Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I recall this debate well. I think I had a minute and—oh, more than I thought.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More than you need.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More than I need, and probably more than my colleagues deserve to hear.

This motion, as I was indicating a few weeks ago, is in Senator McKenzie's name, and it references transparency and accountability and then goes on to use the phrase 'rank hypocrisy'. I think I indicated a few weeks ago that the gravitational force of that name and those phrases being in the same paragraph together is probably enough to make planets collapse and solar systems collide. Senator Scarr has a contribution here.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President: personal reflection on Senator McKenzie. Perhaps, just for the benefit of the comity of the chamber, Senator Ayres might be willing to withdraw.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, considering I was reading materials for what's about to come and I wasn't listening as closely I might normally be, I ask you to assist the chamber by withdrawing.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to withdraw, on a Thursday afternoon, anything I might have said that might offend anybody in any way. There is a high level of sensitivity on the other side of the chamber, I have to say, at any point where there is a collision between the things that they complain about today and the things that they did over the course of the nine sorry years between 2013 and 2022. Those were very sorry years for Australia indeed.

Of course, while all the partisan points have been made in relation to Qatar Airways, the government has been getting on with the job. The decision that the minister made in relation to those questions was uncontroversial and, in fact, identical to decisions made by previous coalition ministers before her. The government has considered carefully the issues and has directed the ACCC to continue monitoring developments in the aviation industry, and that will be in the interests of aviation passengers.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on this matter, if I could. First I acknowledge that Senator Ayres was gracious in his withdrawal late on a Thursday afternoon. The point I will make is this. This is not like previous decisions, on a number of bases. The first is that the department contacted the minister and recommended or sought a negotiating mandate with Qatar, and that negotiating mandate was not pursued. It simply didn't make sense, in a context where there are capacity issues in terms of flights out of major hubs in Australia such as Sydney, Melbourne and, in my home state of Queensland, the airport of Brisbane—which Senator James McGrath is very familiar with, as he spends a lot of time there, as I do—for at least some of the sought-after additional flights not to be granted permission. It simply didn't make any sense.

In the context of my home state of Queensland, it is probably one of the few occasions when Senator McGrath—I think I can speak for him on this—and I agreed with the Labor Deputy Premier, Steven Miles, who made the point that Queensland needed those additional flights. The department advised the minister that negotiations could be entered into with Qatar so that perhaps some—not all but some—of the flights sought by Qatar could be granted landing rights. The minister did not take up that negotiating platform and simply refused to allow any flights to be given those sought-after landing rights at the airports in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. That is the issue.

The question is: what happened in the discussions between the minister and Qantas and, in particular, the then chief executive officer of Qantas? What happened in those discussions? In the name of transparency—which is referred to in my colleague Senator McKenzie's motion that is before the chamber—the Australian people have a right to know the bases upon which the minister refused to grant those additional flights. Why do they have a right to know? Because they're paying too much to go overseas and visit relatives or for tourist purposes or for whatever purpose. They're paying too much. That's the basis upon which the Australian people have a right to know why those flights were denied. This isn't about us. It's about the Australian people having access to cost-effective flights in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. This is a real, material issue for the people in my home state of Queensland. This debate has been going on for some time. On that point, I agree with Senator Ayres. But the reason it has been going on for some time is that the information, the relevant explanation, hasn't been provided.

At one stage, the debate was distracted by human rights issues arising from an incident in Qatar a number of years ago, but it didn't make any sense at all that the minister would say that there is an opportunity for Qatar to have flights out of Adelaide but not out of the airports of the more populous cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane because of human rights issues. If human rights were the issue, the decision should have applied across Australia. It just didn't make sense. The Australian people want to know what is going on here, because they have a right to, and we have an obligation, as the Australian parliament, to make sure, as far as we can, that the Australian public have access to cost-effective plane travel. That's the whole crux of the issue here.

We're still debating this after several months, at the end of a sitting week, on a Thursday afternoon, because that information, that explanation, has not been provided in a way that makes sense—not to us but to the Australian people. This issue is only being pursued because the Australian public are still asking questions. What is going on? Why did the minister make that decision? Provide the information. Tell us the basis for the decision. It is simply not good enough to respond to the legitimate questions which have been raised by senators in this place by saying, 'My decision was made in the national interest.' I'm sorry; that's not good enough in circumstances where, when you look objectively at the evidence, it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense why you wouldn't have provided a competitor to Qantas with those landing rights, which would have meant that Australians could have accessed flights at a lower price because of the resultant competition. That's the crux of the issue. No more, no less—that's the crux of the issue. That's why we on this side of the chamber have been diligently prosecuting this issue. We will keep prosecuting this issue because it is of great significance to the Australian people and because the Australian people have a right to know why this decision was made. This decision has had a negative impact on their ability to book air travel at the lowest price practicable. That's why we're raising the issue, and we will keep raising the issue. I commend my colleague Senator McKenzie for taking such a leadership role in terms of the prosecution of this issue.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate be agreed to. We cannot divide, as it is after 4.30, so the matter will be considered in a deferred vote in accordance with the usual processes.