Interviewer: Let's return to domestic politics now, where the Prime Minister was forced to answer some awkward questions today about the advice that the government sought from Treasury about Labor's contentious super tax policy. Treasury officials revealed yesterday that the Prime Minister and members of his office had met with the department to discuss the policy, which was announced three years ago, but doesn't yet have the support to get through Parliament. Now, Anthony Albanese insists there's nothing unusual about his request for advice from Treasury.
Anthony Albanese: We receive briefings on policy all the time, as you expect the Prime Minister's office to do. That's what we do. There's nothing unusual about that. Our policy is as it stands. There are no policy changes.
Interviewer: Crossbench MPs have been vocal about their concerns about the details of this super tax plan, particularly the taxation of unrealised gains and because the $3 million threshold which we're talking about for these tax concessions isn't indexed to inflation. For more, Independent MP Kate Chaney joins me now from Perth. Kate, thanks very much for joining us on the programme.
Kate Chaney: Good to be here, Mel.
Interviewer: So, the Prime Minister's office has been communicating with the Treasury Department about the proposed changes. I know you have a number of concerns about it. Would a compromise from the Prime Minister or the Treasurer on this be welcome?
Kate Chaney: Absolutely. And I think it's probably good news if the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are talking about what changes could be made to it. I have no problem with the principle behind the policy to limit tax concessions for really big super funds, but it just needs to be done in a way that's consistent with the principles of good tax policy. So if they're looking at other ways to do that so we're not taxing unrealised gains or preferably indexing that threshold, I think that would be good news.
Interviewer: The change has been proposed for quite a while now, but the government's put off putting it to Parliament. It doesn't have the support for it yet. Are you pleased that they haven't tried to press it forward, or is the uncertainty of this being discussed and planned but not actually implemented a problem?
Kate Chaney: Well, I think it's good that it hasn't gone through in its current form. I would welcome a broader discussion on bigger issues in the tax system. But what we are seeing here is that needs to be done with community input and consulting stakeholders, listening, taking those views into account before putting together a package of tax reform. So I would love the focus to be off this specific small change and onto the broader issues that we need to deal with in our tax system so that we can address intergenerational equality in an ageing workforce.
Interviewer: Can I ask on this particular measure — I know there are a few concerns that you just mentioned there, indexation being one of them, obviously the unrealised gains part and the time frame for being able to switch over. In your view, do all three of those things need to be addressed, or could a compromise that addresses some but not others be a satisfactory result?
Kate Chaney: Well, I think taxing unrealised gains is the biggest issue just because it's not consistent with good tax policy. The other two would be good to address as well. I'd like to see the threshold indexed just like I'd like to see tax brackets indexed. But I'm really happy to look at different proposals, and I think it would be a good sign if the government has actually heard the feedback from me and others on this and is looking at how it could be done differently.
Interviewer: Do you think the way that politics has become stuck on this very small tax proposal is a signal of how difficult it is to get that broader reform? If we're really struggling to get a consensus position on just one small change, am I being overly pessimistic in thinking it's going to be really ambitious to think we can do something bigger when it comes to reforming the taxation system?
Kate Chaney: Well, I think it is ambitious, but I also think that Australians are actually ready for some ambition. People are seeing the challenges for young people in Australia now and recognise that they're not getting a fair go. So it takes time. It can't be done overnight. I think the fact that tax was raised at the economic reform roundtable was a good first step. I spoke in the last parliament ten times about the need for tax reform and it felt like nothing would happen. It's now on the agenda, and I think the government and the opposition now have really three years, two and a half years in the lead up to the next election, to put together a package and explain to the public why that's going to solve the problems that we address and take that to the next election.
Interviewer: I want to ask you about another issue that's emerged today and perhaps one that I'm not sure we saw coming, but David Pocock is being kicked out of the Parliamentary Sports Club after raising concerns about gambling lobbyists sponsoring it. I know this is something you're aware of, and we have had this issue of some of the sports lobbying companies sponsoring the Parliamentary Sports Club, but what do you make of this circumstance today where David Pocock's being kicked out?
Kate Chaney: I think it is completely ridiculous. David Pocock is a very well-respected parliamentarian, but also sportsman. And if he gets kicked out when he just states the facts, it says a lot less about him and more about the powerful vested interests that are used to getting their way. This is a group that is on the lobbyist register, has an intention of being a lobbyist, says it acts for Responsible Wagering Australia, and now they're getting touchy about the fact that that's been put in the public. They prefer to work in the shadows, and I think it's a complete joke.
Interviewer: Should the Parliamentary Sports Club have corporate sponsors? Should they have any corporate sponsors, or is it the nature of this being a gambling entity that's the problem?
Kate Chaney: Well, I think most people who go along and play games in the mornings in Parliament don't want it to be a lobbying opportunity and would prefer that it's just about the sport. So there's probably an issue with sponsorship broadly. I think people are generally comfortable that it also exists to talk about the importance of sport in Australia. But when that shifts into the entrenched relationship between gambling and sport in Australia, I think it's deeply problematic.
Interviewer: Responsible Wagering Australia, the lobbying group in question, say that they don't use any of these sports events as an opportunity to lobby — it's just about playing sport and they're supporting that. What do you make of that explanation from them?
Kate Chaney: I'm sure that that's what they say. But I think if they're getting up early and going along to rub shoulders with the parliamentarians in a sitting week, it's about building relationships. And I just think it's not true, really. They're there for one purpose. It's not to talk about how great sport is. It's to do what their members want them to do, which is promote the interests of gambling companies.
Interviewer: Alright, I do want to ask you about another issue that has been before Parliament this week and I know you have a real interest in, and that's the change in the Freedom of Information laws that the government is proposing. Can you outline for me what your concerns are with these changes?
Kate Chaney: Yeah, well, I was really open-minded to this because the Freedom of Information framework does need improvement. But when you look at what the changes actually are, they all lead to greater secrecy rather than greater transparency, and every review that's touched on our FOI system has said it needs an independent review and it needs to be focused on improving transparency. So the government has spoken to government agencies who have to do the work of FOI requests, but they haven't really engaged with anyone who has an interest in greater transparency. So it's completely one-sided. And that's why I'll be putting an amendment up saying it needs to go to an independent review. Integrity organisations, judges, academics — all say this is not the way to do it. We're going to end up with less accountability and less transparency. And the coalition, if they're interested in doing their job and holding the government to account, should be against these changes as well. We'll see whether they are interested in doing that job or if they're thinking about their future interests and protecting their own secrecy should they end up in government again.
Interviewer: Now, one of the provisions in this proposed change is to put a greater financial barrier in place — to increase the fee that it costs to make an application — but it would bring it more in line with state and territories. Has that cost been a barrier to people seeking FOI information at a state and territory level?
Kate Chaney: Look, I don't think that's the worst of the changes in there. I think there could be an argument for a fee — whether that's the right level is open for discussion. But I think these are the sorts of things appropriately dealt with in an independent review, where people can actually look at the cost to public transparency of having that fee and examine the evidence. There's been none of that in the lead-up to this policy.
Interviewer: So it's more the provisions to clarify, as the government puts it, what constitutes consulting with government or cabinet consideration material. That's the bit that you're most concerned about?
Kate Chaney: That's right. And cabinet secrecy — in New Zealand, they're going in the other direction. There have been recommendations that have said we should reduce cabinet secrecy so we can actually see why government is making decisions. But this really grows that cabinet secrecy in a number of different ways and means that a lot will be able to be exempted from Freedom of Information requests.
Interviewer: Look, thank you for running through quite a few crucial issues that we've been dealing with in Canberra this week. Thank you very much.
Kate Chaney: Thanks, Mel.