OOOOOOOOOoooooohhhh Dan Tehan pushes Dugald Dick too far with made up points of order and gets BOOTED under 94A

Zali Steggall has the question call:

Young people around the world want a say in the world the environment they will inherit, the ICJ has confirmed nations have a legal obligation to prevent climate harm and productivity and economy has been battered by success of climate fuelled events, despite this the government ‘s defining action so far as to recklessly accelerate warming by approving new gas extraction to 2070, this negates any other policy, minimum target of 75 by 35 of methane abatement is urgently needed, will you be ambitious?

Chris Bowen:

I thank the Honourable Member for question. And her position is very well-established in the crossbench have been strong with their views, and this Government we set our targets following a very rigourous process which is outlined by the Climate Change Act, to be fair, which members on the crossbench voted for, the act outlines the worlds best practice for setting a target, the government receives a price from the Climate Change Authority considers the economic impact and the science and how that target might be achieved, then announces the target.

We are together with the UK they are taking a very similar approach, the target the government sets will be two things – it will be importantly achievable, I say to honourable members as I have said elsewhere is very important a target be able to be achieved, it is not a useful contribution to the debate to set a target without outlining how the country can actually achieve that target.

Yes, ambition is very important but so is achievability, both those will be reflected in the target the government announces following the receipt of the Climate Change Authority advice we have not yet received and we will follow the rigourous process is outlined in the Climate Change Act.

Ooohhhhh that sound you hear is Grog’s fingers pounding the keyboard as he furiously types out a response to that guff.

In the absence of Ted O’Brien/Steven Hamilton (O’Brien’s chief of staff and one of those economists who always had a lot to say) asking him another question about unemployment (still shaking our heads at that one given the Coalition’s record) Jim Chalmers gets in with his own dixer ahead of tomorrow’s inflation figures:

This progress has given the Reserve Bank the confidence to cut interest rates twice already this year, and the Reserve Bank Governor has said more rate relief is a question of timing not a question of direction.

Underlying inflation in our economy is already half or almost half what we inherited. In headline inflation number tomorrow with a two in front of it will confirm that we have been in the Reserve Bank target band for a full year, Mr Speaker.

Unlike other countries, we have made this progress on inflation without paying for it substantially higher unemployment. In fact, this Government has been able to get inflation down while presiding over the lowest average unemployment rate in the last half-century.

No major advanced economy has achieved what Australia has, inflation in the low twos, unemployment and the no low fours and three years of continuous economic growth.

While inflation has been coming down in Australia, it has been going up in the US, Canada, and New Zealand. So inflation is down, real wages are growing again, unemployment is low, we have delivered two surpluses and got the debt down and interest rates have come down twice already this year. We know there is more work to do. We know the global environment is uncertain, and there are persistent structural issues in our economy, we know people are still under pressure. That’s why we are rolling out more cost-of-living relief this month, it is why we are legislating help the student debt this week, and it is why responsible economic management has been and will continue to be a defining feature of this Albanese Labor Government.

Still not addressing people living under the poverty line though, or increasing the Jobseeker rate to something people could live on with dignity.

The opposition have asked about the increase in small business insolvencies. They are saying that small business has been abandoned by the government.

But the Reserve Bank looked into this issue and found it had more to do with the winding back of pandemic era support measures. During the pandemic insolvencies were exceptionally low. The recent increase in insolvencies on a cumulative basis remain slightly below the pre-pandemic trend.

Basically, policies during the pandemic supported businesses and meant that very few of them went insolvent. Far less than you would expect during a recession, but even much less than would be expected in normal economic times. Some of the businesses that were protected by these policies would have gone insolvent with or without the pandemic. The support measures only delayed the inevitable.

Now that the support measures have been wound back, we’re seeing a catch up in insolvencies

Pat Congahan gets a question:

This governments economic mismanagement is delivered a record number of small business insolvencies that now doubled the levels seen since 2020 and 34,000 job losses in the last quarter alone. Will the Minister admit this government’s economic agenda has failed small business?

The minister for small business, Anne Aly is up and READY:

I thank you member opposite for his question because it gives me an opportunity to really talk about small business, something they are passionate about and something the members on this side of the chamber are passionate about as well.

As I said yesterday small businesses operate across the country. They are everyone from your Indian grocer, your local Indian grocer, your hairdresser, to the place you go to to get your lunch. And I’m pleased to report, Mr Speaker, that there are, since we took office, since Albanese led the Government took office in 2022, there are 800,000 more – 800,000 new small businesses operating right across Australia since we took office, Mr Speaker. 800,000 more.

And they comprise of a female lead businesses, 35, around 35% are female led. Around 40%, on average, are led by migrants, people who are aspirational, who come to this country, and Hersi starting a small business as a way of making a life for themselves and for their families. Small businesses employ more than 5 million Australians and they contribute more than $590 billion to our nation’s economy every single year. I’ll remind the member opposite that this is the Government that last term introduced the very first national small business strategy, which guides the ways in which we will work with state and local governments to address those issues for small business.

There is a point of order that is not a point of order and Aly continues on the same theme.

Sussan Ley is back: ‘Prime Minister, how many Australians today are using their credit card to see a GP?’

Anthony Albanese:

The answer to that, Mr Speaker, is because of those opposite and the undermining of the health system – too many is the answer, too many.

Which is why we want 90% by 2030 to just use this little card here.

This little card. This piece of Green and Gold plastic, Mr Speaker. Yes.

Dick tells Albanese to put his Medicare card away and look after it.

Albanese:

I will Mr Speaker, I will. Because it is valuable . It is valuable. And everyone of this house values their Medicare card and I’ll tell you what, Mr Speaker, every Australian values their Medicare card as well. Except perhaps some of those over there. Except perhaps some of them over there. Now, you can imagine the tactics committee meeting this morning, Mr Speaker, sitting around going I know where they are vulnerable – Medicare.

We think there is a bit out there in the community, Mr Speaker, about their attitude towards public healthcare, because they never want to talk about it, they never raise it, I mean, has the Prime Minister got a Medicare card? That’s why I brought it in, to confirm that that is the case, Mr Speaker. But I’d tell you, the 1.5 million Australians that have been to not 50 but 87 urgent care clinics, all they have needed is their Medicare card.

And one-third of those, one-third of those have been under the age of 15.

The Coalition have focused on the government’s election promise to lift bulk billing rates to 90% by 2030. This is not surprising. There have been a number of groups that have cast doubt on whether this is possible with the funding that the government has offered.

This is not to say that it won’t work. The doubts could be part of a negotiating tactic to try and convince the government to shell out more money.

The Coalition wants to keep the promise in the public eye in case rates don’t rise to 90% and the government falls short. Perhaps they’re hoping that this will turn into something similar to when Labor promised to reduce electricity bills by $275.

But Australians can at least be happy that parliament is focused on lifting bulk billing rates and the government has committed to a target.

Melissa McIntosh asks Anthony Albanese the same sort of question about whether someone going to the doctor only needs their Medicare card, asking “my question is to the Prime Minister, “on February 28 the Prime Minister promised Australians that to see a GP all they would need was their Medicare card, not to their credit card. Is that still the Prime Minister ‘s position?”

Albanese gives much the same answer and then McIntosh goes to ask a point of order and is warned by Milton Dick that the PM is being relevant, so to be careful in her point of order. She goes there anyway (which is her right) and Dick internalises a sigh that can be heard in Tasmania.

Dick:

You would like a direct answer to that, Member for Lindsay you would like a yes or no? Right? Well, well, order stop no. It’s the same thing I can’t help you with that because the Standing Orders don’t let me direct the Prime Minister to answer the question how you would like it to be answered. If the Prime Minister is reading the statement about that and not talk about anything else he is being relevant. I may follow I have a list of them, leader of opposition about all speakers who have refused to take points of order, we can go through that list at this point I’m giving everybody a fair warning unless it is about the person not being on topic, not because you don’t like the answer, I will start to not take the points of order. While the Prime Minister is giving direct answers I want everyone to be crystal clear moving forward.

Allegra Spender asks Richard Marles:

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, last week the US Navy told Congress that submarine production continues to be around half the level needed for the US to be able to supply Virginia class submarines to Australia by 2032. Given the real risk the US won’t be able to double its production in time, what is the government ‘s alternative plan to ensure Australia has the capability it needs, and if we don’t have an alternative plan, why not?

Marles:

When we signed the optimal pathway with the United States and the United Kingdom we were aware of the challenges of US production and sustainment of Virginia and the need to lift that production to see more Virginias in the water for the US Navy in order to create the space whereby Australian would be able to acquire Virginia class submarines from the US in early 2030s, as part of pathway to Australia acquiring a nuclear powered submarine capability.

To put that in context, what we saw going back and forth in terms of the way in which the Coalition were managing our Future Submarine acquisition in the decade that they were in power, left us with a capability gap, which is being filled by the acquisition of those Virginia class submarines, and the early 2030s.

It goes to the very question of what a former Member for Wentworth often talks about is whether or not there should be a plan B, the former Member was part of what was going on with the Coalition is one of the three prime ministers as part of that Government.

The issue with that Government then was they were completely focused and obsessed with the plan B, they were in and out of the deal with Japan, then in and out of a deal with France, and it was – the better part of the entirety of their Government, before they ended up settling on the arrangement that is Aukus.

As a challenge measured over the decades, if you are focused on a plan B, and there is always a chopping and changing, that is not a decision to walk down the path of plan B, that is a decision not to have a capability at all. Unless you stick to a plan for longer than a couple of years, which the Coalition were unable to do which the former Member for Wentworth was unable to do you don’t get a capability at all.

Before there can be a point of order, Richard Marles decides he has completed his answer.

We continue the death to dixers campaign.

Sussan Ley moves on to Medicare. It’s almost as if the Coalition has remembered there are public services they could be advocating for!

On 28 February the Prime Minister told Australians, “Under Labor all you’ll need to see a GP is your Medicare card, not your credit card.” But on TV this morning the Health Minister said, “We never said there would be 100% bowl willing.” Prime Minister, how many Australians have had to use their credit card to see a GP since the day you promised they wouldn’t need to.

Albanese:

I’m absolutely delighted to talk about Medicare, Mr Speaker. Because what the member opposite has said is to quote us at the Launceston launch in the electorate of Bass when we launched our tripling of the bolt billing incentive for all, for all Australians. Now, that followed our previous budget where we tripled the bulk billing incentive for concession cardholders that has resulted in 90% of those concession cardholders seeing a doctor for free with bulk billing.

There are many interjections from the Coalition. Milton Dick is still trying to pretend he can wrangle the chamber into some sort of decorum and tells everyone to shut it.

Albanese:

So, this a .5 billion-dollar investment in Medicare, which we said at the time would lift bulk billing rates for every patient to 90% by 2030, cutting costs for Australians, improving care, and supporting GPs. That’s the policy that we announced. And you might remember, Mr Speaker, that before I’d finished that speech in the electorate of Bass, within our member of us introducing us there

Ley has a point of order that is not a point of order and Dick reminds here again to stop abusing the point of orders. Honestly you can set a clock to this stuff.

Albanese continues:

You may well recall, Mr Speaker, the policy being matched almost before I’d finished my speech. And at the time, at the time we put our written documentation, we had costed policies, Mr Speaker, I’m not surprised that the Opposition don’t recognise this territory, but we had costed policies of a $.5 billion to deliver, to lift bulk billing rates to 90% by 2030.

The timeline hasn’t changed, the investment is unchanged, the modelling is the same. The question is has the Coalition change their position? Because when I made the announcement on the dates that the member suggested of course they said that they would back it and now it appears that they don’t back it.

Now it appears they don’t support it, which isn’t surprising given that when they came into office last time, as we reminded people once or twice during the election campaign, they tried to abolish bulk billing altogether by introducing a Medicare co-payments. In one of the big differences in this chamber is that we on the side value Medicare, those on that side are led by someone who said if you don’t pay for it you don’t value it.

If you don’t pay for it, you don’t value it. Well, we value Medicare, we will defend Medicare, and they will always undermine it.