Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the opposition and as the shadow minister for transport, I advise that Labor supports the Tourism Australia Amendment Bill 2007. We support it because it implements the recommendations resulting from the 2006 Uhrig review relating to corporate governance arrangements for Tourism Australia. We all understand that tourism is vital to Australia. This goes to the framework and the national responsibility to work with state and territory governments and local communities to do everything to maintain tourism as a viable industry in Australia that creates jobs and export opportunities, whilst also enabling Australians a wonderful opportunity to have a holiday.

When you think about it, it is hard to imagine life without tourism in Australia, the so-called ‘land of the long weekend’. Bustling city centres, vacant white-sand beaches, lush tropical rainforests and sunburnt sweeping plains—that is the international understanding of what is available in Australia but, unfortunately, statistics now indicate that too few Australians are taking a holiday. One of the challenges to business in Australia is to better manage their business and to facilitate people to take holidays on a regular basis. This would also be smart for business, because as wages go up their own liabilities in terms of accumulation of annual leave and long service leave go through the roof.

So in addressing this bill today, I also challenge Australian industry to start managing their businesses better. They can reduce their liabilities whilst also facilitating their employees to have a better opportunity to perform their duties at work by actually having a break from work. That is a challenge to the Australian community for the foreseeable future.

I also note that, posed in historic terms, officially tourism is a relatively new industry. The terms ‘tourism’ and ‘tourist’ were first coined globally about 70 years ago, in 1937, by the League of Nations and referred to the act of people travelling abroad for more than 24 hours. They had not heard of domestic tourism in those days. Historically, however, we know that for centuries the wealthy in our societies have always travelled. The reason is that they sought to explore distant parts of the world, to see great buildings, experience new cultures and to taste new cuisine. Since the time of the Roman republic, places such as the luxurious and fashionable resort of Baiae were popular with the rich.

In Australia, the history is perhaps even more recent. The industry finally gained formal recognition in 1966 when the Holt government appointed the late Don Chipp as the first minister for tourism activities. A year later the Australian Tourism Commission was established through the allocation of $1.5 million of funding. If only it was so cheap these days in terms of the call on the taxpayer’s purse.

More seriously, in just over 40 years the industry has grown substantially in every conceivable sense. The advent of technological developments, particularly in transport, has made it easier than ever for people to move from one destination to the next and the emergence of low-cost carriers in the aviation industry in particular have removed financial barriers that previously limited tourism to the wealthy. More recently, with the advent of e-commerce, tourism products have become one of the most traded items on the internet—and that is where Tourism Australia has concentrated its activities, with a current advertising campaign internationally trying to attract hits on the net to encourage people to come to Australia.

Further, every year more and more destination choices are presented to the global traveller as countries recognise the huge economic and social benefit of a robust tourism sector. It has become an extremely popular global activity and each year, according to the World Tourism Organisation, almost 700 million tourists travel the globe. That is a huge number of people travelling around the globe at any point in time. Others peg the number of annual tourism travellers as high as 803 million a year.

While the size of the growth may be in dispute, what is not is that the sector is rapidly growing. Estimates predict that by 2020, which is only a decade away, the number of people travelling each year through tourism will reach a huge 1.6 billion people—this is almost the entire current population of China—who will be more than ever on the move looking for new experiences. It also, unfortunately, represents a huge challenge to Australia, because recent indications are that we are going backwards in some of these key markets, such as Japan. We have to try to make sure that we have a program in place which enables us to get our share of that burgeoning growth in tourism. I say that because, of these 1.6 billion travellers, 378 million will be long-haul travellers, which is of significant note to Australia, a country considered globally as a long-haul destination.

It also raises huge challenges in handling the debate about climate change, because there are some who want to impose huge penalties on the airline industry for greenhouse emissions and who would require the industry to pay more with respect to their operations. These things have to be handled very sensitively and in a pragmatic and proper way because, if this debate goes wrong for aviation, Australia will be the big loser because of our need to encourage and attract long-haul fliers. It is about time that some of these people paid more attention to the responsibilities of Airservices Australia to manage flight paths and the departures and arrivals at airports, because you can do more in the climate change fight by introducing greater efficiencies there.

I also note that the aviation industry has started to respond to the huge cost impost of recent increases in the price of oil with better management and technological change. So there is potentially a multifaceted approach to resolving this climate change debate for the viability of the aviation industry, rather than simply imposing new costs on the industry as part of the greenhouse debate. I think that is important. Global tourists have traditionally held back on long-haul travel as it can prove cost prohibitive but also requires more time. The last thing we need is to unnecessarily burden the industry with huge cost difficulties arising from the greenhouse debate. You cannot just duck over to Australia from London the way you can to Paris or to Amsterdam. It is, therefore, pleasing to see forecasts for long-haul travel growing slightly faster than intraregional travel. It is estimated its share will increase from 18 per cent in 1995 to 24 per cent by 2020.

Global forecasts present further positive news for Australia. The South-East Asia and the Pacific region, which encompasses Australia, will be the second largest receiving region with growth forecast to increase by over five per cent, compared to the world average of 4.1 per cent. The growth opportunities are there, but we as a nation have to grab hold of them. This growth is largely due to two reasons: the emergence of new markets in Asia and particularly in South-East Asia; and, more importantly, the fall in Europe’s popularity from 60 per cent to 46 per cent of the market.

These technological and transport advances have kept pace with rapidly changing consumer tastes. There are more tourists now than ever before and they have the levels of disposable income that mean they can travel. They are better educated and have more sophisticated demands. The old ‘sun, sea and sand’ mass market has fragmented as travellers seek out active experiences that engage with local culture. It is a far more sophisticated and demanding market that Australia has to confront. This effectively means that there has been a growth in niche markets catering for special interests or activities, including growth in destination hotels, as people seize upon opportunities to do something unique that is off the tourism track. This has led to a change in the way nations and regions market their tourism. Previously held notions have been abandoned that boxed travellers into the categories of countries of origin, mode of travel and style, whether it be backpackers, organised tours or self-drive. The traveller’s motivation and their travel lifestyle are now the key defining characteristics—attributes that cross national borders and create new marketing segments. Sometimes the attributes are universal, but not always. Some travellers cannot help but be influenced by their own cultural habits.

This is perhaps what we have seen with Tourism Australia’s $180 million global campaign ‘Where the Bloody Hell Are You?’ launched in February of last year—the campaign that, incidentally, appears to have undergone an unannounced name change to become a ‘Uniquely Australian Invitation’ in the light of criticism of such a controversial tag line.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ciobo interjecting

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am very partial to the coal industry. It is a bit like the tourism industry—good for jobs and exports for Australia. The Tourism Australia campaign seeks to attract people who are avid users of technology, shun traditional media outlets, listen and value their peers’ travel experiences, want their travel experience to enhance them as a person and, perhaps most importantly, are high-yield tourists. They are commonly known in marketing as ‘experience seekers’. The campaign approach based on this model of defining people by their motivation to travel works to a point, as the $6 million spent by Tourism Australia on tourism research and polling tells us. In some markets, the tag line built on the existing goodwill towards Australia and cut through in a fiercely competitive global community. Yet it failed to cut through and inspire experience seekers in some critical markets, including that of Japan, which due to cultural differences meant the tag line simply did not translate.

There were further problems in other key markets, and I do not wish to dwell on them today as that is not my purpose in speaking to the bill. I simply note that the opposition, federal Labor, has given bipartisan support to the campaign as it supports a viable and vital tourism industry, and a global campaign was desperately needed. It is about actually getting that campaign right rather than wasting money. I raise this point because it highlights a simple fact: while there is immense credit in the approach of segmenting a campaign according to lifestyle habits and motivation rather than just country of origin, any single theme campaign will not enable the industry to realise its full potential. Cultural differences that can be defined by our global origin have a significant impact on lifestyle choices. This factor that influences our purchasing decisions should not be overlooked as merely an outdated marketing model, particularly when $180 million of taxpayer funded money is put on the table. Taxpayers actually expect value in terms of the return on that investment to try and guarantee the future of the tourism industry.

As the shadow minister for tourism, I therefore say on behalf of the opposition that I am concerned by the fact that $180 million was spent on an international campaign that relied perhaps too much on a single theme. This is a risky approach. Tourism Australia knew before the campaign was launched that there were translation problems in Japan as well as cultural differences of major significance in other key markets. From the opposition’s point of view this does not suggest that the campaign should be scrapped and that Tourism Australia should go back to the drawing board and develop a new Brand Australia campaign. We are not suggesting that as it would be a step back for tourism in Australia and we need to move forward. There are faults with the campaign. The industry and Tourism Australia accept that it is not perfect, and we have to look forward in trying to actually improve the campaign and learn from some of our past mistakes. It is about modifying the campaign as necessary and aiming towards building a brand that realises the enormous potential that is actually out there.

The year 2005 was anything but a great year for tourism, and 2006 mercifully saw the industry gain back some ground, thanks largely to the Ashes cricket tour that attracted British tourists here in droves, even if it was to watch their team lose to the Aussies. The fact is that there was an increase of 5.8 per cent in British tourists; however, otherwise it was a flat period for tourism, with overall tourism numbers increasing by only 0.6 per cent. Where would we have been without the Ashes tour in terms of our performance over the last 12 months?

Although the downward trend in tourist numbers from Japan continued, thankfully it has somewhat abated. The figures were interpreted by the government as good news as tourist spending was up but, as the head of Tourism Council Australia commented, while the aim of attracting higher spending, longer staying visitors was paying off, the lack of growth in market share was a huge concern to Australia. I argue that it is a real concern. As I outlined earlier today, global tourism is booming and the international industry has never been stronger. Why aren’t we as a nation grasping our share of that growth? I say that because, despite this growth, we have not actually increased our market share. New and highly lucrative markets are emerging and they are there for the taking.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Batman willing to give way?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the shadow minister perhaps elaborate on this point, with regard to cuts to tourism spending by state Labor governments, most particularly by Sandra Nori in New South Wales, but also the lack of real funding increases by the Queensland state Labor government and other state Labor governments?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The truth of the matter is that it is a mixed bag around Australia. One of the huge successes is the work of the Queensland Minister for Tourism, Margaret Keech, who is well recognised in the industry and by Tourism Australia for doing the right thing by tourism in Queensland. She is not only seeking to promote domestic tourism but is also going out of her way to open up new opportunities internationally, in places such as Asia. She is also pursuing major new opportunities in the Middle East, which is exceptionally important to the member’s own seat on the Gold Coast of Queensland. I commend the activities of a range of tourism ministers in Australia, including Western Australia, where there have been substantial increases in tourism dollars, and the terrific campaign being put together by Jane Lomax-Smith, the South Australian tourism minister.

I also noticed at Tourism Australia’s recent awards in Sydney that Victoria, through the work of the previous minister, John Pandazopoulos, dominated the awards on that evening. With respect to the issue of New South Wales, obviously New South Wales rested on its laurels in the aftermath of the Sydney Olympics. It represented a failure by government and industry to actually grab opportunities that should have arisen as a result of the Sydney Olympics.

Irrespective of who wins the election this Saturday—and I am confident that the New South Wales Labor Party will win—it is a huge challenge to the new incoming minister and the tourism industry itself to review the structures that surround the operation of tourism in New South Wales and also put together a new funding package which is about not just the promotion of major events but also doing the right thing by key regional areas of tourism in New South Wales. I acknowledge that in Australia at a federal and state level there have been mixed results, but on balance the state Labor governments have actually done the right thing by tourism—that is, they have recognised, respected and supported the tourism industry Australia wide.

If anything is a huge question mark in the minds of a lot of people in the tourism industry, it would be the performance of the federal Minister for Small Business and Tourism, Fran Bailey, and weaknesses in respect of the Tourism Australia campaign. I think it is about time that we actually fronted up to the facts concerning the sluggishness of the tourism industry both domestically and internationally under the so-called leadership of the minister for tourism, Fran Bailey. Having said that, I welcome the opportunity to take questions from honourable members because the facts speak for themselves. The real question is the lack of leadership at a federal level from the minister and member for McEwen, Fran Bailey.

That takes me back to the issue of new and lucrative markets which are emerging. Let us take the issue of the Middle East market. That is not yet considered a key market for Tourism Australia. Certainly, it meets the criterion of high yield. Increasingly, tourist hubs across the world are welcoming large travelling groups from the Middle East which are cashed up and ready to spend up on quality tourism products. The number of Chinese tourists has also soared in recent years thanks to a relaxing of travel restrictions and a growing middle class that has a disposable income. Some parts of the industry consider China’s export tourism to be one of the most exciting opportunities of our times. China is fast consolidating its status as Asia’s largest outbound tourism market, with 30.5 million Chinese travelling abroad in 2006—a rise of 11 per cent on the 2005 figures.

I believe this presents Australia with enormous tourism potential, particularly as we are essentially on their back doorstep and can offer a tourism product that is unique when compared with other countries in South-East Asia. The latest tourism raw figures show that Australia attracted around 30,000 Chinese tourists to our shores, indicating vast opportunity for growth. Australia is positioned to be in the right place at the right time if we actually had some leadership at a government level and also a willingness on the part of industry to get more aggressive about their responsibilities to go out and grasp the opportunity that is in Asia.

The question is whether the minister for tourism will ensure that the Chinese, Indian and Middle Eastern markets do not become a lost opportunity. To ensure that this opportunity is realised, current barriers need to be overcome. There has been industry concern that rogue operators—and it is the Queensland government Minister Margaret Keech who has actually led the attack on rogue operators—are specifically undermining the industry. This is of special concern to the South Korean and Chinese markets because, unfortunately, they see their people being exploited through a scam known as rentou. Queensland recently brought in an accreditation scheme to eliminate rentou operations as it saw it as such a serious threat to its $18 billion tourist industry. Amid revelations in the media of the presence of rogue tour operators ripping off Korean tourists visiting Australia, the opposition is calling on the government for stronger leadership in helping ministers such as the Queensland minister to clean up the industry.

Federal Labor has repeatedly called on greater federal leadership to address this serious issue that poses a real threat to our industry and to the 550,000 people employed in the industry. The industry’s integrity is placed on the line when media headlines, particularly in the international press, tell tales of unscrupulous tourist operators that take advantage of tourists on our shores, and the lack of federal government action in association with state ministers and the industry on this front is a serious concern. Rather than doing nothing, the federal government Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ciobo interjecting

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a long wait to become a minister if you represent the Gold Coast. You have missed out yet again, my friend, despite a Queensland vacancy, so I will take the smile off your face if you keep intervening. I would like to remind you of your failures, despite your intense lobbying, to actually gain that front bench opportunity. More seriously, I think it is about time the minister for tourism hounded these rogue operators out. I know the member himself has serious concerns as he goes around the industry about the performance of the minister, whispering in their ears.

There has been more than the odd media report of dishonest schemes. One of the worst I have heard of involved a group of four South Korean tourists who were charged a total of $440 for the privilege of walking on the Surfers Paradise beach, a pleasure that Australians and all international visitors normally would have a right to enjoy free of charge—and I am sure the honourable member would have done it at half the price.

These claims, if true, are outrageous and are the last thing the industry needs when it is experiencing underperforming international visitor numbers. I believe a solution to the problem has been identified by the Queensland government, and it is about time that we had better cooperation at state and federal levels to pursue some of those realistic policy options. There are obvious efficiencies in having a national system of accreditation so that we demand a quality performance by those involved in what is a very important industry for Australia from the point of view of jobs and export earnings.

I call on the federal government, in association with the ministers through the ministerial council, to actually get serious about maintaining the integrity of the industry. It is important, as Australia needs to build a quality brand. Tourism Australia has had a challenge in the past on this front. If we are to develop a new product with new experiences then we have to make sure it is a quality product based on integrity and not on unsuspecting tourists being ripped off by rogue operators. This effectively means that we cannot take the ball off the industry with domestic tourism either. It is the mainstay of the industry, and in many cases regional Australia depends on it, especially given the recent drought and bushfires in many areas of regional Australia.

Despite increases in domestic tourism yield, the goal of getting more Aussies to take a break and travel in their backyard has proven troublesome, a matter that I raised at the commencement of this speech. The latest industry figures show a slightly healthier domestic tourism industry when compared with the same time last year, but the unfortunate fact is that 2005 was one of the worst years on record. So there is obviously room for improvement off a low base.

There is still a long way to go to actually develop a robust domestic industry. I refer to the December 2006 national visitors survey, which showed a four per cent increase in the number of nights Australians spent away from home compared with those in December 2005, when numbers dropped to the second lowest since reporting started. It is perhaps a sign of busier lifestyles, the availability of cheap international airfares, a reluctance to take annual leave, a failure to actually manage a business and a trend towards purchasing home entertainment systems that people are not taking holidays. They are the challenges that confront domestic tourism in Australia. Unfortunately, they have also encouraged some of our operators who were previously strongly focused on domestic tourism to turn their attention to the international market and direct their attention away from pursuing an increased slice of the domestic market.

I simply say that tourism is important to Australia. It is a complex and challenging industry, and it is the responsibility of government to actually work with the private sector in all aspects of tourism—from aviation to the bus and coach industry and to the tourism providers and the theme park operators—to actually make sure we try to fix the difficulties that confront the industry in Australia at the moment and to guarantee proper commercial focus and flexibility in a complex environment.

I note that the Uhrig review did suggest some operational amendments that will bring Tourism Australia’s governance arrangements more closely in line with best practice. Those amendments included the removal of the position of the government member on the board and a requirement for ministerial endorsement of the cooperative and operational plans rather than ministerial approval. These are sensible amendments, particularly the removal of the government member from the board, as it eliminates the potential for any conflict of interest for the government member while ensuring that the monitoring of Tourism Australia’s operations remains at arms length. More worrying are the amendments that allow the minister to terminate appointed board members and the reduction in the threshold for ministerial approval of contracts from $5 million to $3 million.

You do not have to cast your mind back far to remember the numerous media reports surrounding the sudden departure of Tourism Australia’s general manager, Scott Morrisson, in August last year. Media reports hinted at a personality clash between the minister and Mr Morrisson—whatever the reason, Mr Morrisson was not talking and the whole episode cost taxpayers $500,000, the staff at Tourism Australia four months without a boss and a completely unnecessary interruption to operations at the statutory authority at a critical time of the launch of its global campaign. The only saving grace is that the amendment does necessitate that the minister provide established reason for sacking a board member, to avoid any further capricious terminations. For that reason, I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern at:

(1)

the industry’s current poor health;

(2)

the need for greater collaboration between Federal and State Government; and

(3)

the need to heed caution in accepting a broadening of the Ministerial powers regarding the termination of Board members”,

This amendment highlights the need to heed caution in accepting a broadening of the ministerial powers regarding the termination of board members while also highlighting the industry’s current static growth and the need for greater collaboration between federal and state ministers.

I ask that the government seriously take on board some of our criticisms. It is a very important industry, as our representatives from Queensland know, not only the south-eastern division of Queensland but also the whole state of Queensland. We have to make sure that we get the Tourism Australia advertising campaign right. We have to refine it, learn from some of our past mistakes and try to do whatever we can to work in association with industry to grab a better share, a growing share, of a burgeoning international capacity and also to try to encourage Australians to take a holiday. I commend the bill to the House.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise in support of the Tourism Australia Amendment Bill 2007 and to acknowledge the amendment that has been put forward by the shadow minister, the member for Batman. Whilst I am not supportive of the amendment that he has put forward, it is very clear that tourism certainly is an exceptionally important industry to the Australian economy. I share some of the sentiments of not only the member for Batman but also a large number of government MPs. As someone who has the pleasure of representing Australia’s premier tourism destination—the fabulous Gold Coast—I am pleased to be a strong advocate for the needs of the Australian tourism industry. We know that across the country tourism employs over 550,000 people and accounts for $17 billion to $18 billion of export income, in addition to the domestic tourism spend—all of which means that the tourism industry is a most significant player in the Australian economy.

I have been very proud of the Howard government’s track record when it comes to tourism. Under the Howard government we saw the introduction of the tourism white paper, a monumental and significant step forward, ensuring that the tourism industry went from almost being a cottage industry of sorts to an even more progressive, functional, sophisticated and efficient industry in an Australian context.

When it comes to marketing Australia abroad, we know that Tourism Australia is the key driver of our success in making sure not only that we create and develop perceptions about what Australia is in the eyes of foreigners but also that we convert the aspirations of many people around the world to visit Australia into reality and that they come along and visit this great nation. We as Australians have a right to feel justifiably proud of this great country we live in. We as Australians have a right to feel justifiably proud of our Australian culture. If tourism is distilled to its most basic elements, we know that it is the desire of those who live abroad to travel to Australia and experience what it is like to be in Australia and to be an Australian, albeit for a short period.

This bill ensures that Tourism Australia is brought into line more closely with the recommendations of the Uhrig report. The Uhrig report looked at corporate governance with respect to agencies such as Tourism Australia. I do not intend to dwell on the recommendations, but clearly this bill incorporates a number of those. Most particularly, it does two key things—that is, it removes from the board of Tourism Australia a government representative and thereby prevents as much as possible conflicts of interest, and instils greater independence in the Tourism Australia board. It also makes some changes with respect to the threshold for reporting to the tourism minister the approval of contracts that Tourism Australia enters into. In both of these respects, these are smart steps forward that are consistent with the Uhrig report and are also consistent with the industry’s desire for best practice.

Having said all of these things, I must now focus for a short while on comments that have been made by the shadow tourism minister. The only response that I can make on the position that has been put forward by the Australian Labor Party is: where have they been? Where have the Australian Labor Party been when it comes to tourism? I have been sitting in the House of Representatives for about 5½ years and I think I could count on one hand the number of times that the Australian Labor Party have stood up to ask a question of the tourism minister about the tourism industry. In the life of this particular parliament, the member for Batman has been missing in action. I cannot recall the member for Batman having ever asked a question of the tourism minister.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Moncrieff willing to give way?

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two questions. How many times has the minister for tourism spoken on tourism in the House in the last year and why has the focus of the advertising program overseas—the national advertising program featuring Ms Laura Bingle—changed?

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond to the second question first. It would be advantageous if the member for Melbourne Ports had the name of the spokesperson, or spokeswoman in this case, correct. It is not Laura Bingle; it is Lara Bingle. But I will accept that the member for Melbourne Ports is perhaps not as across the tourism industry as he would like to be. I would certainly be happy to give him time to catch up and get some of the names of the key players in our advertising campaign right. Apart from that small oversight, with regard to the first question about how many times the tourism minister has spoken in the parliament, I simply say that I am sure the tourism minister would treat that question seriously and appropriately and come back to the member with the number of times she has spoken. Despite my reputation in this place for having a clear focus on trivia, I do not recall the exact number of times that the tourism minister has spoken in the lower house on tourism matters. Nonetheless, one thing I can be sure of is that, even if, on a worst-case scenario, the tourism minister had only spoken once in the chamber, I know that would be one more time than we have heard from the member for Batman on the tourism industry who, as I said, time and time again goes missing in action when it comes to Australian tourism.

The simple fact is that not only does the member for Batman underscore the fact that the Australian Labor Party does not take seriously the Australian tourism industry by his lack of action in the area, but we see even further proof of the Australian Labor Party’s shoddy treatment of the Australian tourism industry by virtue of the fact that state Labor governments around the country have either not increased tourism spending in real terms or, even worse, have slashed tourism spending in real terms. That is what we have seen from the New South Wales Labor government. That is what we have seen from a Labor government that is actually coming to an election this very Saturday. Labor’s track record at a state level is one of looking at the tourism industry, one of our key industries in this country, and turning its back on the tourism industry.

In the great state of Queensland, which has such a significant reliance on the tourism industry, what we have seen from Margaret Keech, the state Labor tourism minister, is a lack of increased funding in real terms. The Commonwealth government has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in additional spending on tourism and the result of that has been that state Labor governments have walked away. That is Labor’s track record. That is what the member for Batman needs to account for. Despite the rhetoric in here and despite all of this faux concern about the Australian tourism industry, Labor’s policy on tourism is a repugnance to the tourism industry, and justifiably so, because its concern is nothing other than faux concern.

If it were real concern, we would not see ministers like Sandra Nori turning her back, slashing, burning and cutting tourism spending in the state of New South Wales. We would not see the Queensland state minister failing to increase, in real terms, spending on tourism. These will be the anchors around the neck of the Australian Labor Party, and that is why I am very pleased to highlight Labor’s faux concern to the constituents of my electorate.

In my electorate of Moncrieff, the tourism industry accounts for some 33 per cent of our local economy. That makes it exceptionally important and the single biggest driver of our local economy—some 33 per cent of it is connected to the tourism industry. It would be a very bad day indeed if the Australian Labor Party ever got their hands on the coffers of the Treasury, because we know that they would walk away from the tourism industry. The consequence would be that many Gold Coasters’ jobs and livelihoods and passion for the tourism industry would go straight out the back door. That would be the consequence of Labor in government.

Let us be clear about this: Labor would walk away from the tourism industry in the same way that they have walked away from it in New South Wales and Queensland. As a consequence, we would see jobs going out the door on the Gold Coast. So I say to all my local residents and tourism operators—many of whom engage in world’s best practice when it comes to tourism—that they should be fearful of just how savage an Australian Labor Party government would be if they ever got their hands on the Treasury coffers, because they do not take tourism seriously.

I turn now to the issue of climate change, because the member for Batman had a few comments to make on climate change, and in this regard I also have to raise my concern. The member for Batman said in his speech that there are some who would like to apply stringent safeguards and try to turn away international tourists who use, for example, jet aircraft to get to Australia—and justifiably so given the distance involved. What I would like to clearly hear from the Australian Labor Party is: who is actually pushing this hard left agenda when it comes to climate change? I am willing to give the member for Batman the benefit of the doubt. The member for Batman has made a number of comments in the past which seem to me to make some commonsense, but they stand in stark contrast to some of the loony left ideas that I have heard coming out of the Australian Labor Party.

I know that there are a number of Labor members who push very seriously, and with a straight face, an agenda that would have a significant consequence on the Australian tourism industry. I would ask whether the member for Kingsford Smith, for example, supports the notion that people should have to offset carbon emissions from flying in jet aircraft. I would not be surprised if the member for Kingsford Smith believed, as part of his personal policy platform, that those people who fly internationally on jet aircraft should have to buy carbon credits to offset their carbon emissions. I ask the Australian Labor Party: are there members of the ALP who support and believe in that? We have seen a push from the hard left of the Australian Labor Party—through the trade union movement, at an organisational level—for some of these crazy ideas for carbon offsets. This would have dire consequences for Australia’s tourism industry.

We know that there is a strong green left agenda coming out of Europe, and we know that that strong green left agenda is being picked up by elements of the Australian Labor Party. What I want to hear from the Australian Labor Party with regard to the tourism industry is: who in the Australian Labor Party is signing up to that, and what will the consequences be for Australia’s tourism industry? It is all bad news. That is very clear, because if the Australian Labor Party have the opportunity to put their hard green left agenda into policy, we would see inbound tourism numbers into this country fall, including the numbers of high-yielding tourists—the kinds of tourists that employ Gold Coasters and Australians all around this country and account for some $17 billion of exports. A very large proportion of the jobs of the 550,000 people who work in the tourism industry, and a large proportion of that export income, would be at risk if the Australian Labor Party had the opportunity to implement their hard green left agenda when it comes to climate change. In that respect, the tourism industry should be very concerned about the secret agenda that I know the Australian Labor Party have.

I now turn to the issue of rogue operators. I do share the member for Batman’s concern over some nefarious elements of the Australian tourism industry—that is, those who are engaged in rogue tour operations. In fact, I do not necessarily think that they are Australian operators. The market in which they operate is Australia, but I have reason to believe that a large number of these operators are in fact not Australian citizens. My concern is that there can be no doubt that tourists who come into Australia from overseas and are fleeced by going to the shops of rogue tour operators, perhaps paying exorbitant prices for so-called duty-free goods, will walk away with a bad taste in their mouths. They will walk away from this country thinking that it is not the great country that we know it to be. They will return home and tell their friends, their family and their work colleagues that Australia is an expensive destination and not one they should travel to.

Of particular concern to me are some anecdotal reports that I have heard that indicate that there are some elements of our source markets that travel to Australia and are told that Australia is a very dangerous country and that they should not get off the tour bus and that they should not walk away from their hotel lest they face the great and serious danger of being assaulted or something like that. These kinds of stories do irreparable harm to our international reputation. In this respect I certainly reinforce the minister’s desire and the desire of all government members of parliament for a significant clampdown on these kinds of rogue tour operators.

I welcome the proactive way in which the federal Minister for Small Business and Tourism, Fran Bailey, the member for McEwen, has worked closely with and tried to pull together her state Labor ministers—ragtag bunch that some of them are—to work together in a proactive way to ensure that we are clamping down on rogue operators. I congratulate the federal tourism minister for her great work in bringing together a task force that embraces the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, members of the ATO and members of the department of immigration, all of whom work closely with the various state police forces—and, as I believe is the case in Queensland, with the Queensland state based tourism bureaucracy—to look at the issue of rogue operators and to ensure that there is a clampdown on them. This is an important measure and it will ensure that there is a sustainable basis for the tourism industry to go forward and, most importantly, will ensure that we address the issue of rogue operators and the irreparable damage that they do.

Finally, I would like to touch on and pay tribute to a number of key individuals that I turn to on a regular basis for advice on the tourism industry—Kerry Watson; Peter Doggett and Pavan Bhatia from Gold Coast Tourism; Matt Hingerty from the Australian Tourism Export Council; and Chris Brown and Owen Johnstone Donnett from TTF. All of these individuals talk to me on a regular basis and I am grateful for their input with respect to Australia’s tourism industry.

I take tourism very seriously. The people of the Gold Coast take tourism very seriously. It is little wonder why when this services industry is generating some $17 billion worth of export income. I believe this is just the beginning. It is my sincere belief that, through a collaborative approach with the various tourism ministers and through some of these state based tourism ministers stepping up to the plate and increasing their tourism spending in the same way that the federal government has increased its tourism spending, Australia can bat well above its weight when it comes to attracting our share of inbound international tourists.

This is not to disregard our domestic tourism industry, a very important industry, and on the Gold Coast 60 per cent of our tourism comes from the drive market. But the really high-yielding tourism, the tourism that is ultimately going to generate significant export income for Australia, is of course our international tourism. In that regard, if we all work collaboratively to ensure that the state based tourism ministers and groups like Tourism Australia, the Australian Tourism Export Council and TTF develop a clear plan going forward which we can continue to build on, Australia can increase not only its share of the international market, of international tourists, but also our repeat visitor rate. All of these things will mean there are more jobs for Australians and that our export income increases from $17 billion or $18 billion to even higher amounts, and that is good news for the people of Australia.

In January, I had the unique privilege of travelling to Las Vegas. I must say that Las Vegas is an interesting city to be in, even for someone from the Gold Coast. There is one thing that is crystal clear to me: the tourism authorities in Las Vegas understand what it is that they sell and they sell it very well. In Australia, we certainly are not lacklustre when it comes to blowing our own trumpet, when it comes to the professionalism of the individuals that work in the tourism industry, especially in the upper echelon, but it is also clear to me that there are some things we can learn from a city like Las Vegas. There are some decisions that they have taken across the city that have ultimately meant that Las Vegas as a brand is in the top five brands in the world, similar to Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and those kinds of brands. That is the power of destination marketing that has been achieved by the city of Las Vegas and I believe it is the kind of aspiration that we should have for the tourism industry in Australia. I truly believe that if we remain focused on this goal, and that if we get the very best people working collaboratively, we can ensure that Australia takes its place in the world.

We must be mindful of threats to this. As I said, one of the most significant and rapidly emerging threats appearing on the horizon when it comes to the tourism industry in Australia is the climate change debate and some of the hard green left agendas being pursued within it. Make no mistake: there are elements within Europe, the United States and, unfortunately, the Australian Labor Party who would like to ensure that people do not use jet aircraft to travel. They say this is because it increases greenhouse gas emissions. I say to those people: get real, get serious, wake up and recognise that international tourists flying on jet aircraft make only a very tiny contribution to carbon emissions. The very worst thing that we could do is swallow hook, line and sinker this hard green left agenda because it would threaten to the core the viability and sustainability of Australia’s tourism industry. Having said all of that, I commend this bill to the House for the significant steps it will take to implement the recommendations of the Uhrig report. I certainly believe that the industry, and Tourism Australia as an agency, will prosper as a result of this bill being passed.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moncrieff. Just before calling the member for Moreton I will just note—not being able to speak on the bill because I am in the chair—that I flew to the Gold Coast on Friday and stayed there Friday, Saturday and Sunday with my wife, daughter and two grandchildren at Main Beach. It was a magnificent experience, as it always is, and Gold Coast tourism is alive and well.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I live only 40 minutes from Surfers Paradise and I never go there! The member for Moncrieff made a fantastic contribution. The passion, expertise and honesty that he brings to any discussion about tourism are appreciated by me. The member for Moncrieff has left the building, and his contribution made me think that if only Elvis had sung ‘Viva Australia’ maybe we would be on the map in the way Las Vegas is. It is the 30th anniversary of Elvis’s passing on 15 August this year. I am afraid that being an old rock and roll disc jockey never dies! I blame my years at MacGregor State High School, which got me started on that track.

I will now turn to the Tourism Australia Amendment Bill 2007. Like the member for Moncrieff, I want to begin by saying that the Minister for Small Business and Tourism is ideally placed. Her virtue of understanding that tourism in this country is essentially a small business enterprise is a very important element in this discussion. It is very important to know therefore that tourism is enormously disorganised. This bill is dealing with recommendations from John Uhrig’s report to do with members of the board of Tourism Australia, ministerial power, reducing the threshold of ministerial approval for contracts and so forth. It is important that there be a greater sense of accountability for the enormous amount of money that government pours into assisting the tourism industry.

There is nothing wrong with tourism being essentially a small business sector by any measure. Because of the initiative that individual small business owners bring to it and the energy and the vitality of the sector, it is important that it maintains its dynamism, but the disorganised structure of tourism does make it hard, as the member for Moncrieff said, to get consistency in the brand. Moreover, because of the marketing credentials—I will not say expertise—that I gained from Griffith University in my electorate, I know it is important that not only do we sell what Australia promises to be but we deliver and exceed expectations.

As Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation, which is currently inquiring into labour shortages in the tourism sector—it is all on the Hansardthere is no difficulty in my saying that I am concerned about the long-term possibilities of tourism meeting the expectations we are creating in the market. We are fundamentally short of people who can make beds, can clean toilets in hotel rooms or can serve in restaurants. It is a point of reckoning that Tourism Australia have to get their heads around. There has to be enormously strong and organised lobbying of government to change some of the approaches we have with regard to the styles of migration to this country. There is going to be a need for us to get real about this. There is going to be a need for us to look very closely at the simple fact that when the full effects of the ‘So where the bloody hell are you?’ campaign—that is the first time I have sworn in the parliament—kick in, potentially, the tourism industry in this country will fail to cope with the extra visitor numbers. Why? Because in so many of these small businesses they are unable to attract and retain staff while the mining sector and the resources sector are sucking the tourism industry dry.

In Western Australia we have just been through Broome and Perth conducting the committee’s inquiry. We heard about the Chicken Treat store in Broome having to shut down because Cable Beach Resort opened a new restaurant and all the staff at Chicken Treat left. But it gets far worse than that. When you find entrepreneurial private business operators, who previously were trying to grow their businesses and start new opportunities, now having to go back to making beds, cooking meals and literally cleaning toilets—obviously washing their hands in between—you realise that we have a problem in that this sector may not be able to sustain itself. So the work of Tourism Australia is fundamentally important. It is absolutely vital that it is not separated too far from the whole-of-government strategies needed to accommodate the tourism industry.

I note that my very good friend and very capable colleague the member for Blair is here, and the member for Moncrieff would understand too that another fundamental potential failure in the tourism sector is not investing  properly in infrastructure. Three times a week Qantas flies direct from LA to Brisbane. When people arrive here, they hit the Gateway Arterial Road and a traffic jam—which they would not put up with in southern California—trying to get to Dreamworld, Movie World and Wet’n’Wild, all the great things located about a 30-minute drive south of Brisbane. It is a fantastic road once they get past the Gateway Arterial Road at Springwood. I do not think that is a very good start for their time in Australia.

Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Abysmal.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is absolutely abysmal. The member for Blair is right. We have enormous earning capacity in tourism—$19.1 billion in 2005, increasing to some $31.6 billion by 2015—as a result of the proactive efforts of this government to invest wisely in good economic management and to encourage individuals to start businesses. If we are serious about encouraging people to take the opportunity to show off their wares in their local communities, unless we back those people with proper investment in adequate infrastructure, we are going to have a fundamental failure in meeting people’s reasonable expectations.

The Gold Coast is a complete basket case when it comes to infrastructure. The Pacific Highway at the back of the coast is in gridlock from four o’clock in the afternoon, and this is a city of a couple of hundred thousand people which swells to probably one million people more weeks of the year than not because of all the visitors. I do not think that is a very clever introduction to Australia or indeed a very clever introduction to south-east Queensland. The failure of state governments to invest in this way is a problem.

Equally, people arriving in Brisbane are going to be told, ‘You’re going to have your shower timed.’ We are going to get to a stage in Brisbane where, because of the shortage of water, there is going to be a push-button tap or a meter for the number of minutes you can run a shower in a hotel room. That is where it is going to get to.

Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s not tourism.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not tourism, the member for Blair is right. That is because of the failure of the Goss government to build the Wolffdene dam in the early nineties. The chief adviser to Premier Goss is now the Leader of the Opposition in this place. The member for Griffith, Mr Rudd, said to Wayne Goss, the then opposition leader in Queensland, in 1989: ‘Let’s get our green credentials right. We’ll oppose the Wolffdene dam, in the foothills of Mount Tamborine. We won’t allow this water storage plan that apparently has been on the books for decades to go ahead. We’ll create a political environment where we can say that there’s plenty of water in Queensland, we don’t need it, there’ll be no problem.’

Tourists now arriving in south-east Queensland are facing the prospect of having every drop of water they consume being metered. That is the sort of circumstance we are facing in Brisbane and the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast, of course, is slightly more fortunate than Brisbane in one sense, because the Hinze Dam is overflowing. But again, it was a failure on the part of the Goss government to put in place a water strategy to share around the water resources of south-east Queensland. It is being hastily cobbled together by the Beattie government.

Six years after the Beattie government were told water was going to be short in south-east Queensland, six years after they failed to tell the people of south-east Queensland, ‘Let’s start restricting your water usage now so we can make it last for longer,’ the mad panic is on. And what is that going to do to the tourism industry? Queensland—not the Smart State, not the Sunshine State; the dried-up state. That is where tourism is going to go in south-east Queensland. The reality is a big difference from the slogans and the marketing.

There is this dumb approach by the Queensland government, which is saying, ‘All these people moving up from down south are stealing our water because they’re drinking it, using our power because they’re switching on lights, driving on our roads and causing traffic jams.’ The ‘Bombay express’, which is the Gold Coast to Brisbane train—literally missing are the seats on the roof of this train—only starts at Robina. It does not service all of the tourist strip anyway; it is just a joke.

Every part of the basic infrastructure problem is being blamed on people coming up from other states, and yet the Beattie government are going to their mates at Virgin and saying, ‘Paint up your plane and put “Head to Queensland” on the plane.’ They are advertising in every part of Australia: ‘Move to Queensland.’ Fifteen hundred people a week are moving to Queensland, and they are wondering why the traffic jams are getting worse, why the water supply is getting worse, why the power system is about to fail and why the Bombay express is getting stacked with people every day. When you add it all up, the failure of state Labor governments, starting with the Goss-Rudd government through 1989—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the honourable member have a point of order?

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under the standing orders, I was going to ask the honourable member for Moreton whether he would be prepared to answer a question.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the honourable member prepared to give way?

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am intimidated by the expertise of the member for Fisher, but of course I would.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was wondering whether the honourable member might advise the House why the Beattie government has failed to use the GST revenue it receives from the Australian government for Queensland infrastructure.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fisher raises a question that is difficult to answer in the sense that the only suspicion you have got, apart from the generic mismanagement and misprioritisation of the expenditure of the record amounts of money the state government in Queensland are getting, is that their first priority is very simple—that is, to build a big bureaucracy filled with card-carrying members of the Australian Labor Party and pay them lots of money. So we find $1 out of every $4 that goes from the Australian government to the Queensland government for things like education goes to the bureaucracy, first and foremost.

So my suspicion is that a failure to invest in infrastructure is because their priority is about paying a small number of people a lot of money instead of fixing up the services that need to be maintained. You would think that the state of Queensland would see investment in the basics like roads, rail, water and power—to make a trip to Queensland a fantastic experience, without any of the restrictions that are about to be applied to tourists—as a priority for the Queensland government.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How can they defend that?

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Queensland government cannot defend it, Member for Fisher. They just say, ‘Send us more money.’ They keep blaming the feds. I am sick to death of this state-federal blame game thing. I want those people who are responsible for dealing with the task of building infrastructure to actually build that infrastructure—people who are responsible to meet their—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. Is the honourable member for Parramatta seeking to intervene?

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am seeking to ask a question.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the honourable member receive a question?

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to take a question. These are more questions than I ever got in question time!

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member is so concerned about the blame game and seeks to end it, why has he just spent 15 minutes blaming the state government?

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Parramatta must visit Queensland and see for herself just how short of water we are because of the failure of the Queensland government to invest. She needs to understand why we are short on road traffic space—because of the failure of the Queensland government to expend. She must understand that the Bombay express travels through my electorate, stacked with people. I have people from Salisbury to Kuraby who currently have to put up with a third rail track being put in, who have huge mullock heaps of leftover dirt being placed behind their homes, who are putting up with road crossings of rail not working, because the Queensland government is in complete panic mode.

So it is not about the blame game; it is about demanding of the Queensland government: ‘We’ve played our part; you play yours.’ Not only that, they cannot escape and they cannot hide from the simple fact that, when the opportunity came to invest in important infrastructure to back the tourism industry—which was the Wolffdene Dam at the back of the Gold Coast—Peter Beattie’s predecessor, Wayne Goss, and his lieutenant, the current member for Griffith, shoulder to shoulder said to the people of Queensland, ‘You don’t need the water.’ Guess what? We do, and we do now. We are absolutely, by every possible measure, being failed by a series of bad decisions by state governments of Queensland.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek to ask the honourable member for Moreton a question.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the honourable member for Moreton accept a question?

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the need for cooperation between all tiers of government to facilitate the growth and development of the tourism industry, can the member for Moreton advise the House as to whether he supports the proposal by his good friend the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, to require the Queensland and Australian governments not only to fund the infrastructure costs in the Brisbane City Council area but also to meet the cost of rolling stock such as the bus fleet? Should this be a Commonwealth and state government responsibility?

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The key thing is that everything the Brisbane City Council do is in fact administered by Queensland government laws and regulations, and the Queensland government again is prioritising expenditure on bureaucracies despite the record amounts of money that are being sent. In fact, I have to say that I would prefer to quarantine a whole slice of the GST money going to Queensland and to give it to local authorities because Brisbane City, Gold Coast City, the Sunshine Coast councils, Paul Pisasale in Ipswich City, Beaudesert, Boonah, Logan, Don Seccombe in Redlands, and all of the other shires have a far better idea—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Boonah.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have mentioned Boonah—John Brent. South-east Queensland mayors all have a far better idea about what to do and, moreover, are more prepared to do it. Campbell Newman, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, is in a position where he is trying to get something done that should have been done by state governments in the past. So the member for Batman can go his hardest, but I am not going to answer any more questions, so do not even waste your breath.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to ask the member for Moreton a question. Going to his good friendship with the mayor of Brisbane, does he support the mayor’s proposal to build the Ipswich Motorway?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Moreton willing to take a question?

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not want to take a question because I want to complete my two minutes on the subject. But on the question of the Ipswich Motorway, the Australian government’s plan will ensure that B-doubles do not mix with Barinas. Federal Labor’s plan—the member for Batman’s plan and indeed the state government’s plan—is about keeping trucks forever running along Kessels Road. It is great to see that the member for Batman has outed yet again that a vote for Labor in Moreton at the next federal election will be all about putting more B-doubles down Kessels Road, so I thank the member for Batman.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It sounds like Batman and Robin.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Batman and ‘robin’ the taxpayers—that is what it is all about, Member for Fisher. In my electorate I have an enormous number of people who come from places like Taiwan and China, and the family visits that come into our part of south-east Queensland add an enormous amount to our local economy. Sure, they go off to Australia Zoo and Lone Pine but they spend a lot of time in local restaurants around Sunnybank and in spending a lot of money building our local economy. Thirty years ago we had the Oasis and the Acacia Gardens at Station Road in Sunnybank. They were the beginnings of a lot of the great theme parks we now enjoy at the top end of the Gold Coast. They have gone now, and we no longer have busloads of people from all over south-east Queensland visiting those wonderful old swimming pools. There are all houses in those areas now. But one thing is for sure: what has not changed has been the quality of the infrastructure, and what has not been improved has been the quality of the facilities for visitors.

If we get further big athletic events at the QEII stadium, the Queensland Sport and Athletic Centre at Nathan, the infrastructure in my area will not cope. Tens of thousands of people will come to Australia and they will see all the failings of state governments, in particular, to invest properly in these sorts of things. That is the sort of message that I think Tourism Australia have to deal with, no matter who is on the board and no matter what other tasks they may happen to have at hand.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to make a contribution on the Tourism Australia Amendment Bill 2007. I think most honourable members would recognise that the tourism industry is one of the most vital industries in Australia and produces an incredible number of dollars towards benefiting our Australian economy and creating jobs.

The area I am privileged to represent in the Australian parliament, the central and southern Sunshine Coast, has tourism as one of its key industries. We welcome people from right around the country and right around the world who come to spend their dollars on the Sunshine Coast. One of our great challenges is the need for infrastructure and, with the population of the areas likely to double over the next 10 to 15 years, we always struggle to get the infrastructure to meet the needs of our rapidly growing population. That is why I am so pleased that the Australian government recognises the importance of growth areas like the Sunshine Coast and, I suppose you would also say, sea change communities.

Sea change communities are those communities that have a permanent population of a certain figure. We might have, say, 250,000 people living on the Sunshine Coast, but on any night of the year there might well be 350,000 heads on beds. Often the challenge for sea change communities is to attract government funded infrastructure to represent their actual populations rather than their permanent populations. The coast councils—the sea change community councils—have to provide infrastructure for the number of people who are in their communities at any one time, and I realise that that is an ongoing challenge for all members representing sea change communities. I think that Mr Neville, who is at the table, also represents a sea change community. Members on both sides of the House represent these communities, and obviously adequate funding for these communities will be a challenge regardless of which party is in the parliament. Tourism is a key driver for the Australian economy, not just for those economies in sea change communities, and contributes dramatically to Australia’s exports and gross domestic product.

The Tourism Australia Amendment Bill 2007 seeks to implement recommendations arising from the review of corporate governance arrangements of Tourism Australia. These amendments are part of the response by the government to Mr John Uhrig’s review of corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders, which, as the explanatory memorandum points out, examined and reported on improving the structures and governance practices of such entities. I suppose that it is simply a fact of life these days that everyone expects government bureaucracy to be open and transparent and to follow best practice, and that is why this bill is doing a number of things to improve best practice for the tourism industry in Australia and for the organisation known as Tourism Australia.

We need proper corporate governance for Tourism Australia because of the absolutely vital role that tourism is playing in Australia and the important role that Tourism Australia is playing in encouraging people from right around the world—who have the right to choose where they visit—to visit this wonderful country, Australia. Earnings from tourism happen to be at record levels. International tourists spent $1.4 billion over 12 months in the year ending September 2006. I hate to think what situation the Australian economy would be in were this dominant industry absent.

International tourists are staying in Australia for longer periods. Given the geographic location of Australia it is understandable that tourists are staying longer, with the average length of a stay increasing by close to 12½ per cent or 3.3 days in the year ending September 2006. The longer that tourists stay in our country, the more dollars they spend, the more jobs are created and the more the economy is boosted.

Latest forecasts released by the Tourism Forecasting Committee estimate that total inbound economic value will grow at an average annual rate of 5.2 per cent, from $19.1 billion in 2005 to $31.6 billion in 2015. The strategy of the Minister for Small Business and Tourism and more generally of the government is to attract the high-yielding, long-staying experience seeker, and this is paying dividends—and I suspect that some of those might even find their way to your state of Tasmania, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams. When the results of the new international campaign are realised over the next 12 to 18 months, the outlook for tourism will be even brighter.

I think it is instructive for us to pause for a moment and look at the job creation opportunities resulting from the tourism industry. Over half a million Australians—550,100 Australians—are employed by the tourism industry. That represents one person in 18 in the Australian workforce. Nationally, tourism provides much higher direct employment than the mining industry and more than agriculture, forestry and fishing combined. It is also a very important employer of younger Australians. Of course, any industry that gives young Australians employment opportunities ought to be fostered and encouraged.

Studies by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that in March 2005 more than 35 per cent of employees in the accommodation, cafes and restaurants, and retail trade sectors were aged between 15 and 24, and that is more than double the all-industry average. Part-time positions in the tourism industry record even higher rates of young workers aged less than 25 years, with a high proportion of female employees. Overall the tourism industry accounts for about 10 to 11 per cent of total national employment in the 15- to 24-year-old age group, double its share of total employment of 5.6 per cent.

A lot of people ask: ‘How long has Tourism Australia been around? Does it do a good job? Why was it established?’ It was established as a key strategy in the tourism white paper, coupled with the biggest ever funding package for tourism of close to a quarter of a billion dollars—in fact, $235 million. The former minister, the honourable member for North Sydney, played a fairly key role in relation to this.

Tourism Australia is our window to the world. It is responsible for increasing the awareness, knowledge and desire of both local travellers and travellers from abroad to travel to and to travel throughout this wonderful nation of Australia. Research is conducted. In fact Tourism Australia likes to report on trends in international and domestic travel. It is pretty much the key player in the Australian tourism industry. It is the solid link that brings the tourism industry together. It encourages people to travel domestically from within Australia and it encourages people who make holiday choices from right around the world to choose to come to Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may have seen some of the wonderful advertising campaigns that Tourism Australia runs overseas. Running a good campaign encourages people to travel to this country, and when they travel to this country as tourists they open their wallets and our economy is boosted and jobs are created.

I mentioned at the outset that the purpose of the Tourism Australia Amendment Bill 2007 is to improve the governance arrangements for Tourism Australia. That is not to say that Tourism Australia was not appropriately governed before, but of course we always need to be at the cutting edge of world’s best practice and this is why the government is responding, as far as Tourism Australia is concerned, to the recommendations of Mr John Uhrig. Tourism Australia really has done a wonderful job during the period since its inception. With the changes mentioned in this bill to improve the governance of Tourism Australia, this effective organisation will become even more effective.

Other honourable members have outlined the detailed amendments, but essentially the bill will remove the position of government member from the board; broaden ministerial power to terminate the appointment of board members; replace the process of ministerial approval of the corporate plan and operational plan with one of endorsement, while maintaining that the plans do not come into force until ministerial endorsement is received; and reduce the threshold for ministerial approval of contracts from $5 million to $3 million. I think that is important. Given the importance of this industry, I think it is vital that the minister does have the capacity to become more involved when a lower dollar figure is indeed the figure that is relevant.

The amendments will improve the governance arrangements. The changes do not in any way, shape or form alter the general structure, the general function or the general objectives of Tourism Australia or the delivery of excellent service it provides both to Australia and abroad. As you would expect, Mr Deputy Speaker, the bill also includes some transitional arrangements just to make sure that when these changes provided for in this bill are actually implemented there is not any disruption to the operations of Tourism Australia. This is an important bill that seeks to make a wonderful Australian organisation even better. Any bill that will help Tourism Australia attract more people to this country and encourage more people to holiday within Australia is an important bill, and I am very pleased to be able to commend it to the Main Committee in the debate today.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this morning to speak on the Tourism Australia Amendment Bill 2007. I welcome the changes that will be brought about as a result of this bill’s passage. The changes to the governance of Tourism Australia are very important. Since much of the money that is appropriated to run Tourism Australia is obviously taxpayers’ money—up to 80 per cent of that money—it is important that we have good governance arrangements that are in line with best practice as identified by the Uhrig recommendations.

Tourism is a very important industry for Australia. I think we often talk of the more traditional industries such as education, agriculture and mining as being important to Australia. But so often we do not necessarily talk in the same way of the importance of tourism to the economy of Australia. It is a very important industry. In fact, in my own electorate and across many parts of regional Australia, tourism plays a significant part in generating jobs in those rural and regional communities. Tourism Australia I think has done a remarkable job. It is responsible for international and domestic marketing of Australia. Wherever you see those ads promoting Australia overseas, I am sure that those who see them see Australia as a great tourism destination. It is something to be commended.

It is a very competitive market out there internationally. We have to compete with the other countries of the world to gain those tourism dollars from those tourists who seek a holiday, business tourism or ecotourism destination. So the advertising done by Tourism Australia internationally is of vital importance. If we get that wrong—if Tourism Australia gets that wrong—it will certainly have an impact on the economy of Australia, given that it is now such an integral part of the economy overall in Australia.

I said a moment ago that tourism has many forms. We have ecotourism, business tourism and holiday tourism. In my own electorate a very important element of it is fly-drive tourism, particularly for those coming from overseas. I just want to place on the record the importance to my constituency of tourism in the outback. In central western Queensland they have an outback tourism association, made up of the local councils and representatives who are an integral part of this outback tourism destination region.

I often describe that part of my electorate as the cradle in which the national identity of Australia was born. There is no doubt, and I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would agree, that the song Waltzing Matilda is part of our national identity. I often describe it as our unofficial national anthem. I know that wherever Australians are, whether they are touring Australia or overseas, when a few bars of Waltzing Matilda are played you will see Australians from all walks of life gathering to join in the singing of Waltzing Matilda.

People who are seeking a tourism destination in the outback of Queensland can in fact go to Winton, which is the birthplace of Waltzing Matilda. It was not far from there, on the Diamantina, that Banjo Paterson was inspired to write that now famous song. Winton, with the Matilda Centre, is a great tourism destination. Of course, more recently there has been the discovery of the remains of dinosaurs, which is of fascination to people of all ages. That presents another opportunity for tourists to visit that region. They can hear the story of the dinosaurs and of many millions of years of history and what that can tell us about the times of this prehistoric creature.

Winton is where the very first board meeting of Qantas was held. Now we have the home of Qantas and the founders museum in Longreach, right at the airport. That includes the original hangar where they in fact made their own aircraft in those very early days. It is a great tourist attraction not just for Australians but also for people who are coming from overseas seeking a tourism destination. I would recommend that they visit places like Winton and Longreach. The Stockman’s Hall of Fame and the Royal Flying Doctor Service are iconic in terms of Australia’s outback and its early development. All of these can be seen out in central western Queensland.

I am sure of interest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, is the Australian Workers Heritage Centre in Barcaldine. It is a great tourist attraction. Unfortunately, we had some very irresponsible people, as yet unidentified, who poisoned this great iconic tree last year.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shameful!

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was there only last week to see this great structure of a ghost gum, with all its gnarled sides, standing there now dead. It is tragic, and those who would perpetrate such an act must be brought to justice, if only we could get some leads on those who poisoned that iconic tree. It is iconic as the birthplace of the Labor Party because it was from that meeting, where the fuhrers first met in Barcaldine to discuss political representation in the parliament, that the workers, as they united, identified someone whom they wanted to get into the state parliament of Queensland—and they did just that. I am sure our Whip, the member for Hinkler, would agree with me.

You might be wondering what all this has to do with the bill, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is all about tourism and the iconic places that tourists can visit. Born out of that same conflict were the meetings of the pastoralists and graziers, who then also sought political representation in the parliaments of Australia, and thus the Country Party. So in many ways two great political parties were born out of hardship and struggle in western Queensland. That story can be told and seen in Barcaldine—another great tourist destination not only for people of Australia but for people from overseas who are seeking to retrace the history of the early development of Australia—at the Australian Workers Heritage Centre.

One thing that is important if we are to see the growth of international tourism into central western Queensland is the Longreach airport. The Longreach airport, as it stands now, is run by the local council, the Longreach Shire Council, which does a magnificent job. That whole region of central western Queensland, the area that I have partly described in relation to the tourist attractions out there, is under what we call the Sustainable Regions Program. The Longreach Shire Council is working through the processes, with the support of the other local councils in that region, to get a commercial operator interested in taking over the management of that airport. It is seeking sustainable regional money from the government to assist with the upgrade of that airport to enable jet aircraft, rather than turboprops, to fly into that airport, which will bring tourism growth and tourists from many parts of Australia and overseas to that region.

That airport is integral to the growth of international tourism in that part of Queensland. It would bring many benefits if we were able to get final approval through the due diligence which it is going through at the moment agreed and get that money into that airport. It would become a hub for the region for those fly-in fly-out tourists, whether they are from Australia or overseas. We have only got to look at places like the Gold Coast, Cairns or Hobart in Tasmania to see that you need to rely on good airport infrastructure if you are to maximise the opportunities that are out there for attracting tourists to your region. People seeking a tourist destination today do not have a great deal of time for their holidays and they want to see as much as they can in the shortest possible time. I believe that that is why air travel is, in many areas of Australia, replacing the drive-in market. It maximises the time that they can spend in their tourist destination.

Other parts of my electorate that have great tourism destinations which are promoted, I know, by Tourism Australia are Roma and Charleville. Charleville, of course, is the home of the bilby. It will be Easter very shortly. I encourage all Australians to buy an Easter bilby rather than an Easter egg, because the money that is raised through that process will go to preserving the bilbies in Australia. The bilby is an endangered species, quite a wonderful little mammal that is found in very few parts of Australia and that has almost been decimated by the wild cat population and other pests, including foxes. It is important that we are able to make sure that our bilby will survive, and we should all be encouraged to buy those Easter bilbies this Easter. Charleville is the home where that is being preserved.

Another tourism destination for people seeking an ecotourism destination is the Darling Downs, in the granite belt of my area, where there are great tourism opportunities. Historic Jimbour House, outside Dalby, is becoming a very important tourism destination for special events. Very near there you can see the great Dingo Barrier Fence, parts of which are being preserved. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, from your early days in western Queensland, involved in the wool industry, that was the great barrier that—nearly always—separated dingoes from the cattle country and from the sheep country so that the sheep industry could thrive and prosper and create the jobs that were important to so many regional towns and rural communities.

I did perhaps stray a little from the original intention of the bill, but I thought it was important to cover some of the important tourism destinations which are in my electorate and highlight their importance to the jobs and the wealth of those communities. Tourism Australia do a magnificent job in promoting Australia as a tourism destination internationally and also domestically. I want to make sure that they continue that work and that they continue promoting not only our coastal and major capital cities but also our regional cities and the outback of Australia, which has so much to offer.

I support the bill and look forward to its passage, because it will mean that the governance arrangements will be improved. That is important, given that Tourism Australia is a statutory authority that requires federal taxpayers’ money for its operations. I commend the bill to the House.

Fran Bailey (McEwen, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would firstly like to thank the members who have participated in this debateon the Tourism Australia Amendment Bill 2007our tourism industry is a very important industry—but I understand that the opposition spokesperson wants to move an amendment. I have to say that this is very disappointing, given the undertaking that I had from the opposition that this was non-controversial legislation and could have been expedited in this chamber.

I will just deal very quickly with the three points. The opposition spokesperson has mentioned the industry’s ‘current poor health’. There could be nothing further from the truth. This is now a $75 billion industry. In the last 12 months, we have had the highest number of international visitors coming to Australia. Most importantly, the yield in the last 12 months was $1.8 billion more than in any other year—that is right, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams: $1.8 billion more—bringing the total of export earnings for this industry to $19½ billion.

In areas like yours in Tasmania, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, this is very important. In fact, your own state is one state that has been improving its numbers. One of the reasons it has been improving its numbers is that there is greater collaboration between Tourism Australia and all of the state and regional tourist authorities. The Commonwealth has now put $21½ billion dollars into research. This is not research that we keep locked up in a vault within Tourism Australia. This research is shared with the states on an ongoing basis. There probably has never before been greater cooperation between state and regional tourist authorities and Tourism Australia.

One state sticks out and that is the state of New South Wales. The reason it is not performing as well as and is not showing the level of growth as your own state of Tasmania, Mr Deputy Speaker, is simply that the New South Wales government is spending less today in marketing tourism than it was spending five years ago. It is not rocket science to know that you simply have to put funding in if you are going to get results. I take my hat off to the Tasmanian government. I believe in giving credit where it is due and I think the states around Australia have recognised the value of tourism. The domestic market has been flat for some time but, because of the level of cooperation and work that the Commonwealth is showing through its leadership, the latest figures show that our domestic market has started to turn around. So when I am informed by the opposition spokesperson, the member for Batman, that there needs to be greater collaboration between federal and state governments, I do not know how on earth he could say that.

In a press release put out by all of the state tourism ministers, they agreed to closer ties and they took advantage of the new intergovernmental arrangements which formally set out principles for cooperation and agreement. At a meeting of tourism ministers chaired by the South Australian Labor Minister for Tourism, Jane Lomax-Smith, issues discussed were based on sharing of market intelligence, tourism quality, international promotion, regional tourism, destination marketing plans, tourism and conservation issues and matters relating to the understanding of the real economic value of tourism. That is a pretty fair list on which all of the state tourism ministers agree that there is a very good cooperative working relationship between them and the federal government. When the member for Batman makes the point that there needs to be greater collaboration between federal and state governments, I think he should come back here and tell us what he is referring to. He should come back here now and tell us exactly what he is referring to. I tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker: it will be the first time that the member for Batman has actually spoken about tourism in this place.

He has also raised a point about broadening ministerial powers regarding the termination of board members. Do you know what he has done? He has taken one line out of a whole document which enshrines the flexibility of Tourism Australia and gives the board additional authority. Why would a government not want the ability, if a board member was performing in a most unsatisfactory manner, to get rid of a non-performing board member in the interests of a $75 billion industry? More than half a million Australians depend on this industry for their jobs and the government is really looking after the men and women and their family members who work in this great industry.

I have to say that I am very disappointed in this pathetic political point-scoring by the member for Batman. I actually thought better of him. I can see that my trust was misplaced, and I think that it is shame on his head for trying to politically point-score about an issue backed by the whole of the tourism industry, Tourism Australia, the state tourist authorities and the regional tourist authorities. I say again: there is still some time left; why doesn’t the member for Batman come back into this chamber? If he wants to put these points forward as an amendment, he should be prepared to come into this chamber to debate them with me, because I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the points he has raised are nonsense. Let me just reaffirm those points again. Despite what the member for Batman says, the industry is in very good shape. Every industry can do better, and this government has provided unprecedented levels of funding to ensure that this industry gets every opportunity to do better. There has never been a greater level of cooperation between the federal government and the state governments for the simple fact that we all realise this is an industry that spans territorial boundaries. It is an industry that we all understand employs more than half a million Australians. Most significantly, it employs more than 200,000 people in regional areas of Australia, which of course is why the Australian government, the Howard government, is so keen and so prepared, as it always has been, not just to stand and talk mere rhetoric about this great industry but also to get in and back it with unprecedented levels of funding.

The third point is about trying to point-score about one sentence in a 100-plus-page document that everybody in the industry supports. Many have acknowledged that the Australian government has taken a real leadership role on behalf of the industry in this matter; this of course follows the Uhrig review. The bottom line is that any government, no matter what level of government it is, is responsible for the taxpayer funds that are being used. As a marketing organisation, Tourism Australia gets more than 80 per cent of its funding directly from the Australian government. The board of Tourism Australia, charged with the responsibility of overseeing the expenditure of that money, must be accountable. It must also be accountable for the actions it takes. Once again, I will not—and this government will not—shy away from saying that if in the unlikely situation a board member is performing in an unsatisfactory manner then the government providing the funding to that organisation, the level of government that appoints the members of that board, has the right to say, in the interests of the more than half a million Australians dependent on this industry for their jobs, that the board has to do its job. As I said, I have given the member for Batman as much time as I can to get his skates on and get up here to try to justify this absolutely pathetic political point-scoring—the three points I have just dismissed.

I have nothing further to add other than to say once again that there are members on both sides of this parliament who have a genuine interest in and commitment to ensuring that our great tourism industry continues to be one of the fastest growth sectors in our economy and, importantly, provides jobs and training and the delivery of real benefits not just to our national economy but to state, regional and local economies. I commend this legislation to the House.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Batman has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.