Mr HOGAN (Page—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:27): 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 interjecting— Mr HOGAN: 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)