James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Senator Watt) to questions without notice asked by Senator Chandler today.

At their heart, the questions asked by Senator Chandler of this government come down to two things. The first is transparency and the second is the cost of living. What we saw with the answers that were given by the minister in response to the questions by Senator Chandler was that this government has no interest in transparency. Before the last election, the Leader of the Labor Party promised to lead the most transparent government ever. Well, guess what! That was another broken promise by Labor, because they don't lead the most transparent government ever. In fact, this Labor government is the least transparent government ever. The answers that were given today by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government really shone a light on the disdain and arrogance and the distasteful approach that the Labor executive takes to being accountable and transparent.

The first question was a very simple one: what role did pressure from Mr Alan Joyce play in the ministerial rejection of the department's advice? This won't surprise those who, due to misfortune, may be listening to this at home, but the minister did not answer that question. Indeed, he attempted to say that the questions by the opposition and the Senate inquiry are a smear campaign against the minister. It is not a smear campaign for members of this chamber to ask questions of the executive. At their core, those questions are about accountability. What it shows to me is that the government has something to hide in relation to this decision-making. The government is just a little bit too defensive about its relationship with Qantas and Mr Alan Joyce.

I would like to say, as someone who flies Qantas a lot, that I think Qantas has thousands of very good Australians who work for it and ensure that millions of Australians get from A to B. But what Qantas isn't doing—and this goes to the second part of the questions that Senator Chandler put to the minister—goes to the cost of living. This country is in a cost-of-living crisis. If you want to go onto qantas.com or the websites of other airlines, you might want to take some heart medication before you open up your internet browser, because flights cost a lot. They cost a hell of a lot in regional Queensland. If you want to fly overseas, you might look at trying to remortgage your house. That is the issue here. Qantas effectively wants to run a cartel in relation to international flights. What Qatar wanted to do was to have more flights come to Australia. This is very basic economics. It's supply and demand. If there is more supply of international flights coming to Australia and leaving from Australia, it means prices will go down. But Qantas doesn't want prices to go down. Qantas wants prices to go up.

That is why the opposition, through the advocacy of the Liberals and Nationals who sit in this chamber, want to get to the nut of why and how the minister made this decision. What information did the minister rely upon? And why won't the minister release that information? Now, it may be there is nothing to hide. But I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and there is a murkiness over the government's cohabitation with Qantas, particularly in relation to recent events. I call upon the government to treat the Australian people with respect.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to those comments and to address the answer from Minister Watt to Senator Chandler. Obviously this issue has been the subject of debate and a Senate inquiry, and it has been referred to by those opposite. Our Senate colleagues participated in that Senate inquiry, and the department appeared, and there was evidence given, in the normal course of practice. These are the precedents that we set. It is not within the precedents of the Senate to expect House ministers to appear at those Senate inquiries. But those opposite have decided that there is a new level of transparency and accountability that they want to seek, for the purpose of creating a politically motivated attack. What we are seeking to do is to provide the information that has been asked of us and to make sure that we can continue to act in the national interest. I know those opposite haven't yet said whether they support the national interest and why they wouldn't, but that seems to be an implication from the arguments they are making.

In regard to the Senate inquiry—the subject of the comments made by the previous senator—I'd just draw the attention of people in the community to the dissenting report from Labor senators in response to that inquiry. The dissenting report raised significant concerns about the conduct of the inquiry and the clear political basis of and inaccuracies in the majority report. As to the way these Senate inquiries work: obviously, the majority is able to provide a report, but it still can be fact-checked, and this one was—it was fact-checked by our Senate colleagues who provided a dissenting report. What was clear from that was that the Liberal and National parties really did have no regard for the complexity of the issue at hand and ignored the full evidence presented to the committee. What we are talking about when we talk about the complexity of this issue is the very delicate and intricate nature of our aviation sector here in Australia; how it interacts with international markets; how it's influenced by different factors internationally; and how important it is that we do have a strong aviation sector here in Australia so that we can have flights to places like those in regional Queensland, where I live, sustainably continued, and have access to those places. These things were essentially ignored by the majority report and by the Liberal and National senators.

The dissenting report said:

The Committee also heard evidence—including from Marque Lawyers and several trade union groups—about concerns going back many years over Qatar Airways' ability to act as good corporate citizens.

That's some of the evidence that was ignored by the committee and that's some of the evidence that hasn't been referred to in the taking note of answers today. I encourage members to really consider the evidence that has been given by people who understand the aviation sector a lot better, I would say, than those opposite.

When it comes to transparency and accountability, one thing that won't be happening in this Senate any time soon is any member of this government taking lectures about transparency and accountability from members of the Liberal and National parties after 10 years of what essentially became a degraded government unable to provide accountability, unable to be transparent, hiding reports, refusing to publish certain things and not providing documents to Senate inquiries. The list goes on in terms of responses to the sports rorts inquiry, car park rorts and all these issues that we sought information on through the usual practices in the chamber and were refused that information.

We are not going to take lectures from people who continue to defend the former Prime Minister, who had multiple ministries. When it comes to transparency and accountability, fish rots from the top, and these guys continue to defend a former prime minister who not only deceived this chamber but also deceived the Australian public by signing up to multiple ministries. Our ministers will not be taking lectures on transparency and accountability and what is in the national interest by members of the Liberal Party who continue to defend sports rorts, car park rorts or the multiple ministries of former Prime Minister Scott Morrison. What we will do is continue to act in the national interest.

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

Senator Green, representing the government in the Senate this afternoon, is very, very wrong. Senator Green has characterised this as a politically motivated attack on the government. That is very wrong. This is a consumer motivated attack on the government. This is a competition motivated attack on the government. Senator Green says that the government will not be held to lectures by us on accountability and transparency. In August last year, the leader of the government, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, said that his government would be one characterised by transparency and accountability and not secrecy—not a lecture from us; a commitment, a mandate, made by the leader of the Labor Party, the Prime Minister of this country.

With the Qatar decision, the decision made by Minister King on behalf of the government to deny increased access to Qatar Airlines—which would deliver freight benefits, aviation benefits, consumer benefits and competition benefits—they are denying the opportunity for proper transparency and proper scrutiny of that decision. Minister Watt is incorrect as is Senator Green when they say that there is no precedence for House ministers coming before Senate committees. There absolutely is. The former Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, in 2014, when he was a minister in the former government, came before a Senate committee. So they are prepared to tell half-truths, even non-truths, in their defence of Minister King, who will not come before the Senate and provide an explanation about who exactly it was that influenced her decision and exactly what the components and characteristics of the national interest are.

The government says that the decision to deny greater consumer benefits, greater competition and better freight opportunities in our country through Qatar was made in the national interest. Well, please, Minister King, explain to us exactly what the characteristics and components of the national interest are—because coalition senators, crossbench senators and, I have to say, I think the entire Australian public believes that the decision was made not in the national interest but in Qantas's interest.

It is often said in Canberra that secretaries of departments and senior bureaucrats capture their ministers. I suggest that the former CEO of Qantas captured the board of Qantas and the board is as responsible for the decisions and the situation that our national carrier now finds itself. Let's just think about this. Everyone is watching Qantas. The eight ACCC is now watching Qantas, having filed in the Federal Court a claim that Qantas was selling tickets on flights that were no longer scheduled to fly. Really? Wow, who thinks they can get away with that sort of behaviour?

In addition to that, the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors has said that it is now watching Qantas, the Qantas CEO and its board with regard to executive remuneration. Of course, every Australian consumer who is given a lack of opportunity and a lack of aviation choices is watching Qantas because they can't believe the prices and they can't believe the falling levels of service. This is a serious issue.

On the weekend Australians said they'll make up their own minds and hold the government accountable, and we've seen the government trying to make up for lost ground by now trying to talk about the cost of living and now trying to explain what it's doing. Well, this is a big black mark against the government. Minister King and the former Qantas CEO owe it to Qantas and to Australian air travellers to come and explain themselves.

The spirit of Australia has unfortunately got drunk on influence and power in Canberra, and Australian consumers deserve an explanation. The government in question time failed to provide a proper, thorough, comprehensive defence as to why the Qantas CEO shouldn't attend and why Minister King shouldn't come before the Senate.

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

For 25 years I've represented airline workers, and for 25 years I watched successive coalition governments ignore workers who didn't work at Qantas. In 2001 when Ansett collapsed, the then Howard government ignored the loss of jobs of those Ansett workers—some might say in favour of Qantas. In 2020 it happened again. When Virgin was about to be put into administration, the then government turned its back on those Virgin workers and did absolutely nothing to assist Virgin in its recovery. Again, those Virgin workers absolutely thought that the coalition government was benefiting Qantas workers over Virgin.

Then we also look, though, at what happened with the sacking of the 1,700 transport workers and what the then coalition government did about that. They sat back and supported an illegal act by Qantas. So throwing at this government that we are somehow captive of Qantas is a bit akin to the pot calling the kettle black, as far as I can see, because the long history that I have witnessed first hand has seen successive coalition governments favouring the interests of Qantas—not Qantas workers but Qantas—over other airlines in this country. So it's a bit rich, I think, to make those accusations because, when I look at the history, it just doesn't support those sorts of accusations.

I was fortunate enough to sit on the inquiry into air services. Again, sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I listened to a range of evidence about what happened with those air services agreements and the history of how air services agreements have been negotiated. They are a valuable commodity for a country. You have to look at how you deal with them, who flies here and what negotiations you have with not only governments but also the airlines of those governments, and many, many governments across this world take a different view of how they deal with them. As a country, they look at their national interest, and what they weigh up can be different.

Let's talk about Canada. Canada absolutely refused to do air services agreements with Qatar. Is that in the report? No. Does it mention how Canada looked at its national interests! Let's talk about what the US does. The US will not allow any non-US owned airline to flight domestically.

In Australia, what do we do? Foreign carriers can fly. They do not have to be Australian owned. The only one that has to be 51 per cent Australian owned because of the Qantas sale ad is Qantas, but every other airline that flies domestically here—let's talk Rex Airlines who is wholly owned by a Singaporean company—can fly wherever they like and they're foreign-owned! That doesn't get a mention at all in this report.

When you weigh up the national interest, you weigh up a range of different things—and that is what this minister has done—what was failed to be appreciated is that the national interest is complex, it can change from time to time and it is absolutely influenced by what is going on around us, and that just did not come out in the Senate inquiry. Sorry! There was evidence about it, but it was ignored. Hence, the dissenting report that I was proud to support and why I speak on this 'take note'. Air services agreements are a complex issue, and it was not appreciated.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take note of Senator White's comment that this agreement was a complex set of arrangements. What isn't complex is transparency. The definition of transparency is a:

situation in which business and financial activities are done in an open way without secrets, so that people can trust that they are fair and honest.

So, what's the situation that we have? Mr Joyce was unable to attend public hearings due to being overseas. The minister has continued to be evasive and unwilling to cooperate with the inquiry or to explain her decisions. In fact, Minister King has failed to formally respond to the committee's request for her to appear, despite telling the media that she would front up. That's not in line with transparency.

It's up to Labor and the Greens now to support the committee's proposal to extend the select committee and ensure that Mr Joyce turns up and gives evidence before this inquiry. Or, will Labor continue its protection racket over Qantas and Mr Joyce by seeking to hide what discussions were held between the former CEO and senior government ministers and staff at the cost of Australia's travelling public during a cost-of-living crisis? It's all from a government that has continued to promise to ease cost-of-living pressures but has continued to fail to deliver. Will Labor submit Mr Joyce to the same scrutiny that Minister King seeks to avoid?

During question time I noted that Senator Watt indicated that there hadn't been a skerrick of evidence for the questioning in relation to what actually happened between Qantas and senior government ministers. That's because there hasn't been a skerrick of transparency. No information has come forward. Only former Qantas CEO Mr Alan Joyce, the Prime Minister and the transport minister Catherine King can answer significant questions about the reasons why key aviation decisions were made, including the decision to reject the Qatar Airways application and to discontinue domestic airline monitoring by the ACCC.

Question agreed to.