Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Hansard source

In the brief time that's available to me, I want to canvass a number of issues. But before I do that, let me just reflect on the contribution that the previous speaker, Senator Sheldon, has made. I note he is the only government senator speaking on the Airline Passenger Protection (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 this morning, which I think is a powerful demonstration of the government's commitment to aviation consumer issues.

Let me just make these quick points. When Senator Sheldon says the government has a holistic approach to aviation issues in this country, people should hear in that word holistic 'delay', 'procrastination'. When Senator Sheldon talks about the government and the minister for transport 'considering' the aviation white paper, what Australians should hear is that the government is not committed unequivocally—is not committed unequivocally—to doing something with strength on consumer protections.

Let me also just make this point. Senator Sheldon accused Senator McKenzie and myself, the authors of this bill, of yet another thought bubble. Let me tell you about the other 'thought bubble' that Senator McKenzie and myself had last year when we brought to this chamber a private senators bill to reinstate the ACCC monitoring regime. Guess what happened to that 'thought bubble'? Guess what happened to that 'political stunt'? We got the first report in the second tranche of the ACCC monitoring regime. So, in actual fact, when Australians are asked to look at and think about where airline aviation competition policy is being driven from in this country, it's not being driven from the department of transport. It's not being driven from Minister Catherine King's office. It's being driven by this Senate chamber. Who would have thought that the people driving, the people making a case for urgency around improvements to airline aviation issues are, in fact, Senator McKenzie and myself, supported by—rather reluctantly, but it is important to give credit where credit is due—the likes of Senator Pocock, who saw the merit in re-establishing the ACCC monitoring regime when the government did not want to do it. The government's hand was forced by a private senators bill in this place, an issue subsequently taken up by Senator Pocock. When Australians think about who the people are who are most committed now and into the future to driving better outcomes for Australia's aviation consumers, they see it is, in fact, the coalition. Far from being a stunt, far from being a thought bubble, private senators' bills like this one force the government's hand.

And why does the government's hand have to be forced on airline issues—issues designed to drive more competition? I just want you to think about this point: why is it that the government can be so committed to competition in supermarkets that it supported a Senate inquiry, appointed Craig Emerson to conduct a review and has the ACCC conducting a review? Why can the government focus on supermarket competition but be dead silent, with not a shadow of a movement of action, on airline competition issues? The government says, 'We've got an aviation white paper process which will follow the aviation green paper process.' Well, guess what. That is the government's second-term agenda. It is not the government's first-term agenda, because this first term of the government is almost finished. There will be a budget, and colleagues like myself and others speculate that there will be a federal election later this year.