Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026; Second Reading

Penfold opposed the bill, arguing it was a toxic tax increase that would hurt regional tourism competitiveness. Penfold noted that the charge had risen 33 per cent in less than three years and warned that higher costs would deter international visitors to areas like the Mid North Coast. Penfold criticised the government for reducing infrastructure funding for the Pacific Highway and pausing wine tourism grants, arguing these actions contradicted claims of supporting regional growth. Penfold stated there was no guarantee the additional revenue would improve border infrastructure.

Watson-Brown opposed the bill, arguing it exacerbated the cost-of-living crisis by taxing family holidays while fossil fuel corporations avoided fair taxation. Watson-Brown stated the Greens could not support reforms that made living harder for everyday people during an affordability crisis. Watson-Brown noted the charge would not reduce emissions from air travel and suggested the government should instead tax gas exports or fast-track high-speed rail. Watson-Brown criticised the increase as a hidden fee that made annual holidays unaffordable for many families.

Batt opposed the bill, describing it as a hidden cash grab that added to the cost of living pressures on Australians. Batt argued the government had failed to consult adequately with industry before announcing the increase, causing implementation issues for airlines selling tickets in advance. Batt highlighted that the charge would rise to $80, placing Australia at the high end of international departure taxes. Batt stated the coalition opposed the increase because it lacked a clear connection to improved services or border infrastructure investments.