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

It's appropriate that we are debating the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 today—the day after the Reserve Bank of Australia was forced to once again lift interest rates as a result of the Anthony Albanese Labor government's failure to address inflation. Aviation is another area where the government has conspired to keep prices high—against the interests of Australian travellers, Australian freight exporters and Australia's tourism and small business operators. The government has kept the price of airfares high by restricting competition, by failing to make decisions on the things that are sitting on Catherine King's desk right now—slot management and monitoring the competitive nature of our domestic airlines, cancellations, delays and the drag on productivity that those bring—and by refusing to review its decision to reject Qatar Airways additional flights.

Their failure to make decisions on this raft of measures has meant that Australians are paying more than they need to to access our aviation sector. Coalition backbench senators have this private senator's bill before the Senate to do something about it—to deliver on one of the recommendations of the select committee's inquiry into bilateral aviation arrangements. This recommendation was backed by the current ACCC chair and former commissioners Fels and Sims, by a raft of academics and by aviation experts, who said that reinstating ACCC monitoring would be good for competition, transparency and accountability and would force changes in behaviour by particularly one airline that has had in recent times an incredibly poor track record of cancellations and delays—the Qantas Group.

We've seen cancellations and delays of not just significantly on the Sydney-to-Canberra and Sydney-to-Melbourne runs but, a couple of weeks ago, those cancellations and delays into Adelaide went up by 35 per cent, particularly by the Qantas Group. It seems that the Prime Minister's best buddy Alan Joyce's game plan and trajectory of poor market behaviour that was so exposed at the Qantas Group's AGM last week continues. Whilst the government made a big hullabaloo a few weeks ago about having reinstated the ACCC monitoring, the fact is, as we found out in estimates last week, the Treasurer is yet to direct the ACCC to do it. They put out the press release, got the positive news stories and got the votes, but has anything changed in the ACCC? No. You know why? The government hasn't sat down and written the direction letter.

It's not hard to make things happen. It's not hard to reinstate this monitoring. It just requires the Treasurer to actually follow through with actions rather than just trite press releases following a vote to not bring back Alan Joyce before this Senate to actually face legitimate and necessary questions from senators on behalf of the Australian public.

It's not just the Labor Party who refuse to bring Alan Joyce back into the Senate to face serious questions; it was the Greens and it was Senator Pocock. Some may say that those decisions were made because the government promised to reinstate the ACCC monitoring. Well, guess what? You were sold a pup, because they haven't reinstated it. That's why this bill before the Senate is so important, because it will not rely on a tardy treasurer to get the job done.

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

Twenty-three days to write a letter—

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

Save it for your contribution, Senator Smith. I am sure it's going to be compelling. But, you are right: it's been 23 days since the press release and still nothing's been done. It is like Catherine King's infrastructure review, which is now over a hundred days late. Again, it's been sitting on her desk. This is the most tardy of infrastructure ministers, and it must be an incredible embarrassment to a prime minister who hoped that infrastructure would be a key part of his legacy as Prime Minister, given he held that shadow portfolio for so long.

We know Australians want an aviation industry that simply gets the basics right, and for too long it hasn't. They want planes to take off and land on time, they want their bags to actually arrive at the same place and at the same time that they do and they want to actually be able to afford a ticket. But, because of the very cosy, personal and political relationship between Anthony Albanese and the former CEO Alan Joyce that continues to this day, the Labor government continues to run a protection racket for one of the most egregious corporates in Australian history.

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

Sorry, Senator McKenzie. There's a point of order.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a point of order which relates to two matters. The first is the need to refer to people in the other place by their correct title, and the second is the need to refrain from imputations on the character of others, in this case the Prime Minister.

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

Exercise caution, Senator McKenzie.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. It's not me implying that there's a cosy, personal and political relationship between the Prime Minister and the former CEO of Qantas; it is evidenced in the photos and in the fact that this government has run a complete protection racket, refusing to release dates of meetings, refusing to release documents—

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

Minister, on a point of order?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy President, the senator is ignoring your recommendations in relation to caution. I think that the senator is now moving to clearly impugn improper motives and she should withdraw it.

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

For the benefit of the chamber, withdraw, to the extent that you implied improper motive against members of the other place.

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

I didn't do that.

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

I've asked you to withdraw.

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

If it assists a very sensitive government, I withdraw.

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

Don't make it into a political issue. I've asked you to withdraw.

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

I withdraw.

The Deputy:

And just be careful with the phrasing, please.

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

This is all very public phrasing that has been used outside of this chamber and in Senate estimates and right through the inquiry process. So for the government to somehow now be feeling very sensitive to phrases that have been used in this chamber and in the committees of this chamber for the last eight weeks I find incredible. But I do take that the government should be sensitive, particularly after the AGM results for the Qantas Group, where shareholders made very, very clear the fact that they were not happy with the behaviour of the board, of the former CEO and of the current senior management in how they've conducted their duties. They've illegally sacked 1,700 workers, they're before the ACCC for anticompetitive behaviour and they tried to pocket hundreds of millions of dollars of COVID flight credits of their loyal customers. The reputation of a once proud brand, a national carrier, has been trashed and, with it, the reputation of the Labor government, which continues to run a protection racket, refusing to answer questions on notice—a minister who refuses to front up and give the real reasons she refused Qatar Airways' application when her own department recommended that those negotiations begin, to put downward pressure on international flights to Europe through the Middle East, to give Australians more choice of destination. Minister King has refused to give the real reason. An entire protection racket has been run.

In the AGM for Qantas Group last week, something was released that, again, we tried to get to the bottom of through the processes and procedures of the Senate during the select committee inquiry, and that was how much Qantas actually expended to support the Prime Minister's 'yes' campaign for the referendum. It's very expensive to take planes out of service. It's very expensive to shift them from doing the task of shifting product and people around our nation as efficiently as possible and fly them to where they're going to be repainted or repurposed, shall we say, as the flag bearers for the 'yes' campaign in the aviation sector—to strip the paint, to repaint, to apply the special livery and to warehouse the planes until the special launch with Alan Joyce and the Prime Minister and all the elites in the hangar. They couldn't wait to celebrate the launch of the Qantas Group's 'yes' campaign planes. It actually cost $370,000 to support that, but that doesn't take in the opportunity lost and how many additional cancellations and delays occurred because those planes were taken out of service during that time.

These are the types of questions that we sought to get answers on from the government and from Qantas during the select committee inquiry, and again the minister refused to allow her officials from the department to answer legitimate questions on behalf of the Australian people. My office has been flooded—and I know other senators' offices have been flooded—with emails concerned about that relationship, concerned that this government does not have their back during a cost-of-living crisis. There are decisions that could be made today to bring relief, and this government is more interested in tripping the light fantastic on red carpets—not just here at home but around the globe—than dealing with the very real pressures Australian travellers and the Australian community are feeling.

With respect to the bill before us today, it would ensure that, if our tardy Treasurer couldn't find a pen to write to the ACCC to give them the direction, this essential reporting decision would be able to happen without him having to find a pen or a typewriter. Canberra Airport CEO Mr Byron said:

I think the fact that Qantas is able to capture 80 per cent of the profit pool means that they are [inaudible] the strongest player, and massively dominant, like a monopolist. Qantas quite clearly are the price leaders and they seem to have led the prices up. They control the market, and everyone else gets the scraps.

It didn't matter who we heard from in the inquiry. The only witness who did not want this reporting mechanism reinstated was the Qantas Group. It beggars belief that the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming—embarrassed publicly—and that they were once again standing beside their men—Alan Joyce, Richard Goyder, Mr Finch and all the other fabulous senior executives who have turned their back on the Australian public. They were quite prepared to give Alan Joyce the golden parachute and quite prepared to vote against him coming back and facing up to the Australian public's very real questions that this chamber has a responsibility to ask him.

Instead, you shut down the ACCC reporting and you won't bring Alan Joyce back in front of this committee, which is against the Australian peoples' wishes. It begs the question: why? What have you got to be afraid of? What are you hiding? Australians have a right to know why you continue to protect a corporate who, according to the CEO of Canberra Airport, controls the market because of their dominant position and their anticompetitive behaviour that's on display for everyone to see. Everyone has got a story about losing bags, cancelled and delayed flights, and tickets through the roof because Qantas isn't subjected to enough competition. It's not just in the Qatar Airways decision—it is here in the domestic market as well—yet this government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make an announcement that they would agree with the committee they tried to shut down so many times—to reinstate recommendation 4—but it hasn't been done.

This is a chance for the Labor Party to back their press release and back the bill put forward by Senator Dean Smith and me, which delivers on recommendation 4 of the bilateral aviation inquiry, so that we can get the ACCC once again monitoring cancellations and delays and making that transparent and public, instead of hiding behind a press release that hasn't actually achieved anything and hasn't delivered what they said it would. I think it's incredibly disappointing because Australians right now want a government that has their back, not one that hangs out with elites and spends hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money on a referendum that was comprehensively rejected—it was supported by Qantas Group. As we heard in the inquiry, when I asked Mr Goyder who made that decision, it was a decision of senior management—it was a decision of the former CEO, Alan Joyce.

I want to ask the Labor Party, the government: why do you keep protecting this guy? Why do you keep protecting Qantas from greater competition and more transparency and accountability? Why do you keep refusing to bring Alan Joyce before this chamber's committees so that he can actually answer the questions that tens of thousands of Australian travellers rightfully have? He was the one, hand in glove with the Prime Minister, who made these decisions that have left Australian travellers poorer. I recommend you support the bill.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll try and keep my comments less personal than what we just heard. I did note there wasn't much discussion about the actual bill in front of us in that contribution, so I will actually speak about the bill in front of us, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023.

A thriving aviation sector is vital not only to our economy but in supporting our way of life as Australians. It connects family, friends and communities with each other and the world and links businesses to markets. Aviation underpins our national and international supply chains and enables tourism, mining, construction, manufacturing and higher education—industries that are all of vital importance to our economy.

We do, however, face unique challenges with the aviation industry in Australia. While we are blessed to have such a vast land, our relatively small population has historically made it difficult for the industry to sustain more than two major players. It's partly for this reason that the aviation sector is one of the most concentrated in the Australian economy, with the two major carriers accounting for 95 per cent of the domestic market.

On top of this, recent structural changes to the sector have led to a cosy arrangement between the two major carriers, in which Qantas Group and Virgin have more or less agreed to no longer compete head to head with each other and instead focus on carving out niche markets. While this might be great for the major airlines, this reduction in competitive tension can only lead to higher prices and poorer services for consumers.

We've already seen a sharp rise in complaints about the airlines from consumers increasingly frustrated by flight cancellations and delays in recent times, which remain well above the long-term trends. Added to this is the unscrupulous behaviour of Qantas, which, among other questionable practices, thought it was appropriate to sell seats on flights that they never intended to schedule. When you couple this with a broken system that has made getting a refund for cancelled flights or honouring flights near impossible, it's not hard to see that there are some serious problems with competition between our domestic carriers.

All Australians want and deserve a more competitive aviation sector. We all want and deserve an aviation sector that offers strong protections for consumers but also does much better when it comes to looking after the interests of the 90,000 workers employed in the industry. We all want and deserve a more competitive airline industry that delivers more choice for Australians facing cost-of-living pressures.

The Albanese government is committed to delivering a fairer and more competitive aviation sector—one that works in the interests of Australians. Last month the Treasurer, the Hon. Jim Chalmers, alongside the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon. Catherine King, announced that the Albanese government will direct the ACCC to monitor domestic air passenger services to help ensure Australians see the benefits of a more competitive airline sector.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy President, would you ask them to lower their interjections a bit? I've got a bit of a sore throat. I don't want to have to yell over the top of them all the time.

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

I note that you did interject yourself, Senator Bilyk—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not so loudly, Deputy President.

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

but please restrain yourselves, to my left.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Along with extra resourcing, this direction will provide the ACCC with the necessary legislative powers to gather information and documents from relevant stakeholders within the industry and allow for more informed recommendations on competition and consumer issues within the domestic airline sector. It will ensure that airlines compete on their merits, bringing to light any inappropriate market conduct and providing continued transparency at a time when new and expanding airlines are establishing themselves.

Although a similar direction was initiated by the previous government, monitoring was scheduled to end in June 2023. So here we go: a similar direction was initiated by the previous government with monitoring scheduled to end in June 2023. Under the previous government, 12 reports were received from the ACCC, which painted a damning picture of declining customer service standards, higher prices, record cancellations and record delays. What did they do with that information? Zilch. Absolutely nothing. They did absolutely nothing.

For our part, as the responsible government of the day, we welcome the findings of these reports from the ACCC. We welcome both the challenges posed by the domestic aviation industry as well as the opportunity to make real progress in tackling the issues faced. For these reasons we've decided to restart the ACCC monitoring of domestic air passenger services. However, in stark contrast to the previous government, the Albanese government will use the information gathered through the ACCC monitoring to help inform the aviation white paper, which will set the policy direction for the sector out to 2050. This aviation white paper, due to be released in 2024, will be the first for the industry in over 10 years—

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

Sorry, Senator Bilyk, Senator Smith is on his feet, and I'm anticipating a point of order.

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

I think I've been operating under an illusion. I thought the government was elected in May last year—

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

This is not a point of order, Senator Smith. You know better. Senator Smith, I do note we're going to hear from you shortly. Senator Bilyk, please continue.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can always tell when you hit the mark with the other side, because they stand up with some gratuitous point of order.

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

Please proceed.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This aviation white paper, due to be released in 2024, will be the first for the industry in over 10 years since the then minister for transport, Anthony Albanese, released the previous one in 2009. It will be the first one in over 10 years, because we all know what happened when the other side were in government—nothing.

We do this because, unlike the previous government, we recognise the urgent need to bring an end to the uncertainty facing the aviation sector that proliferated unabated under the watch of the previous government. It will enable and encourage long-term investment, particularly from new and emerging carriers, through the creation—

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

Senator McKenzie has a point of order.

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

I think Senator Bilyk is impugning Minister King by saying she's urgent. She's nothing of the sort.

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

You know that's not a point of order. You should know better. Senator Bilyk.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly; she should know better.

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

Don't add salt into the wound.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I'm very happy to say that, once again, there's another gratuitous point of order. On this side you can always tell when you've hit a nerve, because that's what happens from that side.

As I said, unlike the previous government, we recognise the urgent need to bring an end to the uncertainty facing the aviation sector. We absolutely understand the urgent need. It will enable and encourage long-term investment, particularly from new and emerging carriers, through the creation of a more level playing field while ensuring that we maintain and improve our internationally enviable safety record. It's a demonstration of this government's commitment not only to the aviation sector but to all communities and consumers affected by the aviation industry.

The government does not, however, support the passage of the bill proposed by the opposition. While we acknowledge the value of providing the ACCC with resources to monitor the aviation sector, the proposed bill merely duplicates the functions of the ACCC direction under section 95H of the Competition and Consumer Act already agreed to by government. If passed, it would require the ACCC to produce multiple reports to government on the same industry—an exercise in bureaucratic red tape if ever there was one. Not only that, in its current draft the bill will not provide the ACCC with the vital information-gathering powers it would need to obtain information and data from relevant suppliers. Without any power to compel relevant stakeholders to hand over documents or data, the ACCC role will essentially be confined to conducting desktop research only—all of which is of limited value in its aim of increasing competition within the sector.

Passage of this bill would also require an insertion of provisions into the Competition and Consumer Act, but for what purpose? It simply duplicates what is much more easily achieved through the directive process already announced by the government. On top of that, inevitably the bill would need to be removed through formal legislative amendment—a further waste of time and a further exercise in bureaucratic futility, and I suspect that the opposition know this too.

Why are they proposing this bill now, anyway? They could have introduced it at any time during their almost 10 years in government. All of a sudden, in opposition, they can become active. I suspect it's because they know that this is nothing more than a political stunt designed to deflect attention from their own lack of action over the past 10 years. And we shouldn't forget that competition within the aviation sector was allowed to decline to the state it is in today under their watch.

And while we're on the subject of the former government, we should take a look at the significant part they played in helping Qantas gain an unfair advantage in the aviation sector during the pandemic. What happened? Well, the previous government was happy to shell out a total of $2.7 billion in taxpayer funded payments to help the airline remain afloat during the pandemic—$2.7 billion. This included $900 million in JobKeeper payments and an additional $1.8 billion in other government assistance programs. While Labor agrees that efforts were necessary to sustain the airline industry during the pandemic, this no-strings-attached funding arrangement is yet another illustration of the incompetence of the former Morrison government. Despite posting a record profit of a whopping $2.5 billion for the last financial year, Qantas has no intention of repaying any of the taxpayer funding it received from the government, nor is it required to. That's right: the former government, in their infinite wisdom, designed the JobKeeper program with no requirements for companies to repay the Commonwealth, even when beneficiaries of the scheme were actually increasing their profits. Worse still, instead of using the money to protect the jobs and entitlements of their workers, Qantas were shamelessly outsourcing thousands of jobs in baggage handling, catering and even flight attendants.

The former government either didn't notice or, I think, simply didn't care. Not only were taxpayers being taken for a ride; the lives of thousands of loyal Qantas workers were being completely shattered. I've spoken in this place before about dnata workers who were stood down and who had to eat tinned food to get by, and I met with flight attendants who were trying to live on $750 a fortnight. Over 5,000 dnata workers had no access to JobKeeker payments, and 4,000 were stood down, forced to join the unemployment queues and fend for themselves, all while Qantas was making huge profits. The same happened to hundreds of flight attendants employed under labour hire agreements, including 28 in my home state of Tasmania. The previous government made no provisions whatsoever to require Qantas to protect the jobs of their workers in return for the billions in taxpayer dollars they were receiving. This is not the behaviour of a responsible government, and it's certainly not the way to create a more competitive aviation industry.

Unlike its predecessors, this government is serious when it comes to increasing competition within the sector. We do so by recognising that we need a much more level playing field not only for the established airlines but for new and emerging players as well. We welcome and encourage an increased market share from smaller airlines, such as Rex and Bonza, but recognise that price competitiveness is not the only barrier to achieving this. As highlighted in the June 2023 report from the ACCC, a major barrier to new and emerging players is access to airport landing and take-off slots, most notably at Sydney airport. The current system allows for capacity restraints, such as take-off and landing slots, to be gamed or engineered to favour established players, stifling competition and ensuring the duopoly remains deeply entrenched. If we are to truly transform and modernise our aviation industry, there are many areas that will need to be reformed, not least of which is urgently addressing consumers' and workers' rights.

Whilst monitoring airline prices, profits and passenger numbers gives us some very useful information, it will do little in itself to bring about meaningful reform or address the far wider issues facing our domestic aviation industry. But we will not go down the path of amending legislation simply for the sake of it, as the opposition is proposing. Instead the Albanese government is taking the far more responsible and pragmatic approach of using data from the ACCC direction to inform our aviation white paper to bring about the most comprehensive change to the industry in over a decade.

I'd just like to reiterate that, in the previous 10 years, there were many, many reports that were never acted upon by that side. So for them to come in with this bill before us and carry on—quite hysterically, I might say it sounded, especially with interjections—is once again just the other side not accepting that they did the wrong thing, trying to make it look as though we're not doing the right thing, when, of course, we certainly are. All I can say to that side is: Really, guys? You do yourselves no favours. If you had have taken a responsible and pragmatic approach in the 10 years you were in government, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today and we wouldn't have to continually clean up the mess that you guys left behind.

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 speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023, and I commend Senators McKenzie and Smith for advancing this bill. The bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to direct the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to continue its monitoring program of prices, costs and profits in the Australian domestic airline industry.

The Morrison government initiated this monitoring on 19 June 2020, and it sunset in June this year. The Albanese government decided not to continue the monitoring. Perhaps former Qantas CEO Alan Joyce asked the Prime Minister in one of their many meetings for a favour, a favour for Alan Joyce and his masters, Qantas's shareholders BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Goldman Sachs and their cronies. All love monopolies and oligopolies! This Labor government seems to have opened more doors for captains of industry than it does for everyday Australians.

The ACCC's Airline competition in Australia report from June 2023 identified ongoing issues connected to insufficient competition within Australia's domestic airline industry.

The lack of competition has led to higher airfares and a decline in service quality. Cancellations have increased from one per cent before COVID to six per cent now. On-time running has fallen from a high of 92 per cent before COVID to just 70 per cent now, which, admittedly, is an improvement on the 64 per cent Qantas and Virgin were managing just a few months ago. By any measure, this poor performance is unacceptable. I remind people that the word 'Joyced' has entered the Australian vernacular to describe having one's travel plans shafted due to Qantas's incompetence, arrogance and greed.

The reason Qantas and Virgin are still occupying a position of total market dominance—94 per cent of the market—is that they don't have any competition. I recall being in a hearing on industrial relations in Rockhampton recently with Qantas government relations people sitting in front of us. I expressed my safety concerns because Qantas's culture has deteriorated despite having outstanding staff at all levels, from pilots to ground staff to stewards to bookings clerks, all thoroughly competent, committed people. That deterioration has come from the top. The staff are wonderful; the leadership is poor.

Look at the 'yes' campaign livery of an airliner—a 60-metre flying billboard costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to paint the 'yes' livery. That shows the arrogance of the Qantas executives because they know that they have domination of the market. They have market control, and market control brings arrogance. They're also pushing for short-term gains for executive management under their compensation schemes, and then the former executive, Alan Joyce, serves the government politically, in many ways, and he's done that repeatedly. My big concern is that, when the culture deteriorates—from Qantas's fine culture of a few decades ago—safety can unwittingly be compromised. That is a vital concern for me. I'll point out that it's not regulation that creates a customer focused operation; it's a competitor running a customer focused operation.

James Strong did a marvellous job at Qantas—and TAA—before it was privatised. Short of having another wonderful executive come along, it is a competitor running a customer focused operation that creates a customer focused operation and will restore Qantas and Virgin. Free market competition will deliver the lowest price with the highest service and safety every time—if it is allowed to! Sadly, Australia is a small market, and many industries have, over time, become oligopolies. Grocery retailing is another example of a market gone bad into an oligopoly.

Bonza airlines to took 14 years to get in the air over Australia because of our airline industry's barriers to entry. Six months after their first flight, the Albanese government terminated the ACCC project that helped Bonza finally get into the air in the first place. Perhaps the final ACCC report from June spooked the government's big business mates, Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, Goldman Sachs and their cronies. That final ACCC report found that, while the emergence of small carriers has opened possibilities for increased competition in the domestic airline sector, these airlines would need significant growth to genuinely challenge the dominance of Australia's largest two carriers. There's no real competition, even with Bonza in. Restrictions remain favourable to Qantas and Virgin to protect them from direct market competition and force the Australian flying public, the consumers, to pay more than they need to.

Over the past 20 years, 90 per cent or more of domestic passengers have opted to fly with Australia's two largest carriers. As of April 2023, these two airline conglomerates accounted for 94 per cent of all domestic passengers. Former Qantas Group executive and Jetstar chief Jayne Hrdlicka is now head of Virgin. So it's a nice, tidy little cabal. They force regional flyers to pay exorbitant fares. Regions are the bedrock of Australia, and yet we're asking them to support a monopoly.

This bill largely replicates the previous direction. Monitoring will take into consideration the need for commercial confidentiality. The ACCC must publish each report on the website, and the minister must cause the report to be tabled in parliament. In the House Standing Committee on Economics hearing into promoting economic competition in June 2023 Tim Jordan, the Chief Executive Officer of Bonza Aviation, made this statement:

… the path was lengthy. This project took from late 2009 until early 2023 to come to fruition. That tells you the barriers to entry in Australia—

14 years—

It is a sad indictment of the existing duopolistic environment that, although we would have very positive conversations with potential Australian investors, they would conclude—

'they' being the investors—

'This sounds great, and we believe in the scale of the opportunity, but unfortunately the incumbents will not allow you to prosper.' That is a sad indictment of the competitive nature of this market segment.

I feel Mr Jordan's pain and the flying public's pain.

I know those proposing a new Australian steel industry in North Queensland and northern Western Australia are, despite promising news for the project, hearing exactly the same thing from some investors. The sums add up for an Australian steel industry, adding tens of thousands of breadwinner jobs and national security, yet government incompetence and the woke agenda means these companies will consider investing in foreign markets instead. The actions of the Albanese government in refusing to extend the monitoring are another example of a government that has no clue how to create real jobs and how to lower prices for everyday Australians—at a time of high inflation, high cost of living and high energy prices: stick it to the Australian consumer.

Mr Jordan went on to say:

Going back to your point about the barriers to entry, when you have constrained slots—

That's the airport gates—

and other entry issues, such as access to a choice of suppliers, it slows down growth and the ability to accelerate and achieve economic efficiencies so as to continue to be viable.

The ACCC has much work to do here. Qantas and Virgin must not be allowed to exploit their market power to protect their market share in a manner that is legally indefensible and thereby force Bonza to fail. Bonza must be allowed access to airport gates, access to maintenance shops and access to suppliers at fair market price. Anything else is crony capitalism.

For those who have been 'Joyced'—shovelled off to a hotel in the middle of the night instead of sleeping in your bed, had luggage disappear and later return damaged, or missed international connections and been told, 'Not Qantas's problem'—no-one could argue we don't need more competition. No-one could argue that increased competition in the airline industry will lead to increased efficiencies right across the country. Bonza raises the hope of keeping these bastards honest and, at a time of high cost of living and inflation, giving consumers relief. It's the ACCC's job to give Bonza every opportunity to do just that.

I thank Senators Dean Smith and McKenzie for their bill, which One Nation will be supporting. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation. Restoring and defending competition in oligopolistic markets is a government obligation, an obligation that One Nation will work to ensure the government fulfils for the benefit of airline passengers and the whole country.

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

The coalition welcomes the support and the endorsement from Senator Roberts and from other senators in regard to this particular private senator's bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023. For all of the colour and movement in Senator Bilyk's contribution, I think it's very important that we stay on the facts and reiterate why it is important that this matter be addressed. You could be mistaken for thinking that Senator Bilyk was speaking from the coalition talking points when it comes to the importance of the aviation sector in our economy, the importance of the aviation sector to families and how they stay connected both domestically and internationally, and the importance of holding Australia's airlines accountable for deteriorating levels of service at a time when prices have been going up and up and up.

The core of this bill is actually to do nothing new but to extend an ACCC monitoring regime that has proved very successful—so successful that you can't find anyone in this country, except the Qantas group, who objects to extending the airline monitoring regime. Senator Bilyk said that the coalition instituted the ACCC monitoring regime—which is correct—and did nothing with the reports. Well, if Senator Bilyk had taken the time to read the reports she would know that it was only in the final report, issued in June this year, that a pathway to legislative and regulatory action was suggested by the ACCC.

We're at this point. The coalition is arguing that that regime should be extended and that, in addition to that, those points that were raised in the final report should be acted on: improvements to consumer protections, improvements to the Sydney airport slot management regime and an extension to the monitoring regime that was effectively asked for by the ACCC itself. At the very core of the issue—on one level it is so mundane but on another level so significant; just listen to this, please, Senator McKim, Senator Pocock—the government extracted a commitment, an arrangement, from the Australian Greens and Senator Pocock. I don't know the exact nature of that. I don't know the breadth of that arrangement. But I do know that you agreed not to support this bill, because the government said it would introduce its own extension to the same monitoring regime. Senator Pocock is nodding. And the government put it in writing on 18 October—23 days ago.

So, please explain to me why the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers—supported by the competition minister, Dr Leigh—had not put pen to paper. The fact that they had not put pen to paper for 23 days should leave the Australian Greens and Senator Pocock wondering, guessing, concerned—because I've got some questions. Perhaps Senator McKim and perhaps Senator Pocock might be able to answer this in their own contributions: will the monitoring regime that the government committed to in a media release commence only from the first day that the last regime ended? Or will it begin at a future point? And does that mean that Australian consumers and the aviation sector generally will be left with a monitoring black hole?

It's not my nature and it's not Senator McKenzie's nature—I think many would agree—to use the private senator's bill opportunity that this Senate presents to bring flippant and unnecessary ideas to the floor of the Senate chamber; it is not. We have had lots of noise about aviation issues in our country over a good six months, necessary because Australian consumers are paying a high price for delay and getting very poor levels of service. And let's go back to the ACCC monitoring report, the very final one, and remind ourselves of what it said. You don't actually have to read very far; you only have to start at page 2. The report says:

After showing signs of improvements earlier in the year, the latest rates of flight cancellations and delays have gotten worse and remain poor compared to long-term industry averages. The industry cancelled 3.9% of flights in April 2023, compared with the industry long-term average of 2.1%. Jetstar continued to perform significantly worse than the rest of the industry. It cancelled 8.1% of flights in April, more than double the rate of the other airlines.

The industry reported that only 71.8% of flights arrived on-time in April, well below the industry long-term average of 81.5%.

It goes on to say:

The duopoly market structure of the domestic airline industry has made it one of the most highly concentrated industries in Australia, other than natural monopolies. 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.

Senator Bilyk remarked in her contribution, in a way of almost resignation, that Australia suffered from the consequences of being constrained by population over a large geographic area, that we couldn't do better than two airlines in our country. That's not true. It's the regulatory environment that is stifling aviation operators like Rex and Bonza in establishing their place in the aviation sector. They are not going to be the size of Qantas or Virgin, but it's the current regulatory arrangements that are denying them the opportunity to grow—and, when they do grow, the predatory behaviour of Qantas in particular makes it very difficult for them. Again, these were identified in the airline monitoring regime.

The question is this: on what date, Senator Pocock, Senator McKim and backbench Labor senators, do you expect Dr Chalmers to issue the instruction to the ACCC? I kid you not: it is a letter. It is two pages.

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

Today.

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

Today? Thank you, Senator Pocock.

It is not our custom to clap.

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

Slow clap!

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

That makes it all the more ridiculous. That makes it all the more outrageous. When this private senator's bill appeared and was on the Senate Notice Paper, guess what happened? Dr Chalmers and Dr Leigh woke up. The least they could do for Australian consumers, they did. There is a media statement, everyone goes back to sleep, there is nothing to see, a private senator's bill comes up for debate and, oh, Senator Pocock has been given a commitment by Dr Chalmers or Dr Leigh that it will happen today. Is that how the government functions? I will put my hand up and say that, for the next three days in the Senate, we should only have private senator's bills. Senator Payman, Senator McKim, we should only have private senator's bills—

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith, you are advised to address your comments through the chair, please.

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

and, Senator David Pocock, we should only have private senator's bills because guess what happens? The government might wake up and might come back to work, and this country might start moving forward.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith, I have asked you to address your comments through the chair. Have you finished your contribution?

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

No.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continue, but please address your comments to—

Senator Henderson, I'm speaking. Senator Smith, could you please address your comments through the chair. Please proceed.

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

I notice that the minister, Senator Watt, is also in the chamber. I wonder if Senator Watt can confirm—

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Smith, you're also aware that you're not to reflect on the presence of senators in the chamber. Please proceed.

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

Given Senator Pocock's revelation—and the Senate chamber thanks Senator Pocock for the revelation, and I'm sure those of us that watch ACCC matters very closely will be on the internet waiting, waiting, waiting—perhaps the government might like to take a question in question time to confirm what Senator David Pocock has released.

Let's go back through the last 23 days. We still don't know, Senator Pocock—through you, Chair: does the regime begin at the period at which the last regime ended or is there a monitoring black hole that will soon be detailed?

On 18 October, the Albanese government announced by media release it would reinstate the monitoring for three years, commencing before the end of the year. 'Before the end of the year' is what the media statement said. So we might get the direction today, but it might still begin at some future point.

During Senate estimates on 20 October, both Minister Gallagher and Treasury officials confirmed the direction from the Treasurer to the ACCC to commence the monitoring had still not been initiated. We know that, and now we know that it's going to happen today. On the details of that we're still unsure. We wait anxiously. In the same estimates hearing, Minister Gallagher and Treasury officials noted that the ACCC would require time to prepare for the monitoring to begin, but the ACCC chair herself refuted this, confirming that the ACCC has maintained its monitoring team and is ready to begin the monitoring immediately. So again I say: why have we been waiting? Why have consumers not been protected? The ACCC chair went on to say that the ACCC was able to run the monitoring program from when the previous regime ended on 30 June 2023 without a gap. I wait with great interest. Will we see the direction today? What are the terms and conditions under which the monitoring regime will begin? And the question still remains: why did we have to wait? I'm prepared to take Senator David Pocock's admission this morning that it will happen today, but I don't trust that the government will deliver on its commitment to Senator David Pocock. We wait anxiously.

If the government can be dragged kicking and screaming to reinstating the ACCC monitoring regime, I'm putting the government on notice now that the coalition will bring forward consumer protections to the parliament in the next six months if the Labor government can't or if the Labor government won't. I'm putting them on notice, because the consumer protection piece is an important piece that is also raised in that final ACCC monitoring regime report. If it takes private senator's bills, I'm not opposed to bringing them to the parliament. Neither is Senator McKenzie. If aviation sector reform and improvements for consumers are going to happen only if the coalition brings private senator's bills to the Senate, then, with Senator McKenzie, I'm happy to do that. The coalition is happy to lead where the government will not on aviation competition reforms that protect consumer interests.

What a revelation. For a rather dry piece of competition policy—an ACCC monitoring regime—this has been a very colourful morning, a very interesting morning, already. It is a small thing. It should not have taken this long, but it did, so let's just let the government get on with it. Bring the direction forward, so that Senator McKenzie and I can go away and work on the next private senator's bill that will improve consumer protections. Senator Pocock and Senator McKim, we hope you might be inclined to support that bill when it comes to the parliament or at least to get a better deal out of the government.

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

I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023. There's limited time scheduled for private senator's bills from the opposition. If they believe this is the best use of their time, I despair of the state that we're in at the moment. It's been three weeks since the Albanese government announced it would be directing the ACCC to monitor domestic air passage services, yet three weeks later we are debating an utterly useless and inferior replica of what the government is already doing. As we all know, the ACCC had a similar monitoring function under the previous government. However, those across the way scheduled the monitoring to end in June 2023.

Those opposite had no problem with the monitoring scheme coming to an end until suddenly there was some political point scoring to be made, and now we have this bill, a bill that is inferior to the direction that the Treasurer has already made to the ACCC.

This bill does not provide the ACCC with necessary information gathering powers to seek information and data from relevant suppliers to inform observations and recommendations. So, in fact, the opposition's proposed monitoring scheme will be ineffective and largely useless, whereas the Treasurer's direction is not only superior to this bill but it also improves upon the previous monitoring scheme put in place by those opposite. So we've got a better scheme, a hopeless recommendation from the private members' bill, a previous government that had it finishing in June anyway and now a better scheme being proposed by the government.

It's one thing to have a monitoring scheme, but it's important to collect information and data about prices, costs and cancellations. What the Liberals and Nationals forgot is that what actually matters is what comes next—that is, what the government actually does with that information. They need it.

And what good is it commissioning reports that tell you how dire the aviation industry is, unless you want to politically point score, when you don't want to do anything about it, because that's what they're about. They aren't about doing something about it. It's purely about the facade of politics, not about effect and action, because there have been 12 reports under the previous government—those opposite—which found declining service standards and higher prices but were not acted on. Not one single report! And they come here with a bill which is inferior to what the government's announced under a scheme that they proposed to be abolished in June this year. It really sums up the previous government: it's all about the announcement, never about the delivery.

Clearly those opposite didn't think declining service standards and higher prices were an issue while they were in government. That's why they did nothing with 12 reports. In fact, that's why they did nothing about the wide range of issues in the aviation sector for nearly 10 years. For those 10 years the Liberals and Nationals could have fixed the issues that they suddenly claim to care about now.

In contrast to those opposite, the Albanese government will use the ACCC monitoring to help inform the aviation white paper, which is setting the policy direction for the sector out to 2050. That's the difference between those opposite, who talk about aviation and then think about the opportunity to play politics, and this government, which is focused on a longer term strategy for the sector.

It's a recurring theme when it comes to those opposite and the aviation sector. In February 2021, the former government received the Harris review into Sydney airport's demand management scheme. Maybe even those opposite might have listened, maybe even the shadow minister, and of course they did nothing—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Sheldon! Could you resume your seat. Senators on my left, if you wish to hold a meeting, please leave the chamber. It is distracting. Senator Sheldon, you have the call.

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

They didn't do anything with it, because the former government received the Harris review in February 2021 and nothing was done with it. Low and behold, as soon as the Liberals and Nationals are out of government, it's suddenly an urgent priority! The Harris review in February 2021 and 12 reports—all of a sudden there's time to play politics.

The Liberals and Nationals did a complete 180 on the Qatar Airways. When Qatar Airways came to then Minister Michael McCormack in 2018, he initially said he would be happy to increase their weekly route access from 21 to 28, but then a week later he suddenly changed his mind. He backflipped without reason or explanation and then refused to give them seven routes for another four years. Why? Why did the then minister, Minister McCormack, suddenly backflip on his Qatar decision? As it turns out, he hired a Qantas executive as his new chief of staff!

This brings me to the next piece of rank hypocrisy on display from those opposite: the cosy relationship between the Liberals and Nationals and Alan Joyce and Qantas.

Now they are in opposition, suddenly those opposite are very worried about Joyce's management of the airline. But where were they for the last 15 years?

Opposition senators interjecting—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sheldon, resume your seat. Order on my left! Senator Cash! Standing order 197 says that interruptions are out of order. You will listen to Senator Sheldon, provocative as he may be in his points, in silence.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for managing the chamber, Acting Deputy President. I would point out that a number of opposition speakers have been heard in respectful silence, despite the provocative nature of their comments. I'd ask that the same courtesy be extended.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, resume your seat.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you incapable of basic courtesy?

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, resume your seat. As you pointed out, I was managing the chamber. Putting petrol on a fire is not actually helpful if what you want is an ordered environment. The chamber will respect the standing orders. Standing order 197 says that interruption of speakers is disorderly. Senator Sheldon, you have the call.

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

I was talking about the cosy relationship between the Liberals and Nationals and Alan Joyce and Qantas. Now they are in opposition, suddenly those opposite are very worried about Joyce's management of the airline—lo and behold. But where were they for the last 15 years? I know where I was. I was standing with aviation workers whose lives were being destroyed by those opposite and Alan Joyce.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, I have just called the chamber to order twice. You will respect the standing orders.

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

Where were they when Ansett collapsed? The Howard government sat on its hands and let it all happen, to the great benefit of Qantas. I was there when Alan Joyce became Qantas CEO. The first thing he did was begin setting up labour hire companies to undercut Qantas's longstanding workplace agreements, something they still support. This was all with the explicit support of the Liberals and Nationals. I was there when Alan Joyce grounded the entire Qantas fleet in 2011 because some of their workers were wearing the wrong-coloured ties as a form of industrial action. Again, the Liberals and Nationals supported Joyce the whole way. I was there when Alan Joyce successfully lobbied the Morrison government to let Virgin collapse during the pandemic, while they gave Qantas $2.7 billion, without obligations. I was there when Alan Joyce illegally sacked 1,700 people. This government intervened in that case, on behalf of the workers. But what did the previous government do? Minister McCormack said that illegally sacking 1,700 people was 'in the best interests of the company going forward'. Christian Porter said that illegally sacking 1,700 people was 'a good model'. Senator Cash said, of illegally sacking 1,700 people, 'Qantas are entitled to make those decisions.' Either those three ministers were improperly influenced by Qantas or they genuinely supported Alan Joyce destroying the lives of thousands of people. Which one was it?

I want to go to the evidence provided by Damien Pollard to the Select Committee on Bilateral Air Services in September. Mr Pollard was one of the 1,700 illegally sacked Qantas workers who were abandoned and left for dead by those opposite. Here's what he said about the level of support he received from those opposite in his struggle against Alan Joyce:

Mr Morrison refused to meet us, and I can remember that quite clearly. It's very hard to explain that we actually felt abandoned by the government of the time because nobody would meet with us, except for the—

Labor—

opposition. The—

Morrison—

government offered no support, and they continued to praise Qantas and say that it was a decision for Qantas. That feeling of abandonment was quite striking. I can remember, many times, various politicians and prime ministers saying, 'We will govern for everybody,' and we just felt that nobody wanted to tackle Qantas. We were left to sink or swim until … the—

Labor—

opposition came in, as well as the TWU, and started supporting us.

Mr Pollard went on to say:

Scott Morrison, as I said before, refused to meet with us. Michael McCormack did meet me once. He said he could look for some support service hotlines for us. I also remember quite clearly that he told me the best thing that ever happened to him was being retrenched in his early 40s. I thought at that time, 'It may have worked for you, but it's not working for a lot of my colleagues.' I thought it was rather a strange comment.

…   …   …

It seems quite strange to say, but the gentleman who we met with that day seemed more interested in telling his own story than listening to our story. That was the common consensus amongst the other delegates who attended that meeting that day.

That is the experience of Qantas workers—desperately trying to get support from those opposite in their fight against Alan Joyce. The best they got was a number for a support line and an anecdote from the then minister about the great opportunity it is to be illegally sacked. Isn't that just disgraceful? Doesn't that really just show up the hypocritical—

Opposition senators interjecting—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators on my left, we support the rules-based order globally. We are a pluralist, liberal democracy, which means people who have different views are to be afforded the respect to express those views. If you don't support cancel culture then you will support the standing orders and allow people who say things you don't agree with to have their say in silence, in accordance with standing order 197.

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

Doesn't this really show the hypocritical attitude from those opposite? They were very happy to do Alan Joyce's dirty work when they were in power, but now are trying to rewrite history. This is in contrast to what Mr Pollard said about the support he got from the Labor opposition. Mr Pollard said to me that, while he was being ignored by every member of the Morrison government—excluding the patronising advice he got from Mr McCormack:

When our now government was in opposition, they did also support us many times about the outsourcing, through private meetings and also in the media …

…   …   …

As a group of baggage handlers we had the opportunity to talk to Mr Albanese, Catherine King, Tony Burke, Kirsty McBain … Linda Burney—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Sheldon, the time for this debate has expired. You will be in continuation.