SPEERS: So is this the moment?
Will there be action to address women's economic inequality in this budget?
GALLAGHER: Well, I think you saw in October the fact that we responded with some investments
in childcare, in PPL, in paid domestic and family violence leave, in the Respect at Work
recommendations, so I think that set the signal that we are deadly serious about addressing
women's inequality across the economy but across the community more broadly.
The women's economic equality task force, with Sam as the leader of that task force,
has provided us with a letter outlining some of those initial priorities.
They'll provide us with a report in the next month or so, which finalises their work.
But, yeah, we're deadly serious about doing something and, you know, we are going to take
steps in every Budget that we're in government to address inequality across the economy.
SPEERS: Let's look at some of those steps and some of the recommendations that that
task force has made in this letter that you referenced there.
Number one - the number one priority for this Budget, they say, needs to be the single parenting
payment, at the moment for women, once their youngest child turns eight, they lose the
payment.
Do you agree that the bills don't stop for a single mum or a single dad when their youngest
turns eight?
GALLAGHER: Well, of course they don't stop when they turn eight.
The arrangements at the moment are that you move onto the JobSeeker payment...
SPEERS: And lose about $100 a week.
GALLAGHER: And this is the issue that's been raised by the women's economic equality task
force and others.
And we are having a look at it.
You know, we don't set up these task forces to then not seriously consider the recommendations
that they come forward with.
The Budget will look to do as much as it can within, you know, the responsible fiscal environment
that we are in, to deal with addressing disadvantage and inequality where we can.
SPEERS: I understand the Expenditure Review Committee is looking at lifting that cut-off
age to 12.
Do the bills get any cheaper once the child starts high school?
You don't want high school kids starting off in poverty, do you?
GALLAGHER: Well, again, we're looking at the recommendations from the women's economic
equality task force.
I am a member of the ERC, but I don't disclose what goes on in the ERC.
We are looking at the recommendations.
And, you know, you'll see some of those outcomes in the Budget.
SPEERS: Is it fair to say that you, Katy Gallagher, in that ERC, are pushing pretty hard to lift
it up to the age of 16 where it used to be?
GALLAGHER: As I just said, I don't talk about the ERC or what my views or any other member
of the ERC's views is.
It's a responsible government.
We get these reports.
It's a collegiate approach across the ERC.
We have feedback, of course, from our caucus colleagues as well.
These issues aren't...
You know, they're being raised with everybody, you know, not just those members of the ERC,
and we're seriously looking at it.
We want to ensure that within the environment we're in, you know, where we've got a range
of pressures coming at us and those pressures are increasing over the longer term, not decreasing,
that we're doing what we can to address women's equality, but also address disadvantage and
poverty where we can.
SPEERS: Well, women over the age of 55 are now the cohort most at risk of homelessness.
Both of the expert panels you've commissioned, and now received, says the Commonwealth rent
assistance must be lifted and urgently increased as well.
Do you accept that soaring interest rates have left women in an increasingly vulnerable
situation?
GALLAGHER: I think absolutely, you're right that the age group you refer to - older women,
women without super - this is the issue more broadly and it can't be solved in one budget
or actually in one Parliament.
And the women's economic equality task force makes this point.
You know, we earn less.
We retire with less.
We have less assets, less wealth.
We earn less in lower-paid jobs.
This is the reality of 2023 for Australia's women.
And this is the work that we have started in the Budget.
It's the work we're going to continue in this Budget.
And we'll continue focusing on it and housing for women and providing some security of housing
for women, particularly women in that age cohort that you referred, is a real challenge.
And that's why we've got initiatives like our Housing Australia Future Fund and some
of the other measures that the Treasurer is working on with the housing accord, to look
at how we can push and increase the amount of social and affordable housing, particularly
for demographic age groups like this.
SPEERS: But in terms of the rent assistance, it does sound to me like you are hinting this
morning that there will be some movement in the Budget on that Commonwealth rent assistance?
GALLAGHER: Well, I'm saying in general, we are serious about looking at what we can do
around housing.
I am saying in terms of the recommendations from the women's economic equality task force,
there were six recommendations, of which those, you know, parenting payment, single and Commonwealth
rent assistance, were two.
We are looking at those through the ERC process, haven’t concluded a view, and people will
see the results of that on Budget night.
SPEERS: What about JobSeeker?
Let me ask you about that.
You, in Opposition, urged the Morrison Government to be compassionate, to ensure people could
live a dignified life.
Do you think those on JobSeeker are currently living a dignified life?
GALLAGHER: There's certainly...
You know...
You know, in terms of JobSeeker, there's no doubt that people on JobSeeker do it tough.
There's no doubt about that.
SPEERS: Are they living a dignified life, to use your words?
GALLAGHER: Um...
Well, I mean it's hard for me to pass a judgement on that.
You know, I'm not going to say they live an undignified life.
I am saying that there is certainly pressure and, you know, it's hard to live on JobSeeker.
I accept that.
The challenge for government, and, you know, I note some on the couch, you know, don't
see this as a real issue, is how we balance up the range of pressures across the Budget,
and, you know, they're substantial and they're across almost every area, in a Budget that's
been booby-trapped in all of those issues that we've inherited - a trillion dollars
of debt - how do we balance up all of the need, and, you know, finalise those decisions...
SPEERS: Well, let's talk about that Minister, because I think the Government did cost this
week what it would cost to do all of these things, including the JobSeeker increase that's
recommended, and said it would be 34 billion dollars over the next four years, is that
right?
GALLAGHER: I think it's in the order...
Yeah, between $25 billion and $30 billion across those recommendations from the Economic
Inclusion Advisory Committee.
SPEERS: Okay, 25 to 34 billion.
What's the cost of the stage 3 tax cuts over the next four years?
GALLAGHER: Well, those will be updated in the Budget, but, you know, they're...
I can't recall what they are across the forward estimates.
But they’re substantial.
SPEERS: It was nearly $41 billion according to the Treasurer in October, so it's presumably
more than that now?
GALLAGHER: They'll be updated in the Budget, David.
SPEERS: So it's costing more to do the stage 3 tax cuts than to implement all of these
things?
GALLAGHER: Well, the stage 3 tax cuts are legislated.
They are due to come in in July next year.
You know, we haven't changed our position on those.
And the challenge for us is looking across the Budget as a whole, where we can make additional
spending, where we can make additional savings, and how we make those decisions.
And it's a balancing act.
There's no doubt about it.
We have to balance all of these different pressures, whether it's defence, health, you
know, all the investments in Medicare that have a cost-of-living focus, how we balance
all of those and conclude those decisions.
SPEERS: And those tax cuts fit the balance?
Those tax cuts are the right balance?
GALLAGHER: We haven't changed our position on them, David.
SPEERS: Are they the right balance?
GALLAGHER: Well, our position is those tax cuts are legislated and we haven't changed
our position.
My job as Finance Minister is to look...
Ensure quality spending, to make some of those difficult decisions - and there are difficult
decisions.
I don't want to pretend to anybody that these are easy decisions.
They are difficult.
But how do we get that balance right?
How do we address disadvantage?
How do we support those that are most vulnerable?
How do we provide cost-of-living relief within the context of the environment we're in?
Now, the Budget's going to get...
You know, be improved in the short term.
We'll see improvement in the Budget numbers in the short term, but the longer-term pressure
on the Budget are increasing and we have focus on that as well.
SPEERS: Will this Budget include any new taxes or tax increases?
GALLAGHER: Oh, well, you'll see the results of that on Budget night.
I'm not here to hand the Budget down earlier than 9 May.
SPEERS: Alright.
But there might be new taxes?
GALLAGHER: Well, you'll know...
We've been clear that we've got our focus on multinational tax reform, modest changes
to high-balance super accounts, so, you know, in that sense, the answer to your question
is yes, you will see those reflected in the Budget.
SPEERS: And the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax too?
GALLAGHER: Well, we've received the advice from Treasury.
We haven't formed a concluded view on that.
You know, that was work commissioned by the former government.
It's been going for the last few years.
And, you know, Treasury's view is that they think that there are improvements that could
be made to the PRRT.
We're considering those.
We haven't formed a view about whether it's this Budget or this year.
I think the industry is sort of well across what those modest changes might be, because
they've been involved in those consultations, but we haven't finalised a view on, that David.
SPEERS: The industry is pointing out how much tax they currently pay.
They point out that it's going up.
Their forecast is that it will go up next financial year considerably, although they
haven't said, notably, how much now they're forecasting their profits to go up next financial
year.
Are they paying enough tax, the gas producers?
GALLAGHER: Well, in terms of the PRRT, um, you know, we haven't finalised a view on that,
but I think from our point of view, we want to make sure, that you know, taxpayers are
getting the right sort of return through that measure.
And, you know, that's the work that Treasury has done.
They think there are some changes that could be made.
There are a number of different recommendations, or views, put through that, and we'll conclude
our discussions on that in the short term.
SPEERS: Will there be new savings found in this Budget?
GALLAGHER: Yes.
We are looking at savings all the time.
I mean this is something that we started in October, where we had that considerable savings
and reprioritisation exercise, and, yes, I mean the reality is we have to find savings
as well.
And it's not just savings to return to Budget, it's actually finding those savings that can
be reprioritised into areas of new need.
That's part of the challenge as well, but you know, we've inherited a Budget that's
under a lot of stress.
We've got a lot of booby traps.
We've got a lot of terminating measures where, for example, the Digital Health Agency just
loses funding on June 30 this year.
I mean, seriously?
That agency presumably needs to keep going.
Same with the eSafety Commissioner in some of the funding that that agency has.
So we're actually having to deal with that.
And you'll see a reasonable part of the Budget is actually addressing these terminating measures,
which is essentially the dishonesty of the previous government about the state the Budget
was in.
SPEERS: When you talk about finding savings and reprioritising that, what about the NDIS?
Are we going to see much in this Budget in terms of the reboot that Bill Shorten is talking
about?
GALLAGHER: Well, yeah, Bill outlined some of that at the Press Club earlier this week.
I think the challenge in the NDIS is actually about making sure that every dollar going
in there - and it's a substantial amount of dollars now, is actually delivering the outcomes
we want in supporting people with a disability to live a dignified life.
Some of that might involve changes within the scheme, but he went through those at the
Press Club about how we're trying to make sure things like fraud, making sure that those
dollars are not being spent other than for the purpose for which they were intended.
SPEERS: Finally on the Reserve Bank, Minister, the review panel, the review into the Reserve
Bank, called for more monetary policy expertise around the board, and new monetary policy
board indeed.
The Government made two new appointments to the existing board on Thursday.
Do either of them have monetary policy expertise?
GALLAGHER: David, those two appointments are first-rate candidates for a start.
We went through an expression-of-interest process.
The Governor and Treasury were involved in that.
That's the first time that's happened.
I note the Governor in his press conference welcomed those appointments to the board.
From our point of view, apart from them having incredible careers of substance, both of those
appointees, we absolutely think that people with experience about working people's lives
and about wages and wages' role in the economy absolutely is important to reflect on the
board.
SPEERS: But the review was quite specific about the need for monetary policy expertise,
to push back at the Governor and so on in board meetings.
Do either of these new appointments have monetary policy expertise?
GALLAGHER: Absolutely.
We think the credentials they bring, both from corporate Australia and from, say, the
Fair Work Commission, those views and perspectives and their lengthy and highly distinguished
careers absolutely have a role in monetary policy decisions and they're first-rate appointees
and we're pleased that they've taken up the opportunity.
SPEERS: Finance Minister Katy Gallagher, we'll leave it there.
Thank you so much for joining us this morning.
GALLAGHER: Thanks very much, David.