Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Riverina proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

This Government's chaotic airports and aviation industry policy.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad that the minister is staying in the chamber, and I hope that she stays in the chamber for this important debate because, so far, we've hardly heard a jot—not a whisper, not a peep, not a word—from the minister about a very important sector in our economy. It is a sector which represents five per cent of the economy. It is a sector called aviation. It is important: 700,000 workers rely on a job in aviation. Workers are the ones that Labor once represented but now have long deserted. There are 206,000 full-time employees at airport sites alone, and many of them are union members. You would think that those opposite would place more priority on those workers—on those union ticket holders—but, no, we don't hear very much very often from the minister about aviation.

Aviation is critical in this nation. It is a huge land mass. We all know how important aviation is to connect people and to connect business. It is the gateway to our nation, and the problem is that, in recent days and weeks, we've had an issue with Qatar Airways being blocked from those important gateways. I don't know why this is so—maybe the minister might explain—but I was asked by Joe Kelly from theAustralian as to why this might be the case. I explained to him that, when I was the transport minister, I did in fact have discussions with the now Prime Minister over aviation because I respected his judgement. I respected his view. But it seems that the Prime Minister and the aviation minister—the transport minister—have not had similar discussions about Qatar. I welcome the minister coming to the dispatch box and answering those important questions, which people in the public are also asking—people in the public who are now being charged too much for their tickets and too much for their flights.

This will bring competition. Qatar coming into Australia means more flights at more ports, and that will bring competition. Why is it that the government doesn't want this competition? So far, we've heard seven excuses—seven reasons. That's six too many. One of those reasons was, 'Qatar planes aren't as modern as Qantas planes, and that will increase emissions.'

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's making this stuff up!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not making this stuff up, Minister. That was one of the seven reasons given. There is only one reason. We don't know what that reason is. We are none the wiser after question time today, and we want answers. The minister will get 10 minutes—she will only need one—to give us the reason why Qatar is being blocked. Why is the ability to have more competition in the aviation sector being stopped? I welcome the minister coming to that microphone opposite and giving that reason—not because I want it, not because the opposition want it and not because we are playing politics, but because the Australian public deserves to know the answer. The Australian public deserves to know why this decision has taken place, how this decision was reached and what the future holds for the aviation sector.

This is a fantastic quote:

… we're seeing more domestic flights being scheduled than prior to the pandemic, helping drive hotel occupancy in our CBD to the highest of any major city across Australia and New Zealand. More flights mean more leisure and business visitors, increased freight capacity and greater connectivity for our state to the world, helping grow jobs and our economy.

Who do you reckon said that? Was it a Nat? Was it a Liberal? No, it was Peter Malinauskas, the Labor Premier of South Australia.

We know that those opposite like their planes. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister likes his planes. So I can't understand, with so much emphasis on getting in a plane and flying somewhere—sometimes taking your golf clubs!—why one particular airway is being blocked. Why has this decision been enacted? It is hurting Australian people who want to fly. It is hurting Australian people who are paying too much for their tickets, and it is hurting the Australian economy.

We often hear the Treasurer coming to the dispatch box during question time and talking up the jobs numbers. He should say thank you to the former Treasurer and the former member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg. He talks about the numbers of jobs. Think how many more jobs would be available and would be created if this decision went the other way. I look forward to the minister coming to the dispatch box and explaining how this decision was reached. Is it because there are all-too-cosy arrangements between governments and certain people? I don't know, but we will find out.

I will give the outgoing CEO of Qantas one bit of credit. He is a good fellow, and he did take a considerable pay cut during COVID. I will give him that. When there is a pile on, it is hard, and I appreciate the job that he did for Qantas during COVID. I do respect that. I am sure Australians do too. The trouble is, when there is a pile on everybody seems to want to kick a dog when it's down. That said, there are explanations to be made as to what relationships there have been and what extra discussions have taken place between a certain airline and between certain people in the government, and why this decision to block Qatar is in effect. We need more flights into Australia.

It is not just Peter Malinauskas saying it; it is also Roger Cook, the Western Australia Premier. He said that providing the conditions for affordable and convenient air travel was important in the post-COVID recovery of his state's tourism sector. He said, 'Qatar Airways should have been backed when it came to their request for extra routes in Australia'.

I had these discussions with transport ministers and premiers when I was in the role. Is the minister having those same discussions, or is she turning a tin ear to those requests being made? Is she turning a tin ear to the requests of the South Australian Premier and the Western Australian Premier. Indeed, the acting leader and probably soon to be Premier of Queensland, Steven Miles, said that if the decision were up to them they'd give it a green tick. That's what the Labor soon to be Premier of Queensland said about this decision about Qatar Airways. He wants to see it, Peter Malinauskas wants to see it and Roger Cook wants to see it. I can't understand why the Prime Minister or the transport minister, the member for Ballarat, do not want to see it.

I can't understand why they don't explain why this decision has been taken and why they're keeping this decision a secret from the Australian public. Before the election and just after the election we heard that we were going to see new transparency over this place they call Canberra; a new generation of openness and transparency. Is that what we're seeing? No, we have not seen that at all. We have seen a decision taken to block Qatar Airways. Well, we have seen seven reasons as to why, the seven deadly sins, but not one of them stacks up and not one of them is a reason why Qatar Airways should not be able to fly into this country. Qatar Airways is a good airline, and it would bring international competition.

I know that the shadow minister for trade, the member for Page, who will follow me, will explain just how important this is in terms of trade. We have those opposite who don't like live exports and want to ban them. I can see the member for Tangney opposite, from Western Australia. So many of those farmers in Western Australia are going to be affected by the decision to stop live exports, because that's the Labor way. That's the Labor policy. Yet, if they're not live, those sheep exports need to be transferred and transported somehow and in some way, and using Qatar Airways would be one of them—in the belly of Qatar Airways planes and in any other plane that wants to come to Australia and do things the right way. Exports are important. Trade is important. Getting sheepmeat to countries that want it and that are prepared to pay a premium price for it is also important.

Those opposite need to come clean today. They need to be transparent today. They need to own up and fess up as to why this decision to block Qatar Airways has been made. In just 37 seconds time the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is going to get ten minutes, and she'll only need one minute to explain why. I look very much forward to that, and so do the Australian public, because they want answers. They want to see their government being honest. They want to see their government being transparent. They want to see how they're going to get cheaper airfares in the future. That is so important. Aviation is so important. The minister should understand this, should realise this and should start talking more about this, because it's an important sector of our economy that has so far been ignored by this government, and for no good reason.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say how much I appreciate the bravery of the member for Riverina in raising this topic. I don't think there's any person better qualified to talk on chaotic airport and aviation industry policy than the previous minister for transport. Chaotic airport and aviation policy is exactly what those opposite delivered in their decade-long time in power.

They gave billions of taxpayer dollars to Qantas for nothing in return, with no strings attached. They stood by as Virgin collapsed into administration, only for it to be snatched up by foreign private equity, with a third of its workforce laid off, and it's now seeking to sell its share. They oversaw the mass outsourcing of jobs and labour hire mess that drove down wages and conditions across the sector, which was one of the prime drivers of the same job, same pay legislation. They commissioned the Harris review into the Sydney airport, only to spend almost two years sitting on it, leaving it for us to have to sort out now. They introduced an early retirement scheme for air traffic controllers—and guess what? There is now a shortage of air traffic controllers, causing airport delays up and down the country. They cut JobKeeper to Dnata workers and left those families in the lurch and laid off without pay. They couldn't afford to support Dnata workers, but they could afford to pay $30 million for a piece of land at the Leppington Triangle, which was later valued by my department of infrastructure at only $3 million. How's that for chaos in aviation policy? They wasted taxpayer money on cheap ticket policy to try to encourage us to travel but failed to order the vaccines that would have prevented the industry from having to be shut down again. I remember what aviation policy was like under those opposite: it was a mess of broken promises and empty slogans.

I stood with Virgin workers at Melbourne Airport at the start of the pandemic as they faced down the prospect of losing their jobs. I stood with Qantas workers at Parliament House after the policies of those opposite saw their work illegally outsourced. I haven't forgotten how one of the workers asked: 'How do I explain to my three girls that it's not whether you do a good job or not; it's just that they can bring someone else in to do it for cheaper than you?' Under those opposite, that's what aviation policy was. It became a reality for many workers across this country. The gall of those opposite to bring up this MPI despite knowing that history is simply jaw dropping.

Unlike those opposite, we have a proud legacy when it comes to aviation policy. With the now Prime Minister as Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the last Labor government supported the growth of aviation into an industry of $7.5 billion a year directly employing some 49,000 Australians and supporting a further half a million jobs throughout the economy. We published Australia's first ever Aviation White Paper to guide the industry's future growth, with measures to address skills shortages, lack of investment in new facilities and inadequate long-term planning, and we took a leading role in ensuring that workers across the sector were treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve. The trouble is that in the 10 years since we lost office aviation policy in this country has gone backwards.

Under the Albanese Labor government, we're determined to restore good order and good planning to Australian aviation. We've completed targeted consultation on the Harris review, and we'll have more to say on that soon. We're fixing the workplace mess that enabled the race to the bottom in wages and conditions, including through the legislation that has been introduced this week. We're hiring more air traffic controllers at Airservices Australia to fill the shortages that have been left by those opposite. We have got a tough cop on the beat, as we've seen through recent ACCC actions. We're delivering a new Aviation White Paper to chart the future of the industry out to 2050, including by ensuring competition and productivity.

Frankly, I can't believe that those opposite got the member for Riverina to do this MPI. In a week when they're attempting to manufacture a controversy around an air service agreement with Qatar, why would they put up a former minister who sat on a similar request for four years only to add a few more flights on the proviso of a new antidumping condition? As the member for Riverina said, quoted in this morning's Australian:

We can't have an airline with very deep pockets undercut, undercut, undercut and … (then) people go to them as opposed to an airline that may be majority Australian-owned and unable to compete with this unfair undercutting of prices.

That's the member for Riverina. That's what the member for Riverina has said, a member who, when faced with a request from Qatar Airways, sat on that for four years—

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He says, 'I put it on hold'; well, four years is a really long time to put it on hold—and then added seven flights. The history of this bilateral agreement with Qatar is one of very slow increments and increases. In fact, the last person who doubled the capacity of Qatar Airways into the Australian market was the now Prime Minister. That's the only person who has doubled the capacity of Qatar Airways into the Australian market.

From the very start, I have said that we considered a range of issues in determining what the national interest was in this case. I know that there are some businesses and some airlines which would have liked to see me make a different decision, particularly those who have significant commercial interests at stake. I have not based this decision on any one company's or any one person's commercial interest but on the national interest. I am supporting recovery and sustainable growth in our aviation sector, at the same time doing my best to ensure that when Australians travel overseas they can have confidence in how they are treated.

I know how important it is to Australians that they can access international travel and that tourists can visit our shores. It is why we have air services agreements with more than 100 countries. This week alone, we are allowing almost 500 flights into Asia and into international hubs where travellers can access the rest of the world, including Europe. I know that Australians are paying too much for their domestic tickets. More international flights from Qatar would not have helped that. Even Virgin has admitted that. It's our domestic airlines that have a duty there. Like all of us in this House, I expect all our domestic airlines to deliver better outcomes to their passengers and better outcomes to all of their staff. That is what their investment should be focused on. Our white paper, of course, along with the Treasury competition review and other reforms across the sector will ensure that the government policy is best calibrated to ensure that they do not misuse their positions and powers. But, as I said in this debate, from time to time, all governments are asked to increase access by international markets into the Australian international aviation market. From time to time, those requests are granted, and from time to time they are knocked back. That is what those opposite did, and, obviously, it's what we have done in these circumstances. It is unprecedented for the level of flights that have been asked for by Qatar to be granted by any government—that has never happened before.

The history of this bilateral agreement is a slow, incremental approach to this particular player. As I said previously, we have seen that, so concerned was the member for Riverina, when he was the minister for transport, about competition in this marketplace and so concerned was he about domestic aviation jobs, that he explicitly inserted a clause that had never been inserted before into the international air services agreement. That was about antidumping in relation to this airline. That is what the member for Riverina did, when he was the former minister for transport. We have him coming into this place, after the chaos that we saw with Qantas being paid billions of dollars without any strings attached, with workers being sacked, with no bailout to Virgin whatsoever and with air traffic controllers being given early retirement as though somehow we would never recover from COVID—this is the mess that the member for Riverina left in aviation policy. This is the mess that I'm cleaning up. I really think the member for Riverina, whilst he has made some honest comments in today's paper, should perhaps also have been a bit more honest in this debate.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's a really important issue that has been raised by the member for Riverina and, with all due respect to the minister who just spoke, the issue here is transparency. I'll repeat the question to the chamber now, as the minister leaves. What the parliament deserves to know, what the tourism industry deserves to know, what the export sector needs to know and deserves to know is: What advice did the minister get from her department in regard to Qatar's application? What was the department's advice to the minister about what the minister should do in regard to the application that Qatar put in, for quite a modest—she used the word 'modest'—increase in the flight availability that they had? I think it is reasonable for people to assume that, if the advice from the department to the minister was to reject that, then she would make that public because she would have nothing to hide. So the assumption from the tourism sector, the export sectors and the other players in this field is that the advice from the department to the minister was the opposite of what she decided. If that's the case, the sector and this chamber deserve to know whose advice she did accept. If the department's advice was to accept the application for an increase in flights from Qatar and she rejected that, on whose advice was the decision made and for what reason did she take that advice? That's what this is about. This is about transparency. This is about being transparent to the sector and to the airlines—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well may they laugh. The tourism sector isn't laughing, our exporters aren't laughing and people who thought they were going to get extra transparency from this government aren't laughing. This is insulting to this chamber, and it's insulting to the sector. We're seeing a lack of transparency, we're seeing confidentiality clauses and we're often seeing debate in the chamber shut down. We're seeing VIP flights and passenger lists not being released as well. I don't blame Qantas for this. Some airlines have come out very disappointed in the decision. Qantas have come out and supported the decision, because less competition for them is good. I don't blame Qantas for this, but it has been alleged by some that maybe this decision was based on a very cosy relationship between the two. But I'll leave that for others.

Again, why would you make this decision? As the member for Riverina, the former minister, mentioned, air flight prices right now are 50 per cent higher than they were pre-pandemic—50 per cent higher. If flights are 50 per cent higher, why would you not want more competition? That's what Qatar Airways was going to do. They were going to bring in extra competition. I take issue with the point that the minister raised when she said that this would not lower prices. I disagree. I think that Qatar's application being accepted would have meant that prices got lower.

The other thing, too, is the tourism sector is devastated by this. International tourism numbers in this country are well below pre-pandemic levels. In many other countries, international tourism arrivals are back to pre-pandemic levels. We're over 40 per cent below where we were with tourism numbers. Again, why would you make this decision?

This has been a very controversial decision. The minister again didn't say why she'd rejected the decision. She mentioned the words 'national interest' again, but that hasn't even satisfied her colleagues the Labor premiers of Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. Even the Labor premiers disagree with the minister's decision. Again, the only vague term she mentioned was 'national interest'. That hasn't satisfied the Labor premiers of Queensland, South Australia or Western Australia. It hasn't satisfied any of the stakeholders that I talk to in the tourism sector, and I was just about to go into exports as well, because, as the member for Riverina has said, there are lots of exports in the belly of a plane, and, again, they have been ripped off by this decision. (Time expired)

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This MPI is so important to the National Party they can wheel out two members. It's so important to the Liberal Party they can wheel out four members. There are over 50 members in the coalition opposite, and this is such a big issue as far as they're concerned that the member for Riverina can only get his mate to be here. He can't even get the member for New England's allies to be here.

There was $2.7 billion rolled out to Qantas, and I remember speaking to Virgin workers and Qantas workers in Ipswich and the Somerset region, in my electorate, who lost their jobs. Those opposite sat there and couldn't support Virgin. Those workers were in tears. I remember having those conversations with them. But it was the TWU—Michael Kaine, the National Secretary; Josh Millroy in the Queensland branch; and other people—heroes who stood up for workers while those opposite sat there. They talk about chaos in airports and aviation industry policy. Industrial relations was in chaos under them. They did nothing. They sat there and procrastinated—ignorance. Inertia was their policy on aviation. It's evidenced by the four-year delay by the member for Riverina in relation to Qatar. They failed. They spent $20 billion during COVID on companies that made no losses, that made profits. That's chaos in the aviation industry—not supporting workers, not supporting business.

A million Australians live overseas. Way more than a million travel overseas every year, and it's important in terms of our rail, our roads, our shipping, our aviation—it's absolutely crucial across states, across territories and internationally—that we get this right. That's why it's important to the national interest that we have competition in the area. But those opposite don't really believe in competition, because look at what they did when they were in government. Look what they did. They don't support the workers in that sector. Did we hear anything from those opposite during their speeches in relation to supporting the workers in the industry? Not a peep out of them, when they were in government, in support of those workers in that industry. When Virgin was collapsing, what did they do? Nothing. They did nothing in relation to those areas.

I've got workers telling me that only the unions stood up for them and with them, and the Labor Party. I rang those workers during COVID. My staff and I made 40,000 phone calls to people who were suffering during COVID. I made thousands of phone calls to workers during COVID, and I remember speaking to those workers.

Now, I actually don't mind the member for Riverina. He's a decent and honourable man, but he's got a bit of gall today to put this motion before the chamber. Having been in government, having been the Deputy Prime Minister—he also happens to be the current deputy chair of the Trade Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, so he is looking at this right now. He knows the challenges and the issues because of that inquiry into international education and, of course, trade. He knows the issues that are there. He knows there are problems in the tourism industry, and yet he comes into this place and does this.

I would just make this point to everyone: if Qatar was interested, in relation to this issue, in extending their footprint into Australia, they could do so in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, for example. They could fly larger planes into those airports if they wished to right now. If they wished to go to regional cities in my area, like the Gold Coast or Cairns for example, they could do so if they chose to do that. It's available to them to do that. They can always operate as many flights as they want to in those areas. This government's not about stopping competition. This government's acting in the national interest. That's what it is about—the national interest, not stifling competition.

We've got many, many airlines that we all travel on overseas. Australians see them all the time: Cathay, Singapore, Emirates. We know they operate into and out of Australia. We know they operate because Australians catch them all the time. I don't understand this obsession from those opposite on this decision. It makes no sense and it's inconsistent with the attitude they took when they were last in government—not standing up for workers, not standing up for competition, not supporting people, and throwing billions of dollars away by not standing up for an industry that supported workers.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm really proud to speak on this matter of public importance moved by the member for Riverina. Too often it's easy to come into this place and paint pictures of cartoon villains and cartoon heroes, so I want to single out his nice comment about the outgoing Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce. That's not an easy thing to do at the moment.

Credit to Mr Joyce, he was born in a town called Tallaght in Dublin. My family grew up only two kilometres from that town. And when you look at the list of alumni from that place, there's lots of sporting heroes and musicians. He's the first person to lead a business, and what a business he led on the other side of the world. So full credit to him, the son of a cleaner and a factory worker. He should reflect upon his achievements, and they're not all perfect, we know that, but that is a great story from the town of Tallaght in Dublin.

Like many Australians, it's easy to come up and bash Qantas at the moment, but when we're all overseas, or even in this place, and you see that kangaroo at the end of the tail, it hits you here because you know you're part way home when you get on that aeroplane. But let's not forget about who always pays for it, which is Australian customers. Right now, there is an economics committee inquiry into competition and dynamism. One of the many things we're hearing from that inquiry is that our economy tends to see corporations become oligopolies. It happens more often than in other economies. In oligopolies, we see corporations set above-market prices. They set the price; they don't respond to it. We see more rent-seeking, and where does rent-seeking happen? It happens in places like this, and particularly down the corridor in the executive wing. We see higher barriers to entry, and we've seen that in full flight in the last few weeks—a higher barrier to entry. And when you have a higher barrier to entry, who pays? Customers pay.

There's been a lot of discussion about wonderful ads on the TV at the moment. There is one about the Voice, but there was also quite a good ad from Qantas, where you saw someone get on a business class flight to come and meet their mum. That was really quite nice. It hit a sense of nostalgia. Well, can I tell you the actual experience of Australians who fly? They're not people who can afford a business class flight to come home to see their mum. They're more often than not people who have scraped together their savings to buy an economy class fare, often at a discount price, in the middle of the aeroplane. They've gone to a wedding, a funeral or a business meeting. In seats like mine, where 70 per cent of the electorate are first- or second-generation migrants, people have to get on international flights more than most. When we talk about the cost-of-living crisis, we're not talking about people flying at the front end of the plane; we're talking about people who have scrimped and saved to go on essential and sometimes traumatic visits overseas. So, when we look to do things in this place that increase the cost of that for them, that's unacceptable. It is unacceptable.

The decision that was made to block Qatar entering the market hurts families. It hurts families in electorates like mine who do have to go home for funerals, business meetings and weddings. Seven different reasons were given, and I won't list them all, but the one that really stands out as the catch-all is 'not in the national interest'. Whose interest is it in then? Whose interest was that decision in? It certainly wasn't for consumers, who would have paid lower prices. Let's look at the numbers. International fares are now 50 per cent higher than they were pre-pandemic. You might say that there are more on offer, but there are 25 per cent fewer seats. This decision and decisions like it are hurting families.

The minister mentioned the domestic market. Yes, there are certainly problems in the domestic market, particularly with flights being delayed, cancellations and all of the inconveniences that come from that. But, when we think about the competition review that has been scheduled at the moment, guess what that review left off? It left off the aviation industry. That was a significant embarrassment that had to be overturned. Neither international fares nor domestic fares are a priority for this government. The only priority is their own interests, not the national interest.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with one thing that the member for Menzies said. We talk about the Australian interest, not the Nationals interest! We saw the Nationals interest writ large during COVID, when Virgin workers were run out of town, lost their jobs and families were broken up, and they could not get any support from the government. But the coalition government did make one sharp decision, to support Rex Airlines, directly pushing Virgin workers out. We stood at those airports with those families. During that time they could not put food on the table or pay their bills, while those now sitting opposite were sitting on the blue carpet making decisions for their mates. It wasn't in Australia's interest to push a third carrier into Melbourne-Sydney routes, but it was in Australia's interest to keep thousands of Australian people employed. That's what is the Australian interest, not the Nationals interest. These people were hardworking people. We saw what happened with dnata, with split shifts and people being taken away. All this was being done on their watch, and they did nothing.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Deakin interjected that it saved jobs by giving Rex Airlines millions of dollars to take over the routes that they'd shafted.

An opposition member interjecting

You said it yourself. I know you often are very mendacious with your claims, but you've got to remember what you said.

An opposition member interjecting

The reality is: Virgin workers lost their jobs, and he laughed about it. He thinks it's fun. It's not fun. It's absolutely amazing that they could come in here on a day when we're talking about a bill looking after Australian workers, closing loopholes, and stand there and argue that Australians don't deserve good, proper-paying jobs with a good, secure workforce.

The member for Riverina talked about people coming into the market and undercutting. You can't have an airline come in from overseas and just undercut to the point where Australian jobs are at risk and Australian airlines are placed at a disadvantage. You'd think it would be a no-brainer that they'd support that, but they bring in an MPI to actually go against it. To sit there and say, 'Let's get a government owned airline from overseas to come in and be involved and take away Australian jobs'—it's amazing that they have the audacity to do that sort of thing. I ask leave of the House to continue my remarks at a later moment.

Leave granted.