Senator Aden Ridgeway
Portfolio: Industry, Small Business & Tourism
| Dated: 26 Sep 2001
Location: Parliament
|
Senator Ridgeway speaks to the Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Imposition) Bill 2001 and Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Collection) Bill 2001: Second Reading |
Senator RIDGEWAY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats) (10.58 p.m.) —My apologies for my enthusiasm: it is probably because it is getting close to the last hour. Like my colleague, Senator Greig, I would like to speak on the Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Collection) Bill 2001 and the Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Imposition) Bill 2001, and to give them my support. Primarily, I call on the government to put in place a comprehensive, long-term policy to support the growth of the Australian tourism industry, because I think there is a need for that. I state at the outset that the Australian Democrats do not want to stand in the way of any lawful measures that will see some or most of the 16,500 Ansett workers receive their entitlements. We believe this has to happen for the simple reason that these entitlements are the right of those who have worked so hard over so many years to accrue them.
It is also hard to understand why the tourism industry is being targeted once again as a source of funds, when the government finds itself in another critical situation and in need of large amounts of money. As Senators would recall, almost three months ago to the day this chamber was debating the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2001. At that time we saw an increase of some 30 per cent in the cost of departure tax on all airline and cruise ship tickets. That tax hike was essentially to fund the government's measures to guard against a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in this country. All parties in this chamber, and the tourism industry itself, recognised the seriousness of that threat. I think we also recognised that we needed to keep our clean and green image, particularly as it concerned tourism and how we projected ourselves abroad to international tourists contemplating a visit to this country. We all supported the increase in the PMC at that time, even though the Democrats questioned the appropriateness in policy terms of requiring the tourism industry to fund, single-handedly, what was in the first instance an agricultural problem. It was for that reason that I sought on that occasion to move amendments to the bill which would have had the effect of increasing the cost of the departure tax on each ticket by only $2.
Had that amendment been supported by either the ALP or the government, essentially it would have enabled $15 million of the passenger movement charge to be allocated to the Australian Tourist Commission to fund its international promotional and marketing budget, as well as over $56 million per annum to be allocated to the government's foot-and-mouth disease prevention measures. I recall that at the time of that debate Senator Schacht explained that the ALP did not trust the government to allocate the extra $2 of the passenger movement charge we proposed to the ATC; and nor did the opposition want to be seen to be supporting what, at that time, was regarded as an additional tax increase.
Tonight we find ourselves in an unusual predicament, but a position that is very much similar. However, instead of foot-and-mouth disease, we are given the option of blocking the only option this government has been prepared to put on the table to give some relief and some justice to the workers of Ansett. It seems to me that this is hardly a choice, because I do not think anyone in this chamber wants to see any of these Australians subjected to further financial insecurity and hardship. That is the only reason the Australian Democrats are supporting these bills—not because we think that they are a good idea, and certainly not because we think they are good law. It seems to me to be a reaction to circumstances beyond the control of the parliament and, for that reason alone, it is poor quality legislation.
As my colleague Senator Greig pointed out earlier, the two bills are another example of poor quality legislation that the government is putting before the Senate. It is overly complex and, in my view, it will be discriminatory against travellers in more remote parts of the country who need to travel more than one sector to reach their final destination. I find myself in agreement with many of the comments by Senator West in relation to the financial hardship that also has to be borne by regional and rural Australia.
To use the example of my own state of New South Wales, someone travelling from Bourke to Sydney has to travel via Dubbo. The round trip will now cost them $20 more and that is just for their air passenger ticket levy. It is not just a simple $10 increase that we are talking about for each ticket. We are talking about a $10 increase, as I understand it, in relation to each sector that is travelled by any person using air travel to get to their destination. I do not think that it will come as any surprise to fellow senators that airlines are not in the habit of discounting air tickets to destinations in regional Australia. Towns like Bourke, Brewarrina and Walgett in north-western New South Wales are fairly reliant on air transport as a link to centres like Dubbo and Sydney and they already pay some of the highest prices for air travel in this country. Now they are being asked to pay more—probably, on average, $20 for a return trip, or $60 per person per trip if they travel across three sectors to reach their destination.
For a government that regularly trumpets what it is doing to boost regional tourism in this country, I do not think that these two bills are a high watermark. The kind of policy making on the run that has become a hallmark of this government is, in my view, not in the best interests of tourism in this country, nor is it in the best interests of those in regional Australia that continue to rely upon air transport as a means of conducting their business. There is a need for a comprehensive strategy to deal with the Ansett crisis and to support the tourism industry and regional Australia and it is long overdue.
As I said in my opening remarks this evening, the Australian Democrats again call on the government to work with the tourism industry to put in place a long-term and comprehensive tourism industry strategy. We have been asking for this for over two years now and, in light of recent events in the United States, such a strategy has to be of utmost priority, because I do not believe that the full effects of what is happening in the US have quite been felt here at home and there is perhaps more to come.
We look forward to the outcomes of the Prime Minister's tourism industry working group which will report over the next month. We think that this is a step in the right direction and give credit where credit is due. But why did it take a crisis of the sort that has now been perpetrated upon Ansett for the government to even consider establishing such a body? Why was there not such a body already in place as a matter of course when these issues have been highlighted over a long period? I think we are also on record in recent weeks as having called on the government to develop a comprehensive response to the crisis to ensure that the whole question of meeting workers' entitlements when companies like Ansett go under is resolved once and for all.
Today the Treasurer announced that there is an underlying budget surplus for 2000-01 of $5.6 billion. Maybe the government would consider using one-tenth of those funds to provide a guaranteed interest free loan to Ansett as part of a wider strategy to stabilise the airline industry. We believe that at the least this would keep Ansett in the air for at least two months, during which time some of the other stabilising measures could be put in place. I acknowledge the announcement earlier this evening about the indemnity, if you like, that the government has undertaken in relation to at least putting planes in the air from this coming Saturday for the next 12 weeks.
I also mention today that Senator Murray has circulated two amendments to the Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 which would force company directors to return performance related bonuses paid to them if the company collapses and would make related companies liable for those debts. This is the fourth time that Senator Murray has circulated these amendments since 1998 to give effect to the Australian Law Reform Commission recommendations of the same year. On every occasion the government has rejected those amendments. It will be interesting to see what it does with those amendments on this occasion, particularly if it has already secured the Senate's consent to the air passenger ticket levy legislation.
I think that I also ought to point out in relation to the bills that we are dealing with that there is a need for a sunset clause. If the tourism industry is to be hit with yet another levy, that levy should only apply for the period necessary to fulfil the purpose for which it was created—in this case, to be able to meet the costs associated with the special employee entitlements schemes for Ansett group employees. Yet here we have another piece of legislation that puts in place a levy that is to apply indefinitely, or until the minister identifies a month after which no levy will be payable. And it gets better than that.
Even when the minister is satisfied that the purpose of the bill has been met, he or she can direct the levy to be paid to `a scheme prescribed by the regulations' of the legislation. And—surprise, surprise—the bill states in clause 23(2) that consolidated revenue is an appropriate scheme for the minister to nominate. Here we have it again that money is being collected for an indefinite period of time and the minister can make a decision that it can go into consolidated revenue. The Democrats appreciate that the government is not in a position to pinpoint a date by which time enough money will have been collected to meet the workers' entitlements. But certainly it is in a position to state in the legislation that once the purpose of the bill is achieved it ceases to charge the levy on future tickets.
I want to ask this question of government: why is the tourism industry again being singled out as a milking cow for the government on these particular issues? Why is regional Australia being singled out in having to pay proportionally higher fares to meet workers' entitlements when, quite frankly, we all have a responsibility to deal with what the government should have dealt with long ago? If the reason is that the government might have to meet the cost of paying other workers' entitlements, then it should take other legislative steps now to amend the Bankruptcy Act as the Democrats have suggested.
The passenger movement charge itself has been going into consolidated revenue for years. We are aware that the government has already been using the departure tax, or passenger movement charge, in a similar way to generate vast amounts of money for consolidated revenue. We only have to look at a recent report from the Australian National Audit Office from last year which states that the passenger movement charge is applied partly as a general revenue raising source and is no longer solely linked to cost recovery or customs, immigration and quarantine services. This has been confirmed by the Attorney-General in his answer to a question on notice, and indeed the Attorney-General stated that he is not considering any proposal to change those existing arrangements.
Furthermore, the Board of Airline Representatives recently went on the public record with the accusation that about $20 million in revenue from the passenger movement charge is not being spent on border control services. This is an accusation that does warrant further detailed investigation and a matter that the Australian Democrats want to see resolved to the satisfaction of all Australians, and most of all to the satisfaction of the tourism industry.
I want to call on the government to particularly take note of clause 23 in the bill and to perhaps give serious consideration to amending that clause to create a sunset clause in this bill. If this request is not met, we indicate now our intention yet again to disallow any regulation which tries to direct the levy into consolidated revenue. It seems the only fair outcome, given that so many—yet not everyone—seem to be footing the bill for entitlements without due consideration to trying to create some sustainabilty in the financial sense for the tourism industry and trying to give people in rural and regional Australia a fair go.
|
Information provided by the Australian Parliamentary Library.
This document is of Draft Status
|
|
