I rise today to speak about the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026. This bill operates to amend the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to increase the rate of the passenger movement charge per person from $70 to $80. The bill is a direct implementation of the 2026-2027 budget measure uplift of the passenger movement charge, which will increase revenue by $755 million over four years from 2026-2027 to 2029-2030. The increase has been agreed to following consultation and engagement with the sector, including aviation and maritime carriers and industry representative bodies. The charge was last increased on 1 July 2024, when it moved from $60 to $70. The charge is not automatically indexed and is only adjusted from time to time. It will apply to persons who depart Australia for an overseas destination on or after 1 January 2027. The charge is typically collected by the carrier, such as the airline, at the time a ticket is sold and then remitted by the carrier to the Department of Home Affairs. The increase, which, as I have explained, is not automatically indexed, is different to the costed policy the coalition took to the last election, which was to annually index the passenger movement charge in line with CPI for 10 years. So, although this does represent a small increase, it is a smaller increase than that proposed by others in this place.

The charge plays an important role in advancing Australia's economic interests, and we don't shy away from this. The increase in the charge will increase revenue by $755 million over four years. It's directly contributing to the government's economic and fiscal strategy, which is firmly directed at measures to make the economy and budget stronger, more resilient and more sustainable. This is important, and the $10 increase will play an important role in this. The passenger movement charge contributes directly to consolidated revenue, which is then used to fund a variety of government measures and border protection services, including customs, immigration and, importantly for our country, particularly at this moment, biosecurity.

The increase in this charge will not stop Australians going overseas to visit family, to explore the world or to conduct business. These will always happen. Australians have always been explorers, keen prosecutors of the gap year, of the working holiday, of taking a risk to set up in a new country, always knowing that Australia was a safety net, the best country on earth to which to return.

Equally, this bill will not stop international arrivals in Australia, which are steadily increasing. The outlook for the visitor economy here in this country is positive—and why wouldn't it be? There is something for everyone here in Australia, and a $10 increase in the passenger movement charge bill is not going to be a deterrent. At the same time as not being a deterrent, it will help the budget bottom line.

So why do Australians, including me, travel? There are so many reasons. The freedom is a key reason—the freedom to wake up in the morning to experience the anticipation of not knowing what the day might bring. The landscapes, the cities and the destinations you discover open your eyes largely because you meet the people who live in those places you're visiting. You see the colours, smell the aromas and hear the sounds, and none will be the same as you find back home. The traveller welcomes new ideas, like new ways to cook, create or design. And travel also means interactions, sometimes with a complete stranger but often with friends and family, through the power of shared experiences. Travel also really helps with perspective. Things you worry about here at home in Australia, which is objectively one of the most peaceful, stable and prosperous countries in the world, will seem far less important when you see the bigger picture. In this sense, travel gives you a more realistic view of your own place in the world. It also builds resilience and self-confidence and keeps you healthy by promoting movement. Critically, it can also inspire an interest in languages.

In an era where English has conquered the world, it's actually refreshing and respectful to know that a few basic foreign words will enhance the experience of your stay. Saying 'hello' and 'thank you' as you buy your breakfast in the morning adds colour and a bit of humour to a simple two-minute exchange. Importantly, it shows respect to the people you're encountering and can be a bit of fun. Having to express yourself in a foreign language should make you appreciate all the more the trouble that people go to when they communicate in a language that just seems natural to you—English.

Tourism also generates employment in a myriad of ways, not just in hotels, restaurants and airports but in shops and markets, entertainment venues and even sports clubs. Revenue from local tourists helps maintain not only communities but also historic monuments, underlining their importance to the city and to local culture. An enjoyable stay means that people will come back to find their favourite beach or village trattoria, which ultimately means that cities and restaurateurs can plan ahead, budget for the following season and keep staff on.

Most importantly, travel can also change you as a person, largely for the better. You'll find hidden depths of your character and discover more compassionate sides to your personality. You'll likely return home to Australia having learned something new, not only a few basic words of another language or recognising the notes of a different currency but about yourself. And, once you realise that the benefits of travel go way beyond the simple opportunity to relax and unwind, you'll be keen to experience it over and over again. I would encourage all Australians, young and old, if possible, to go explore the world. And, when you're young, do what I did when I was 25. Go abroad and actually live in another country and experience the benefits of that.

If you do that, you'll also be engaging with Australian airports. In Australia, that is 340 airports—13 domestic airlines and over 40 international airlines coming and going, moving more than 100 million passengers each year in Australian airspace. Last financial year, these millions of domestic passengers travelled on aircraft ranging from jetliners to turboprops, landing at major airports and regional airstrips alike. Australia's airports are a vital part of our economic and social fabric, providing connection across our great country and beyond. And indeed, given our geography, airports often provide the starting point and sometimes the only practical means of travel for many journeys. In the 2025 financial year, our global gateways recorded an all-time high of just over 430 million international passengers, almost a nine per cent increase on the previous year. Those numbers underscore aviation's role as the backbone of global connectivity, enabling movement, opportunity and growth across Australia and out into the world. The role for government in aviation, therefore, is to facilitate an open market based aviation sector where Australians enjoy access to more services on a fair footing and at better prices.

Australia's air safety and security record remains world leading. Facilitating competition and sustainable growth in the commercial market while regulating the sector to ensure appropriate safety, security, workforce, consumer and environmental outcomes is the name of the game for this government in supporting this critical industry. The government's vision for aviation, as expressed in the 2024 Aviation white paper, is for an aviation sector that is safe, secure, competitive, productive, sustainable and fair, employing Australian workers on fair pay and secure conditions and providing Australians with affordable, reliable and accessible services now, to 2050 and beyond.

The recent establishment of the Aviation Consumer Protection Framework is also important. It will comprise an impartial aviation consumer ombudsperson that will provide a fair, accessible and independent external dispute resolution service that can assist with resolving individual customer complaints in relation to the supply of airline and airport services. The Aviation Consumer Protections Charter will set out the minimum standards that aviation consumers can expect from airlines and airports, which will be enforced by the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority. The charter will create obligations for airlines and airports towards consumers in the event of a flight disruption, delay or cancellation and create minimum standards with respect to booking information and assistance, communicating with consumers and complaint handling. Importantly, it will also facilitate the reporting and publication of reasons for flight delays, cancellations and disruptions to consumers.

This will help educate consumers and help them to understand the factors that lead to delays, disruptions or cancellations, including whether they were within or outside the relevant airline's control. It will educate consumers but it will also provide learnings for industry. Hopefully, it will identify steps industry can take to minimise those delays, disruptions and cancellation factors. It'll also be important in understanding whether the response to a delay, disruption or cancellation was satisfactory, which is really important in helping to manage consumer expectations going forward.

When Australians going abroad return to this country, those little yellow paper incoming passenger cards will hopefully soon be a thing of the past as the government expands the Australia Travel Declaration pilot, which has been a successful industry pilot. The government is investing over $56 million over four years in traveller and border modernisation to improve passenger processing, data quality, security and biosecurity at Australia's borders.

Developed by the Australian Border Force, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Qantas, the Australia Travel Declaration provides a digital alternative to the paper incoming passenger card. Since the pilot began in October 2024, more than 450,000 eligible passengers on inbound Qantas flights to Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne have used the Australia Travel Declaration and, before the end of this year, the pilot will extend to Perth and Adelaide. It will then be rolled out progressively to all international airports and seaports over 12 to 18 months, beginning with a government web form and continuing through industry co-design of an in-app option. A web form trial is also planned in preparation for flights commencing at Western Sydney International Airport next month.

The rollout will reduce manual processing, allow information to be collected before travel, improve data use for risk assessments and enable rapid updates when global security or biosecurity risks emerge. It will also lessen frustrations upon arrival and support a more seamless, digitally enabled passenger experience. Funding will also support industry co-design of improved airport departure and cruise clearance models and consideration of emerging technologies, including contactless biometrics, where appropriate and beneficial. This modernisation will help border agencies manage strong growth in traveller volumes in the post-COVID era and prepare Australia for the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The paper cards will still be available for those who need them.

The increase in the passenger movement charge is important because it will contribute in a big way to revenue which goes towards border protection, customs, immigration and biosecurity. The small increase will further contribute to these factors, which remain as important as ever. It will also not deter Australians from travelling abroad and coming back to this wonderful country and bringing with them the experiences that they have gained. I commend the bill to the Chamber.

I rise to oppose the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026. I oppose it because this is another tax increase from a Labor government that seems to believe the answer to every problem is to make Australians pay more. This government is addicted to tax. They're chasing Australians down the road for the last $2 in their pocket. I remember what Kerry Packer once said: 'Why would you give the government any more money? Look at the way they're spending it.' I think that applies equally to the Albanese Labor government.

This particular tax will hurt an industry that's enormously important to Australia and absolutely vital to regional Australia. That's tourism. Under this bill, Labor wants to increase the passenger movement charge—effectively Australia's departure tax—by another $10, from $70 to $80, from 1 January next year. That represents another 14.3 per cent increase, just 2½ years after the last rise.

If this bill passes, the charge will have increased from $60 to $80 between June 2024 and January 2027. That's a 33 per cent increase in little more than 2½ years. And what's Labor's justification? The government expects to collect another $745 million over the forward estimates. That tells you what this is really about. It's a revenue grab and it's another toxic tax.

Australia is already an expensive country to reach. We are a long-haul destination for most of the world, and international visitors already face significant airfares. At $80, our passenger movement charge will sit at the very high end of international departure taxes. Countries including our near neighbour New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, the United States, Canada, Hong Kong, the Netherlands and France all impose substantially lower charges.

The people who know the industry best are warning the government about the consequences. The Australian Airports Association has warned about the impact on price-sensitive travellers and Australia's tourism competitiveness. The Board of Airline Representatives of Australia has criticised the increase, the lack of consultation and the impact on international airfares. The Tourism & Transport Forum says the industry was blindsided, while Cruise Lines International Association Australasia has also raised concerns about Australia's competitiveness.

Please, government, listen to these authoritative bodies, because, when our international visitors decide Australia is too expensive, the loss doesn't stop at the airport. It reaches the motel, the cafe, the pub, the cellar door, the tour operator, the caravan park, the restaurant—small businesses in communities right across Australia, right across regional Australia.

I know just how important that is because I represent one of the most beautiful parts of the country. The Lyne electorate takes in extraordinary parts of both the Barrington Coast and Port Macquarie-Hastings. The Barrington Coast has more than 190 kilometres of coastline, 15 national parks and 38 rivers. We have Forster-Tuncurry and Wallis Lake, the Manning River and Manning Valley, Seal Rocks and the Myall Lakes, Harrington and Crowdy Head—

I'm coming to our border area, Member for Hunter, don't worry—the historic Dungog, Stroud and Gloucester. Beyond Gloucester lies one of Australia's great national treasures, the World Heritage listed Gondwana rainforests of the Barrington Tops. And, yes, I share a border with the member for Hunter, and I have the magnificent Luskintyre: part of the Hunter Valley vineyards—Tranquil Vale, a wonderful vineyard—and also the home of the Tiger Moths. They're in Luskintyre as well. It's a great—

Yes, they're on my side of the boundary there, Member for Hunter—and then I've got the Camden Haven, Laurieton, North Haven and Dunbogan. Pristine beaches and waterways: Diamond Head, Kattang Nature Reserve, Perpendicular Point and the spectacular view from North Brother Mountain. Port Macquarie-Hastings describes it simply as 'uncrowded bliss', and I reckon that's a pretty good description.

This is the tourism magic that regional Australia offers. I have to add: Mount Seaview Resort on the Oxley Highway up the road towards Walcha. I was up there only last week, talking to Cliff. It's a fantastic facility. I actually went there as a school kid and stayed, and it's a wonderful place to stay on the way up to Walcha on the Oxley Highway.

We deliver in regional Australia, and my area, Port Macquarie-Hastings, where I live, delivers serious economic benefits. Across the Port Macquarie-Hastings local government area alone, there are around 1.8 million visitors a year, generating some $759 million in tourism spending. We should want international visitors to discover places like these, but to do that we need to make Australia competitive, promote regional destinations and ensure visitors can safely get there.

That's another area where Labor is letting regional tourism down.

The Pacific Highway is a tourism artery of the New South Wales Mid North Coast. Under the former coalition government, the Commonwealth funded Pacific Highway upgrades on an 80-20 basis with the NSW government. Labor's reduced the Commonwealth contribution to 50-50. That means less Commonwealth support for the infrastructure regional communities depend on, which makes it harder to deliver the remaining safety upgrades. Two intersections in my electorate demonstrate this problem. The intersection of the Bucketts Way and the Pacific Highway is the gateway to Gloucester and the magnificent Barrington Tops. It needs a grade-separated interchange, and so does the intersection of Houston Mitchell Drive and the Pacific Highway, the gateway to the Camden Haven. High-speed highway traffic, heavy vehicles, caravans and growing local and visitor traffic make these important safety projects and tourism projects. My community has called for action. I've called for action. Yet we still don't have the funding needed to deliver them.

There is a contradiction here. Labor says it wants regional communities to attract more tourists and grow their visitor economies, while making it more expensive for international visitors to come to Australia and failing to adequately invest in the roads they need to safely reach our regions. And roads aren't the only example. Cellar doors bring people into regional communities, where they stay in local accommodation, eat in local restaurants and spend money in local businesses. Yet Labor has decided to pause the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program for two years at a time when Australia's wine industry is already facing extraordinarily difficult conditions. Then there is tourism marketing. Tourism Australia does important work internationally, but where is the recent major investment specifically promoting regional Australia to international visitors? Where is the campaign saying: 'Don't just visit Sydney Harbour; travel further. Come to the Manning, come to Gloucester, come to the Barrington Tops, come to Forster Tuncurry and come to the Camden Haven. Stay an extra night, eat in a local restaurant and spend money in a regional community.'

We know it can be done, because a former coalition government did it. We targeted working holidaymakers because they stay longer, travel further and support regional tourism, hospitality and agriculture. When bushfires devastated tourism communities in 2019 and 2020, the coalition delivered a $76 million tourism bushfire recovery package, including domestic and international marketing and support for regional tourism events and attractions. Then, as regional communities confronted the devastation of COVID, the coalition delivered $250 million for a regional tourism recovery package. We also launched the Holiday Here This Year campaign to get Australians travelling again and supporting tourism businesses. That is the difference. We understood that government should help bring visitors into our regions, not put more costs in their way, and that brings me back to this bill.

If passengers are going to pay another $745 million, what exactly are they getting for it? The aviation industry has called for the passenger movement charge revenue to be reinvested in better border infrastructure, more smart gates, more border technology, improved passenger processing and properly resourced Australian Border Force operations. Yet this bill contains no guarantee that the additional revenue will be spent on any of those things. Passengers pay more, the government collects more and that's it. Tourism is an export industry. The difference is that, instead of sending our products overseas, we bring the customer here. And when they arrive, we should want them to stay longer, travel further and spend more, particularly in regional Australia.

The coalition supported the previous increase in the passenger movement charge, because the charge had been frozen for seven years and the increase broadly reflected accumulated inflation. But this increase, the one that the Labor government is proposing, is completely different. Labor wants another $10 increase just two and a half years later, an increase substantially above inflation. There is no convincing policy justification, there's been inadequate industry consultation, there is no guarantee the additional revenue will improve border infrastructure and the tourism and transport industries are warning it will make Australia less competitive. In my electorate we have the destinations, we have the natural beauty, we have the tourism magic and we have the small businesses ready to welcome visitors. What we need is a government that helps get visitors there and that cares about regional Australia.

This is a tax on tourism—an $82 billion industry that isn't a 'nice to have'; it's a 'must have' for our country. This government has become so desperate, in their quest to continue to raise revenue in any way they possibly can, they are now turning again to the passenger movement charge. We have seen a 33 per cent increase in this charge in less than three years, raising $700 million in the course of undertaking this.

The fact that they have done this increase—even Treasury's own aviation elasticity analysis says that a one per cent increase in airfares translates into a 0.5 per cent reduction in passenger movement into our country in the short term and 2.5 per cent in the medium term. That translates to 38,000 fewer passengers coming into Australia in the short term and 190,000 fewer visitors coming into this country in the medium term. That is people that are not coming to this country because we have become uncompetitive.

The reality is, this is just another tax. They believe that they can get away with it because Australians aren't effectively going to get caught up in this, but they think that, now, they'll be able to tax tourists coming into this country even further. But that has a flow-on effect through the economy and the $82 billion industry that is tourism in this country. That is the short-sightedness of this tax on tourism.

We've got to get back to first principles about why the passenger movement charge was actually put in place. It was put in place, originally, for the processing of passengers for biosecurity and Border Force enforcement on those borders. And I, as a former agriculture minister, am very sceptical about—between Border Force and biosecurity—processing a passenger costing us $80 a head to get through the Border Force and aqueous arrangements in any port in this country. So this is, in many respects, just a tax grab. It's not about a cost recovery model for the extra cost burden of actually bringing passengers and the screening of those passengers through our ports across this country.

The reality is, the government has finally undertaken the electronic movement of being able to have a declaration card, one which Peter Dutton, the former home affairs minister, and me, as agriculture minister, started back in 2020 and were nearly on the verge of introducing before the 2022 federal election. And this government has only got to a point of actually being able to introduce it now and start it now, which would actually streamline the ability of our Border Force and biosecurity to have better intelligence around their profiling of who comes into this country and where to put their resources when people come into our borders. That means that we get a more efficient border. That means we get better recovery of the costs.

How they are justifying any increase in this charge when we have already made those investments around electronic declarations, and in fact, for the biosecurity piece, we're investing in 3D X-ray machines in New Zealand to undertake a trial where your bags would be given through an X-ray scan, in 3D, that have artificial intelligence that could pick up plant matter or bio matter that would then marry up with electronic declaration cards, meaning that we are going to save millions of dollars at the border in directing resources where we needed to—where the threat actually was posed by those that come into this country and feed into the intelligence that we gather in profiling people coming into this country. So we have got efficiencies already being built into our border systems, and yet this government continues to go down a track of charging and taxing tourists coming into this country—the $82 billion industry that isn't a 'nice to have'. It's a 'must have'.

When you look at this budget that they've just handed down, this government, they've stripped out $50 million to Tourism Australia, a body that is passionately advocating for international tourists to come to this country to bring in new money into our economy every year. To rip $50 million out of it and then tax international tourists extra to come into this country—you just have to wonder what the logic is behind this. There is just a desperate bid by this government to fill its coffers, because they are effectively sending us broke, and no-one is off limits in their taxation—how they are going to try and recover more money to spend more of your money. They're now going after international tourists.

It's important to understand the reasoning behind this, but there is none given. That is why industry groups are bewildered by this. It is important that we understand this will have a flow-on effect. If you take 38,000 overseas tourists coming into this country out of the economy then that has a flow-on effect. If you take 190,000 out, over the medium term, that has a significant impact on the Australian economy. That $82 billion pie gets smaller, and that is what the Australian economy cannot afford.

There's a human toll to this. There's a human toll for tourist operators, cafe owners, motel owners who will be impacted by this. There is a toll on their ability to pay their bills because we have a government that is trying to reduce the number of people coming into this country on a tourist visa. They're going to go home and not impact our NOM number at all.

There should be no worries about how a tourist on a visa comes into this country. They have all come for the right reasons and they all spend their money here. And so for the government to do this, it will have a significant impact on our economy in capital cities, and in regional Australia in particular. So when you see this money being stripped out of the economy, and then adding a tax to it, you wonder what is the government's thinking and its belief in the importance of tourism in this country.

This government needs to understand what it has done. And it hasn't even done a regulatory impact statement. Any good government that would impose this sort of tax on an industry as significant as tourism would have done a regulatory impact statement. It would have understood, as the Treasury modelling for aviation elasticity showed, that a one per cent increase in an airfare cost translates into a half-a-per-cent reduction of tourists coming to Australia in the short term and 2½ per cent in the medium term. I would have thought this government, before imposing this, would have actually done a regulatory impact statement. That would have been the responsible thing to do, to engage with industry and to understand the secondary effects of putting an extra tax on international tourists coming into this country. That is what a responsible government would have done. Instead, we have a desperate government that is looking to raise any dollar it possibly can.

When you think about what $700 million could do in this country, I think most Australians would say, 'Look, it could go towards protecting our borders or, lo and behold, making sure there isn't a $5,000 cap on our veterans,' and you'd probably say that's all well and good. But there isn't any reasoning for this. This is a desperate tax grab—and you don't even have a regulatory impact statement!

In June alone, we saw a nine per cent reduction in international tourists, particularly from our hotspot markets like New Zealand and Japan. We are pitting ourselves against international competitors that we are not going to be able to compete with. That is because of the fuel costs and the increased costs to airlines, so then throwing this on top, without the proper regulatory basis around it, is just so short-sighted. They need to do that regulatory impact statement to make sure the secondary effects are understood by the government. When Treasury alone are giving those warning signs, and the government to ignore that, it speaks volumes about the intent of this bill.

This bill is about a desperate tax grab. Unfortunately, I can see it in my own electorate. We don't have, even in western Queensland, a high number of international tourists. But the small number that does come here is important. And when you think about the damage that this government has done to the drive market over the last 12 months—it spent $20 million advertising against the drive market. It put ads out telling us to pump up our tyres and take off our roof racks and created fuel anxiety right across this country. It's surprising we didn't have a roof buyback model from this government, that's how desperate it was in scaring Australians about how desperate it was.

The only problem was that the minister for energy didn't have an understanding of his own powers. Yes, there were some communities that were going without fuel because it all sat in the cities. He didn't realise he even had the power to get that fuel out and force the fuel companies to send it out into regional areas. We are seeing the impacts of that in the tourism industry, and not just in western Queensland. We're not seeing those small amounts of international tourists come in because, firstly, they didn't think we had fuel and then, secondly, they thought the price was too high. I've seen the human toll of that. I was in Charleville in May, and one of the motel owners there had already sacked three people because no-one was coming. I was in Birdsville on the weekend at the races. The numbers are down because there's no-one travelling out there, because they're scared. This government scared them, and now it's taxing them, and that is a government that doesn't understand the importance of tourism.

So we've got to get back to the first principle of exactly what this passenger movement charge was all about. It was about the processing of international tourists and Australians as they come back into our country, to make sure that we are protecting us from biosecurity risks and from contraband. The fact is that we are moving away from that, because there is no way in the world that it is costing us $80 a head to process those people through our borders. There is no way in the world that it is costing us that, with what we have done with technology in biosecurity and Border Force. We have the profiling and intelligence that can bring those costs down and make sure that they are well directed.

But this is not about that at all. If it were, and if it were properly about the original intent of a passenger movement charge, it would be a further investment in biosecurity. It would be a further investment in Border Force and making sure they have the ability to keep our borders safe. If that involved tackling the illicit drugs and nicotine that are coming into this country, we would have said, 'Well, at least they're putting it into something that's going towards making our borders stronger.' But it's not; this is just a tax grab. It's moving away from the original intent of what this whole passenger movement charge was about. And that's the disappointing thing. It's a disappointing thing for an industry that's already on its knees, that has already seen a nine per cent reduction in June alone of international tourists. When Treasury modelling said this was going to have a significant impact on people coming in, why wasn't a regulatory impact statement done? Why wasn't it? Because they knew what the outcome would be, that there would be a human toll to this, that we would see less people in this country and that we would see motels, cafes, pubs and clubs take the brunt of it.

This government was all about style, not about substance. And that is what we are going to see from this—the unintended consequence. So this government should actually have the courage to look the tourism industry in the eye and explain the why, because there is no why in this. There is no why that they can demonstrate, as to why they have lifted the passenger movement charge by 33 per cent in three years. That is a tax grab.

I would just say to this government: the men and women of this country that have had the courage of their own sweat and their own wallet to go and build tourist businesses and have motels and cafes out here are the human toll of this. They're the ones that will see 38,000 less people crossing our borders in the short term, and 190,000 in the medium term. They are the people that will pay the price of this, all because the government have become desperate, having been not only unable to manage our borders but also unable to manage our economy.

The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026 increases the cost of travelling out of Australia for any reason. So, whether you're going to see loved ones, responding to a family emergency or just taking a well-earned break, this bill makes your flight more expensive. In a cost-of-living crisis, should this really be a government priority—taxing your family holiday and, meanwhile, letting the big gas corporations get away with not paying their fair share? That tells you so much about this government, which, time and again, chooses the interests of big business and the fossil fuel industry over everyday people. As it stands, this bill simply makes the cost-of-living challenge worse, and the Greens can't support it in its current form.

We Greens are also pushing for real consumer protections for travellers. We want to see a fair set of rules so people can get full refunds and proper compensation in case of flight cancellations and delays. Let's see what the government proposes. Let's see what the government brings. But we just want to be clear: we can't support reforms that will make the cost of living worse for people. In an affordability crisis, the Greens won't apologise for opposing a Labor government move that will make things even harder in these difficult times for everyday people.

Just quickly on climate, this bill is not going to have any impact on reducing emissions from air travel. There's no other way to get overseas; people will still fly. The extra fee is not going to deter them; it will just make things harder for them. If the government were serious about reducing emissions from air travel, they'd fast-track high-speed rail—it'd be great for all of us—so we can start to make significant reductions in domestic flights.

Labor would rather tax your trip to Bali than tax a gas corporation. Get this—gas corporation Santos made $47 billion over the last 10 years and paid no tax. But Labor are not willing to tax them. They are, however, happy to tax your next holiday. Hidden in the last federal budget, the government quietly announced a $10 hike in airline ticket charges—paid by the customer, not the airline. Yes, you heard me right: the government wants to increase airline ticket charges—not abolish hidden fees, but increase them. No-one likes those charges. You go online to see how much a flight costs, plan your itinerary and then discover the hidden fees. For some flights, these fees can be hundreds of dollars per person, making an annual holiday simply unaffordable for many families.

It's not as if the government has no other choice. If it needs more money for services, it could do what nearly 70 per cent of Australians actually want and tax gas exports. The government already collects the same amount of money from passport fees that it gets from the gas industry. It collects five times the amount from visa applications that it gets from the gas industry—what a joke! But it's not funny. My message to Labor is this—don't tax the family holiday; tax gas.

I rise to speak in opposition to the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026. Through this bill, Labor wants to legislate an increase to the passenger movement charge, otherwise known as Australia's departure tax, so that anyone who leaves our country for a holiday, or a visitor returning home or heading to their next stop, faces a rise of another $10—a jump from $70 to $80. The increase is scheduled to commence on 1 January next year.

The coalition opposes this bill because, under this Labor government, Aussies are already paying too much. The cost of living is out of control. Labor has delivered a trifecta of failure on housing—fewer homes, higher rents and confidence in the housing market smashed. On this passenger movement charge, I must point out that there are no direct international routes out of Australia from my electorate of Hinkler—so regional Australians who want to travel by air or sea are already paying more because they need to travel the extra legs.

This legislation proposes an increase that comes only 2½ years since the last increase in the passenger movement charge. If the bill passes, the passenger movement charge will have risen from $60 to $80 between June 2024 and January 2027—in other words, an increase of around 33 per cent in under three years. This is yet another hidden cash grab, and Labor has simply not made the case or answered why another increase of this magnitude is necessary. It's feeling like deja vu—another day, another toxic tax bubbling out of the chaotic budget of broken promises. As always, when Labor run out of money they come after yours. This legislation should be rejected by the parliament.

The passenger movement charge has existed in one form or another since 1978, when the original departure tax, as it was then called, was introduced at a level of $10. Over the decades since, there have been a number of increases—and, on one isolated occasion, even a decrease. But we're not asking whether the passenger movement charge should exist or if the rate can or should go up or down; the question is whether the government has made the case for this particular increase at this point in time, and the coalition believes it has not.

The government expects this move to raise an extra $745 million over the forward estimates; that's a significant amount of money. But the additional revenue for the Commonwealth is not by itself a sufficient reason for imposing another tax increase on Australians—or, for that matter, another hit to our visitor economy.

Our major tourism industry bodies agree. They warn that the added cost threatens Australia's international tourism competitiveness and piles further pressure on regional economies like Bundaberg and the Fraser Coast, which are so reliant on overseas guests to sustain our local jobs and keep our local tourism sustainable. Airlines for Australia and New Zealand, the Tourism and Transport Forum and Accommodation Australia each oppose the increase and instead want government to find ways to strengthen Australia's standing as an international destination. Airlines for Australia and New Zealand, or A4ANZ, said there is already a wave of cost pressures on airline services—fuel volatility, high government levies, increased security and credential costs, these jumps in airport passenger charges, accessibility reforms and sustainability related policy measures. It's all hitting hard and it's all hitting at once.

Tight margins means a tightening of the belt, and I fear what that means for regions like Hinkler. Those services connect regional communities and support tourism, trade and investment. We've seen plenty of airlines come and go in regional areas like Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, and the last thing we need is weakened competition and travellers priced out of the market. If passengers are paying more, it should go to improving the travel experience for everyone. But it's not clear what this bill, if it passes, will actually mean.

Top tourism bosses say Australia could not afford to make international travel more expensive while the tourism sector is still rebuilding its international visitor base. Australia is competing in one of the most competitive tourism markets at a time of significant global uncertainty. The focus should be on accelerating the post-COVID recovery and growing the visitor economy, not adding barriers to travel. The passenger departure tax applies to all outgoing passengers, so our overseas visitors pay more as they leave and Aussies pay more when they head off. Some advocates say additional revenue should, at the very least, be reinvested in tourism and a faster, more seamless Australian border experience. But will it? I don't think so.

The government has not established a sufficiently clear connection between this additional revenue and improved services for the people who will pay the charge. The tourism, aviation, airport and even cruise sectors have consistently argued that a greater share of passenger movement charge revenue should be reinvested in the infrastructure and services that support the movement of passengers across our borders. That includes enhancements such as more smart gates, better border technology, improved investment in airport and border infrastructure, and more appropriate resourcing for Border Force. Yet the bill provides no guarantees, no direction and no ideas, just another toxic tax. Labor can't even promise travellers that they will see faster and more effective border processing as a result of this bill.

And why does the consultation seem to always happen after the announcement, after the budget is handed down? The sectors who will be impacted the most by this passenger movement charge increase have not been consulted. That is particularly concerning given the practical consequences of the commencement date. Of course, airlines have already been selling tickets for travel beyond the beginning of next year. The government knew, or at least should have known, that airlines sell international tickets a long time in advance. This was entirely predictable, yet the industry has been left to scramble. Airlines, travel agents, booking systems and ultimately passengers should all reasonably expect to know the full cost of a ticket when they purchase it. This is poor planning, poor consultation and poor execution. It's fair to say that an extra $10 when you're already spending money on international travel may not seem much, but, even so, that 10 bucks should be reinvested in tourism and border infrastructure. This bill comes with no guarantees that any of that additional $745 million collected will be directed towards industry priorities.

The Tourism and Transport Forum and Cruise Lines International Association Australasia have criticised the measure on tourism competitiveness grounds. Industry rightly wants Australia to be a more competitive destination. Yet, as usual, Labor is causing the opposite outcome to occur and is simply making everything more expensive. Let's make this clear. This proposed increase to $80 is substantially above inflation over the relevant period. It has been imposed with a complete lack of detailed consultation with industry. It creates implementation problems for airlines and other carriers. It adds to the cost of international travel. It risks undermining tourism competitiveness. And it comes with no guarantee that the additional revenue will be reinvested in the places it needs to be.

At $80, Australia's passenger movement charge would also now be at the very high end of departure taxes internationally. The UK and Germany can impose higher charges on long-haul economy travel. However, countries like Sweden, New Zealand, Belgium, South Africa, Austria, Singapore, Japan, the USA, Canada, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Norway and France all operate a departure tax at a significantly lower level.

Raising revenue is not, on its own, a policy justification for another tax increase. Passengers are being asked to pay more without any firm commitment that that additional revenue will improve the experience of travelling across Australia's borders. Labor can tell Australians how much extra money it wants to collect, but it cannot tell them what improvements to public infrastructure and services they will be receiving for footing this enormous tax slug.

The coalition's position is clear. We do not oppose changes to the passenger movement charge as a matter of principle. In the past, we supported the 2024 increase in circumstances where the charge had been unchanged for seven years and the increase broadly reflected accumulated inflation. The coalition went to the 2025 election with a policy for predictable CPI indexation, but this bill is different. This bill imposes another $10 increase after a period of only two and a half years. It lifts the charge by 14.3 per cent in one step. It goes well beyond CPI growth over the relevant period.

To sum all of this up, if the bill is passed, it would mean that the charge will have increased by a third between June 2024 and January 2027. The government has failed to meaningfully consult key sectors before putting them in the position of having to manage a rushed implementation and has failed to guarantee that the additional revenue will be reinvested in the border infrastructure in technology and services for which passengers and industry are asking—and Australians are already paying enough, or too much.

Our tourism and aviation sector is already facing significant cost pressures, and to raise another $745 million for this government in the form of a desperate tax grab to try and offset some of the many disastrous budgetary decisions by this Labor Party is certainly not a good enough reason to wave through another substantial increase in a tax on international travel. For all those reasons, and especially in acknowledgement of the position of the tourism and transport sectors on this legislation, the coalition opposes the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026. This legislation should be rejected by the parliament.

Debate adjourned.