Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026

Stage by Stage

Summaries in reported speech - not a transcript. In date order, both chambers.

1. Wednesday 12 August 2026 · House of Representatives

   Second Reading

   The debate concerned the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026, which proposed increasing the passenger movement charge from $70 to $80. The sole speaker, Assistant Minister Julian Hill, argued that the measure would generate significant revenue and support economic resilience. He highlighted transitional arrangements for carriers and noted the positive outlook for the visitor economy. The debate was adjourned without further discussion or opposition recorded in the transcript.

   Outcome: The debate was adjourned.

   Read the full summary

2. Wednesday 19 August 2026 · House of Representatives

   Bill Debate
   See who spoke

3. Wednesday 19 August 2026 · House of Representatives

   Second Reading

   The debate concerned the proposed increase in the passenger movement charge from $70 to $80, effective from 1 January 2027. Andrew Hastie, speaking for the Coalition, argued that the government had failed to justify the increase or consult adequately with industry stakeholders. He highlighted concerns that the additional revenue would not be reinvested in border infrastructure and that the short implementation timeline created operational difficulties for airlines. The Coalition opposed the bill on these grounds, and the debate was adjourned without a recorded vote in the transcript.

   Outcome: The debate was adjourned.

   Read the full summary

4. Thursday 10 September 2026 · House of Representatives

   Second Reading

   The debate centred on whether to increase the passenger movement charge by $10, effective 1 January 2027. The government argued the increase was necessary for fiscal sustainability and border security, while opposition members contended it was a revenue grab that would harm tourism competitiveness and regional economies. Critics highlighted the lack of consultation and the absence of guarantees that revenue would be reinvested in border infrastructure. The Greens opposed the bill on cost-of-living grounds, suggesting alternative revenue sources. The debate concluded without a recorded vote in the transcript, but the bill was opposed by the Coalition and Greens.

   Outcome: The debate was adjourned.

   Read the full summary