Doorstop interview, Canberra

Subjects: gambling reform, NDIS reforms, tax reform, superannuation Journalist: Treasurer, can I ask about the gambling reforms? Are you confident they will go far enough to protect people that are suffering with a gambling addiction? Well, the government’s got a really substantial agenda when it comes to gambling reform, and in the last little while we’ve announced additional steps to make it easier for people to opt out of ads, and also to make it easier for the regulator to crack down on inducements.

So these are really important steps that we are taking when it comes to problem gambling in our society and in our country. Obviously there will be negotiations ongoing between now and passage in the Senate. I don’t want to pre‑empt the outcome of those negotiations, but Minister Wells and the PM, I think, have done a terrific job striking an effective balance here, taking very substantial action on gambling at the same time as we recognise that for a lot of Australians this is a legitimate pastime that they do as a hobby.

Journalist: Can you explain, please, how the opt‑out model will be paid for? Is it like a levy with the gambling companies and is there a cost estimate per year? Yeah, there will be cost recovery from the industry so that Australian taxpayers aren’t asked to foot the bill for these important additional changes.

For the details of that, that will be worked through obviously by the Minister. Journalist: Treasurer, there are reports the Opposition Leader has issued an ultimatum on the so‑called widow’s tax and the NDIS reforms. Can you confirm that, and your response to that?

Journalist: I think you’ve all seen that story in one of the newspapers to that effect. Let me make a couple of points about that. First of all, the reforms to the NDIS are about saving the NDIS from itself, making sure that it’s sustainable so that we can continue to provide a decent level of care for people who need and deserve it around our country.

That’s the first point. The Senate should support our NDIS reforms on their merits and in that light. The Opposition has put to us in the letter published in The Australian that they would like to see the government’s changes in the tax reform package passed more quickly.

As you know, the government has already made it abundantly clear, crystal‑clear that we are addressing some of those issues raised in that draft legislation that I put out some time ago and that we have consulted on. Now if the Opposition’s main ask is that we pass the government’s legislation quicker, then obviously I’m up for that discussion, and from a personal point of view my objective, my job is to continue to pass these tranches of legislation to give effect to a tax reform package which is all about making it fairer for first home buyers and cutting taxes for workers and making the system fairer across the board.

And so if their ask is that we pass the government’s draft legislation sooner rather than later, then obviously I’m up for that discussion. Journalist: Would that be this week potentially, or the next sitting? Well, I’ve learned not to pre‑empt the negotiations or outcomes in the Senate, and obviously in a world where we don’t control the outcomes in the Senate we engage with the other parties in good faith.

The government’s got a very substantial reform agenda. At some point or another in each of these areas we require the support of the Senate, so we engage in good faith to get the best outcome that we can there. I’ve obviously had discussions with the PM and the Finance Minister and others about the interaction of the government’s tax legislation with some of these other legislative objectives in the Senate.

Journalist: Treasurer, if the point of the tobacco excise is to reduce smoking, how do you justify this tax, which has helped push up a packet of cigarettes around $50 while the black market is booming? Well, a couple of points about that. First of all, we acknowledge that there is a very substantial challenge when it comes to illicit tobacco, I’ve acknowledged that on a number of occasions before, and that’s why we’ve provided more than $350 million in extra resources for the police and other authorities to support their work and the work of the states on cracking down on this substantial challenge that we have with illicit tobacco.

Now when it comes to the excise, obviously most of the excise increase over the last decade or so happened under our predecessors, this government’s focus has been on the law and order element of this, the enforcement and compliance part of it. That has been our primary focus and for good reason, and with decent effect in recent times. We’ve seen some raids and some busts including in the last few weeks, which have been very successful.

We want to see more of that, that’s why we’re resourcing the police and authorities to do their job. Journalist: On that point about the NDIS and the tax arrangements and the Liberals letter, they’re obviously in favour of making that change, you could have a pathway through the Senate with their support if you wanted it, they’d vote for it today, you’d imagine.

Again, I mean I’ve learned not to pre‑empt outcomes in the Senate. Those are part of the discussions and the negotiations that are underway in the Senate. But I make the same point I made a moment ago.

The government has released that draft legislation, we’ve consulted on it, we’ve made it clear for some time that we are addressing the issues that they have raised. And so if their ask of us is that we pass our legislation sooner rather than later, then obviously I’m up for that discussion. Journalist: Just back to the tobacco excise, would you consider reducing the rate that it’s at at the moment?

No. The government’s focus is on the compliance side, the important side of this – Journalist: I appreciate that. But would you consider it at all, a reduction?

No, that’s not something that we are proposing, and I know that other parties have proposed that, and all I can talk to is the government’s focus. The government’s focus is on law and order, enforcement and compliance, more than $350 million in extra resources, some recent successes when it comes to cracking down on illicit tobacco, but we still have a lot of work to do, it is still a very substantial challenge, and we’re addressing it the best we can.

Journalist: Treasurer, just back on the previous question, so would you consider now passing the entire second tranche bill that you released last week for consultation or just the bits related to the widow tax? Well, I think that’s up for discussion and up for negotiation. You know, those negotiations are primarily being conducted between the PM and the Opposition Leader with the assistance of Katy and others, depending on whose policy area it is, and so I don’t want to pre‑empt those discussions or pre‑determine those negotiations.

Journalist: So just from a technical standpoint, is that bill good to go if it was to get the whole thing through? Well, in our consultation so far, nobody has raised with us any issues with the draft legislation that we released for consultation a little while ago. As to the very specific details of what is in or out of these negotiations and these discussions, I don’t want to get into the detail of that.

Journalist: Treasurer, perhaps cutting the tobacco excise wouldn’t put genie back in the bottle, but is it fair to stay that perhaps it also pushed too far, the excess? Well, first of all, it’s important to recognise if you look at the big increase in excise over the last, I think decade or so, a dozen years or so, that the bulk of that was done before we came to office, that’s the first point.

The second point is primarily this is about the authorities’ ability to crack down on illegal activity, and so our focus, our priority and our policy reflects the very substantial work that the police and the other authorities need to do to crack down on what’s happening here, and in the federal government they found a very willing and enthusiastic partner providing very substantial additional resources for them to do their work.

I’ll just say one last thing before I let you get on with your day, and that’s about superannuation. In the last week the Liberals, One Nation and the Nationals have all made it now abundantly clear that they don’t support universal superannuation with preservation at its core. The next election will be a referendum on universal super, whether or not Australian workers can continue to access the economic security and decent retirement incomes that comes from Australia’s world‑leading superannuation system.

So this is a really important development. The Nationals, the Liberals and One Nation don’t support super because they don’t support workers, and they all pretend that they are on the side of workers, but at every opportunity, all 3 of them, they’re against decent wages, the Liberals and Nationals voted against our tax cuts for workers, and now they’re against universal superannuation for workers as well.

So this will be an issue at the next election; that’s now abundantly clear. Together, those 3 parties represent the biggest threat to universal superannuation in the 4 decades since it became compulsory. Superannuation will not be safe in their hands.

And so we will continue to make this a big issue because we understand how important super is to economic security and decent retirement incomes even if our opponents do not. Thanks very much.