Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher

GREG JENNETT, HOST: So, if you’re a minister in the Treasury or the Finance portfolio for that matter, you’ll take the drop in inflation as a sign of positive progress even if some of it hinges on the continuation of government spending designed to take some of the heat out of the numbers. We checked in with the Finance Minister, Katy Gallagher, on the data and much more. She’s working in Melbourne today. We spoke to her only a few moments ago. [TRANSITIONS] Katy Gallagher, so good to have you back with us once again on Afternoon Briefing. We have to start on inflation, don’t we, with the headline rate down to 2.8 per cent today. Your colleague Jim Chalmers really pointing out that that measure, even if it’s not the one that the Reserve Bank board likes to work off, is back in the target range of the RBA. So, just elaborate on that for us. Is the Government messaging here to the Bank that there are no grounds for further rate hikes, only for cuts from now on?

SENATOR THE HON KATY GALLAGHER, MINISTER FOR FINANCE: Great to be with you, Greg. Look, the Government doesn’t send messages to the Bank. Obviously the Bank is independent, it makes its own decisions. But these numbers are really welcome. We have welcomed them, they show good progress in the fight against inflation, if you look at all the measures that sit under underlying headline inflation, they’re all tracking down. When you go back to what we inherited when we came to government, 6.1 per cent. We’re down to 2.8. That really is a remarkable achievement when you compare it with the fact that we’ve been creating jobs and our unemployment rate remaining so low. But you know, these are welcome numbers, but we get the fact that people are still really feeling under enormous pressure with some of those cost-of-living impacts.

JENNETT: Okay. So, energy bill relief is working. That’s in the ABS data. At a cost of about $3.5 billion, do you now see it as demonstrating its value as an investment in cost-of-living – so much so that it should be continued, if not indefinitely, then at least for another year?

GALLAGHER: Well, we’re constantly looking at ways that we can help with cost-of-living in a responsible way. You know, and what the Budget can afford. Obviously, the energy bill rebates have had an impact not only in the inflation numbers, but also for people and they’re paying their bills, which is what they were intended to do. And Commonwealth Rent Assistance, both of those come through the numbers today. We’ll continue to look at ways we can help people get through some of these cost-of-living pressures. That’s our job. It’s the one the PM and the Treasurer and I are focused on every day.

JENNETT: Right, but the consequence of not extending it – at least according to RBA forecasts and as we saw last week, International Monetary Fund forecasts – is that inflation actually kicks back up again to a higher level. Are you prepared to tolerate that, if it comes down to a choice between ongoing energy bill relief and a tick-up in inflation once again?

GALLAGHER:Well, it’s obvious that when you remove something that puts downward pressure on inflation, that you would see that tick up. If those rebates weren’t there – and I think the ABS data today shows that without the energy bill rebates, we would have seen a modest increase in electricity prices. So, again, I go back to my previous answer, we are looking at every way we can help people with the cost-of-living pressures without adding to the inflation challenge. That’s been the job we inherited when we came to government and we had inflation running so high. And everything we’ve done since that day has been, how do we manage that? Because you know, these economic numbers, when I come on your show and talk about the 2.8 per cent, 6.1 – that doesn’t really make a difference to people when they’re putting their household budgets together. So what we’ve been focused on is our job, which is to work with the Bank to get that inflation number down, but at the same time, say to people, we get the fact that you’re doing it tough and here’s some assistance we can provide in a responsible way that won’t add to the inflation challenge, which will hurt in the longer term.

JENNETT: Alright, we’ll keep our eye on MYEFO. I want to move on, because there’s a bit of ground to cover today, Katy. Something that’s not unrelated to your role as Finance Minister and through your department, government procurement – particularly of travel contracts – so much attention being paid to Anthony Albanese’s Qantas flight upgrades and whether these were actively solicited by him. What have you heard from the Prime Minister’s public explanations that lead you to believe that he never requested in any way or sought an upgrade while engaged in personal or non-work travel?

GALLAGHER:Well, I think the Prime Minister answered these questions extensively yesterday. The issue for politicians – it’s why we have a public register where we make declarations, is that when you are given an upgrade or something – you know, a gift – that you declare those matters. And these were declared. I mean, these are going back decades. These were declared in the normal way, in the normal time that you would expect them to be done. I think the PM’s answer to all these questions – he is fastidious about detail, about putting declarations and making those where they need to be made, and he’s done that.

JENNETT: Alright, let’s talk, then, since you do have some responsibility around procurement, about your attitude towards what I would suggest would be a simple rule change that might say, parliamentarians are not able to accept an upgrade on personal travel – you know, non-work travel, of course – that may have been offered because they were a parliamentarian? If such a rule was in place, wouldn’t that remove some of the odium that attaches, in voters’ minds at least, to politicians’ perks? Would you consider that?

GALLAGHER: Well, that’s probably more a matter for others, not through Commonwealth procurement. You know, we have IPEA, which is the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority, which provides guidance around allowances and entitlements to politicians. There are rules around declarations that we do through public registers that are available, if anyone wants to go and have a look, you can have a look at any parliamentarian on the website about what gifts or upgrades or whatever they have received. So, I think it’s a combination of having the rules in place, abiding by those rules – which is to declare, which is what the PM has done and I notice Mr Dutton with all his upgrades from his private plane with Gina Rinehart has also done – and it’s there for all to see. In terms of whether there should be any amendment or adjustment to those rules, I think that really is a matter for others, it’s not under the Commonwealth procurement policy. You know, I leave that one to others. But my view is, as a politician, I declare any gifts, anything I get, so that it’s all there for people to see and it’s transparent and you’re accountable for that.

JENNETT: Yeah, that’s at the end of the process though, isn’t it? Declaration – by definition, it is. I guess my proposal or my question, if you like, goes to cutting it off at source so that it is not offered or accepted at the front-end on personal travel which effectively would be offered because you are a parliamentarian, because of your work. Even allowing for the fact this is not a procurement issue, do you not see merit in that?

GALLAGHER:Well again, I mean, you put a proposition to me. I mean, we are invited to lunches sometimes. We are invited to theatre sometimes. We are invited to sports games sometimes. All because of the role we play as politicians. So, I guess, you could mount a similar argument about that, whereas the position that’s been taken is that you declare them. So, look, if you are accountable to your constituents, they can see, oh, they’ve gone to 14 football matches or whatever, and it’s all been declared and you can make your own view about that. So, I feel like this is the same as political donations – it’s actually set the rules and then make the declarations, and if you abide by the rules and the declarations, that is you being transparent and accountable.

JENNETT: Alright, point taken. Can I ask you a question, Katy, as Minister for Women? You will have noticed or you’d be aware that ABC colleagues have reported on what’s called an unspoken ban on medical abortion services at public hospitals, but especially those in regional areas. This has included late cancellations of a procedure with no adequate explanation why. The Commonwealth has some influence here, obviously through state hospital funding agreements – are you prepared in light of this reporting to revisit the Tanya Plibersek commitment made before the last election that you would tie funded abortion services to hospital funding agreements?

GALLAGHER: So, Ged Kearney and Mark Butler, I’m working with them around essentially access to women’s health across the country, and that includes reproductive health services including abortion services. So, we are looking at all of the issues that have been raised in senate reports, whether it be termination of pregnancy or things like menopause, but more generally, making sure that women have access to the full suite of health services they need, Greg. And this is something we are deeply committed to. Mark’s made the access to medical terminations more available – and that particularly benefits people in regional areas as well, who – that might be the only avenue for them because of some of the restraint you see on surgical terminations. But we want to make sure that wherever you live, as a woman in this country, that when you need to access health services, that you are able to get them close to where you live and in an affordable way.

JENNETT: Okay. Thank you for that explanation. One final one, not strictly related in any way to your portfolio areas, Katy Gallagher – the National Anti-Corruption Commission, you’d be aware of Gail Furness, the watchdog there, making a fairly serious finding against Commissioner Paul Brereton, that he engaged in officer misconduct. Should Commissioner Brereton keep his job?

GALLAGHER:Well, Greg, I’ve only seen some of the early reporting on this. But I would say, we’ve legislated an independent National Anti-Corruption Commission, but with very strong oversight. And to me, from what I’ve seen of this report, it looks like that system is working, where the independent inspector has had a look, has made recommendations and the NACC has accepted those recommendations. So, I haven’t looked – you know, I’ve only seen this, obviously, today, while I’ve been on the road. But from my quick assessment, it looks like the system is working.

JENNETT: I understand. If we get the opportunity to take it up with others more directly, supervising the NACC, we will do that, Katy Gallagher. I know you’ve got a bit on your plate there so we appreciate you finding the time. You’re always welcome on this program.

GALLAGHER:Thanks very much for having me, Greg