SENATOR THE HON KATY GALLAGHER
MINISTER FINANCE
MINISTER FOR WOMEN
MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE
MINISTER FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TV INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS SUNDAY AGENDA
SUNDAY, 27 APRIL 2025
SUBJECTS: 1800 Medicare; Public service; Defence; NDIS; Dutton’s nuclear scheme.
ANDREW CLENNELL, HOST: Well, joining me live on the desk is Finance Minister, Katy Gallagher. Thanks so much for your time.
KATY GALLAGHER, MINISTER FOR FINANCE, WOMEN, THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES, LABOR CAMPAIGN SPOKESPERSON: Thanks for having me on.
CLENNELL: Let me start by asking about the 1800MEDICARE line. It feels like this sort of service is out there anyway for people. Health Direct and those kind of services. What's the difference with this one?
GALLAGHER: Well, we're supplementing it, essentially. So, it'll still be nurse-led, so, people will ring up, they'll get a nurse who answers the phone and they'll be able to take advice from that. If through the triaging, the nurse believes that they need to have a session with a GP, that that will be able to be provided. And it's really looking at how we can ensure that people can get access to healthcare when they need it and without charge out-of-hours and on weekends, which is when this service would operate.
CLENNELL: You say supplementing, but is it not doubling-up to some extent?
GALLAGHER: Well, Health Direct as it exists now operates essentially as an advisory line. So, it'll take your advice and say, oh, you should go to the emergency department, or you can wait and see your GP tomorrow. This, the extra investment in this, will mean that out-of-hours and on weekends, if that nurse thinks that you need to see a GP via telehealth, that that will be able to be provided. And we know people like telehealth, using telehealth –
CLENNELL: So, this includes a telehealth service?
GALLAGHER: Exactly. So, there's a component there, out-of-hours and on weekends, where if you need to see somebody, the nurse has taken that view, she'll also say or he will say, go to the ED, if they think that's the appropriate pathway. But it'll provide telehealth care –
CLENNELL: That's what they usually say, I reckon.
GALLAGHER: Well, nurses, it's a difficult job triaging online over the phone, but this will allow another option and we know if people need an emergency script or they're worried about an ear infection or something like that, they'll be able to have a telehealth appointment free of charge. We know that this has kind of grown and operating outside of Medicare with some of the private operators, but you've got to pay $40 or something to get access to the telehealth. This will be provided under Medicare.
CLENNELL: Let's talk about the state of the Budget then. $179 billion of deficits in the forward estimates before your costings, which might come out as early as tomorrow. Will it be greater than that, the deficit number, when we get your costings?
GALLAGHER: It'll be largely in line with the Budget and the PEFO numbers. So, you'll see us offsetting spending. And yeah, we're looking to release those in the first half of this week.
CLENNELL: When you look at those deficits, is there a case, if you're reelected, for a mini budget later this year?
GALLAGHER: Well, we've done our Budget. I think we've – it feels like ages ago, but it was 25 March, and that really set out for the next year. Obviously, we'd have MYEFO towards the end of the year if we were lucky to be reelected, but we always take our management of the Budget pretty seriously. You've been following it. We've found savings, we've lowered debt, we've lowered interest on that debt, and you'll see that continued approach.
CLENNELL: When do you anticipate the next budget will be delivered then, if you're elected?
GALLAGHER: Well, if we're elected, I mean, that's a matter for the Prime Minister in settling the sitting calendar. But we have set down a Budget for the next financial year. We are required to do my MYEFO towards the end of this year.
CLENNELL: When do you think Australia could see a budget surplus again?
GALLAGHER: Well, I mean that's dependent on a lot of decisions being taken in the future. I mean, the Budget's under enormous stress, and that's why I think you have to look at ways to invest in the Budget, but also find savings at the same time. And I think people expect that. They expect the Government to manage the Budget responsibly, but also be able to find room and invest in the things and services they need, like Medicare, for example.
CLENNELL: Savings means cuts, doesn't it?
GALLAGHER: Well, savings means efficiencies. I mean, we've found $95 billion in savings through the budgets that we've handed down. And I think, again, Australian taxpayers expect us to continue that approach. So, I mean, there's a whole range of things in there. There's reprioritising, saying we don't need to do that anymore, but we want to invest in this. There's also looking at ways you drive efficiencies, particularly across the public service, where I think there is still room to find additional savings.
CLENNELL: Things like efficiency dividends?
GALLAGHER: Well, there's an efficiency dividend essentially built into the Budget already. And we have each year been finding additional savings on top of that from –
CLENNELL: Is that 1 per cent?
GALLAGHER: Yeah, that's right. And then we've found additional savings with reducing consultants and contractors, and I think there's continued room in that space. We still spend a lot on external contracts and we've built the public service really to this size that I think it needs to be, and now you need to ensure that we are finding efficiencies as we go forward.
CLENNELL: Well see, we're talking about efficiencies. You've been pretty ruthless in attacking Peter Dutton over cuts, but you have to make cuts if you're reelected, surely, with those budget numbers? You wouldn't rule it out, would you?
GALLAGHER: Well, you'll see our costings and they'll be there. I mean, the majority of our spending has – all of the costings will be outlined, about our approach, and you'll see that the decisions we took in Budget and through PEFO really are the majority of the spending that we've done through this campaign. Where we've done some additional spending, you'll see the ways that we are going to pay for that, but –
CLENNELL: How are you going to pay for it?
GALLAGHER: Well, I've been saying for some time and indeed, look at my record as Finance Minister. We have found savings through every budget and we'll continue that approach. We think there are ways without sacking – I mean, Peter Dutton's cuts are about how he pays for his nuclear energy policy and also his wanting to sack 41,000 public servants. We've taken a different approach. One, we don't think the state should fund nuclear reactors. We think there's better use for taxpayers' dollars than that, and we think you should resource the public service properly. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be continuing to look for ways to reduce spending across the Budget.
CLENNELL: And you might do redundancies or natural attrition, mightn't you?
GALLAGHER: I think the public service is around the – it's the appropriate size now. We've built it up. Now, there will be ons and offs across departments as programmes come to an end, but I think the public service itself is well-resourced. There'll be movement across agencies, but really the savings across the public service really can happen in a number of ways. They don't have to be sacking, or shouldn't be sacking, 41,000 public servants in Canberra if you believe the Coalition one day, or across the country if you believe them another.
CLENNELL: Let me ask though, how did we get to a situation where in three years in office we've got 41,000 extra public servants? That's a lot of extra public servants.
GALLAGHER: So, a couple of things there. We converted about 12,000 of those from labour hire. So, they were already working in the public service, they just weren't working as public servants, and they cost a lot more because you're paying essentially a labour hire company for that labour. So, we've converted about, I think it's around 12,000 now. The rest has been going into frontline service delivery agencies. So, Veterans' Affairs was a basket case when we came to Government. Home Affairs, again, a basket case when we came to Government. Department of Agriculture was going broke when we came to Government. Services Australia wasn't able to deliver the work that they need to do. The NDIA wasn't able to meet people who use that scheme properly. And Defence in submarines, creating the submarine agency. These are all areas where we've either grown in our responsibility or we want to give a better service to people. We don't want them to wait for their pension and their Medicare rebate. We want them to be able to pick the phone up and speak to somebody.
CLENNELL: If you are reelected, there's no way as Finance Minister that you are going to be happy with $179 billion plus dollars worth of deficits over five years. Are you are going to want to reduce those?
GALLAGHER: Well, you'll see from my record as Finance Minister and Jim's as Treasurer, where we have found $95 billion of savings –
CLENNELL: That's the same as the scare campaign. That has some similarities. At least with the scare campaign, you're running against up, you'll have to make cuts, you'll just have to, won't you if you're being a responsible economic manager?
GALLAGHER: Well, I mean part of our agenda is growing the economy and having that assist the Budget. But there are ways that you go through and make sensible savings where you can, and we've made $95 billion – the last budget before the last election, zero savings from the former government. We've done the hard work and we'll continue to do it. And part of my job as Finance Minister is to make sure that where we can generate efficiencies, we are doing so.
CLENNELL: Are you planning to grow the public service even more if you're elected?
GALLAGHER: I think I've been saying for some time I think it's the appropriate size now. We've gone through all of the frontline agencies, we've worked out what the appropriate resourcing is and we've provided that resourcing at the same time we're reducing labour hire.
CLENNELL: Alright, let me ask about the NDIS now. There's so many people on it now that basically it's a lot of votes, let's face it, and that's why neither side of politics wants to tackle it, in my view, in the way that they could. Bill Shorten made some progress in trying to reduce the growth of the scheme in partnership with the Opposition. If reelected, would you seek again in a bipartisan manner to try to rein-in the scheme?
GALLAGHER: Well, I think the reforms are largely done in trying to get it down. So, we've gone from a growth in the scheme of around 22 per cent, it's heading down towards I think 12 to 10, and we've set a target of 8 per cent. So, I feel like the reforms that Bill was able to shepherd in cooperation with the Coalition have got us in a good place. The real opportunity that comes now I think is in foundational supports, in building the service system outside the NDIS, because at the moment there's very little, if you need extra support, that exists outside the scheme.
CLENNELL: Are the States going to play ball on that?
GALLAGHER: Well, I think so, because it's in their interest too, and the Commonwealth at the table – and it's something that I've had a keen interest in. I've worked in the disability sector before politics, so I understand the need to provide supports, but when I was knocking around that sector, you used to have therapy centres and early intervention centres and things that you could tap in and out of to use. Those don't exist anymore because everything's been sucked into the scheme.
CLENNELL: Why don't you change some of the eligibility?
GALLAGHER: Well, I think it's done on an individual assessment. Not everybody who applies for the NDIS gets into the NDIS, so I'm not sure that that is the problem. It's having other options for people and making sure we are cracking down on some of the areas where the growth in the NDIS was out of control.
CLENNELL: Because why does it grow larger than inflation even on your target? Why does it grow by 8 per cent?
GALLAGHER: Well, I think it's the numbers coming into the scheme. It's also the cost of the plans, essentially, and the cost of care, of providing that care. And again, I think we need more options. I was at a community gym the other day where they're providing memberships for people where it's $22 a week to go and use essentially rehab and keep yourself fit. They were saying if the NDIS was provided here, it's $190 an hour. So, there are options where we can look at ways to make sure the offerings outside the scheme help people so they don't come onto the scheme.
CLENNELL: Can I get a reaction now to the announcement by the Opposition? They want to lift defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP and eventually 3 per cent?
GALLAGHER: Well, I think it was sort of the same as they're approach in government. There's a media release, but not much that sits underneath it. We've done the heavy lifting in defence, Richard Marles has done it. I mean, when we came to government, there was $42 billion worth of media releases with no money that sat underneath it. It's very easy to issue a media release, much harder to do the hard work to align your resourcing to your budget. And that's what Richard and the Government's been able to do.
CLENNELL: They say you've made $80 billion worth of cuts. What do you say about that?
GALLAGHER: Well, it's not correct.
CLENNELL: How much have you made in terms of cuts?
GALLAGHER: Well, we've actually increased spending $10.7 billion over the forward estimates and $57 billion over the medium term because that aligns with the Defence Strategic Review and the advice the Government got when we came to government. So there's been reprioritising within the defence budget to make sure we can actually get the capability we need, which again was a problem when we came to government and then we've put extra in to make sure that Defence is able to do what it needs to do based on their advice to us.
CLENNELL: Let me read you what Paul Dibb, the author of the Defence White Paper in the 1980s, told the Nine newspapers yesterday concerning Australia's defence capability. He said, when I wrote that White Paper in 1987, Australia had six battalions. How many do we have now? Six. We had six submarines. How many do we have now? Six. We had one to 12 surface combatants. How many do we have now? A bit less than that. We had about a hundred fighter jets. How many do we have now? About a hundred. Is this really good enough when China and Russia pose such a potential threat to our country?
GALLAGHER: Well, again, I think that's the work that Richard has done this term. Richard Marles, he's come in, we didn't have the capability that we needed from the former government –
CLENNELL: We still don't, though.
GALLAGHER: And we have aligned resources and the Review with what we need. And the nature of warfare is changing. The nature of defence industry is changing, what you need to prepare to protect your country. The equipment is changing and part of the work that we've done over the last three years is make sure that we've got that lined up, in place and resourced in order to deliver it.
CLENNELL: In an ideal world, would you like to spend more on defence?
GALLAGHER: Well, I think we're always open to advice from our agencies about what's needed. I mean, I sit on the NSC, so I see when they come and they argue for additional resources, we've been able to find it because we take the advice of our agencies seriously.
CLENNELL: This nuclear $600 billion figure you've been running in your ads, it was an estimate by a renewables lobby group who found it could cost $116 billion up to $600 billion, nevermind their conflict on top. Do you concede that's a potential exaggeration?
GALLAGHER: I don't. I think that the Smart Energy Council has used a number of different data sets in order to reach that number. But also if you look at examples around the world, and there's one in the UK at the moment that's being built 14 years late, one nuclear reactor is costing, blown out to $90 billion, and that's where you've got a nuclear industry operating in that country. Now, Peter Dutton wants to start a nuclear industry from scratch somehow. No private sector will come near it, so the Budget's going to fund it. And he wants to build seven of them, seven.
CLENNELL: I understand that, but renewables and your transmission lines aren't cheap, are they?
GALLAGHER: Well, there's costings around that for sure, but it's nowhere near, nowhere near building seven nuclear reactors.
CLENNELL: It's hundreds of millions, though, isn't it?
GALLAGHER: Well, the difference with us is we are supporting, say, Rewiring the Nation, which I noticed the Coalition are going to abolish in their media this morning. We are funding that infrastructure, but the private sector is funding and investing in the renewable energy system. What we have with nuclear is no private sector is going to come near it, so it will be budget funded.
CLENNELL: Sometimes with government subsidies or underwriting, I have to say. Finally, look, we're out of time. There seems an expectation from the polls, you're in the box seat to win. Do you believe you can achieve a majority result and what will it mean if you do?
GALLAGHER: Well, we've been campaigning from the beginning for a majority government. The PM's been clear about that, but we take nothing for granted. He's been saying we climb a hill and we're walking up that hill right now. We're all feeling it with six days to go, but we take nothing for granted. The election will be close, it'll be close in a number of seats. We think we have a much stronger argument about the plan we want for the future, about investing in Medicare and investing in housing and investing in renewable energy. And the Coalition will cut. And when they cut, everyone will pay.
CLENNELL: Katy Gallagher, thanks so much for your time.
GALLAGHER: Thank you.
ENDS
