Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to address concerns in the tourism industry about the performance of the industry and, more especially, the lack of performance of the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, Fran Bailey. Let us first look at the performance of the minister. A search of Hansard reveals that the minister has spoken a total of 10 times in parliament on tourism matters. I note grins on the faces of the Liberal Party members from Victoria, who covet her position on the front bench—which might fall to them at some point in the future should they finally take her out for nonperformance. She did not even manage to walk to the dispatch box once during the years of 2004 and 2005. I must say that I am surprised at this, because walking is a very beneficial exercise that should be encouraged, along with debate in this House. The minister did not speak once over a two-year period and has spoken only a total of 10 times in the last six years. That is a figure I can count on my two hands and exactly one-seventh of the number of times that I have stood before the House and spoken about tourism.

I would also point out that I have placed 35 questions on notice relating to tourism and the public record, some of which she is tardily answering. Around a quarter of these were asked before I accepted the portfolio three years ago. I also find it difficult to accept that she has sought to frustrate some freedom of information requests that I have made, despite the fact that I have put forward the appropriate initial contribution to facilitate that process financially. I have also spoken a total of 70 times in contributing to parliamentary debate relating to tourism issues. I note that the member for Moncrieff asked a question about where the Labor Party was on tourism. Perhaps the member for Moncrieff—who also covets the position of tourism minister—should have a quiet word with his colleagues about the performance of the minister for tourism. As a result of her absence from the debate, he is frequently engaged in discussions with the industry and colleagues about the fact that he would do a better job than her, because he also regards her as being missing in action.

Let us go to some more serious issues. There is a huge question mark about the performance of the industry in the minds of a lot of people in the tourism industry at this particular point in time. It is about time that we had a factual debate and confronted the sluggishness of the tourism industry both domestically and internationally under the so-called leadership of the minister for tourism. That is the real question that we should be discussing in the House—what is the Howard government doing about the lack of leadership at a federal level from the minister, and what is she going to do about turning this sluggishness around?

I moved a second reading amendment to the Tourism Australia Amendment Bill that the House express its concern at the industry’s current poor health. This second reading amendment put on the record the concerns of the industry and the opposition about the tourism industry’s current poor health. The minister, for some strange reason, took exception to this aspect being highlighted in the House—in fact, she took exception to the entire amendment as being ‘very disappointing.’ I must say I am not surprised at her reaction. She does not want a debate on the health of the tourism industry because she knows that, if that happens, she is in trouble for nonperformance and nonleadership. That is why she does not like the opposition to talk about the facts.

The fact is that international tourism increased by 0.6 per cent last year—just 0.6 per cent! And that was solely due to—guess what? An influx of tourists from Great Britain who came here for the Ashes series. Where would we have been without that cricket tour? If we did not have that, the minister would be scrambling to explain a deficit in the number of inbound tourists coming to our shores. Even the head of the Australian Tourism Export Council described the increase as ‘low’. He went on to say that, while the aim of attracting higher spending, longer staying visitors was paying off, the lack of growth in market share was a huge concern to Australia. I agree with the head of ATEC: it is a real concern.

Global tourism has never been stronger yet we as a nation are not grasping our share of that growth. The rest of the world is increasing its market share but we as a nation are not. New and highly lucrative markets are emerging, and they are there for the taking, yet we are set to become a loser in missing some of these opportunities due to the lack of leadership from the minister for tourism.

The minister was also in a rather defensive mode over my call for greater collaboration between the federal and state governments. She effectively said that she is not interested in that approach. I am aware that as a member of federal Labor it may be perceived that I have a natural bias against the federal government. So in my defence against the minister’s claim about this need for partnership—she believes that this aspect of the debate is absurd—I turn to the press. Last year, the Australian Financial Reviewwhich even the opposition would have to agree is a reputable source—reported on two separate occasions that there was a serious case of pork barrelling going on in the Australian Tourism Development Program. Who signs off on that program? The minister for tourism. The rorting in fact benefited the member for Moncrieff, whose electorate received $100,000 to renovate—guess what? Dracula’s Haunted House. I am sure the minister for tourism has visited that tourism opportunity.

But that was not the only skeleton in the closet of the government’s pork-barrelling spending spree. The minister’s own electorate of McEwen received the maximum possible amount through the program of half a million dollars for a marketing program. That is not for bad on the pork barrelling for the minister for tourism, especially in her own backyard, which neighbours the member for Scullin’s electorate. In fact, of the 45 grants allocated under the program in the latest round, 30 were made to coalition seats and four were bestowed on Independents. Is this an example of the minister’s collaboration between the federal and state governments? Not from what I hear from state and territory transport ministers. They consider that the government is dishing out taxpayer funded grants totalling $31 million under the program to Liberal seats. I understand the member for Aston is concerned about the lack of attention from his minister for tourism. I would not be upset if I were him.

It is not really surprising, then, given all of this, that the minister dismisses the opposition’s call to heed caution in accepting a broadening of the ministerial powers regarding the termination of board members. On the basis of our concerns about her signing off on tourism grants, we should express concern about the minister being given additional powers.

The Australian public and the tourism industry in particular should be worried about giving greater powers to this minister. This is a minister who travelled in deluxe style to London last year on tourism business and left the Australian taxpayer behind to pick up a tab of over $30,000 for her first-class flights alone. Accommodation for her lavish three-day trip totalled over $8,000. She obviously likes to live the high life. All up, the minister managed to rack up a daily bill of around $16,000. I am not sure, on the basis of her performance, that she is actually worth $16,000 a day. I think that sort of spending definitely constitutes a high-yield tourist but not a high-performing minister for tourism in the form of Minister Fran Bailey.

I raise these issues because they are serious issues of concern to the tourism industry and to the Australian taxpaying public at large. They are about accountability and a potential loss of investment and jobs in Australia. That is obviously something that is of vital concern to the future operation of Tourism Australia. We will be closely monitoring potential vacancies that come up around the middle of this year to Tourism Australia appointments. It is about making sure that the Tourism Australia board is filled with people from the industry who have the capacity to contribute to growth.

I will also say in conclusion that applications are currently open for further grants under the Australian government’s Australian Tourism Development Program. I only hope that, on this occasion, the grants are awarded on the basis of merit, not whether they are coalition seats and where they sit on the electoral pendulum. The tourism industry is too important to be a political football, for the minister to try to curry votes on the coalition side on the parliament or for the purposes of pork barrelling with the fast approaching election. I also note in that regard that she has held back a considerable amount of money, which should have already been made available to the industry for key tourism projects around Australia, for the purposes of massive pork barrelling in the second half of this year in the lead-up to the election. That money should not have been held back; it should have already been used in the tourism industry to assist a struggling tourism industry, both domestically and internationally. The minister stands condemned for nonperformance. (Time expired)