LEON DELANEY:
Canberra's three Federal Labor MPs have joined together to put forward a submission to the Inquiry into the Future of the Australian Institute of Sport. One of those, of course, is our local Member for Fenner and Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury and Employment, Dr Andrew Leigh, good afternoon.
ANDREW LEIGH:
Good afternoon, Leon, great to be with you and your listeners.
DELANEY:
Now, the future of the Australian Institute of Sport ought to be a no‑brainer. Why are we even having an inquiry?
LEIGH:
Well, in our view, we ought to be sticking with the status quo. The AIS has served Canberra and the nation so well in the last 42 years. It's hosted thousands of athletes, we’ve seen a whole lot of medals come out of the AIS and it's shown that Canberra at its very best can be the home for the nation's sports stars. Not only is it the permanent home for a range of sports, but also it hosts training camps.
So just this year alone, you've had over 5,000 athletes, coaches and support staff come to Canberra and get that cross‑sport knowledge that comes from the Australian Institute of Sport.
DELANEY:
We've seen, of course, calls from all of our local politicians, not just the Labor ones, but David Pocock as well, for the Institute to stay here in Canberra. We've seen the Chief Minister say it must stay here in Canberra. We've seen indications from, I believe, also Kieran Perkins, suggesting that really it needs to stay in Canberra, and we've even heard from Queensland politicians such as Senator Matt Canavan, saying, "Well, Queensland doesn't really need to." So where's all this pressure coming from to move it?
LEIGH:
There's certainly some who believe that the Australian Institute of Sport's time has come and that it could be better relocated elsewhere. Some people have made the case that ought to be moved to Queensland in anticipation of the 2032 Games.
My answer to that is, well, sure, but what happens in 2033? Why is Queensland then the logical location for the AIS? The fact is that a national institution should be in the national capital, and even if your only concern is how well we do in the 2032 Games, it takes time for an institution to get up and running, and you're off better investing in the existing AIS rather than risk a timeframe blow‑out that imperils our athletes' preparation for the Brisbane Games.
DELANEY:
One of the other things that you've pointed out in your joint submission is that the ACT provides what is effectively neutral ground, to avoid any kind of interstate rivalries, which of course when it comes to the world of sport can be quite fierce, can't they?
LEIGH:
Absolutely, you know, why would you have it in one state rather than the other; what's the case for having a national institution in Victoria rather than Western Australia?
This goes back to the origins of the national capital, as you well know, Leon. The ACT was formed in order to deal with the interstate rivalry between New South Wales and Victoria, but now between all of the other states and territories.
We have other advantages too. We're pretty flat, and that topography makes the AIS an ideal location for para athletes. We’re also a place where international visitors come, and they often want to see what we're doing.
We have school students. More than 160,000 visited Canberra last year, and 120,000 went to the AIS as part of their trip.
DELANEY:
Yeah, it's obviously one of the many attractions that people visiting Canberra might want to visit and enjoy the experience of seeing all of our national institutions, and the Australian Institute of Sport is obviously one of them. It is also quite obviously in need of some urgent investment to bring it back up to a reasonable standard, isn't it? That's one of the big stumbling blocks it currently faces, isn't it?
LEIGH:
That's right, and alongside a range of other national institutions, it's been let go under the nine years of the former Federal government. That lack of investment is showing. The AIS needs additional investment now, but the cost of investing in the existing Australian Institute of Sport is far lower than the cost of any relocation would be. Some of their reports suggest that could be anywhere between $600 million to over $1 billion.
DELANEY:
And the investment required to bring it up to standard, I've read a report suggesting that would be about $200 million, is that reasonable?
LEIGH:
I've read those reports as well, but you know, wherever you end up on that, it's got to be cheaper to renovate than relocate.
DELANEY:
Yeah, and build on the foundations that we already have, rather than uproot everything and start from scratch, which would also obviously involve a longer period of time, wouldn't it?
LEIGH:
Precisely. We want to make sure we get the best bang for buck for Australian athletes, and that lies in a reinvestment in the Australian Institute of Sport.
DELANEY:
Okay. Also apparently there has been a recommendation made by a Senate Committee to make the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee a permanent feature. Now the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee provided advice to the government in the formulation of the budget, and some of the things it recommended, well, the government just simply ignored.
It would be a good idea, wouldn't it, to have this as a permanent advisory committee for the government, but really we also need the government to actually pay attention to the advice that it gives, don't we?
LEIGH:
Well, we increased a range of income support payments in the last budget, Leon, in line with the recommendations of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. That committee recommended a higher increase in some payments and some cases, but our budget did more to reduce inequality than any budget in the last decade.
I'll happily stack up our inequality‑busting credentials against the former government's. That committee is a valuable one, that's why we've brought this legislation forward, to give it an ongoing platform from which to work, to draw on expertise in academia and other areas.
I used to be a professor who worked on inequality, so I'm obviously a big fan of bringing more evidence into decision making. That might involve too linking up with our new Australian Centre for Evaluation on high‑quality rigorous evaluations of what works to reduce poverty.
DELANEY:
Okay. Senator Pocock, the independent Senator for the ACT has put forward some recommendations to effectively expand the scope of the committee and increase its authority. Do you think those would be a good idea?
LEIGH:
Well, we'll certainly look at Senator Pocock's suggestions there, and he's been instrumental in the creation of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, so we take his views very seriously as we do the other crossbenchers and minor parties. He's a constructive player when it comes to dealing with issues around poverty and disadvantage. I know he's got a big heart and a strong commitment on those issues, so we'll have those constructive conversations with him on that.
DELANEY:
Now also, of course, this week, the Reserve Bank Board Governor Michelle Bullock made some interesting comments that have certainly caused quite a bit of discussion.
Now I know last time you and I chatted we referred to the independent Reserve Bank and how, you know, the Reserve Bank makes its decisions completely independent of the government, but really with the latest comments from Michelle Bullock, you really can't distance yourself far enough, can you? What she has suggested is that going to the dentist is driving up inflation? I mean that's just ridiculous, isn't it?
LEIGH:
Well, Michelle Bullock will defend her own words, I'm not going to get into the precise details of what she said. But certainly, Leon, our view is that inflation is coming down, and that's the Reserve Bank's view as well. We're seeing a welcome reduction in inflation as a result both of the Reserve Bank's interest rate rises, but also, importantly, the work that the Australian government is doing in delivering a surplus, making sure we don't have that extra federal cash flowing into the economy overly fuelling demand, while at the same time providing things like energy bill relief and childcare relief, which are putting downward pressure on inflation.
DELANEY:
Okay. Putting aside the, you know, the humorous stuff about hairdressers and dentists, what the Reserve Bank Governor was actually saying is that inflation now is being driven more by domestic demand than it is by offshore influences, which was previously the case. Now is she right in that assessment, do you think?
LEIGH:
Well, we've seen inflation both in the goods and services sector and we're seeing moderation of inflation in both goods and services. So I think that's welcome news.
We certainly though wouldn't defend the strategy of keeping wages low to keep inflation low. Where we saw almost no real wage increase over the decade of the former Coalition government, when asked about that, they boldly said that was a design feature of their economic architecture.
But in the last two quarters we've seen some real wage growth. I'd like to see more of that. It needs to be driven by productivity in the long run, but Australians deserve a real pay rise, Leon, we won't be backing off that.
DELANEY:
Okay. Well now you're starting to sound like me, because I think last time we chatted, I was suggesting that I've had enough of economists and politicians suggesting that I can't have a wage rise because it's inflationary when really it's the executives and the chief executives and the board directors and the board chairmen and the corporate profit; that's where all the double‑digit growth is, it's at the top end of town. It's not with the regular, everyday workers, their incomes have been going backwards in real terms now for quite some time, and to blame the workers for the inflation is just not on.
LEIGH:
Yeah. I mean if you're talking about cost of living, you're talking about two things: how much money comes in and how much money goes out, and making sure that we get regular real wage rises is important to social cohesion, to people's sense of wellbeing.
We look at the decisions that our government has made since coming to office; we supported the aged care pay rise, and that's out in the budget, we supported the pay rise to minimum wage workers, you remember Anthony Albanese carrying around that $1 coin during the election campaign, we've strongly backed moderate wage increases, and what we're doing with our industrial relations challenges is also supporting the paying conditions and closing loopholes in areas like labour hire and gig work for people who are just aren't getting a fair shake of the stick.
DELANEY:
Well, we all want to have a fair shake of the stick, don't we? Andrew, thanks very much for chatting today.
LEIGH:
Thanks, Leon.