³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾

SENATOR KATY GALLAGHER, MINISTER FOR FINANCE AND WOMEN: Great so thanks everyone for coming. We’re on the eve of another sitting week, so it’s going to be an important week for the parliament. We’ve got significant pieces of legislation, like the CFMEU legislation, the administration act to put them into administration. We’ve got the NDIS Bill before the parliament as well, again, a very important bill to make sure that we’re ensuring that the NDIS is sustainable over time, and both of those bills really do need to be dealt with very promptly. We’re hoping that we could get the Fair Work Bill through tomorrow. The Minister has been working over the weekend with the Coalition to address any concerns they have, but we really do need that bill to pass tomorrow so that it can go to the House and then pass the Parliament by the end of the week.

We’ve also got a number of other important matters coming forward this week, we’re going to have the Super on PPL legislation. Obviously, that’s a big deal for a lot of women workers in this country who have been missing out on super when they take time out to have their kids, that legislation will go through, be introduced into the Parliament by Minister Rishworth later this week, and we’ll also have the legislation once it’s gone through all of our processes, on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission, which is one of the outstanding recommendations of the Set the Standard report, that would be introduced to the Parliament this week as well. And towards the end of the week, we’ll have the Rapid Review into family and domestic violence that was being commissioned through the budget that will report to Minister Rishworth, the Prime Minister, and myself, on Thursday, and the plan is to release that on Friday.

So obviously, some really big pieces of legislation to pass the parliament, but a full agenda this week, and we are hoping, I did read in Phil Coorey’s piece on the weekend that the Senate only passed one bill last week, which is right of course, we’re hoping to get more, at least double that, if not more, through the Senate this week. Happy to take questions.

JOURNALIST: Does that disappoint you? The Senate sort of lollygagging. Only passing one bill in a week when it sits for four days?

GALLAGHER: Look, there are times when that is probably expected, when you have a big piece of legislation that will take time up that you would expect, and really the Senate, the big day for the Senate is Monday. That’s really the day that you get a substantial piece of government time. But obviously we would like more legislation passed. Last week wasn’t the most productive week in the Senate. I’m hoping that this week will be more productive.

JOURNALIST: Is the Government on the verge of striking a deal with the Coalition on the NDIS Bill?

GALLAGHER: Look, we’re pretty close. The Minister, Bill Shorten, has been working with his counterpart to reach agreement on that, there are a number of amendments. We’ve had a long debate in the Senate, hopefully that will be able to proceed to the committee stage and get through some of those amendments. But we are pretty close and very hopeful. Obviously, we’ve got still some more work to do with states and territories as well, but that’s a really important bill to start trying to control that scheme to an 8% growth cap as opposed to the speed with which it’s been moving. It really is about the long-term sustainability of that scheme, so I’m pretty hopeful. But again, I don’t want to pre-empt some decisions that have been taken in party rooms and the rest. But I’m hopeful that we should see that through this week.

JOURNALIST: Is there any progress on the RBA Bill? Apparently, Jim Chalmers says that there is, but the Coalition says that that’s news to them.

GALLAGHER: Look, we’re hopeful again. We need to get that bill through if we want to see those changes happen. And really the only way we can do it is with the Coalition. The Greens are really playing themselves out of these important pieces of legislation, so we’re trying to work with the Shadow Treasurer. I know the Treasurer has been reaching out a number of times to get that bill through. I note that the Governor last week, when appearing before the committee, said that she was happy with the way the bill was drafted, and that she would like, you know, was hopeful to see it through too. So, we’ll see, the ball’s, really, in the Coalition’s court on that one.

JOURNALIST: The Governor also said last week that state government spending was an even bigger problem in tackling inflation than what federal government spending was. Are you concerned about the level of spending from the states that it is inflationary, and if you had any discussions with your state and territory counterparts in needing to make the Reserve Bank’s job easier?

GALLAGHER: I saw the Governor’s comments last week, and I really leave those, you know, to her to make. They you know, they’re her comments to the committee. I mean, the job that we’ve got to do is really focused on the federal budget. I mean, the Treasurer, and I don’t really tell other, other administrations, other governments, how to do their job, but our focus is really on making sure that our budget wasn’t inflationary, but that it helped people with cost of living at the same time. So, you know, we just remain focused on the job we’ve got to do. I think the Governor also, you know, drew attention to the fact that it was really consumption is something that she keeps an eye on, and that while government spending is a factor, it, you know, wasn’t the most important factor. I don’t want to verbal her, but that was my assessment of her comments.

JOURNALIST: So, do you concede government spending, then, is contributing to inflation, state and federal?

GALLAGHER: No, I don’t, and I don’t think that’s what she was saying either. She said it’s something, you know, obviously, that they consider it’s, you know, from our point of view, in what is it, a $2.7 trillion economy. You know, the net new spending in this budget, in this year was about $11 billion from the Commonwealth, and that is because we are particularly mindful of the need to be prudent in our decision making, but also make sure that we can deliver services and provide cost of living relief, but not in a way that makes the Reserve Bank’s job harder.

JOURNALIST: I know it’s not coming up this week, but the gambling advertising. Did you agree with your colleague, Bill Shorten that prohibition on advertising is too far and you’re better off just restricting it. Where do you sit on the gambling ad?

GALLAGHER: Well, I have those conversations, obviously in the party room. You know, this is a piece of work that Michelle Rowland is leading. We’ve got to make some decisions when she brings that back through our processes, but that’s the area I would have those conversations. I do think people expect to see significant change when it comes to gambling advertising, but I also think as a government, you need to be aware of all of the impacts of decisions you make. You know whether it be reduction in advertising or a ban, that you need to make those with your eyes wide open. So, this is government doing the job, I think all governments would be expected to do, getting all the information available before you make those decisions. And you know, overall, I think there needs to be a significant reduction in in gambling advertising. You turn the sport on and watch anything you know, you know, play a game on your phone, whatever, you’re bombarded at the moment. And I think most people would expect that we want to see a significant reduction in that.

JOURNALIST: Minister, the Coalition claims the lack of face-to-face interviews, some biometric testing and time spent vetting people applying for visas to leave Gaza, amount to lesser security checks, than what occurred with Syria and other war zones previously. If those checks aren’t uniformly taking place, how can Labor continue to say the process is identical to the system used under the Coalition?

GALLAGHER: Well, I note that Mr Dutton didn’t say that he was worried about interviews. He was saying he didn’t want anyone to come, that nobody should be allowed to come from that area. So that’s, you know, regardless of what security vetting takes place. But the advice that we’re getting, the process that is being put in place is the same, and it’s working. And so, I think you know, the Coalition are here wanting to stoke a bit of division on this. We are, as in, as a government, working through the same security vetting processes as you would expect and have been done under former governments.

JOURNALIST: Is it fair to say it’s identical?

GALLAGHER: My understanding is the process that’s been taken to security assess those applying for visas, is the same.

JOURNALIST: Minister, are you concerned about the drop in the iron ore price, and is that already factoring into decisions heading into MYEFO and the budget beyond that?

GALLAGHER: Well, obviously it’s something that we keep an eye on. We have pretty conservative numbers in our budget, you know. And it was expected that the iron ore price will decline, you know, and we’ll update the figures, as you would expect, through the MYEFO process. But yeah, obviously any decline in the iron ore price impacts revenue to the budget. We don’t have decreasing pressures on the budget. We’ve got increasing pressures on the budget, so any change like that certainly has an impact, but we do put conservative figures in the budget for that reason.

JOURNALIST: Do you agree with Ed Husic who says that Peter Dutton is turning his back on Palestinian families? Is that how you would characterise it?

GALLAGHER: I haven’t seen those comments, but I definitely think that Peter Dutton is doing his usual thing, which is trying to divide the community to, you know, incite kind of division. And I think that’s a problem. When you’re Leader of the Opposition and would-be Prime Minister of this country, I don’t think going around trying to stoke division and fear and pit community against community is helpful. This is a time, and we have been told by those you know, including in our security agencies, that this is a time for leaders, politicians, to lower the temperature, not raise it. And I think what Peter Dutton did last week was raise the temperature. I don’t think it’s helpful.

JOURNALIST: Sky is reporting that Mr Dutton is considering legal action against Zali Steggall for calling him racist. Does that indicate to you that everyone perhaps needs to lower the tone?

GALLAGHER: Oh, look, I think as a general rule, we should be trying to lower the tone. We should be trying to work out how to improve social cohesion in this country at a time when it’s pretty frayed. I think all of us who’ve been in public life, this is a time that we haven’t seen before with, with you know, the level of stress and anxiety in the community. And I think as leaders, we should be taking the temperature down. Now as to what Peter Dutton does taking legal advice, I mean, that’s a matter for him. I know he does do it from time to time. So, he says that he’s going to go out and get legal advice. It’s his individual decision. But you know, really, we have to take the temperature down here, because, you know, the consequences of going around and stoking it, division and fear and disharmony are real, you know, and are people prepared to see the real consequences of that?

JOURNALIST: Minister, is Peter Dutton racist?

GALLAGHER: Look, I think he’s doing what Peter Dutton does best, which is try and, you know, incite the conversation based on division.

JOURNALIST: You haven’t answered the question, Minister.

GALLAGHER: Well, look, I’m not going to get drawn into it, because I think my view is that all of us in the parliament should be working out a way to bring communities together, not pit them, you know, against each other. And so, I mean, I understand the question. I think this is Peter Dutton laying out the strategy that we’re going to see more and more of, which is, every time he gets the opportunity, is to see if he can go for disunity, if he can see if he can promote that kind of behaviour and response. And, you know, we’ve seen it before, and I think we’ll see it again.

JOURNALIST: What about the comments we’ve seen from Zali Steggell accusing him of being racist. Is that also increasing the temperature? She’s doubled and tripled down on that accusation now.

GALLAGHER: Well again, as a rule, I answered this before, I think people should be trying to take the temperature down. I saw footage of what happened in the House last week. It seemed pretty febrile to me. There was a lot of shouting and carrying on going in that chamber. I don’t think that’s particularly useful either. But, you know, I don’t want to stand here and sound like I’m lecturing people, but as a rule, I think we should be working with communities as community leaders to take the temperature down. That isn’t what we’re seeing.

JOURNALIST: Minister, when can we expect to see the government’s response to the Aged Care Task Force? And why has there been such a delay in this?

GALLAGHER: We’ve been working with the Coalition on aged care reforms, and I’m pretty hopeful we’ll see something shortly on that.

JOURNALIST: This week?

GALLAGHER: I can’t say this week for sure, but we’re pretty you know, we’ve been working well, it’s an area, I think, where both the Opposition and the Government are working in the national interest. We’re seeing it with the NDIS. We’re hopeful on aged care, but there’s a little bit more work to do on that.

JOURNALIST: Have the Coalition been more cooperative than the Greens? Is it harder to negotiate bills through the parliament with the Greens at the moment than the Coalition?

GALLAGHER: Look it depends on the legislation entirely, I think, on those big ones like NDIS and aged care, those parties that are in government or would like to be in government, recognise the significant budget impacts of failing to deliver reform in those areas. So, I think that does focus the mind. The Greens don’t have to worry about that obviously, they’re not going to be in government, and so they can keep pretending that you know, budgets can keep growing, and we can keep spending in all of these areas without constraint. I think parties of government can’t take that kind of luxurious approach. And so, on those two issues, we’ve had good discussions with the Opposition to date.

JOURNALIST: In your home jurisdiction of the ACT, where Labor governs with the Greens. Why do you think the Greens are going so soft on the CFMEU bill? Do you think they want donations?

GALLAGHER: That one is a bit of a mystery to me. You know, obviously, yeah, I don’t fully understand the Greens reticence to deal with that legislation. We would like them to. Murray’s been working with them, so the minister has been working with them to address concerns that they have. But I think the pathway through on the Fair Work Bill is with the Coalition, and again, he’s been working over the weekend on that, hopefully we can reach resolution.

JOURNALIST: Are you suspicious they might want CFMEU donations for the ACT election?

GALLAGHER: Look, I don’t know. I mean, I haven’t looked closely at any donations that go to the Greens here in the ACT, but, yeah, I think this doesn’t seem to be an ACT specific reluctance. It seems to be a national reluctance from the Greens to deal with that bill, and we’re hopeful again, with the work that’s been done over the weekend, that we’ll reach agreement for passage of that bill on Monday.

JOURNALIST: What are the concessions, the further concessions that the government could make on that? Is it around, could there be senate estimates hearings for the administrator? Could there be minimum terms? What are we looking at?

GALLAGHER: Yeah, I think it’s around, well, it’s certainly around minimum terms, and it’s around, I think, more accountability to the parliament. There’s a number of areas, I think there’s, there’s a number of amendments that are currently being discussed with the Coalition to meet some of the concerns they have, but also get the bill passed.

JOURNALIST: So, we’re looking at, there will be minimum terms? Labor is looking at, minimum terms?

GALLAGHER: Look, I haven’t seen the final amendments, but that’s, I understand that to be part of the discussions with the Coalition. A number of areas, but it does relate to minimum terms. It has come up through that way.

JOURNALIST: The Greens have previously tried to gain more of a foothold in the CPSU on a platform of disaffiliating that union from Labor. Are you at all concerned that what you’re seeing here with the CFMEU, and the go slow on this legislation is more political in nature, bit more looking to sow internal dissent?

GALLAGHER: I think there’s probably an element of that. And I don’t think much happens in this building without a political overlay. You know, there’s no doubt that the Greens always like to chip away on Labor’s left flank. So, I think they always like to seize an opportunity if they see one. But this is really about passing legislation in the national interest. I think everyone who’s seen the reports that have been published in the Nine papers in particular about behaviour from the CFMEU recognise the importance of actually dealing with this and dealing with it properly. And this legislation will do that. So, despite, you know, I guess, some of political opportunities that the Greens, might seek that they have. I would urge them to actually vote for this legislation in the national interest.