going to help them break out of that zone in which people end up spending more than they intended to, they go beyond their discretionary income and they start spending money that was intended for food, groceries and the kids. You hear some of the most horrendous stories around the impact of problem gambling. One that sticks in my mind is of a little boy who says: 'Dad, could we get a pokie machine at home so Mum can stay at home with us and gamble here?' Those sorts of stories about families that are torn apart by the impact of problem gambling are stories that ought to impel us in this House to act.

The bill that is before the House will ensure that all gaming machines are part of a state-wide precommitment system, and that they display electronic warnings, by 2016—recognising that small venues will need longer implementation time lines. New machines, manufactured or imported, from the end of 2013 will be capable of supporting precommitment. We are placing a limit on ATM withdrawal of $250. And we are making sure that these changes are implemented in conjunction with stakeholders. There will be a Productivity Commission review in 2014 that will assess the progress of the measures.

I am often surprised when those opposite say that we need more evidence on this, because we have a substantial body of evidence, the most important of which is the Productivity Commission's report on problem gambling. What we need to do now is to take the steps to implement that report.

I am pleased too that we are going to see an Australian Gambling Research Centre that will be run as part of the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Under the leadership of Alan Hayes, the Australian Institute of Family Studies has become a premier policymaking body across social and economic policy. It will be an important part of making sure that we assess the ACT trial and that we continue to evaluate what we are doing in this area.

The government's reforms are grounded in the notion of what Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler have called libertarian paternalism—that is, we ought not to impose on people any more regulation than is necessary. The thing about libertarian paternalism is that those opposite ought to like this because it is libertarian, because you set the limit yourself. If you want that limit to be $10,000 a month, that is the limit you can set. If you want it to be $200 a month, that is what you set. The paternalism comes from something that you impose on yourself. The paternalism is your ability to say: 'I've got a self-control problem. Don't let me go past what the family's discretionary budget allows. Don't let me spend more than I want to, when I get into the zone at three o'clock in the morning with drinks coming to me and without the perspective of where gambling ought to be in my life.'

The story of Gary Hatcliffe that I told at the outset is one that all of us in this place should bear in mind. Mr Hatcliffe is aware of his challenges. He is aware of his own self-control problem. He is aware that it is only through mandatory precommitment that he will be able to go into a club and enjoy a drink with his mates without again getting caught in the zone.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/kTGkCp8bapQ

I spoke in parliament yesterday on the passing of my most famous constituent, Bryce Courtenay.

Bryce Courtenay, 27 November 2012



A little over 12 months ago Paul Keating told Leigh Sales during a Lateline interview:

'Well, it's all about telling the stories. You gotta be able to tell the stories, I think.'

Today I pay tribute to one of our greatest ever storytellers. Australian author Bryce Courtenay lived in the suburb of Reid in my electorate, a few kilometres from my electorate office. Last week he died of stomach cancer, aged 79. He was a prolific author. In his 23 years of writing he wrote 23 books—almost one a year. I say 'almost' because the only time he missed his annual deadline was last year. He was upset by this even though the arthritis in his hands were so severe he could only perform two-finger typing.

As somebody who has a couple of books with my name on the spine of them I can only marvel at a man almost 40 years my senior who worked 12 hours a day, six days a week, for months on end to tell us his stories. I remember once reading a book about fiction writing which said that if you want to be a good fiction writer you have to be at the desk every day: some days the muse will come and sit on your shoulder and you will write beautiful prose, while other days the muse will not come and nothing will come out. But you have to be there, otherwise the muse will turn up and you will be off somewhere else.

Bryce Courtenay was there day in, day out, waiting for the muse to land on his shoulder and produce those wonderful stories. Great storytellers like Bryce Courtenay can inspire us. They fill us with vision and sometimes even tell us things we do not want to hear. Bryce Courtenay's power to tell a compelling story saw him sell more than 20 million books worldwide—nearly a book for every Australian. He wrote 12 of the most borrowed books in Australia's public libraries. It is estimated that one in three Australian households have a Bryce Courtenay book on their bookshelves.

What was it about Bryce Courtenay the man and the writer that so enthralled us? I believe it was his ability to tell stories about the strength and triumph of the human condition. His own life was testimony to that. It is hard to read The Power of One or April Fools' Day without being touched by how he spoke to us on this eternal theme. In The Power of One he wrote:

'The power of one is above all things the power to believe in yourself, often well beyond any latent ability you may previously have demonstrated.'

These are powerful words from storyteller who could reach out and grab the heart of the reader.

Bryce Courtenay, like all of us, was very much human—a man with his own imperfections—and he showed us through his life and his writing that we should not hide from them; the imperfections and hardships of life are what makes a story worth celebrating. Two weeks ago Bryce Courtenay posted a final message on YouTube to his readers. Here is part of what he said:

'Well kids, here we go. The book coming out this year, Jack of Diamonds, is my last book. It is my last book because my use-by date has finally come up, and I've probably got just a few months to live. I don't mind that—I've had a wonderful life—but part of that wonderful life has been those people who have been kind enough to pick up a Bryce Courtenay book, and read it and enjoy it and buy the next one, and be with me in what has been, for me, an incredible journey.'

He paused before continuing:

'All I'd like to say is, as simply as I possibly can—'

with his voice now starting to break—

'thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.'

I say here to Bryce Courtenay that it is we who should thank you. Vale, Bryce Courtenay.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/rINF5qcvOxE

WIN News covered my call for Canberrans to tell me they want to work in the mining industry. They also interviewed a local construction worker who has struggled to crack into the industry.

Ross Peake also covered the story in the Canberra Times.

You can email Andrew.Leigh.MP {at} aph.gov.au or call 6247 4396 to let me know you're interested in working in or around the mines so I can encourage the companies to come to Canberra and provide more information.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/H0p4m2fNsZk

Plenty of young Canberrans want to be a part of the mining boom but aren't sure how to go about getting a job there. If you're interested in working in the mining industry, email Andrew.Leigh.MP {at} aph.gov.au or call 6247 4396 to let me know. With enough people interested, I'll host information sessions on working in the mining industry.

MEDIA RELEASE

Andrew Leigh MP

Member for Fraser



WHO WANTS TO WORK IN THE MINING INDUSTRY?



Andrew Leigh, Federal Member for Fraser, today asked Canberrans to let him know if they want to work in the mining industry.

According to the 2011 Census, only 94 people who usually live in Canberra are employed in the mining industry.

“I’ve had some young Canberrans tell me they’d like to work in the mining industry to try and save some money to buy a house and start a family.

“As Canberra is located so far away from the mines, it’s difficult to get information about how to apply for jobs in the industry,” said Dr Leigh.

Dr Leigh invites people looking for a job in the mining industry to email Andrew.Leigh.MP {at} aph.gov.au or call 6247 4396 and register their interest.

“There are so many jobs available in the mining industry for people of all different skills, such as construction, hospitality and engineering.

“The right role for a local representative is to help people live their dreams. That’s why I support campaigns to attract people to visit or move to Canberra.

“In the same spirit, it’s why I’m keen to help Canberrans who want to break into the mining industry. I’ll be letting the mining companies know about local interest in jobs.

If there is sufficient interest from the local community in mining jobs, Dr Leigh intends to host information sessions.

“I encourage everyone who wants to know more about working in the mining industry to call or email to register their interest so that we can encourage recruiters to come and see the talent available right here in Canberra,” he said.

I moved a private member's motion in parliament today to recognise the importance of Eureka in the Australian national story.

Eureka, 26 November 2012

DR LEIGH: To move—That this House:

(1) recognises that:

(a) the Battle of Eureka:

(i) was a key moment in Australian democracy;

(ii) called for basic democratic rights, including broadening the franchise and removing the property qualification to stand for the Legislative Council;

(iii) inspired subsequent movements in Australian history, including female suffrage and the Australian Republican Movement; and

(iv) demanded changes to make mining taxation more equitable, with the revenue to be spent on improvements to local infrastructure; and

(b) the importance of the Battle of Eureka is to be commemorated by the Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka in Ballarat, partly funded by the Australian Government in recognition of its national significance; and

(2) encourages all Australians to remember and respect the Battle of Eureka by:

(a) visiting the Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka to learn about the history of the Battle of Eureka and its effect on modern democracy; and

(b) flying the Eureka Flag on 3 December each year in its memory.

Three hours after midnight on the Sabbath morning of Sunday, 3 December 1854, a winter and spring of discontent erupted in a short and dirty skirmish atop the gold-led diggings known as Eureka on the western outskirts of the Victorian town of Ballarat. The colonial authorities had sent troops from two British regiments, supported by the Victoria police—296 men, all told, against a tottering stockade defended by some 150 miners of the Ballarat Reform League. The miners protected a hand-sewn flag bearing a design of the Southern Cross, beneath which they had each sworn an oath ‘to stand truly by each other, to fight to defend our rights and liberties’. The bloody scrum described as the battle for Eureka lasted for fewer than 15 minutes. Six men of the colonial forces and 22 miners were killed. One hundred and fourteen of their Reform League comrades were imprisoned in the Ballarat lock-up and the flag was torn down. In the following months, 13 miners charged by the state with high treason were unanimously acquitted by citizen juries. All bar one of the political demands of the Ballarat Reform League were granted within 12 months. The first bill for the universal enfranchisement of men in the Australian colonies was passed by the Victorian Legislative Council in 1857.

Today I have pleasure in welcoming to the House John Moloney and Richard O'Brien from the ACT branch of Eureka's Children. Eureka's Children fosters the memory of Eureka and the principle of Australian democracy. I thank Mr Maloney for his recent reminder that the battle for Eureka is now an indelible part of the Australian narrative. It ignited the struggle for Australian female suffrage and continues to inspire the Australian Republican movement. The accusing memories of Pemulwuy and Yagan bear witness that this was not the first time in Australia colonial history that a rebellion had been led in defence of a people. The smug orchestrators of the Rum Rebellion proceeded and succeeded in their coup d'etat, while the dead convicts at Castle Hill can attest to the first revolt of white men against the wickedness of colonial authorities.

The Eureka protesters were mostly not Australian citizens as we understand the concept. Only two of them can be said to have been Australian-born. Black and white Americans, Jamaicans, Italians, Swedes, Scots, Jews, Dutch, French and Germans participated in the Eureka protest, with Asian Australians being the only conspicuous absence. But, like the convicts at Castle Hill, the overwhelming majority of miners at Eureka were Irish. They were led by Irishman Peter Lalor and were easily motivated by Irish distrust of English overlords. Yet, out of the gun smoke and mist, the story that emerges does make the battle for Eureka unique in Australian history, a story that cannot be found in any paragraph before or since, a story that was and is an outstanding flare in our democratic consciousness. Until that summer dawn in 1854, no Australian political movement had claimed or defended the democratic freedoms that we today, in this House, understand as the self-evident bedrock of our society.

A month before the battle, 10,000 miners had assembled on Bakery Hill and voted into existence the Ballarat Reform League. The league immediately passed a resolution and with it vaulted across an Australian political Rubicon. The resolution declared, 'It is the inalienable right of every citizen to have a voice in making the laws he is called upon to obey, that taxation without representation is tyranny'—the first explicit demand of Australia's unfranchised for the rights of political recognition and the responsibilities of political representation. The founding resolution was swiftly developed into a charter calling for full and fair political representation based on universal male suffrage, an end to the property qualification for members of the Victorian Legislative Council, so vigorously defended by the conservative forces, salaried members of parliament, voting by secret ballot, and a shorter parliamentary term. In Australia's short history that charter is unique, the original affirmation of the democratic expectations of an Australian citizen. I acknowledge the work of Taimus Werner-Gibbings, who has assisted me with this speech, the advocacy of Peter FitzSimons in his excellent book on Eureka, and my co-authors David Madden, Macgregor Duncan and Peter Tynan, with whom I co-authored a book called Imagining Australia, which featured the Eureka flag on the cover.

Deputy Speaker, I hope this debate will be bipartisan. Robert Menzies said that Eureka was 'an earnest attempt at democratic government'. He repeatedly wove Eureka into his speeches and we should all be proud of the Eureka story.

I spoke in parliament today about outgoing Productivity Commission chairman Gary Banks.

Gary Banks, 26 November 2012

Canberra economist Gary Banks AO is stepping down after 14 years of service to the Productivity Commission. He was the Productivity Commission's inaugural chairman and he was the executive commissioner of its predecessor, the Industry Commission.

The Productivity Commission and its predecessor bodies have done important work for major Labor reforms, whether that was tariff reform in the 1970s or competition reform in the 1990s. During Mr Banks’ term as chairman, the Productivity Commission has brought down important work on aged care policy, the National Disability Insurance Scheme and on carbon pricing. The Productivity Commission has also done critically important work on school reform and on reporting Indigenous disadvantage.

Of course, the Productivity Commission has clashed with governments. Under the Howard government the commission pointed to widespread claims of inefficiency and waste in health care. They criticised the lack of a uniform national approach in forestry, fisheries and waste disposal. They spoke about the inefficiency of stamp duty and the need for a carbon price. And it has to be said that the Productivity Commission has on occasion said things with which this government has disagreed. That is in the tradition of frank and fearless advice, a tradition that Gary Banks upholds well. I wish him the best in his new work heading up the Australia and New Zealand School of Government.

I recently attended the Australia-China forum in Beijing and was a part of a breakfast panel discussing various political issues. We covered off the Asian Century White Paper and optimism in Australian politics during the session. The audio from the panel is available below.

More Canberra public service job cuts promised by Tony Abbott this week. Mr Abbott said in a speech yesterday "Do we really need 20,000 more public servants in Canberra today than we had at the end of the Howard era? We don’t…".

JOINT MEDIA STATEMENT

Andrew Leigh MP

Member for Fraser

Gai Brodtmann MP

Member for Canberra

23 November 2012

Abbott confirms plans to get rid of 20,000 jobs from the ACT

Tony Abbott has confirmed that a Federal Coalition government will get rid of 20,000 jobs in the ACT – potentially throwing our economy back into the same type of downturn we suffered when John Howard slashed the public sector in 1996.

On 8 May 2012, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey told the 7.30 program that the Liberal policy is to cut the federal public service in Canberra by 20,000. We know the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency as well as the Department of Health and Ageing are in the Liberals’ sights for job cuts, but the Liberals refuse to say which other departments and agencies are on their hit list.

Now Tony Abbott has confirmed the Liberals’ scythe will be brought again to Canberra, saying there is no need for 20,000 public servants.

This is the same scorched earth policy of Campbell Newman in Queensland, where unemployment has risen dramatically as government services are wound back.

When the Coalition last came to office, they slashed over 15,000 jobs in Canberra.  Small business paid the price, with a huge jump in bankruptcies. Families saw a massive drop in house prices.

Canberra’s public servants and the businesses that rely on a growing ACT economy deserve to know whether their jobs and their community are under threat.

We call on Tony Abbott to give exact details of which departments and agencies will suffer job losses under an Abbott Government.

I'll be holding two of my regular mobile offices tomorrow, Saturday 24 November:

• 10-11am: Gungahlin (on Hibberson St, outside Big W)


• 11.15am-12.15pm: Dickson (outside Woolworths)

These are a good chance to raise policy issues, chat about matters affecting you and your family, or just to say g'day.