Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

But they would be wrong, as the shadow minister said. I will explain to the minister who is at the table why that criticism would be wrong. The reason it is wrong is that although the coalition did historically increase the passenger movement charge, it made sure that any increases in the passenger movement charge flowed through in increased funding for Australia’s tourism industry. In fact, it was under the coalition that the Howard government provided the single biggest boost and the most policy support to Australia’s tourism industry, basically, in its history.

Under the white paper that the former minister for tourism, the member for North Sydney, introduced into the House, Commonwealth revenue—money that flowed directly to Tourism Australia to benefit Australia’s tourism industry and to help generate $23 billion worth of tourism exports—increased and uplifted Tourism Australia’s funding so that, for example, for the period from 2004 to 2005 we saw an increase from $135 million of Commonwealth support under the coalition for tourism to $218 million. But across the board there were very tangible and significant increases in support for Tourism Australia and for Australia’s tourism industry.

So, yes, we did increase the passenger movement charge, but we followed through with action that delivered in very real terms for the long-term benefit of Australia’s tourism industry. That stands in very stark contrast what has happened under the Rudd Labor government. The Rudd Labor government were critical at the time that the former coalition government increased the passenger movement charge; the now Minister for Tourism not only criticised that increase but he has now sat at the cabinet table under the Rudd Labor government and signed off on a $9 increase in the PMC—an extra nearly half a billion dollars of tourism tax—and he has said nothing. He has not even contributed to the debate today about what impact this will actually have on Australia’s export tourism industry or indeed, more broadly, on Australia’s tourism industry.

I say to the Rudd Labor government that it is time you took your hands out of the pocket of Australia’s tourism industry. If, however, there is a requirement for the Rudd Labor government to keep its hand in the pocket of Australian tourism, then at least follow through with real increases in funding. But the Rudd Labor government has done the opposite. We have actually seen a decrease in real terms of support for Australia’s tourism industry.

It should not be surprising that this has been the case because Labor has very strong form in this regard. Even yesterday, with the release of the Queensland state Labor government’s budget—and Queensland is in broad terms recognised if not as the premier state then at least as one of the key states when it comes to tourism—we saw that state Labor government cut tourism funding. Across the board we have seen many cuts by state Labor governments to tourism. Indeed, it is worth noting that, thanks in part to the increase in the passenger movement charge when the coalition was in power—money that was used, or hypothecated, if you like, to benefit Australia’s tourism industry—the coalition government put more money into tourism and more resources behind tourism than ever before, while state Labor and the minister at the table now, the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Debus, who actually presided as part of the Carr and Iemma Labor governments in New South Wales, ran the other way. As the coalition stepped up to the plate and provided record funding, we saw the Carr and Iemma governments running in the other direction away from the tourism industry.

Let’s look at some of the figures in New South Wales. We see that tourism funding—this was at the time that the coalition was putting in record amounts—was $50 million in 2002 and $54 million in 2003, which is a reasonable increase in real terms. But this was when all the problems started. In 2004 it went back to $52 million, then in 2005 it stayed at $52 million—no real increase. Then in 2006 it was cut further to $50 million. So over the period of about four or five years we saw that funding for tourism in New South Wales was at best flatlined and in real terms significantly cut.

That is Labor’s record of support of the tourism industry. That is why the amendment that is before the House today recognises—and this is under point (c)—that this is in fact a tourism tax increase that is part of nearly $940 million of new taxes on Australia’s tourism industry at a time when Labor is also cutting support for the industry in real terms. It is simply not good enough that the Minister for Tourism has sat silently around that Rudd Labor cabinet table and said nothing about this passenger movement charge. I would ask the minister at the table: did he manage to move this increase in the PMC over the protests of the Minister for Tourism? Was there any contribution from the Minister for Tourism or did he simply just look the other way as the industry that he is responsible for was gouged of funding and then further gouged with nearly $1 billion of new taxes?

I know that Australia’s tourism industry is rightly very angry with the Rudd Labor government, because their lack of support for this industry is coming at a time when the industry is doing it particularly tough. With such a high Australian dollar we know that Australia’s tourism industry—to use the word of the CEO of TTF, Christopher Brown—has ‘flatlined’. Actually that was his optimistic scenario—flatlined—at a time when in this region we are seeing significant growth in tourism numbers. It is no surprise that Australia’s tourism industry has flatlined, because the withdrawal of support for tourism by state Labor has been compounded now by the rubbing of salt into tourism wounds by federal Labor with this tax grab, coupled with others, and combined with a cut in real terms in tourism funding. It is no surprise that the tourism industry is justifiably angry and upset.

We are seeing the implications of this in so many different ways. Only a couple of days ago, as the member for Cook says—and he is a man who has a great knowledge of the tourism industry, particularly given his former role as managing director of Tourism Australia—we have seen concern in the tourism industry. It is no surprise that we have seen cuts in aviation capacity across Australia. Our key carrier, Qantas, and Australia’s other carrier, Virgin Blue, which is also anticipated to be likely to reduce services in the near future, are both battling very strong headwinds. The very strong headwinds of course are the price of oil or jet fuel. In this respect, at a time when this industry is doing it particularly hard and when we are seeing reductions in capacity, we see this leering Rudd Labor government looking and almost salivating at the prospect of being able to slug nearly $1 billion of new taxes on tourism and thinking that it will be okay because we will be able to sell it out there in the electorate as being a tax on tourists.

We know that this Labor government is traditional Labor—big taxing, big spending. Despite all the protests, despite the assurances from the Prime Minister that he is an economic conservative, we know that federal Labor is no different from state Labor and, just as state Labor has now racked up $92 billion of debt at a state level, it is only a matter of time before these economic incompetents that now sit on the Treasury bench destroy the Australian economy in the same way. This bill before the House today is simply another nail in the coffin. At a time when this industry is doing it so tough and when it needs policy support, and at a time when this industry was relying on the Rudd Labor government who promised so very much prior to the last federal election and who stood up with their chests out and said, ‘We will give tourism voice at the cabinet table,’ what do we see? Within six months we see this kind of bill being put through with nearly half a billion dollars of additional taxes. In that respect, this bill is very much going to be to the detriment of the tourism industry. It is a bill that should not, in my view and the view of the coalition, be before the House. It is going to do the opposite to what is anticipated. Its net effect is going to be to put extra pressure on Australia’s families and on the tourism industry and, in the long term, it will be another nail in the coffin of the Rudd Labor government, which has turned its back on tourism.

See this speech in context