Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to reiterate and emphasise the comments made by coalition colleagues as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which inquired into the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2008. I thank the industry, as have my colleagues, for the very genuine evidence given to the committee, albeit at very short notice. I want to highlight some of the evidence that they gave to the committee. This is an industry that has faced three significant changes over some years: firstly, the transition in ownership of airports, largely from public to private; secondly, emerging threats to national and international security, threats of an economic nature and, in particular, threats to travelling at large; thirdly, the industry shares with the Australian public the experience of a new federal government, led by a Prime Minister that has promised the Australian electorate to deliver evidence based policy.

Evidence based policy requires three things: first, clear articulation of the purpose for which the policy is being proposed—the why; second, clear economic analysis of the impact that the policy will have—clear economic modelling that underpins the policy; and, third, a clear mechanism to monitor the progress of the policy, to track its impact over the projected period of time and, equally as importantly, to ensure that the policy achieves its stated objectives. Whilst the coalition will not oppose this legislation, we are concerned that the Rudd government is failing, as with other measures, to deliver the promised economic based policy. Prime Minister Rudd has failed to instruct his cabinet, his ministers, on how to implement evidence based policy 101. I will put my views as to how. First, the government has failed to clearly outline the reasons for the increase in the passenger movement charge. Is it for cost recovery purposes, or is it a tax? If it is for cost recovery purposes, then why did the minister say in his second reading speech that this increase is, in part, to fund national security, yet he did not say what the other parts are that will be funded?

Particularly given the changes that are being faced by the industry, it is incumbent on the government to answer the question posed in evidence before the committee by some witnesses that, to the extent that national security does need to be funded, it should be funded on a user pays basis and on the basis that the user is the Australian public writ large, as opposed to the traveller. Particularly given the changed circumstances being faced by this sector, it is incumbent on the Rudd government to answer that question. I am disappointed that the majority report from the committee has failed to do that, so I look forward to hearing about the answer to that question in the ensuing debate.

To the extent that the increase in this passenger movement charge may be to fund in part national security, then what are the other bits and pieces that are being funded? If this is not a cost recovery mechanism but a tax, then come out and say so. If it is in part cost recovery and in part tax, then come out and tell the Australian public so. We wait to hear the clearly articulated reasons for the policy, the first step in evidence based policy 101. On the second step, economic modelling to underpin the implementation of this policy and the increase in the passenger movement charge: we heard from the witnesses that there has been no modelling of the impact that this increase will have on the travelling public, on the tourism sector and on Australians at large. In my case in particular, being a senator for South Australia, I was very concerned to hear evidence from Mr Phil Baker, from the Adelaide Airports Corporation, as to his concerns about the particular impact of this increase on people who travel through Adelaide. Irrespective of the fact that it is a flat increase nationally, Mr Baker gave evidence that this increase would impact particularly on passengers likely to transition through Adelaide, given the comparison of the South Australian market with the market nationally.

I look forward to the government providing the economic modelling of the impact of this measure on the travelling public and on the Australian community. I also look forward to their delivering transparency and accountability in the appropriation or the expenditure of the money. Clear evidence from the witnesses was, thus far: there is none. Indeed, how can there be when the government on its own say-so is unsure of the reason for which this policy is being implemented? That is what one inevitably has to conclude, from the information on the public record at this stage. If it be not so, I look forward to hearing from the minister as to the clearly articulated purpose for the increase in the passenger movement charge.

It is no answer for the government to say, as they have attempted to say: ‘We’re just continuing what you did.’ It is no answer from my colleagues opposite, or the government, to say that, because, as I have said, we have had transition in ownership of airports from public to private over a number of years; we have an industry that is facing new and emerging threats; and we have a new federal government with a Prime Minister who has promised delivery of evidence based policy.

I call on the Australian government to tell the Australian people and to show the Australian people the why, what and how of this increase in the passenger movement charge. I say to the Australian government: tell the Australian people for what evidence based purpose is the government increasing the passenger movement charge. Tell them the why. Tell the Australian people and show the Australian people the what. Show the Australian people how the increase will impact on the tourism sector and the Australian community. Show them which bits of the increase will go where. Be transparent and deliver on the Prime Minister’s promise to deliver evidenced based policy.