Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 29 November 2016
Page: 4807

Mr MORRISON (CookTreasurer) (18:00): I would like to thank members who have contributed to this debate and thank the opposition for their cooperation in the management of the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016 through this House. As part of these reforms, the government has increased the passenger movement charge to $60 from 1 July 2017. This increase is the first increase since 2012 and is in line with changes in the consumer price index between this time and 2017. During the debate in the Senate on this measure, the government committed to not increase the $60 rate of the passenger movement charge for a minimum period of five years from 1 July 2017, and this bill gives effect to this commitment.

I note, on the amendment moved by the opposition, that they make a number of observations but, in particular, they draw attention to the lack of consultation in relation to the passenger movement charge. I simply draw their attention to the words of the former Minister for Tourism Martin Ferguson, who said:

If you actually have a look at the visitation to Australia over the last few years, there were a variety of increases to the passenger movement charge when I was the minister from December 2007 to 2013.

It was increased from $37.55, from memory. He said:

I can assure you there was little or no consultation—

In relation to those changes. That was the confession of the Labor minister for tourism on those matters. So I note the amendment moved by the opposition. It is what it is: another opportunity to play politics with this matter. This legislation needs to go through and be passed, and that will ensure certainty for the tourism industry and the agricultural sector. I commend the bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Grayndler has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.