How do we react to another Trump tariff bombshell?

ABC Listen.

Podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

A $1,300 scam snowballs into a $379 million court fight.

I am bloody ropable.

Leaving a single pensioner to take on one of Australia's biggest banks, Solo.

So an eye for an eye.

Things need to be proportionate.

From a backyard in Bendigo all the way to the Supreme Court.

I'm a stubborn old turd and I will not give up.

Beef, Beef, the series by background briefing that investigates the small feuds that take on a life of their own.

Hear it now on the ABC Listen app.

The government has woken up to yet another surprise Trump tariff bombshell that could see an almost doubling on the tariff already expected to come down the pipeline to most trading partners, including, of course, us, Australia.

So what, if anything, can the government do about it?

And are we about to hit an economic rough period, rough waters, if it proves to be true?

And the government and the opposition has put health and cost of living back on the agenda.

The government says it wants to give you free trips to the doctor.

The opposition is trying to point out that actually you're going to still need your credit card.

Welcome to Politics Now.

Hi, I'm Patricia Carvelis.

And I'm Brett Worthington.

And Brett, fun news that no one in the government probably wanted to wake up to today.

Trump has apparently decided, loves a decision, this man, that the minimum tariff imposed on the US's trading partners, including Australia, could soon double.

So people will recall that we were sitting at that 10%

tariff level.

You know, we keep saying we'd like it to be zero, but it seems that we had, you know, as a nation, radically accepted that this is what was going to happen.

And now he says says essentially it could be double, so 20%.

This is

uncomfortable for the government, isn't it?

I mean, it sort of makes it a bit more difficult because other countries like have got even better deals then on that measure.

We can't keep saying we've got the best deal.

It's funny when you wake up PK and you see all those breaking news alerts that have emerged over the night.

It's a real feature of the Trump presidency.

What it must be like for a treasurer or a prime minister to wake up and kind of go, oh great, we're going to see a a doubling of tariffs.

And we've got a US president saying, you've got to strike a deal.

And the Australian leadership sitting there going, we have a deal.

We want you to follow through on the free trade agreement that we signed with your nation all these years ago to not see Australia be hit with the tariffs that we are talking about here.

I think where it's really interesting from the Australian perspective is beef is obviously our biggest individual export that we're sending.

to the United States.

There's been a lot of focus on that about Australia making some changes to biosecurity.

But I was was reading some of the reporting in the aftermath.

We've seen an increase in beef, and some of the beef exporters are saying, We wish it was 50% because we are making absolute bank at the moment because the US herd is so low.

And that ability for some of the beef exporters, knowing that there's not a lot of choice that US consumers have at the moment, to put it one way of a federal politician this week, they said, he's just making those cheeseburgers he likes that much more expensive on the US side.

So maybe not all doom and gloom for Australian beef exporters, but if you were selling something like pharmaceuticals, where every minute, every day it seems to be changing, what would it must be like, you know, to just see this ever-changing presidency and tariffs are changing by the second?

Well, you know, the government, you know, if you think about someone like the Treasurer Jim Chalmers, they'll tell you, they'll use all the words that they use, relaxed, working on it, still express outrage, all of that.

But yeah, I can tell you that some of these figures I'm aware of, they're insomnia problems.

And you talk talk about first thing in the morning.

I don't think they get up first thing in the morning.

I think they're up throughout the night looking at some of these headlines, right?

Like, I think they're permanently on the New York Times and Washington Post.

And,

you know, before they even get their proper briefings, they've seen some of the headlines.

So this one is very unwelcome.

It will make it more difficult.

for the government as political pressure is put on them.

Now, I've said on almost every podcast that you possibly have listened to that, you know, I say that, but they've just won an election and clearly the opposition looks a bit sort of sad and exhausted and a little bit lost in the wilderness at the moment.

So timing is everything.

Makes it a bit easier for them.

But it's ratcheting up, like the kind of issue is becoming a bigger issue.

You know, whether they are able to sort of try and negotiate a deal and talk to Trump then becomes front and center again.

And just on that,

we still don't know of that meeting.

It still isn't quite locked in as as far as we can see.

Like, we're waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting.

And when there's another headline on tariffs being higher, it becomes more urgent.

Brings me, though, to beef, beef, beef.

You mentioned it in terms of, you know, cheeseburgers.

There's another angle to beef, of course, and it's the agriculture report allowing American

beef to enter our country.

Now, government says it's science-based, it's all good, separate to government decisions, but presumably

we would be using that right now, wouldn't we?

Am I right, Brett?

Would we be saying, hey, you know that deal that you were so happy about, President?

Wouldn't you?

Wouldn't that be the time?

You'd be raising it?

The thing that I reckon that is just the fascinating element to watch here, Pikachu, and I'm curious to get your take on it, is with all this pressure about when's he going to meet with Donald Trump, he's got to go and meet Donald Trump.

I wonder the extent to which Keir Starmer is Anthony Albanese's Trump card in this regard.

You're seeing this blossoming relationship between Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump.

It's not unlike some that we've seen in the past.

You're kind of Bush with Blair and Bush and Brown and Obama and Cameron, people from different sides of the political aisle.

The way in which Keir Starmer has found the secret source with dealing with Donald Trump, he's clearly someone that Trump enjoys spending a bit of time with.

If you've got someone like Keir Starmer in Donald Trump's ear on things like AUKUS, on things like the value of relationships and partnerships, you wonder the extent to which that helps Anthony Albanese, who himself is forming closer ties with Keir Starmer.

We know that on the world stage he's been keen to do things when Keir Starmer does them.

When we talk about recognition of a Palestinian state, very much closely watching to see what the Brits are doing.

Anthony Albanese can only control as much as he can control.

Whether or not he gets a meeting with Donald Trump is sort of at some times out of his control.

But if you've got someone like Keir Starmer in his ear, I wonder the extent to which that potentially helps the Australian cause as well.

Well,

over the weekend, of course, the UK and Australia signed the 50-year agreement on AUKUS, and the UK was very instrumental in saying we're part of it, we're going to be here for the long haul.

So, you're right, they are muscling up and showing that alliance and strength of that friendship.

And of course, AUKUS, we focus a lot on the Virginia subs and the US part of the deal, but it does involve, of course, like the UK quite crucially.

If basically what you're saying,

if I can decode you, is in some ways, if AUKUS holds up, it's because Trump doesn't want to pull out of AUKUS because it'll upset his British mates.

And we just are going to piggyback on that.

We are a little colony.

We act like one sometimes, don't we?

Well, I think that's right.

I think that there is that value in the kind of soft diplomacy, for one of another phrase.

We've seen the way in which prime ministers in the past have used figures like Greg Norman to try and work with Donald Trump.

I'm sure everyone will say Kevin Rudd is doing as much as he can as Australia's man in Washington to get in with the Trump administration.

But to some extent, it is about using levers beyond your typical diplomatic avenues.

And if this is one way in which you can curry some level of favour, as well as doing this beef decision that as much as the government insists it is just purely about the science here and you've got beef exporters saying, look, we're not expecting US beef to be coming in here.

It costs more.

It's not as nice.

It might give a more sympathetic ear on the U.S.

side for more beef going in to the United States.

If that is a way in which you can be transactional with a U.S.

president, it's no wonder the government would want to pursue that.

Now, that's not something you can yell from the rooftop, though, either, can you?

Because you've got to maintain this line that the decision on beef was purely about the biosecurity and the sites because of the broader concerns that you could find yourself in if you were seen to be trading away biosecurity to curry some favor with Donald Trump.

There was lockstep agreement on the coalition and the government government until recent days about the biosecurity and the beef decision.

Same with the PBS and the negotiations that could take place with the Trump administration over

their frustrations that exist with Australia's pharmaceutical benefits scheme.

But much like with beef, if there was any suggestion that the government was weakening or making any changes to the PBS just to appease the Trump administration, that's potentially very toxic at a domestic level for Anthony Albanese and the government.

Very toxic.

Which brings me beautifully to our topic: Medicare, bulk billing.

And the reason I think it's beautiful is if I can also enter into that conversation,

the pharmaceutical benefits scheme where the government's out, you know, very strongly saying, don't mess with our PBS.

We're not going to, you know.

So it just shows the politics around the Trump stuff when it comes to the PBS and cheaper medicines.

So the government, it said bulk billing rates, it wants to basically nine out of 10 consults.

It wants to get to a point where you don't pay an out-of-pocket fee.

Anyone you ask, literally anyone in the healthcare space kind of goes, yeah, don't know if that's going to happen.

And so while we've been a little critical of the opposition being lackluster on this podcast, and I will continue to call home truths as I see them, and I think they have been a little lackluster, and they look a bit sad in the doldrums.

I will give a bit of credit to Melissa McIntosh, who stood up and did ask the credit card, will you still need your credit card Prime Minister question?

Tactically trying to get her fingers, making sure she was covering the numbers and the names as she's holding up the different cards in question time.

It's quite an art to it.

I love how you noticed that detail.

She was like, oh my goodness.

Yes.

Did the Prime Minister never look so paranoid when he held his up?

Did he have like a pretend one?

It was a strip across it.

We did.

We've looked at a bunch of photos over the period.

I think initially it was a thumb and a finger covering it.

And then with time, a little strip got put across the numbers there just to make sure.

So I'm pretty sure it was his real card.

And whose was it?

I assume it must have been.

You know, the way it was, I don't know.

That'd be a lot of trust if you, as the advisor, were saying, yes, Prime Minister, do use my card.

Okay.

Look, you know, me.

I'm on the big yams.

I'm going to find out.

Like, was it yours personally?

I'm going to find out.

Just give me this task, Brett.

I mean,

I don't want to underperform.

I want to find out about that Medicare card.

But either way, on the broader issue, this is, I think, a little potential time bomb.

I bet they know.

Now, the health minister, Mark Butler, has been out this morning talking about health generally, talking, I think it was vaping they've been focusing on and their crackdown on vaping, which is having some success.

But also, this tripling of the bulk billing rate, $8.5 billion, they're pledging to that.

Like, it's not a small amount of money, and they will improve bulk billing.

I'm not sort of being a naysayer.

I think there's no doubt that if you invest that money, you will improve bulk billing.

But they may undershoot and that's going to come potentially back to bite them right it's that balancing of expectation and reality so it was such an effective campaign tactic to run around saying nine out of ten visits nine out of ten visits the key word in that sentence is visits it's not people and when you look at the people who are typically bulk billed when they go and see a gp it's someone over 65 it's someone under 16 it's because they go more frequently but i think i was looking at some figures and if you're age between 16 and 64 just 68 of people are the ones that are getting, only 68% of those people are getting bulk billed.

And being able to convince that big voting chunk of people that when they go there, they're just going to need their Medicare card is going to require buy-in from GPs right across this country.

And whether or not you can actually deliver on that, the double, I guess, curse for the government in winning such a whopping majority is you're very likely going to be in government when a lot of these timeframes start ticking in and you can't really kick it to the never, never anymore and saying, oh no, we did say that and we did say it would get to 90%.

Yeah, you're right.

That's such a good point.

You're going to be there for delivery and delivery can often for all sorts of governments, like it's not specific to any, go a little

wrong sometimes, you know?

Yeah.

Particularly if you said it and you're still in power when that timer rolls around, you can no longer blame an opposition, particularly an opposition that is so diminished

in this way.

So it will be one of those elements that as much as the government has a whopping majority in the House of Representatives and a Senate that can work, this is something that will require outside of parliament governing to do and for it to be rolled out and getting the GPs on side and then having the average person when they contact their GP knowing that they're going to get a bulk build consult is going to be the hardest bit to land here.

That's

very hard to land.

I think I've said this on a previous podcast with David Spears

where my view is like when it comes to, for instance, the promise of 1.2 million homes where Treasury has warned them you're not going to make it and they're still sticking to it.

Now, you know, you might look at that and think, why are you sticking to it?

Well, of course, they don't want to concede defeat yet.

That's the thing, like the politics of that is not great.

But I do regard it as also because they would like to deliver as much.

And I think that's a worthy thing to try and still, it's like trying to aim for an A-plus rather than going, I'm just going to try and get a C, right?

So if they undershoot when it comes to bulk billing, right?

If they don't get to the nine out of 10, but let's say they get to seven out of 10, that will still be an improvement of what we've got.

So it'll be interesting.

I'm not saying that's good enough if I'm getting misinterpreted.

What I'm suggesting, though, is that perhaps the public, it depends where they're at, might kind of go, well, you got close.

So there is a worthy objective in trying to get to lofty aims and important

changes that you've promised people that you're going to deliver, I think.

So

do you know what I'm just am I making any sense?

Like, I think the politics of looking like you're hungry to deliver to people, especially in these key cost of living, you know,

big

things that people do care about,

they might be given some credit for that.

And I think you see that in the Treasurer when he talks.

There's sort of this point about given the size of the victory that the government achieved in May, there is a responsibility to be ambitious as a result of it.

The Australian voting public has said, we are picking you, Labor, in vast numbers, to go on and implement all these elements that you promised.

Now, Jim Chalmers talks about it as being just the base level with which they need to deliver on and then build on it.

And you would have seen this over many a year, PK.

The tension that exists between a Prime Minister and a Treasurer is one in which the Treasurer is just keeping his eyes on the ins and outs and where those numbers are.

The Prime Minister is acutely aware of how these things are received in the public and a treasurer will at times want a prime minister to be more ambitious on certain projects But the prime minister might be, he's the one with the reins, kind of pull him in and rein him in.

And it'll be a real test of the government.

And if you've got one of your best communicators in Jim Chalmers in the Treasury, if you do fall short, then they need to be transparent and open with the public and say, we tried.

And is it not better to have tried and fallen just short than have not to been ambitious at all and do little with this moment that they've been given?

I guess the trouble is we in the media don't necessarily reward them when they come out and say, we tried it.

We fell a little bit short.

No, no.

i mean you know i always i always think that you know you should deliver on what you say and if you know that you can't deliver on it you shouldn't be saying it um okay so it's a first premise but secondly um your job is to try and improve things as much as you can within your capability and that's i think one of the metrics that people will look at look as we're recording the podcast the opposition has done this big press conference a whole bunch of them susan lee john o'duniam with her uh Dan Tean.

Now, John O'Duniam is the education spokesperson.

Now, just to give my mate here, Brett, who just a little hint, and I'll keep hinting, sort of breadcrumbs I'll give you, you'll have him for a...

about a month in a little bit of time when I'm

retracing my ethnic steps overseas with my family.

So he'll be bringing you the podcast every day.

And he's the right person for that job.

Can I tell you why?

Because he said to me, I said, oh, we're recording this just to Susan Lee's speaking.

Oh, I don't, you know, I like to give you, podcast listener, everything, all of it.

I don't like you to miss out.

And he said to me, oh, I think it'll be to announce the government, but their support for the HECS debts being lowered by 20%.

Anyway, he accurately predicted it because, of course, it's unfolded now.

Susan Lee says the opposition cares about students who are struggling with the cost of living and won't block the bill from passing through parliament.

Now, we had a hint of this.

In fact, John O'Dunne went on with our buddy

David Spears and sort of said there was a message from the

election and we kind of had a hint.

But to stand up and say that also on childcare, we're not going to stand in the way.

They think it should all happen fast, but also send a message.

which he said really dramatically.

I think she loves a bit of a dramatic flourish sometimes, Susan Lee.

I want students to remember this.

So it was a, you know, she's trying to pitch to the young and others, like, we will not hold you back, kids.

What do you think?

You've made me blush, PK.

I do, I do.

I'm always flirting with you, everybody.

They're both the gayest people in the building.

That's right.

I think what's interesting here is that, yes, you're right, that she is telegraphing to the people that she's trying to win back and to get in touch with.

I think there's also an element of her telegraphing the backbench as well, in that this is very likely where the coalition was going to land with Hex.

But we kept kept doing this idea of we need to go through our processes and Susan Lee is very much trying to show the party room that she is open to all thoughts and all opinions as they navigate their way through.

Now, whether or not they can actually do that on a whole raft of policies, this is probably the easiest one they're going to deal with.

But there is an extent to which she needs to communicate with her backbench as much as she communicates with the public at this point because she's trying to establish herself as the leader and that structure that exists within it and know that she's got the support of her party room.

And I think part of that today was she can get that support and then go out there and talk to the people.

One thing that is a problem for her though is Gaza and I think she's just been asked a question on it.

That's unfolding too.

She's actually, which is pretty remarkable actually, and it's worth kind of critiquing.

She was asked a question about Gaza.

Do you believe there is starvation in Gaza?

She's been reported as refusing to say whether there's starvation in Gaza again.

Now, backstory here, she has a big history of being pro-Palestinian.

She's since said October 7, you know, really was quite seminal for her, was for a lot of people, and that she's changed her view.

She says, I'm very distressed by the images I've seen.

It's a complex situation.

I'm pleased to see aid flowing better and faster into Gaza.

So she's, you know, saying there's distressing images.

I think it is significant, though, that she's so trying to stay on the fence.

And yesterday she did an interview

in the afternoon, so that's on Monday, where she basically

kept blaming Hamas.

So had her colleague Dan Tian Teehan earlier in the day.

Just Hamas is entirely responsible for everything.

It was their line, basically.

Now, it spoke volumes to me that Dave Sharma, who is actually former Australian ambassador to Israel, knows this stuff back to front, might have different views to some people listening, but, you know, he definitely knows this region.

didn't have trouble coming on my show and saying very pointedly that Israel is doing the wrong thing, that you can't blame Hamas

because it means nothing to the people starving.

Like you can say it, like it just ends up becoming a political football.

So I thought that was really significant.

And this all happens at the same time as there's a lot of pressure still mounting on the government.

Yesterday, Jacob and I talked about Gaza.

And I mentioned at the end as a little bit of a forward sizzle that there would be a really significant speech by Basam Abdo.

He gave his first speech to parliament and he talked about his Palestinian background.

And I think that is really significant.

In talking very powerfully and emotionally about his Palestinian refugee parents and his own journey

and you know saying that they're

you know Palestinians are always made to be strangers in their own homes talking about intergenerational dispossession

there is so much pressure going on on this issue.

I'm a bit surprised though that Susan Lee is so much staying on the fence.

It was interesting when you saw the statement that Michaelia Cash put out last week where it was in response to the government joining these calls to criticise what was happening with the aid getting in.

I thought there was a tiny crack in it with which there was a criticism of the Israeli government not doing enough to allow that aid to get in.

And yet

since that, there's been this kind of response where it's spun back.

The Dantean interview yesterday morning and again the Susan Lee interview that you talked about, it's sort of, it's all about Hamas now again.

There's no shades of grey in this debate anywhere to be seen.

It's just black and white.

And this is something that before the election, we saw the coalition tether itself to the Israeli government.

We've only seen the situation deteriorate since then.

And it is surprising to me that the coalition on this side of the election would still look to maintain a very similar argument, despite the fact that we are seeing different responses globally to what is happening at the moment in Gaza.

Well, you know what?

I know lots of Liberals do listen to this podcast.

Hi, guys.

You were telling me in parliament last week, and I was walking around the corridors.

Go to the iView

site, look up Afternoon briefing on Monday, listen to Dave Sharma because he didn't find it hard to be a friend of Israel, which is fine.

That's a lot of people's position, certainly the Liberal Party's position, and still criticise

your friend.

Like, Brett, I think you're a mate.

If you did something that I considered to be horrible, I would criticise you.

Brett, sorry to say this, but I would criticise you.

I'm glad that you would do that, though.

That's what he did.

Susan Lee, I think, is showing some weakness on this because she is really worried about her right flank and the position historically on Israel.

And it sort of is,

I think, a little bit politically inept not being able to walk the line.

It's fine to walk the line.

You can criticize the actions of your friend and still defend Israel's right to exist in safe and secure borders, all of that.

Don't you reckon?

Love the person, not their actions at Time Pique.

And you've seen Dave Sharma and Josh Burns on two different sides of the political aisle both articulating a very clear message that you can hold two conflicting, what might feel like two conflicting thoughts in your mind at the same time.

You can both be concerned about the safety of Jewish members of the public, be it here in Australia or in Israel, but you can also be concerned about the plight of Palestinians at the exact same time.

That you see people like Dave Sharma able to articulate that, some of the worst of our political discourse we have seen at times with this debate and a refusal on different elements of different sides to see any shades of grey in this conflict.

It is not a binary issue with which, and you see that when you talk to some of these politicians behind scenes, where they'll say, look, I don't want to give you a firm yes or no to this question because I want the space to be able to talk about the difficulties that I see, the frustration that I have with Benjamin Netanyahu and his government.

And at the same time, I am concerned about the involvement of Hamas still within Gaza.

And working your way through all of that is a minefield.

And that you would see leaders unable to help guide the nation in having that conversation is a real shortcoming of our political discourse.

You know, starving children are unacceptable.

It's a red line that has been breached across the world.

If you listen to other podcasts, don't, just listen to us.

But

you'll hear that the same conversations are being had in the UK, in the US, everywhere a red line has been crossed for lots of political leaders.

They are being inundated now by not just activists, by the public who just cannot cope anymore.

And so, you know, if you want to look out of touch,

you say that, yeah, there's some starving kids, you don't really know how it happened.

Well, you know, go inform yourself.

There are some pretty clear signs of what's happened and it's all been there on the public record.

Hey, Brett,

can we hang out again soon?

Hey, I would love nothing more.

It is a real treat to come and spend some time with you, PK.

Thank you.

And Brett, yes, we'll be hosting the podcast for around a month, a little later in the year.

It's actually not quite imminent, but I just like to forward sizzle things, get you excited.

Tomorrow, I've got David Spears and I talking about all things politics.

Fran and I will be with you on Thursday.

And you can send us questions: the partyroom at abc.net.au and please record them so we can hear your voice.

Because why shouldn't we?

We deserve to hear your voice.

Everyone wants to hear your voice.

See you, Brett.

See you, PK.