Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator McKenzie:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis the Albanese Labor government has taken decisions that keep airfares high, failing Australian travellers, tourism operators and exporters.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to debate this matter of public importance that has seen consumers, Australian travellers, Australian exporters and Australian customers right around the country exercised. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, this government has once again been caught asleep at the wheel. They are making decisions each and every day across a range of portfolios which make it harder for mum and dad to pay the mortgage, which make it harder for mum and dad to pay the school fees and which make it more and more difficult for Australian families to make ends meet.

The latest disastrous decision by the Anthony Albanese government is to reject the application by Qatar Airways to have more international flights. Why is that important? It sounds quite technical. It's because, right now, Australians are paying 50 per cent more for international flights than they were pre COVID. It's because Qantas is making a motza—a big enough motza to pay their CEO a lot of money. A lot of money! It's because there seems to be a cosy relationship between this government, particularly the Prime Minister, and this company. And it's because Australians also need a diversity of choice in destination; not just to go where this carrier or that carrier determines but to have a range of options open to them. And for those of us that live out in the regions, it's to facilitate the freight task.

The more of those big planes coming in and leaving Australian capital cities, the more tourists we get coming in; the more choice Australians have—at a lower cost—in going out; and the more the bellies of those planes are filled with fantastic Australian exports. We saw the tourism industry come out a little while ago and say that this decision has cost the Australian tourism sector in excess of $788 million. That is real jobs in real communities right now. We know this decision has meant that the opportunity lost in terms of price increases is in excess of 40 per cent. That is a lot of money in a cost-of-living crisis.

What does this government do when asked: 'Why did you make the decision; just tell us why'? They refuse to answer it. We saw it in question time here in the Senate today, as the foreign minister, the finance minister and the trade minister were asked: what was the real reason? Why has this government put forward seven different reasons, from protecting Qantas's profits—an actual reason, given by the assistant Treasurer—to local jobs, to the national interest? I think Minister King put forward that she wanted to lower emissions by not having so many planes in the sky. It's just incredible. It's as if the laws of economics and the laws of physics do not apply to this government. Don't ask them about the principles of science and economics. It's a little bit like their Voice argument: it's all about the vibe; listen to the rhetoric.

Well, things are wrong with this decision. The Australian public deserves to know why you made it, that it wasn't just a cosy special relationship, wasn't just a dirty deal so that they paint 'yes' on some of their planes or that the Prime Minister prefers preferential treatment. If that is not the case, this is your opportunity to stand up and say why. Now we've got the president of the ALP, Wayne Swan—the former Treasurer, who is also the mentor of Jim Chalmers—coming out and saying that this decision needs to be reversed. He's not saying 'review it'; he's saying 'reverse it'.

Then we've got Steven Miles from Queensland saying the decision needs to be reviewed. We've got Malinauskas, the Premier of South Australia, saying this needs to be looked at. And what does Tony Burke get up and say this morning? He says, nope, Minister King got it right; this government got it right. I tell you what, something stinks about this decision, and we all know it; you know it. That is why the industrial left is furious that you're protecting Qantas, their archenemy, and the far left wants to re-nationalise. Those sensible among you know it's the wrong decision for Australians, who are facing a cost-of-living crisis.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got a long history in the airline industry—a very long history. I've acted for a range of employees in that industry for 25 years, and what I can tell you about this coalition is that I've seen an abandonment of people in the airline industry and this country, dating back to 2001. In fact, next week is the anniversary of the collapse of Ansett. I remember coming here to these halls, walking around and begging coalition ministers to intervene in the Ansett crisis—begging them. They slammed doors in our faces, and 16½ thousand Australians lost their jobs when Ansett collapsed; 4½ thousand of them were ASU members.

This coalition thinks only about politics when it comes to the airline industry. They do not think about real people. Again—history repeating itself—what did we see when Virgin went into administration in 2020? We saw exactly the same thing again: shut the doors, do nothing, let aviation in this country suffer. So, this born-again view about airfares and how we should negotiate air services agreements—honestly, the previous minister, Mr McCormack, in fact rejected the Qatar Airways application for more flights to Australia. That tells you that this is something that is not in the national interest. And it is ridiculous to sit here and hear Senator McKenzie lecture us about air services agreements, the cost of living and the cost of flights when the senator has little or no understanding of the way the airline industry operates in this country. We have more than 100 air service agreements with different countries around the world. We have eight international airlines from China operating 90 services a week, which is up by 30 services since June. Vietnam Airlines has announced non-stop flights to Vietnam. Cathay Pacific has increased flights to Brisbane. Air India has doubled services to Australia, and Singapore Airlines has announced more flights. It's also the case that Qatar Airways, as we heard during question time, can operate as many flights as it would like through Adelaide, Darwin, Canberra, Cairns and the Gold Coast. The hypocrisy of the coalition in this debate is unparalleled in my view. I don't believe their spin. They don't really have a leg to stand on.

What I know about the cost-of-living matter is that the 2023-24 budget directed nearly $15 billion in targeted support to the most vulnerable Australians who were suffering after a decade of stagnated wages, thanks to the coalition's inaction while they were in government. When I'm casting my mind back and thinking about the government's record on cost-of-living relief in the last 18 months, it strikes me just how much this government has delivered to make life easier for Australians amidst what is a difficult set of economic circumstances. We've got the energy bill relief the government legislated last year which has been rolling out. In my own electorate, I know my office has been dealing with dozens of people in Victoria, mainly seniors and pensioners, who have taken that up. Last week, I went to a childcare centre, and the way they talked about the easing of pressure on the cost of living because of the cheaper child care policy was astounding to me. They told me how this policy is absolutely making a difference to lots and lots of families. I've heard plenty of positive feedback also from constituents, doctors and consumer advocacy groups in relation to the impact of 60-day prescriptions. It will have an effect on millions of Australians with ongoing health conditions.

So really that's what the cost-of-living issue is about—doing real things for people day in and day out—and that is what this government has done in the budget and since the day we took office. As I said, the coalition talking about air services agreements is just galling, to be frank. It's absolutely galling.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I wonder, as many constituents do, who does Qantas have photographs of? How can Qantas engage in restrictive trade practices, fraud and a scorched earth policy approach to industrial relations and still be called Australia's national airline? Are these our national values now?

The decision of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to stop Qatar Airways from increasing their number of flights to Australia provided a direct financial benefit to Qantas. As a result, everyday Australians are now paying higher airfares on those international routes than if Qatar had been allowed to provide competition to Qantas. I note that, over the last 12 months, Senator Sheldon has been resolute in his attempts to hold Qantas accountable through the Senate committee system. I welcome Senator Sheldon's comments and appreciate his one-man war on the temple of uncaring corporate greed that Qantas has become. Let me be clear, Qantas is an embarrassment to free enterprise competition. Everyday Australians are now faced with dysfunctional, unaffordable air travel simply because the government keeps sticking its nose in where it does not belong. It shouldn't be up to the government to decide how many air flights an airline has. The free market should sort that out. Free enterprise competition based on pricing, service, safety and availability would sort that out.

Passengers make their purchase decisions on aircraft tickets based on the most fundamental duty of an airline, which is delivering a passenger to their destination at the same time as their luggage. It's a skill Qantas seems to have lost. Free enterprise competition ensures the airline with the lowest fares, best service, safest planes and most reliable luggage will gain market share, and airlines who treat their customers with hubris and arrogance will fare badly. Free enterprise competition makes companies better. We do not have free enterprise competition in many industries in Australia, including with airlines. We have crony capitalism, a club of investment funds and their corporate henchmen who maximise short-term profits and dividends over the best long-term interests of a corporation or there's personal greed from the corporation CEOs. It is a type of corporate asset stripping that's behind the fall from grace of our once loved national carrier.

To dress this decision up as being in the national interest is misdirection and misinformation. Qantas is a private company whose actions are decided by leading shareholders First State, Vanguard and BlackRock. Others pulling the strings at Qantas are JP Morgan, HSBC, State Street, Goldman Sachs, and Citicorp, which explains a lot. The Qatari government fully owns Qatar Airways. There is nothing in this deal for the predatory billionaires that control Qantas. Was this the reason for the decision to block Qatar Airways' expansion? If so, who is really telling the Albanese government what to do?

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

I've got four questions for the government. The first question is: what is the government doing to attract and retain more airlines and build confidence in Australia's aviation industry? The second question is: why has the government decided not to reinstate the ACCC's airline monitoring report, introduced by Josh Frydenberg, then treasurer, as part of the COVID response, which included 12 reports, the final report in June of this year? Why has the government not chosen to reinstate that ACCC report, which I would argue is a key protection for consumers and for competition? The third question is: why has the government chosen to sit idly by and not pursue any of those recommendations that are contained in those ACCC monitoring reports? The fourth question is: who is it that Anthony Albanese is listening to? It's clearly not his Labor Party colleagues in South Australia; he's turned his back on them. It's clearly not his Labor Party colleagues in Queensland; he's turned his back on them. And it's not even Wayne Swan, the former Labor treasurer and now national President of the Australian Labor Party. No, Prime Minister Albanese has turned his back on Wayne Swan, who has said this decision deserves to be reviewed. I would add to that that it deserves to be reviewed in public and not in private.

Why is it that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese doesn't think he has to listen to the former chairman of the ACCC, Rod Sims, who said about the Qatar decision:

I think it does hurt competition.

He went on to say:

… if there was a time to allow new entrants in, this is it.

Why is it that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese thinks that he can turn his back on between $540 million and almost $800 million of economic activity? Why does Prime Minister Albanese think that he can turn his back on almost $500 million of tourism and hospitality activity? What is happening in the Prime Minister's head? What's happening in the Treasurer's head? We know what is happening in Andrew Leigh's head. Andrew Leigh—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I will remind you to use the correct titles of members from the other place.

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

My apologies. For those of you who aren't familiar with Mr Andrew Leigh, he is the Assistant Minister for Charities, Competition and Treasury, and guess what Andrew Leigh says. He says: 'Don't look at Australia. If you want to see a competitive aviation industry, look to Europe.' Andrew Leigh says to Australians—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will remind you to use the correct titles.

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

The assistant minister for competition, reporting to the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, reporting to Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, says, 'Don't look here.' Andrew Leigh says, 'I look to Europe'—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, please resume your seat. I have asked you on a number of occasions. I know it's only Monday, but it's out of respect for people from that other place—

An honourable senator interjecting

Excuse me? Can I just continue, if you don't mind, Senator? I have been very patient and asked the senator—the good senator—to refer to people with their correct title, and he is assistant minister.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Acting Deputy President. I accept your invitation absolutely. Mr Leigh, the assistant minister for competition, says:

I look to Europe with its range of low-cost carriers and see what looks like an even more competitive ecosystem …

Really? I thought the job of Mr Leigh, the assistant minister for competition, was to look after the aviation ecosystem in this country. But, no—he says: 'Don't look here. Look at Europe.'

So the question still stands. With the ACCC having released its Airline competition in Australia report in June this year—which, I might add, exposed flight delays, flight cancellations, excessive profits and terrible experiences of customers—why won't the government continue to extend this particular monitoring regime for the protection of consumers and for the protection of competition? That would be a very, very simple first step. I would have thought Mr Leigh, the member for Fenner, would have come to work today, Monday, and said, 'Dr Chalmers, I've got an idea'— (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( ): Senator Sheldon?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This will be good.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it will be good because we need to go through exactly what's happened with regard to aviation policy over these last many, many years. What we need to realise about those opposite is that when Ansett collapsed John Howard, the then Prime Minister, did nothing. He did absolutely nothing. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost in this country. Even when people were prepared to make a difference and stand up, with businesses and workers coming together, nothing was done. That's what happened.

But let's just say, 'That was a horrible one-off tragedy,' because we saw what that did to the tourism industry and aviation markets right across the economy. But wait. What did those opposite do when they had their next opportunity? It's in their DNA to do nothing about supporting Australian aviation and nothing serious about making a difference in Australian aviation, and it's also in their DNA to make sure that we don't have the results that we need for the Australian tourism industry. What did they do when Virgin Airlines collapsed? They sat on their hands again, for the second time. For the two major crises that have happened in the aviation industry under those opposite's watch, they did nothing. They did nothing because they weren't concerned about the workforce, about the effect on the aviation industry or about the effect on the Australian economy. They just sat on their hands and said, 'By the bye.'

Quite clearly, when you start making important decisions in the aviation industry, you need to be consistent. When you start making comments on the aviation industry, you need to be consistent. What those opposite did during the terrible crisis of COVID was give $2.7 billion to Qantas—you can't even say $2.7 billion quickly without it sounding like a hell of a lot of money because it was and it is. They imposed no obligations, no commitments and no requirements. What are the consequences? One is untrained staff, because staff were put off. Two point seven billion dollars was spent based on an ethical and moral obligation on Qantas to keep people employed. But people weren't kept employed. In fact, there are now 10,000 fewer people directly employed—well, 9,957. There are 1,700 workers in the High Court. When a government spends $2.7 billion, and workers get badly treated, it's an ethical question. Unfortunately, it's not a legal question; it's an ethical question. When you say to a company, 'You are supposed to keep those jobs,' it should keep to that commitment. But Qantas is also taking up a legal challenge in the High Court.

On the ethical question, did those opposite say anything? Absolutely nothing. In fact, the only person who did speak up was the then Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations, Amanda Stoker, who blamed the workers for losing their jobs. She didn't blame Alan Joyce and she didn't blame Qantas. She didn't blame the then Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and his government, who gave Qantas $2.7 billion with no obligations. No, she blamed the workforce. Those 1,700 people had spent decades working extraordinary nights, doing shift work and missing their families to make sure that the company they loved remained in the air and stayed safe.

When those opposite come in here and talk about what's right and what's wrong in the aviation industry, there's a big picture—and let's look at the whole picture. They turned around and let Alan Joyce, Qantas and the board make this decision to run this airline into the ground. Those workers left and when we wanted to get back up into the air there were no workers to do the work. There were no trained workers to do it efficiently. There was no capacity to turn around and actually make sure that we had an airline which could do the work that was necessary. The circumstances that have occurred with this airline and around aviation are squarely at the feet of those opposite. They have to take responsibility for the challenges that are happening in the aviation industry. That's because $2.7 billion didn't do it—they never made it happen.

Clearly, there are challenges forward in what we do with regard to Qantas. I want to see these people across the way support some of the announcements that were made in the House today, because that will help the workforce at Qantas and every other workforce like it which is being exploited. (Time expired)

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to add my support to calls for increased competition in Australia's aviation sector, leading to lower prices and better protections for consumers. More broadly, clearly, we have an issue with competition in Australia. This is not just in aviation; if we look at the banks or supermarkets, there is a need for both sides of politics to take this seriously and to deliver the kinds of reforms that will ensure that Australians across the country get better services at more competitive prices.

With international airfares currently 50 per cent more expensive than they were pre COVID, it's no surprise that Qantas posted a record $1.7 billion net profit. That is a huge amount of money. Here in the ACT, Qantas's slot-hoarding is a particular problem for Canberrans. Qantas cancelled 12 per cent of flights from Canberra to Sydney in July: 53 flights were cancelled out of Canberra Airport in the month of July, and cancellations have been hovering around that 50 mark. We have reports and ways to deal with this. We have the 2019 Productivity Commission inquiry which looked at slot-hoarding—the Harris review, which has been sitting on the desks of a number of ministers and still hasn't been implemented.

It is clear that the government needs to reinstate ACCC flight-monitoring urgently. That found, previously, that the lack of effective competition over the last decade has resulted in underwhelming outcomes for consumers in terms of airfares, reliability of services and customer service. Above all, we need more transparency around the decision-making process from this government.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought the government might heed the overwhelming calls over the weekend and at least take a step back from this disastrous Qatar Airways decision. I note that this morning the boss of Flight Centre was himself indicating there were rumours around the tourism industry. I suppose there was some false hope that the government might back down. We had the ALP national president, Wayne Swan, out there over the weekend, calling on the government to act and to review the decision and we've had the Labor state governments of Queensland and South Australia openly disagreeing with this decision on Qatar Airways. I thought that maybe the government would admit its mistake here, admit that it has made the wrong call and at least review the decision—at least suspend the decision and say, 'Okay, we're going to review it now, ask Qatar Airways to resubmit and we'll reconsider it all.'

But no, they have been stubborn, the Labor Party in Canberra today. It's the first day back since this all blew up. They have been very stubborn—pigheaded even—that they're not going to listen to the tourism industry, they're not going to listen to their own national president and they're not going to listen to Labor state governments. They're going to continue to be in bed with one of the biggest companies in this country; they continue to do the bidding of a company that has trashed its reputation among the Australian people. Really, the only conclusion we can make right now is that our government, the Australian government, is in lockstep with Qantas. They're in lockstep with Qantas on the Voice, they're in lockstep with Qantas in wanting to keep your prices higher and how you fly and they won't have any truck with anyone about splitting this relationship between Mr Alan Joyce and Mr Anthony Albanese. It seems to be much stronger than many marriage in this country; they just don't seem able to be separated! They're in lockstep together here in support of overcharging Australian consumers and protecting themselves from competition. It is pretty hard to explain this decision. How can you explain a decision that seems to fly in the face of the recommendation from government departments? That is what we are told at least—that the government's own departments recommended the extra flights come in. It flies in the face of the evidence that international flight prices are now more than 50 per cent higher than they were before COVID. We clearly need more competition. We need to get those prices back down to, hopefully, a reasonable level for Australians. They have refused to do that in this case. It beggars belief how this decision has been made.

On top of that, of course you have the embarrassing situation where the minister for infrastructure, Minister King, can't seem to explain the decision at all. She has gone through a black book of different excuses. She must have a Rolodex of excuses for her decision, including the absurd thing she originally said—that it was the human rights record of the Qatari government, even though Qantas partner with Emirates, which is a Gulf state with similar records on labour and all these issues. So why are Qantas and Emirates okay but Virgin and Qatar are apparently anathema? It didn't make any sense, so she hasn't repeated that, because that is absurd. She has moved on to saying it is because of the need to protect competition. Her own assistant minister, Stephen Jones, went out there saying it was because they want to keep Qantas's profits high. I thought we wanted to keep prices low for consumers but apparently this government is about big business and big profits, according to Minister Jones. That was what he had to say about it.

There has been no logical explanation for this. And while it looks like the government want to support the motion today, I do hope that this chamber, the Senate, thinks that we need a bigger investigation in here on what the hell is happening with these decisions. As Senator Pocock mentioned, it is not just the decision here on the Qatari application; there is also the price-monitoring regime, which has been inexplicably finished and ended—terminated. There is also a decision on the slots at Sydney Airport sitting on the minister's desk. A review established by the former coalition government concluded almost a year ago. It reported to the minister a long time ago, sometime last year.

We have not seen any movement here on the slots at Sydney Airport. That probably is one of the big reasons why we have had so many cancelled flights. I am sure we have all been affected by that. Australians have been affected by it. A massive number of flights have been cancelled and it looks like Qantas and, I should say, Virgin are gaming the slot situation in Sydney to keep their slots available and are not running the flights they said they would.

The cancellation rate for Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin have all been eight per cent and above, whereas an airline like Rex, which does not have the same slot issue as them is running a cancellation rate of only 2.3 per cent. So the evidence is we need more competition. The government has denied the competition. They have not been able to explain that. We need to review this decision. The Senate should do that if the government will not, because we should be getting the cost of living down for Australians.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this discussion has expired.