Good Dolly the chamber is rowdy today. And not in the good way. The Coalition are trying to make an issue over bulk billing rates, which are not great, but the government has actually put some money into improving bulk billing, whereas the Coalition don’t exactly have a stellar record on this.

LNP MP Terry Young asks Mark Butler:

GP bulk billing rates in my electorate of Longman were at 93% in 2019 before COVID. Under the Albanese Labor Government, they’ve fallen to as low as 79%. Australian families are already facing a cost-of-living crisis, a housing crisis and an energy bill crisis. Why are my constituents now having to endure a bulk billing crisis under this minister?

Butler:

“Why is there a bulk billing crisis in Australia? Hmm. Hmm. (INTERJECTIONS) Who said there are too many free Medicare services in this country? Who tried to abolish bulk billing altogether? (INTERJECTIONS) And who, when he couldn’t get that GP tax through, froze the Medicare rebate? For six long years…

Liberal MP Kevin Hogan stands up:

“The point of order is on hubris…”

Milton Dick boots him out for disrespecting the chamber and anyone watching question time.

Butler continues:

As I said yesterday, I think in response to the member for Longman, when we came to government, the college of doctors said that bulk billing was in free fall and the general practice was at a tipping point and it was very clear why that was – because the Medicare rebate had been frozen for six years and as I said, I think in response to the former member, six years of freezing a GP’s income while their costs continue to increase is going to have a pretty obvious result. Bulk billing was under enormous pressure. We’ve done a range of things about that. But I did want to talk about something the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday – and he’s been interjecting across the table again, as is his wont, to the member for Sydney, he’s tried to draw some sort of equivalence between a measure in the 2013 Budget to realign Medicare indexation with the financial year – a measure which in the Budget papers that he referred to selectively yesterday…

Young goes to stand up on a point of order and Dick, who is absolutely Dugald Dick today, warns him it better not be on relevance, because Butler is being relevant and it was a very broad question.

Young says it is on relevance.

Young says why and Dick is having none of it and boots him out as well.

Michael Sukkar has issues with Dick removing Young for ‘exercising his right’ to raise a point of order, but Dick came with RECEIPTS today.

(It’s like Kendrick v Drake, but with standing orders.)

Dicks:

I was anticipating this, so I have followed previous Speaker Smith’s example who did exactly the same thing on 29 July 2019, when he refused a point of order for exactly the same manner. On 19 August 2019 when the then Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure was being questioned and, indeed, the Manager of Opposition Business at the time was treated the same way. So the consistency is there. So if people want to take points of order, they were given that. Now, yourself and the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy leader, the Leader of The Nationals get certain allowances for the seniority you have. But to simply disrupt Question Time when I made it clear to the House that the minister was being directly relevant because he was asked such a broad question, is entirely what has happened before and will continue in that manner. The Minister for Health in continuation and I’m going to ask him to be directly relevant.

Wop wop wop

Greg Jericho has the answer to Jenny Ware’s question on GP numbers:

Figures out today on changes of GPs July 2022 to June 2024 (this counts both closures and entries.)

Independent MP Kate Chaney asks Jim Chalmers:

Governments from both sides rely on bracket creep caused by inflation to increase tax over time and surreptitiously fund their additional spending. Do you agree that indexing tax brackets like 17 other OECD countries have done would stop us sleep-walking into greater reliance on income taxes and provide greater transparency for taxpayers about new spending?

Would you look at that? An actual question that matters.

Chalmers responds:

“Obviously, I’m aware that there are a range of suggestions around about the next steps in income tax reform. While our focus has been delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, I do know that about half the OECD is taking the course that you’re suggesting.

That means about half of the OECD is isn’t and countries make their own decisions about these sorts of things. For us, really, one of the defining purposes of this Prime Minister and his Government is to help people earn more and keep more of what they earn.

The most important part of that, the fundamental part of that is about getting wages growing again, real wages growing again for consecutive quarters but also the tax cuts are playing a meaningful role as well.

There are more or less, to oversimplify, three different ways that you can return bracket creep. There’s the way that member for Curtin is proposing.

There’s the way pose opposite were proposing, which is to just return bracket creep to people who are already on the highest incomes, or it’s the Labor way, the way that we have chosen to return bracket creep and as the Treasury analysis makes clear that we released a little over a year ago now, when we made the changes to the tax cuts, the way that we chose has positive benefits for workforce participation and other benefits as well.

And so I do acknowledge that governments have choices to make when it comes to returning bracket creep. We’re proud of the way they’ve gone about it. Instead of giving a tax cut to some taxpayers, as those opposite proposed, we’re giving a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer and they are rolling out right now and helping Australians with cost-of-living pressures which are enduring.

The final point I would make is this – and again I make this point respectfully. I listened to the member for Curtin and her colleagues on all of these issues in a genuine and respectful way, but the difference between the ideas which are offered up from the crossbench and the ideas we’re able to pick up and run with in a Government is we have to make it all add up. We have to make sure that tax reform priorities are balanced with priorities when it comes to public investment, to make sure that all of those things are calibrated, but having said that, Mr Speaker, I say again I thank the member for Curtin for her question, for her interest, along with other crossbench colleagues, in genuine tax reform and I note the genuine tax reform that’s being rolled out right now in the economy.”

Liberal MP Jenny Ware has a question for Mark Butler:

Under the Albanese Labor Government, 27,000 small businesses have collapsed since the last election. Minister, how many GP clinics have closed since the election of the Albanese Labor Government?

Butler says he will take that on notice.

He continues to talk about how terrible the Coalition were on bulkbilling and then has to return to the question, which we already know he is taking on notice.

Ok, after being largely absent in QT yesterday (except to turbo charge the Mark Dreyfus ridiculousness and claim moral injury over something it is patently obvious the Coalition is doing – politicising anti-Semitism) Peter Dutton is back with the first question today:

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out any changes to negative gearing and capital gains treatment on property during his time as Prime Minister?

Anthony Albanese seems energised by this question: (not sure why, it is not as if he has an answer for it)

I mean really. They’ve had a long time to work out questions in this place. You know what our housing policy is. Our housing policy is $32 billion of a homes for Australia plan. That’s our plan. That’s our plan. Not changes to negative gearing. Or other things. We actually are a political party that is saying what we are doing. Now, I know that’s unfamiliar. Unfamiliar to those opposite because after three years in the job…

Dutton has many thoughts in this point of order which is not a point of order.

Albanese:

The same person who said civility is a sign of weakness. But anyway, we’ll deal with that. After three years in the job, this bloke has had three ideas.

One – $10 billion to fund long lunches for business.

Two – $600 billion to pay for nuclear reactors.

And three – cuts to everything else to pay for them.

They’re the only three ideas that he has had. And then he comes along here and says, “Tell us what you won’t do.” He doesn’t come along here and ask about what we are doing on housing, about the build-to-rent scheme, where I note in my own electorate yesterday, Chris Minns was there, 500 news homes. In Camperdown, just down the road from where I grew up, Pyrmont Bridge Road and Parramatta Road, affordable housing for essential workers.

No doubt taking advantage of the build-to-rent scheme that was passed by the Senate last December. Just like he doesn’t ask about the Housing Australia Future Fund.

That’s so important, building social and affordable homes for people, providing additional housing for women and children escaping domestic violence, providing additional housing for Indigenous communities, just like he doesn’t ask us about help-to-buy or about all those tens of thousands of Australians who have been helped in to home ownership as a result of what we have put in place. Well, the help-to-buy scheme is something that is seen hostile by those opposite.

They know what they’re against. They don’t know what they’re for and that is why they’ll be rejected. That is why they are floundering as not an alternative government, but as just this thought bubble that have got to find $600 billion to pay for their nuclear reactors.

Question time has begun, but the questions are delayed for a condolence motion for the former Howard/Abbott government minister, Kevin Andrews.

His family is in the house of representatives for the motion.

Ok, we are about 15 minutes or so from question time, which is going to be a lot. It always is, but today has been particularly *deep breath*.

So get what you need to get through it. We have previously suggested a lobotomy but that might get you a seat in parliament, so if you have access to it, we hear micro-dosing can be pleasant.

Now given a deal has been done between the Coalition and Labor to pass Labor’s donation changes (which was always going to be the outcome, because neither major party wanted the independents and Greens to be able to negotiate for actual reform here) let’s take a moment to look at what that deal means.

Yes, it is a terrible deal for independent and minority party candidates. Yes, it is an unfair playing field and yes, it does nothing to actually improve transparency around donations and big money in politics.

BUT.

It also is a gift to the independent and minor party candidates who can very loudly campaign on how the major parties will continue to run a protection racket for the two-party system. When push comes to shove, the major parties will back each other to circle the wagons and keep out actual change.

If there was ever an argument for the power of independent and minor parties to actually make change in a minority government, this is it. So yes, it’s a terrible ‘reform’ and yes, the major parties think they have sewn this up.

But if you are someone who voted for change at the last election, all you are seeing is the same old, same old from the major parties. So why would you be inspired to vote for a major party this time around if this transparency matters to you?

I’d be pretty nervous if I was a moderate Liberal trying to win or hold on to inner city seats where this has rated as an issue. And I’d be nervous in the future if I was an inner-city Labor MP, because this wave will be coming for them as well.

That’s what I would be campaigning on, in response to this deal, if I were an independent or minor party candidate.

Greens senator Larissa Waters has responded to to Labor and the Coalition having come to an agreement on the electoral changes.

Waters, like all independents and minor party MPs (and some major party MPs) who understand this legislation, thinks it is a terrible idea:

“The long-rumoured fix is in. Rather than improve their policies to improve their falling popularity, Labor and the Coalition are agreeing on rigging the system to lock out their competitors.  Labor and the Coalition have teamed up to do a dirty deal to benefit themselves and lock out smaller parties, independents and new entrants. From the outset, the lack of genuine engagement with the Greens and crossbench indicated the government was always seeking a stitch up with the LNP on the most consequential reforms to our democracy in decades.“

Waters says the bill won’t do anything to get big money out of politics, or improve transparency:

“We repeatedly told the government that we were ready to pass the transparency and truth aspects of this legislation, but that there needed to be scrutiny through a Senate inquiry about the real effect of the funding aspects of the bills.

Labor and Liberal voted against an inquiry last week – they just want to ram through this stitch up for the two big parties, and hamper everyone else while allowing unfettered access to their own warchests using ‘nominated entities’.

Reports that part of the deal with the Coalition is to increase the proposed disclosure threshold for donations, and to increase the amount of donations able to be received, shows that Labor are prepared to walk away from their own party policy in desperation to stymie their competitors.“

It’s been a biggie.

Anthony Albanese spoke to Donald Trump on the phone ahead of his daily Hunger Games, also called executive order signings and received confirmation on an “agreed form of words” that Australia’s exemption from coming tariffs on steel and aluminium was “under consideration”.

Donald Trump signed his executive order to put 25% tariffs on steel and aluminium imports which he said was for “all countries, no exceptions” but then a White House reporter thought to ask about Australia and Trump said because of “all the airplanes” Australia takes from the US and the trade surplus Australia has with the US and Trump confirmed Australia may be exempted.

Peter Dutton then held a press conference to tell the Trump administration there was bipartisan support for Australia being exempt from the tariffs, and that to put tariffs on Australia may ‘damage the relationship’ and on this, he was behind Albanese all the way. Dutton then reminded everyone of previous comments made by Albanese and Labor current and former MPs (including ambassador Kevin Rudd) as just ‘statements of fact’ while trying to tell everyone he was very united with Albanese and the government on this.

Dutton doubled down on trying to silence Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus in question time yesterday, after Dreyfus made the reasonable observation, which has been echoed by members of the Jewish community (of which Dreyfus is part) that Dutton and the Coalition have been politicising anti-Semitism for its own political game. Dutton then attempted to lecture Dreyfus (a Jewish man, who was raised by Holocaust survivors) on how the Jewish community were feeling and how Dreyfus (again, a Jewish man) should be reacting. Dutton then claimed Dreyfus had been ‘largely absent’ for ’15 months’ on the issue, which is a) not true and b) is insensitive on a human level seeing as Dreyfus’s wife passed away 15 months ago.

Looks like Labor and the Coalition have come to a deal on the electoral changes, which is not a great piece of legislation for democracy, given the impact on independents and minor parties.

Dutton still refuses to give any policy detail or costings. This is apparently, fine and normal.