Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government can duck and weave, it can try and pull tricky manoeuvres within this chamber, but, I tell you what, Mr Speaker, the Australian public is onto the Albanese government. The Australian public understands that this minister now has a serious credibility issue.

There are now nine different positions taken by the minister in relation to a substantial matter in our country's interests, and there has been no consistency offered at all, including, I might say, in a train wreck of an interview this morning that was very telling in relation to the minister's own position. The minister provided the latest version of why she had rejected the application by Qatar Airways to bring additional capacity into Australia, which would reduce airfare prices for Australians travelling overseas but also help to reduce or bring downward pressure on domestic airline fares. When the minister made a reference to the abhorrent situation that was faced by Australian women at the Qatar airport, she used that as at the latest excuse for why she rejected the application by Qatar Airways to apply for additional routes to their network here in Australia.

It doesn't take too long to contemplate why that is a flawed argument. The fact is that Qatar Airways already comes into Australia. If the minister is so aggrieved by the shocking conduct towards and treatment of those women in Qatar, why wouldn't she have stopped the Qatar Airways Group current exposure and usage of the routes here in Australia? If it was a credible argument put by the minister—her ninth position—why would she not have taken a decision to step back and say that, so egregious is the conduct of the Qatari government, or the Qatari people, in her judgement Qatar Airways should leave Australia's airspace. But she didn't do that, because that's not the reason why the minister took a decision in relation to these matters. It's obvious that there is a very close and personal relationship between the Prime Minister of this country, Mr Albanese, and Mr Alan Joyce, the outgoing CEO of Qantas Airways.

Now, there are many things that you could say in relation to Qantas. If you read the online blogs, if you see the experiences Australians have had over the last couple of years, you can see very clearly what Australians are saying about Qantas Airways at the moment in relation to various activities that Qantas is undertaking.

But it is clear that there was a financial gain for Qantas and for Mr Joyce personally out of the decision taken by the minister, who now says that, in contemplation of her decision, weighing up all of the facts for her to make an informed judgement, she can remember speaking with stakeholders who had lobbied her, including Virgin and a third party, who made representations on behalf of Qatar Airways. She has perfect recollection of that element, but she comes into this chamber and says, with a straight face, I might say, that she can't remember whether or not she discussed this matter with Qantas—with Mr Joyce or other senior executives or board members of Qantas Airways. It doesn't pass the pub test. It doesn't at all. This cosy relationship between the Prime Minister and Mr Joyce is something that needs further examination.

We asked today a very simple question; in fact, we asked it three times: could the minister provide details to this House of the exact date that she advised the Prime Minister—because the Prime Minister has given a version of events which now doesn't make sense either. He's given it to this House and he's given it to the Australian public. Even though the minister can recall the date on which she made the decision and she can recall every other date that is tangible and that is applicable to her decision-making and the public announcement that she made, she comes in here and says, 'I can't recall. I don't know the exact date that I advised the Prime Minister and/or his office in relation to this decision.'

There are ministers in this government who, when in opposition, made a very significant issue around transparency, and that was one of the hallmarks of the Albanese leadership when he took control of the Labor Party. There are independent members of this chamber who have made a virtue of transparency and accountability, and, to their great credit, they've been consistent in relation to that. They, too, should join this debate and ask this Prime Minister for detail—detail that his minister will not provide. That's the reality of the situation that we're provided with at the moment: we have a minister who is not being honest with the Australian public.

What happened is this murky deal—this sweetheart deal—was done between government and Qantas to exclude Qatar from coming in and reducing airfares, which would have resulted from that. Just think about where we're at. This deal is a sweetheart deal. It is a murky deal that needs to be understood by the Australian public. We've had the Assistant Treasurer and other ministers go out with different versions of events. It was about competition; it wasn't about competition. It was about the treatment of the women at the Qatar airport; it wasn't about that. There are many other versions that have been given by this minister and other ministers, but it doesn't add up, and the Australian public can smell a rat here.

I think this chamber deserves honesty from the minister, but we are not getting it. The selective memory—the way in which some details can be recalled and some details can't—is, again, not acceptable. The minister didn't come in here and say, 'Look, I don't have my diary with me. I haven't had a chance to check with my department. I haven't looked at the records of conversation in my office. I'll take it on notice,' as ministers have always done in this chamber, where they've been able to provide the detail. There was no sincerity in what the minister was saying. Instead, the minister stood in this parliament today and gave a version of events to the Australian public and the Australian parliament which doesn't pass the pub test. There's nothing this minister is saying that adds up. It is at odds with what the Prime Minister is saying.

We know that this Prime Minister has a relationship with the former CEO of Qantas Airways. They have been happy to be photographed at every red-carpet event. At every top-end-of-town event, there's been the Prime Minister alongside Alan Joyce. Now they can't even mention his name. Why? If you have a decision that has been made in our country's best interests, why not detail it so that your decision can be understood and agreed with? But that's not what's happened, and this is not without consequence. As I say, Australians at the moment are facing huge cost-of-living pressures. We know that, because of decisions made by this government in two subsequent budgets, we've got higher interest rates, we've got higher inflation and people are getting less for what they're paying at the checkout at the supermarket. They're paying more for every cost-of-living line item in their budget.

When they go overseas to see family, when they save up to go on a holiday overseas, when they go to Perth or fly to Melbourne, Sydney, Hobart or wherever it might be, they are paying more for their airfares under this government. We deserve to hear from the minister in an honest and transparent way, and that hasn't happened. This parliament rises this afternoon. The government has played all sorts of tricky tasks over the course of this week, but next week we will revisit this. (Time expired)

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to second this motion because, as the Leader of the Opposition has rightly pointed out, standing orders need to be suspended this afternoon because this minister needs to give a clear explanation to the Australian people of why the government took the decision it did to block the application for additional flights to and from Australia by Qatar Airways. We have seen from this minister a multiplicity of explanations. Every time she's under pressure she comes up with another explanation. It's quite extraordinary. But what we don't see is any consistency of explanation, and we don't see any principles of good administration being demonstrated by this government when it comes to setting aviation policy, fostering competition and assisting Australians by putting in place the right policies that will enhance competition, drive down prices and give Australians more choice.

Australians are naturally asking the question: why on earth would it be that this minister would make such an extraordinary decision? That's why the opposition has been seeking the answers that the Australian people are entitled to know. What advice did the minister's department give her? What discussions did she have with her cabinet colleagues? Senator Farrell was asked about that this morning in the media and was unable to cast any light on the issue. What discussions did she have with the Prime Minister? What directions did the Prime Minister give her, if any, after one of his many engagements with Mr Joyce?

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't take my word for it. Look at the public record. Look at all the photographs of the two of them smiling together at various glittering events around the country. We are expected to believe that at none of these glittering events, apparently, did Mr Joyce just once whisper in the Prime Minister's ear, 'I'm not too keen on that Qatar application; that would be bad news for us.' The minister has been given, as indeed has the Prime Minister, every opportunity to explain to this chamber exactly what happened, but all that we have for the moment is an incredibly murky and rather inconsistent set of claims and the very limited eking out of information that has been provided to us.

The minister today, being very cagey in her wording, tells us that the decision was taken on 10 July. We know, from what the Prime Minister was forced to admit when he had to come back into the parliament the other day and correct his answer, that as at 13 July she hadn't got around to telling him. How do we know that? Because he tells us that he had a conversation with the Virgin chief executive about this matter on 13 July. He said, 'During that discussion, I did not know that the transport minister had made a decision'. All we have heard from the minister today—the most she has been prepared to inform us—was that, by that point on 18 July when the matter became public, the Prime Minister was aware of it.

We don't know how he became aware. It's perfectly possible, on what we have been told, that he became aware when he saw it in the newspaper. Australians might well ask: is this how you competently run a government? Is this how you professionally administer the affairs of this nation in the interests of the Australian people? I think Australians might well be looking at this and saying it is more than evident that this is not a competent, well-organised, professionally-run government—quite the contrary. That is why this motion is so important. That is why standing orders need to be suspended. Let's be clear: fundamentally, this is about the interests of the Australian people.

Under this government, everything is more expensive. That includes airfares. Typical airfares are up to 50 per cent higher than they were before the pandemic. What's this government doing about it? What it should be doing about it is fostering competition and taking every opportunity to increase the choices and the options that are available to the Australian people, because, let's be clear, for most people, when the flights are being cancelled and when the flights are very expensive, you don't have the option of dialling up a government jet and saying I don't need to worry about it. For most people, what you need, if you were to have the opportunity to travel, is airlines that are offering good services at good prices. That ought to be the public policy priority, you would think, of any capable and rational minister for infrastructure and transport. On the contrary, this minister has made a decision which is extraordinarily difficult to understand. It has been roundly criticised by the current chair of the ACCC, a former chair of the ACCC and, rightly so, the Australian people will be wondering what's going on. This motion is about giving them the explanation they deserve. (Time expired)

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition points out, there is plenty of opportunity for this airline to increase their flights into Adelaide, if they chose to. There are plenty of rights to expand a range of other markets.

But I just want to explain to some of the members who have only been here less than a decade what is actually happening here. What is happening is a government is permitting a debate on a suspension motion. For those who experienced life under the last several years of the former government, particularly under the prime ministership of the member for Cook, this will be an utter novelty to them. Time and time and time again, every time the former opposition, now the government, sought to suspend standing orders to have a debate, we know what happened. Every single time, there was a gag. There were a record number of gags preventing the opposition from having any opportunity to raise a suspension of standing orders. For those who haven't been here for more than 10 years, this is what is happening. It is called an actual debate over a suspension of standing orders moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It used to happen very regularly when we were last in government. The then Leader of the Opposition, the then member for Warringah, would raise one of these things every 24 hours or so, and every time the debate was allowed to flow. So this is a novelty. I am sure we are all enjoying it. I am certainly enjoying it. It's much better than just having chamber duty and going through my correspondence.

At least the Manager of Opposition Business dipped his cap to some degree to the idea of a suspension, which is to argue in this chamber why standing orders and the usual business of the chamber should be suspended to deal with the subject matter of the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. For those who, again, maybe haven't been here a very long time, this is quite an extraordinary circumstance. The Leader of the Opposition effectively marched the shadow Treasurer out of the chamber so that he was not able to deal with the matter of public importance that presumably he felt sincerely was a matter of public importance and had argued the case for in the opposition's tactics room. He decided not to seek the call to ask the Treasurer a question about GDP figures in spite of the fact that GDP figures were released this week. The Leader of the Opposition marched the shadow Treasurer out of the room. He wasn't quite a gazelle, like we all remember the former member for Sturt sprinting up the stairs one time, but it was a pretty extraordinary sight to see.

It reminded us again of yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition forced the member for Canning, who clearly wasn't prepared, to second the dissent motion in the chair and went from being the next leader to the former next leader. It just shows the level of ruthlessness of this Leader of the Opposition. Not only does he play politics with the government, not only does he play politics with the Australian people; he plays politics with his own frontbench colleagues.

We were ready to have the matter of public importance debate. We all stood supporting the member for Hume, as we often do, and his intention to have a full-throated debate with the Treasurer of the country about the state of the economy. I have read the matter of public importance that the shadow Treasurer put before the parliament, and genuinely it is important. We on this side of the House understand, and I think some genuinely do on the other side as well, the pressures our economy is under and the degree to which those pressures are flowing right through Australian households and Australian businesses with the global inflation shock that swept through the world economy as we moved out of the emergency phase of the pandemic. It's an inflation shock that economies right around the world, including ours, are still coming to grips with. The degree of work we as the government have had to do on this side of the parliament, that the Reserve Bank has had to do and that businesses and households have had to do to deal with—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Farrer, are you seeking the call for a point of order?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a point of order on relevance. The minister at the dispatch box has not mentioned the suspension order once. I ask that he come back to the substance of the debate.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is untrue. Sit down. It is entirely relevant. If you want to start raising relevance in this debate, you could have been silent for the last two speakers. I am giving the call to the minister.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition hasn't been here long, but this is a suspension debate, not a debate over the airline. If you win the suspension debate, you then get to debate the question of Qatar. This is a suspension debate. The point I am making is that what you are seeking to suspend is a debate about the state of our economy, a debate that the shadow Treasurer, to his credit, wanted to initiate about the state of the economy. The Leader of the Opposition's priority is not to talk about the economy, not to talk about cost of living, not to talk about the price of medicines and not to talk about the loopholes legislation. If this suspension motion wasn't being proceeded with and if the MPI had been canned by the Leader of the Opposition when the shadow Treasurer had been marched by him out of the chamber, we would be moving to the loopholes legislation, but apparently that is not of any particular importance. There has been no question of the minister on that legislation—lots of interjections but no questions of the minister on that legislation.

It just goes to show the priorities of this Leader of the Opposition. His priority is not about having a discussion about the state of the economy, in a week where our GDP figures were released. No question from the shadow Treasurer to the Treasurer about GDP figures, seeking to press and probe what is good about the state of our economy right now and what the real pressures are—absolutely nothing. Finally, on Thursday afternoon, we thought we might have a debate about it—but, no, the Leader of the Opposition thinks it's more important to have a debate about the landing rights of a Middle Eastern airline located on the other side of the world. The only cost of living he is willing to talk about right now is international airfares. No debate about the price of medicines—a bit of cat-calling and yelling out, and encouragement of people up in the gallery, but no real debate about the price of medicines and what that means for households. No debate about the impact on energy prices of the legislation they opposed in December—the substantial relief against all the upward pressure caused by the global gas market on energy prices for households. Instead, it is this obsession by the other side with the landing rights of one Middle Eastern airline located on the other side of the world. Frankly, I think all of us and those who journey into question time have learned more than we ever thought we'd have to know about the arcane area of landing rights and the negotiations between different aviation authorities about that. As we have learned, this is not something particularly new to this minister or this government; this is something the former minister, the member for Riverina, had to traverse as well. He is a great bloke, much loved across the chamber, but it is an area that he's had to traverse just as much as anyone else.

We are not going to support this suspension. We wanted a debate about the state of the economy. We wanted the shadow Treasurer to finally, this week, have his moment in the sun. Instead he was marched out of the chamber by the Leader of the Opposition, forced out with his tail between his legs, to have to humiliatingly fail to turn up to his own party. He sent the invitations out, ordered the booze and canapes, but failed to turn up to his own party where we could have a full-throated debate about the state of the economy. Okay, if they don't want to do that, let's get on with the debate about closing loopholes, about wage theft, about the impact of the gig economy on all those workers who have to undertake all those hours of work without basic protections just to make ends meet. But no—instead, this Leader of the Opposition wants to play politics with the landing rights of one Middle Eastern airline on the other side of the world. This is just an extraordinary display of this Leader of the Opposition's priorities. Nothing to say about cost of living, nothing to say about health policy—which is probably no surprise, given he was voted by doctors as the worst health minister in the 40-year history of Medicare. Instead, he just wants to go in to bat for the landing rights of one airline based on the other side of the planet.

We will not be supporting this motion. If you're not willing to have a debate about the global economy, we'll deal with this suspension, we'll oppose it and, if the will of the parliament is not to accept it, we'll get on with debating the Fair Work legislation and closing loopholes.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to.