Peter Dutton’s Record: Opposing Help for the Everyday Australian

Peter Dutton’s two-decade parliamentary career – from his 2001 debut through his current tenure as Opposition Leader – reveals a consistent pattern: time and again, he has resisted legislation aimed at easing the burden on everyday Australians. Whether on tax relief, cost-of-living measures, welfare supports, healthcare, education, or workplace protections, Dutton’s voting record and public positions show him frequently saying “no” to policies designed to benefit working families. Below, we break down Dutton’s record in key areas, with a focus on his actions as Opposition Leader.

Tax Relief for Working Families

One of the most striking examples came in March 2025, when the Albanese government introduced income tax cuts targeted at low- and middle-income earners as part of its federal budget. The plan would reduce the 16% tax rate to 15% the next year (and 14% the year after), delivering savings of up to $268 in the first year (and $536 in the second) for millions of taxpayers. Such relief was aimed squarely at “middle Australia” struggling with rising costs. Yet Dutton’s Coalition broke with its traditional support for tax cuts and voted against the measure. The Opposition Leader derided the roughly $10-per-week tax break (when fully implemented by 2027) as a “cruel hoax” and a pre-election “bribe,” promising he would offer a “better offer” instead. Treasury Minister Jim Chalmers, incredulous at the obstruction, noted that “today they [the Opposition] voted for higher taxes on Australian workers” by rejecting the bill. It is exceedingly rare for a Liberal leader to oppose broad tax cuts – historically the party of “lower taxes,” the Coalition’s stance “beggars belief,” Chalmers said at the time.

This was not an isolated incident. Earlier, in 2019-20, Dutton (then in government) supported the Stage 3 tax cuts skewed toward high earners, yet as Opposition Leader he balked at more modest, targeted tax relief for average wage-earners. The 2025 budget vote underscored a pattern: when given the chance to back tax cuts for ordinary Australians, Dutton’s answer was “no.” Instead, he hinted at alternative tax policies that critics suggested would favor wealthier cohorts or different priorities. The result in this case was a stark choice – Dutton was willing to rescind tax cuts worth $17.1 billion focused on middle-income Australians, leaving those households without the extra breathing room in their pay packets.

Cost-of-Living Measures: Power Bills and Daily Expenses

Dutton has also opposed multiple cost-of-living relief initiatives intended to help Australians with essentials like energy bills, rent, and groceries. In December 2022, with power prices soaring, the Albanese government convened an emergency parliamentary sitting to cap gas prices and fund energy rebates for households and small businesses. This legislation aimed to curb runaway electricity bills and provide direct bill credits to consumers during a global energy crisis. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called it an extraordinary but necessary intervention, noting even the conservative UK government was taxing windfall profits to fund energy relief. Yet Peter Dutton’s Opposition voted against the package, effectively opposing both the price cap and the household rebates. Dutton insisted the bill be split, supporting subsidies for consumers only if the government dropped its $12/gigajoule cap on gas – a condition the government refused. Rather than allow relief to pass in full, Dutton resolved to oppose the combined measure, a stance Albanese said left him “stunned” that “the opposition were prepared to vote today for higher power prices for both businesses and households”. Indeed, by blocking the bill, Dutton was effectively voting to let energy prices spiral without the proposed relief. His rationale? He blasted the price cap as “catastrophic for economic policy in this country”, arguing such market intervention would scare off investment and create “sovereign risk” in other sectors. It was a principled stand in Dutton’s view – preventing government meddling in markets – but one taken at the expense of immediate hip-pocket relief for millions of Australians. (Even members of his own party room privately worried the public would see it as “refusing to deliver power price relief” out of ideological rigidity.

A similar story played out with household medicine costs. In 2023 the Labor government moved to make common prescription medicines cheaper by allowing 60-day scripts (two months’ worth) for a single co-payment, instead of the previous 30-day supply. This effectively halved the cost of many medications for chronic illness – a benefit projected to save 6 million Australians hundreds of millions of dollars collectively. However, community pharmacies objected, fearing reduced revenue. Dutton’s Coalition took up the pharmacists’ cause. In August 2023, Shadow Health Minister Anne Ruston announced the Opposition would seek to block the 60-day dispensing reform in the Senate unless the government delayed it and increased compensation to pharmacy owners. Despite Dutton claiming he supported cheaper medicine “in principle,” he moved to overturn the policy – effectively prioritizing the pharmacy lobby’s concerns over immediate savings for patients. Health Minister Mark Butler warned that any delay was unacceptable because patients had already missed out on vital savings. In the end, Labor held firm and the cheaper medicines policy took effect on 1 September 2023, over the Coalition’s objections. Dutton’s stance, however, sent a clear signal: when faced with a choice between industry pushback and cost-of-living relief for consumers (in this case, more affordable prescriptions), he was prepared to side against the hip-pocket interests of everyday people.

It’s worth noting that not every relief measure has met with Dutton’s opposition – for instance, in the 2023 Budget he did support certain cost-of-living steps like increased rent assistance and energy bill credits for vulnerable households. But these were exceptions. More often, Dutton has dismissed relief policies as “hoaxes” or insufficient, only to counter with either inaction or alternative proposals that offered little immediate help. Even on fuel prices, while in 2022 he criticized the end of a temporary petrol tax cut, he ultimately provided no support for extending it, allowing fuel costs to rebound for drivers.

From power bills to pharmacy costs, Dutton’s record shows a reluctance to embrace short-term relief measures for working families, especially when they involve market intervention or new spending. The impact of these positions is tangible: had Dutton prevailed, Australians would have seen higher income taxes, no controls on gas-driven power price spikes, and smaller savings at the pharmacy – all hits to the household budget in an era of mounting living expenses.

Wages and Workplace Protections

Perhaps nowhere is Dutton’s oppositional stance more evident than on laws to strengthen workers’ rights, wages, and safety in the workplace. As Opposition Leader, Dutton has fought major pro-worker industrial reforms, voting against landmark legislation designed to raise pay and protect vulnerable workers from exploitation.

In late 2022, the Albanese government introduced the Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill – the most significant overhaul of workplace laws in decades. This legislation aimed to get wages moving after years of stagnation, in part by enabling multi-employer collective bargaining (so workers at different companies in low-paid sectors could band together for better pay) and banning pay secrecy clauses that keep workers from knowing if they are underpaid. It also strengthened protections against workplace sexual harassment and discrimination as recommended by the Respect@Work inquiry. These changes were squarely for the benefit of workers – “This bill could help you get a pay rise,” as one analysis noted. Yet Peter Dutton and the Coalition opposed the reforms outright, with the bill passing Parliament in December 2022 without any Coalition support. Dutton argued the changes would “take our system backwards” and amount to a gift to unions at the expense of business, claiming (in rather hyperbolic terms) that it would “usher in economy-wide strikes”and chaos. His party’s formal objection centered on the multi-employer bargaining provisions, echoing big-business fears about increased union influence. In practical terms, Dutton’s “no” vote was a vote against measures to promote wage growth, pay equity for women, and safer, more respectful workplaces. The law ultimately passed with support from Labor, Greens and independents, and has been credited with helping lift wage growth after a decade of deliberate wage suppression. Dutton, however, was on record opposing it every step of the way.

The pattern continued in 2023 with the government’s Closing Loopholes bill, another worker-focused package of reforms. This bill was designed to criminalise wage theft (making it a criminal offence for employers to deliberately underpay workers), extend basic employee protections to “gig economy” workers like rideshare drivers, close the loophole that allowed long-term casuals to be denied permanent benefits, and stop companies from using labor hire contractors to undercut employees’ agreed pay rates. Once again, these changes promised concrete benefits for working Australians: recovering stolen wages, lifting job security for casual and gig workers, and supporting fair pay. And once again, Peter Dutton and the entire Coalition voted “No” across the board. On 29 November 2023, as the bill passed the House of Representatives, Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke pointedly noted that Dutton’s side “had a chance to vote for wage increases today. Instead they voted ‘No’ – as they always do.” In fact, by Burke’s count, Dutton and his colleagues had already voted 27 times in the current Parliament to keep wages low. Among the specific provisions Dutton opposed that day were: criminalising wage theft, minimum pay standards for gig workers, rights for exploited “permanent casuals” to convert to secure roles, and curbs on outsourcing to dodge enterprise agreement wages. The message was unmistakable. After a decade in government that “deliberately kept wages low” as a “design feature” of their economic strategy, the Coalition under Dutton still reflexively resists pro-worker reforms in Opposition.

Dutton’s rationale for these stances tends to focus on potential costs to business. He has warned that criminalising wage underpayment or broadening bargaining could “impose red tape” or deter investment. But advocates note that honest businesses have nothing to fear from laws that target only deliberate wage theft or that foster fair pay agreements. The impact of Dutton’s opposition had it succeeded, would be stark: companies that rip off their staff would continue to get off with just a slap on the wrist; ride-share drivers and food delivery riders would have no guarantee of even minimum wage; and many workers (especially women in care sectors) would lose a new avenue to negotiate better pay. By voting no, Dutton aligned himself against the very workplace protections that experts say lift incomes and safety for millions of working Australians.

Even on the issue of sexual harassment at work, Dutton’s record is cautionary. In 2021, the previous Coalition government (in which Dutton was a senior minister) declined to fully implement all 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work report – omitting a positive duty on employers to prevent harassment, for example. It was only after a change of government that those remaining measures became law. While Dutton was not Opposition Leader at that time, it exemplified a broader tendency to resist stronger workplace regulation. And when comprehensive reforms did come before Parliament under Albanese – embedding harassment bans into the Fair Work Act and empowering the Fair Work Commission to handle disputes – Dutton still voted against those changes as part of the larger IR package.

In short, from wages to workplace safety, Dutton has stood in opposition. His consistent “no” votes on bills to raise pay or toughen labor protections illustrate a clear philosophy: priority given to the worries of employers and the economy (as he defines it) over the immediate welfare of employees. For everyday Australians on the job, this could have meant weaker protections from underpayment, discrimination and exploitation, had Dutton gotten his way.

Social Security and Welfare Support

Dutton’s approach to Australia’s social safety net has been equally unsympathetic to those in need. Over the years, he has voted repeatedly to restrict or reduce welfare payments and eligibility, opposing measures that would expand support for low-income Australians doing it tough.

As a Cabinet Minister in the Abbott Government (2013–2015), Dutton was part of the administration that attempted some of the harshest welfare cuts in recent memory. He voted in June 2014 to pass the Social Services Budget Measures bill, which among other things froze or slashed family payments and aimed to impose a six-month waiting period for young unemployed people to receive Newstart (the unemployment benefit) . Those controversial provisions – effectively denying income support to jobseekers under 30 for months – were widely seen as punitive. (They ultimately failed to pass the Senate, but Dutton’s vote in the House affirmed his support for the cuts.) The same 2014 budget also tried to trim pension increases and revoke previous agreements to boost the age pension, moves criticized for hurting pensioners. Dutton stood by these changes at the time in the name of budget repair.

Fast-forward to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: even then, Dutton maintained a hard line on welfare. In late 2020, with unemployment still high, Parliament considered extending the enhanced pandemic JobSeeker rate (which had temporarily lifted people out of poverty). Dutton voted in October 2020 to end the pandemic supplement on schedule rather than prolong increased payments. In that vote, he sided with the view that emergency supports should be wound back quickly, despite advocacy that withdrawing support too early would plunge jobseekers back into severe hardship. Essentially, he opposed allowing unemployed Australians a longer lifeline, prioritizing budget savings over extended relief during a recession.

Even very modest increases to welfare have met Dutton’s resistance. In May 2023, the Albanese government announced a $40-per-fortnight rise in the base JobSeeker payment (around $2.85 a day extra) – a small improvement for people on just $50 a day. Dutton used his Budget Reply speech to withhold Coalition support for that increase. Instead, he argued the focus should be on letting welfare recipients earn a bit more from part-time work without losing benefits (raising the income-free threshold) . While that idea had merit, Dutton’s stance meant opposing the direct boost to payments for over a million Australians living in poverty. He framed the $40 hike as potentially discouraging work and insisted on different solutions, effectively delaying bipartisan backing for an immediate raise. (After public pressure, the Coalition ultimately chose not to block the increase in the Senate – but Dutton’s initial position was clear.) He did endorse some other Labor welfare measures – for example, expanding eligibility for the Parenting Payment so single parents (mostly mothers) could continue on the higher pay until their child is 14, instead of being forced onto JobSeeker when the child turns 8 . On that, Dutton agreed. But when it came to simply lifting the woefully low unemployment benefit across the board, he balked.

This opposition to expanding welfare access has deep roots in Dutton’s voting history. An independent analysis of his parliamentary votes confirms he “voted consistently for decreasing the availability of welfare payments.” Over the years, he supported a raft of restrictive measures: a 2017 omnibus bill that tightened family tax benefit eligibility, a 2018 bill extending waiting times for new migrants before they can receive benefits (Dutton was absent for the vote but was part of the government proposing it) , and a 2019 initiative (the “Payment Integrity” bill) to cut supposed over-payments and freeze welfare thresholds. Each of these represented a cut or barrier to social support; each had Dutton’s imprimatur.

The impact of these positions, had they all succeeded, would be felt by Australia’s most vulnerable: fewer people able to access income support and those on payments stuck further below the poverty line. For example, the 2014 six-month wait for young jobseekers that Dutton backed would have left thousands of unemployed youth with zero income for half a year – a move one welfare group likened to “abandoning our young to homelessness.” During COVID, ending supplements early meant hundreds of thousands losing critical aid overnight. And rejecting the 2023 JobSeeker increase, albeit a small amount, sent a discouraging message to people scraping by on meager support. In defending such stances, Dutton often talks about “sustainability” of the welfare system and “incentives” to find work. But critics note that Australia’s unemployment and student benefits have long been shamefully low, and that Dutton’s preferred fixes (like tweaking earning thresholds) fall short of what experts say is needed to lift people out of poverty.

In summary, when votes arise to expand welfare or raise social payments, Dutton’s answer has been “no” with remarkable consistency. From the austerity of 2014 to the pandemic and beyond, he has rarely missed an opportunity to oppose increases in government support for struggling Australians. This record stands in contrast to the idea of a fair go; instead, it reflects a belief that leaner welfare – even at the expense of rising poverty – is the better policy.

Healthcare and Medicare

As Australia’s Health Minister in 2013-2014 and in subsequent roles, Peter Dutton developed a reputation (in the words of one doctors’ group) as perhaps “the worst health minister in living memory.” That damning label stems from several instances where Dutton championed policies or took positions that would have clearly made healthcare less accessible or more expensive for everyday Australians. His record shows a pattern of attempting to curtail public healthcare funding and increase out-of-pocket costs – moves that overwhelmingly hurt working people who rely on Medicare.

The signature proposal of Dutton’s tenure as Health Minister was the infamous $7 GP co-payment. In the 2014 Budget, Dutton unveiled a plan to charge patients a $7 fee for every visit to the doctor (for GP consultations, pathology tests, and imaging) – ending decades of fully bulk-billed doctor visits for many. The rationale was to deter “unnecessary” visits and to funnel the revenue into a new medical research fund. But health experts warned this would most harm the sick, the poor, and the elderly, discouraging them from seeking care early. Despite an immediate public backlash, Dutton doubled down. “The Government will not negotiate on the $7 co-payment,” he insisted in May 2014 , making it clear he was prepared to see it through. He argued the fee was necessary to make Medicare sustainable, pointing out New Zealand charged patients more, and castigated Labor and the Greens as “obstructionist” for opposing the charge. In other words, Dutton explicitly opposed keeping GP visits free – a direct hit to the hip pocket of every Australian who visits the doctor and a measure that would particularly penalize those with chronic illnesses needing frequent care. The co-payment plan was widely unpopular and ultimately blocked by the Senate (and eventually dropped), but not before Dutton spent months staunchly defending it against all criticism. This episode cemented his image as a minister willing to make healthcare more expensive for ordinary people in pursuit of budget savings and ideological goals.

At the same time, Dutton’s 2014 Health budget embarked on a drastic course for hospital funding. He sought to undo agreements with the states that guaranteed robust growth in federal funding for public hospitals. Specifically, his budget projections slashed about $50 billion from planned hospital funding over the next decade. Every state and territory was set to lose billions that they were expecting under the national health partnership deals. This was not a vote per se (it was embedded in budget papers), but it was a policy Dutton authored and advocated as Health Minister. The impact of those cuts, had they fully materialized, would have been severe: public hospitals facing chronic underfunding, leading to longer wait times, fewer hospital beds, and potential rationing of services – outcomes that hurt any Australian who cannot afford private care. (In the end, most of the $50b cut was never actually carried out; after Dutton left the portfolio, the Turnbull Government partially restored hospital funding levels in 2017 amid public pressure. But the intent in 2014 was clear: Dutton was prepared to gut public hospital budgets, and it took a different Prime Minister to reverse course.) Prime Minister Albanese has recently reminded voters of this episode, arguing that “our public health system is too precious to entrust to Peter Dutton,” given he “ripped $50 billion out of public hospital funding” when last in charge.

Beyond that singular cut, Dutton’s time overseeing health included a freeze on Medicare rebates paid to doctors (effectively shrinking the value of Medicare over time and pushing costs onto patients or GPs) – a policy that began under Labor but which Dutton enthusiastically continued. By extending the rebate freeze, Dutton helped entrench a system where clinics started charging gap fees because government rebates didn’t keep up with inflation. This again meant higher costs at the doctor’s office for everyday Australians, especially those not covered by concession cards.

Even in Opposition, Dutton’s inclination has been to resist or roll back measures that expand affordable healthcare. We saw his attempt to block the 60-day prescription reforms earlier, which directly intersect health and cost-of-living. Another example: the Albanese Government in 2023 invested $8.5 billion to strengthen Medicare – including funding hundreds of new urgent care clinics and tripling the bulk-billing incentive paid to GPs so that more visits (especially for children and pensioners) would cost nothing. It was one of the largest boosts to bulk-billing in Medicare’s history. Dutton begrudgingly said the Coalition would match this spending – but notably also flagged finding “savings” elsewhere and criticized Labor for not managing health costs better. He simultaneously sided with calls to slow down the 60-day script rollout. The mixed messaging suggested that, given the chance, a Dutton government might claw back some of these Medicare improvements or pursue other cost-cutting “reforms” reminiscent of 2014.

It’s telling that Dutton was rated by doctors in 2017 as the worst-performing Health Minister in a generation – a symbolic rebuke reflecting how at odds his policies were with the medical community and patients’ interests. In summary, when it comes to healthcare, Dutton’s record is defined by pushing costs onto consumers (GP fees, medicine costs) and cutting public funding (hospitals, Medicare rebates). Each instance – had it succeeded fully – would have made it harder for average Australians to get the care they need without financial strain. From the GP clinic to the emergency room to the pharmacy counter, Dutton’s positions have often favored budget bottom-lines over patients, leaving everyday people to pay more for essential care.

Education and Training

Quality education – be it in school, vocational training, or university – is widely seen as a great equalizer for working Australians. Yet Dutton’s history shows a readiness to undermine funding for public schools, hike costs for higher education, and even vote against free training initiatives that would skill up the workforce.

In 2014, as part of the Abbott Cabinet, Dutton was party to the decision to cut $30 billion from school funding over the coming decade. This move infamously reneged on the “Gonski” needs-based funding agreements that the previous Labor government had established with states. Prior to the 2013 election, the Coalition promised to honour those education deals; after winning, they promptly walked away, with then-Treasurer Joe Hockey’s budget chopping away billions designated for public schools. Although Dutton’s portfolio at the time was Health, he was collectively responsible as a senior government member and supported those cuts. The Australian Education Union president noted the Coalition’s “historic form in ripping up school funding deals” and expressed deep concern that under a Dutton-led government, public schools would again face funding uncertainty. Indeed, as Opposition Leader, Dutton has been non-committal about Labor’s new plan to boost the Commonwealth share of school funding from 20% to 25% of the required standard by 2034. His Shadow Finance Minister even cast doubt on honouring that plan, saying it wasn’t a confirmed Coalition policy and hinting “state schools are the responsibility of the states” . In other words, Dutton’s team is laying the groundwork that could justify short-changing public schools if they return to government. The impact of such cuts is straightforward: public schools, which educate the vast majority of Australian kids, would suffer larger class sizes, fewer resources, and less support for students in need – directly harming the educational opportunities of everyday Australians’ children.

Dutton’s record on higher education is similarly marked by opposition to greater affordability. A notable instance came in 2020 when the Morrison Government (in which Dutton was then Defence Minister) passed the “Job-Ready Graduates” university fee overhaul. This controversial plan jacked up tuition fees for degrees like humanities and communications (some more than doubling) while slightly lowering fees for “job-relevant” courses like math and nursing – but overall it actually reduced government per-student funding, effectively cutting uni spending and shifting more costs onto students. Dutton voted in support of the changes, which Labor and Greens opposed on grounds it would make uni less accessible and saddle students with more debt. Analysts noted the package would leave most students paying more while universities get less funding per student place, hardly a win for educational quality or access. Dutton’s vote helped pass this reform, directly resulting in higher fees for countless future uni students (often to the tune of thousands of dollars extra). It was consistent with his long-held stance – confirmed by vote tracking – of voting against increasing funding for university education. In fact, whenever the question of boosting uni funding or reducing student costs has arisen, Dutton has reliably been on the “No” side. He previously backed a 2017 attempt to cut university funding and raise tuition (an effort that failed in the Senate), and in general subscribes to the idea that students rather than taxpayers should bear more of the cost of degrees.

Perhaps most puzzling was Dutton’s stance on vocational education. In early 2025, a private member’s Free TAFE Bill came to a vote in Parliament, reflecting Labor’s policy of funding free TAFE (Technical and Further Education) courses in fields with skills shortages. The idea of free TAFE is to allow working-age Australians to retrain or upskill without hefty fees – a clear benefit to anyone seeking better job opportunities, especially those who can’t afford university. Despite the obvious upside for ordinary workers and industries needing skilled labour, Peter Dutton voted against making TAFE courses fee-free. The bill he opposed was aiming to cement free TAFE places, and supporters argued it would help tackle trades shortages while giving people a pathway to well-paying jobs. Dutton and the Liberals, however, have been “crystal clear that they do not support free TAFE”, even warning they would cut the program if they win government. His 2025 vote underscored that threat. The immediate impact of his opposition, had it succeeded, would be fewer Australians able to access vocational training without cost barriers – effectively putting up a ladder that could help someone climb to a better career. It’s a stance that prioritizes fiscal restraint or market principles (like “people should pay for their own training”) at the expense of real-world benefits for individuals and the economy.

From primary school classrooms to universities and trade schools, Dutton’s actions paint a consistent picture. He has been willing to slash or withhold education funding even when it jeopardizes outcomes for everyday Australians’ children and skilling opportunities for workers. The cut to Gonski funding in 2014 has left public schools still struggling to reach the resource standard needed for all students. The support for higher uni fees has contributed to Australia’s student debt rising and possibly deterred some from study. And the resistance to free TAFE signals a lack of commitment to trades and vocational learners. In education – as in other areas – Dutton’s record shows ideology and budget concerns trumping the tangible benefits that well-funded, accessible education provide to ordinary people.

---

In sum, Peter Dutton’s long voting record and public policy stances reveal a clear through-line: consistent opposition to reforms and programs intended to benefit the average Australian. As Opposition Leader, he has doubled down on this approach – voting “No” on tax cuts for workers, “No” on cheaper energy and medicine, “No” on wage increases and safer workplaces, and “No” on strengthening the social safety net. Even as a Minister, his flagship policies like the GP co-pay and funding cuts struck at the heart of universal services that Australians rely on. When questioned, Dutton defends many of these positions as being in the national interest – curbing spending, avoiding “market interference,” or promoting self-reliance. But the through-line is hard to ignore: when legislation promises direct help for everyday Australians, Peter Dutton’s instinct has been to stand in the way.

Whether this record is viewed as prudent guardianship of government finances or as a pattern of blocking progress largely depends on one’s political perspective. However, the facts of the voting record are indisputable. Dutton’s legacy, especially in his recent role as Opposition Leader, is one of saying “no” to policies that put more money in the pockets of working families, enhance public services, or protect the rights of employees. For Australians casting judgment on his leadership, this trail of decisions offers a telling indicator of whose interests he has ultimately prioritized in the halls of power.

---

Sources:

1. Riotact – “Coalition votes against Labor’s budget tax cuts” (26 Mar 2025)

https://the-riotact.com/coalition-votes-against-labors-budget-tax-cuts/769502

2. The Guardian – “Peter Dutton is painting a grim picture of the past three years. How do his claims stack up?” (29 Mar 2025)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/29/peter-dutton-is-painting-a-grim-picture-of-the-past-three-years-how-do-his-claims-stack-up

3. The Guardian – “Albanese government’s energy bill passes after Dutton warns gas price caps ‘catastrophic’” (15 Dec 2022)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/15/albanese-governments-energy-bill-passes-after-dutton-warns-gas-price-caps-catastrophic

4. Reuters – “Australia’s Albanese starts election campaign touting healthcare credentials” (29 Mar 2025)

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australias-albanese-starts-election-campaign-touting-healthcare-credentials-2025-03-29

5. The Guardian – “Coalition will seek to block Labor plan for cheaper medicine” (9 Aug 2023)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/09/coalition-will-seek-to-block-labor-plan-for-cheaper-medicine-in-senate

6. The Guardian – “Labor’s industrial relations bill passes lower house without Coalition support” (1 Dec 2022)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/01/labors-industrial-relations-bill-passes-lower-house-without-coalition-support

7. Tony Burke MP – Media Release: “Closing Loopholes Bill passes House” (29 Nov 2023)

https://tonyburke.com.au/media-releases/2023/11/29/closing-loopholes-bill-passes-house

8. ABC News – “Federal budget 2023: Peter Dutton’s budget reply focuses on housing and migration” (11 May 2023)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-11/peter-dutton-budget-reply-housing-migration/102334948

9. They Vote For You – Peter Dutton’s voting record on welfare

https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/dickson/peter_dutton/policies/3

10. AAP Fact Check – “Did Peter Dutton cut $50 billion from hospitals?” (7 Mar 2025)

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/hospital-cut-claims-about-peter-dutton-need-context

11. ABC News – “Budget 2014: Government will not negotiate on $7 GP co-payment” (16 May 2014)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-16/government-will-not-negotiate-on-7-dollar-gp-co-payment/5456932

12. The Guardian – “Public school funding at risk under Peter Dutton, teachers’ union warns” (5 Mar 2025)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/05/public-school-funding-at-risk-under-peter-dutton-teachers-union-warns

13. They Vote For You – Peter Dutton voted against making TAFE free

https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2025-02-12/1

14. They Vote For You – Peter Dutton voted against increasing university funding

https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/dickson/peter_dutton/policies/22