|
senate vote 2023-09-07#11
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-01-19 08:24:44
|
Title
Committees — Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements; Appointment- Committees - Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements; Appointment - Put the question
Description
<p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I move the motion as circulated:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-09-07.129.15):
- > *That the question be now put.*
- In other words, they voted in favour of ending debate and instead voting on the matter straight away.
<p class="italic">That a motion relating to the Select Committee on Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Birmingham?</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>President, the minister just moved a motion 'as circulated', yet I don't have a copy of the motion. I've been sitting in the chamber now for close to an hour and a half and it hasn't been circulated. I don't have a copy of it. President, I would like the minister or, now that he's spoken in moving his motion, somebody else to provide a copy of whatever the motion is that the chamber is being asked to consider, for the benefit of the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Thank you, Senator Birmingham.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I'm speaking to the minister's motion, President. I haven't—</p><p><i>A government member interjecting</i></p><p>He sat down.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Minister Farrell, you do need to resume your seat.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Thank you, President. I thank you for the clarity there in relation to what is happening. I'm keen to understand, because once again, as has happened time and time again on a Thursday afternoon, the government, in trying to clean up something they haven't liked during the week, have come in here and tried to pursue a suspension of standing orders. They've tried to wrestle around the numbers. We see frustration and confusion occurring on the crossbench, quite understandably, in terms of what the division is, what people are voting on. This is a government, in terms of transparency—</p> <p class="speaker">Linda White</p><p>It's in the <i>Notice Paper</i>!</p> <p class="speaker">Karen Grogan</p><p>Does someone want to give him his copy?</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Order on my right!</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I see a good senator from South Australia—</p> <p class="speaker">Linda White</p><p>It was circulated. It's in the <i>Notice Paper</i>. Keep up! Read it!</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I see a couple of senators waving around the <i>Notice Paper</i>. Guess what, senators? Your leader didn't mention that. He didn't mention that. I haven't seen any indication from Senator Farrell in the motions he's moved, the statements he's made or the lack of anything being circulated as to what it is that this Senate has been asked to vote on.</p><p>We had the situation before, in terms of the procedure being applied, where quite understandably Senator Pocock arrived in the chamber needing to have clarity provided and a division recommitted. Do you know the reason these problems are occurring? It's of course the lack of transparency from those opposite—the lack of transparency, the failure of those opposite to want to commit to reasonable, fair processes either in the way they manage this chamber or, indeed, in the way they manage the country overall.</p><p>What I suspect, from senators waving around their various <i>Notice Paper</i>s and the interjections from across the chamber, is that the motion Senator Farrell wants the Senate to consider is a motion that relates to changing in some way or other the terms of the select committee that this Senate agreed to set up into the government's decision around Qatar Airways. The government wouldn't be in this mess if only they could be transparent about that very decision. So a lack of transparency around the decision has been piled upon with a lack of transparency or confidence in the management of this chamber to create the mess that we see here before us right now.</p><p>We've had Minister Catherine King go through at least seven different explanations for why she took this decision. We've had various explanations and accounts. Then we had an attempt by the government during the course of this week, in having to answer questions in this chamber and in the other place, to circle the wagons and all say, 'Well, the decision was made in the national interest, and we won't say anything other than that it was made in national interest.' So it's: 'national interest, national interest, national interest'. When challenged in this place about the national interest grounds upon which the decision was made, we saw complete inability from those opposite to actually outline what those grounds were. The government wouldn't be in this mess if they had been able to define and clearly state what the grounds for the decision were.</p><p>This select committee has earned the thoughtful support of those on the crossbench, and I thank those on the crossbench who considered this issue carefully. Let's be honest: they haven't provided many wins for the opposition in the life of this Senate, so I want to acknowledge those on the crossbench who clearly, on this occasion, considered the issue carefully, after much advocacy by my colleague Senator McKenzie and others, and concluded that the lack of transparency from the government on this decision warranted proper scrutiny. That is why a select committee—and it's an extraordinary proposition for a select committee to happen—was set up to examine this.</p><p>Senator McKenzie, quite rightly, made sure that, because this was a very specific decision of government, there were very specific terms of reference for the select committee. It's a short, sharp, focused inquiry on this decision of government so that we can try to get to the bottom of who influenced the government to make this decision. What influence peddlers or others were involved? What role did the Prime Minister or other ministers play in relation to the making of this decision? What role did the Prime Minister's office or other ministerial offices play in relation to the making of this decision? There are a number of issues there. Critically, what analysis was undertaken in relation to the making of this decision? What was the input from other departments? The acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Farrell, is Minister for Trade and Tourism. I trust that he was consulted in the making of this decision, because surely it would be a serious abrogation of proper process and duty for the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government not to have consulted the Minister for Trade and Tourism about a decision with such consequential impact for the tourism industry and for trade in our country.</p><p>We've seen numerous examples, given by senators during the course of this week, of the consequences of this decision. Senator Brockman asked a very important question yesterday in relation to how this decision, for example, is linked to the government's policy to ban the live sheep export trade, quite rightly highlighting that the government has said, 'In banning the live sheep export trade we want to instead encourage Australia's sheep farmers to send more chilled meat, particularly to the market of the Middle East.' Well, for chilled meat to get to the Middle East, it needs planes, it needs flights, and it needs them to be going from Perth to Middle Eastern capitals. So was Minister King's decision in the national interest? If you're a sheep grazier in Western Australia who's looking to build alternative markets for your product, no, Minister King's decision was demonstrably not in the national interest for you as a sheep grazier.</p><p>Was Minister King's decision in the national interest for Senator Farrell's stakeholders in the tourism industry? Have a listen to the words of Graham Turner, the chief executive of Flight Centre. He called this one of the most ridiculous decisions he's ever seen made by a government. It's very clear from tourism and travel industry operators—from the big businesses such as Mr Turner's right down to the small businesses who rely upon seeing more tourists come through the doors of Australia—that, for each and every one of them, Minister King's decision was not in the national interest.</p><p>Is it in the national interest in relation to the competitiveness of our aviation sector? What do we mean when we talk about competitiveness? We mean the prices Australians pay and the availability of good, cheap reliable airfares and opportunities around the country. On that test maybe the jury's out, because it depends who you believe. It depends whether you believe the Prime Minister, who says, 'in Australia we have the most open aviation market in the world, bar none.' That's what the Prime Minister has said this year. He's also described it as the most competitive market in the world. That's the Prime Minister talking about Australia's aviation market. Yet, just today the government released its aviation green paper, which says, 'Australia's domestic aviation sector is highly concentrated, with few market participants.'</p><p>Let's compare and contrast the Prime Minister's statement, that ours is the most open aviation market in the world, with the aviation green paper's statement, that it is the most highly concentrated with the fewest participants. Credit to Minister Gallagher—somehow, she came in here and, when questioned about the obvious inconsistencies in the Prime Minister's statement, she said with a straight face that they're not inconsistent statements. Credit to Senator Gallagher. She's up for an Oscar! The Oscar goes to Senator Gallagher for her performance in terms of being able to deny that with a straight face.</p><p>I do hear the interjections from Senator McAllister, who seems to be of the view that there is no connectivity between international aviation and domestic aviation—</p> <p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p><p>Interesting concept.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>It is a very interesting concept, Senator Payne, because competition within the domestic sector is absolutely impacted by partner agreements between airlines and, critically, by the number of flights coming into this country and the pressure that creates for additional competition across the aviation sector. That is why Qantas's competitors are so particularly concerned.</p><p>Rest assured—it's not like Rex or Virgin are worried about competition on their flights to Qatar and Doha. They're not worried about that, because they don't fly to Qatar. They don't fly into Doha. They're worried about the feeder airlines that come in and give them business that creates more competition for them in terms of business with Qantas. That's why they're worried. It's the connectivity between the domestic and international markets. They are not completely discrete, separate markets. To pretend that they are is simply erroneous.</p><p>Most recently we've had Minister King, clutching at straws in desperation to try to explain how her decision is in the national interest, go back to the concerning incident that occurred at Hamad International Airport a couple of years ago. Senator Farrell outlined the details of the concerning incident that occurred, with some passengers—reprehensibly—being searched by authorities there. That was a very concerning and troubling incident. Representations were made by Australia at the time of that incident, by Senator Payne, the then minister for foreign affairs, and Australia made clear our concerns at the time.</p><p>I also note that, subsequent to making clear those concerns, the Australian department of foreign affairs, jointly with its Qatari counterpart, issued Qatar's apology to the affected individuals. The wrong was recognised by Qatar. We should all hope and trust that, in recognising that wrong, proper procedures have been put in place to make sure that never happens again. But, as I sought to highlight in my question to Senator Farrell today, there is a serious inconsistency in the logic that the government is attempting to apply, when Minister King says that that incident in Doha a couple of years ago was a factor that was considered in the context of the decision she made.</p><p>Minister King says it was considered in the context of the decision she made, and she decided not to grant Qatar Airways the extra flights. If she was so concerned by that incident from a couple of years ago as to not grant Qatar Airways the extra flights, you have to ask, then: why is it that ministers such as Minister Gallagher, Minister Farrell and Minister Wong have said in this place and, I know, in others that Qatar Airways can and should—they've encouraged Qatar Airways—put on more flights into the secondary airport markets where they don't face any restrictions? They've said that in relation to Perth, for example, they should put on bigger planes with extra seats.</p><p>Indeed, Senator Scarr. It makes no sense at all. If Minister King made her decision because she's concerned about people flying on Qatar Airways or through Doha, in particular, why on earth are the government then on the other hand arguing that they want more flights and more seats but just not into the airports that Qatar Airways had applied for?</p><p>Well, all the inconsistencies, of course, exist because the government are just covering up their own decision-making. They're unwilling and/or unable to actually be transparent and tell the truth in relation to this decision-making. That's the outrage of this situation. The Albanese Labor government have made a decision that they claim is in the national interest, but they are completely incapable of saying what those national interest grounds are. They have made a decision where they claim not to have been unduly influenced by other stakeholders, but they won't be remotely transparent about who those influences and stakeholders were. They claim that they're standing up for competition, but at the same time they're acting in ways that shut down competition. They claim they're supporting the resurgence and recovery of our tourism industry, but then they make it harder for tourists to get to Australia. They claim they're helping to transition sheep graziers, but they limit cargo capacity for sheep graziers. None of this stacks up as being in the national interest. Maybe there's something we don't know or understand, but that's why we need the proper inquiry. It's a mystery as to why this government has fought tooth and nail against this inquiry, unless it's got something to hide.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|