HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-06-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Travel Agents Repeal Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 June 2014.)

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light—Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (12:14): First, I would like to thank those honourable members who have spoken on this bill. I am pleased that overall people are supportive. From what I hear they are supportive of the legislation, and I also note the comments made by the Hon. Stephen Wade in the other place. I would like to address some of those issues.

In December 2012, it was agreed that the Travel Compensation Fund would not continue to be the primary vehicle for consumer protection in the travel market. There have been both fundamental changes in the market and the introduction of strengthened legislative protections under the Australian Consumer Law. I am also advised that remodelling of the TCF rather than its abolition was considered and not regarded as an option moving forward to deregulate the industry.

PricewaterhouseCoopers conducted a survey in 2009 that found that only 14 per cent of consumers were aware of the TCF. Aside from its negligible public profile, the benefits of the current scheme are declining due to natural attrition linked with changes in the way consumers purchase travel. In fact, I understand that over two-thirds of travel is now purchased through a non-agent situation, so the scheme did not protect those consumers. Notwithstanding that, an extensive national consumer education program will commence on 1 July.

I also understand that the client trust accounts, whether required by statute or not, remain subject to bankruptcy and insolvency laws external to the licensing arrangements in place. As such, I do not consider the trust accounts of travel agents would be any more likely to be vulnerable to claims after 1 July than they are now. It should also be noted that many remittances are now instantaneous, and that is becoming more and more prevalent across the industry.

South Australia had initial concerns with the Travel Industry Transition Plan; however, these have now been addressed with the exception of the mandatory trust accounts for participants of the accreditation scheme. South Australia endorsed the plan in light of the general acceptance of the majority of the states and territories to endorse it.

The government considered that South Australia could have a more substantial and effective influence on the progress of the transition plan through its different stages and contribute to an education campaign and consumer advocacy by endorsing the plan and being part of the entire process. The government also recognises that the agreement to the plan will ensure that travel agents operating in South Australia are not faced with additional red tape and regulatory burdens, as well as ensuring consistency for travel agents who operate nationally.

The COAG Legislative and Governance Forum will oversee the components of the plan; however, this does not include the government being involved in an industry-led scheme. Regulators have been closely involved in the development of the Australian Travel Accreditation Scheme code and charter. I can advise that, on 8 May 2014, the Australian Federation of Travel Agents published a code of conduct and charter for ATAS which is available on the AFTA website.

These documents were reviewed by a national working party made up of representatives from all jurisdictions, as well as Austrade and Choice. Members of the working party are comfortable that AFTA have addressed all their concerns and that the code and charter achieve the best practice objectives.

Voluntary, industry-led regulation has proven to be a flexible, less intrusive means of regulating participants' behaviour. As the owner of ATAS, the AFTA board has some involvement in the scheme's administration. The changes brokered by jurisdictions have minimised this role. All other decision-making is spread between ATAS and the ATAS Code Compliance Monitoring Committee.

The ACCMC is an independent review body established to review and determine consumer complaints and allegations of noncompliance with the ATAS charter and code. The ACCMC can issue binding decisions, including sanctions against a participant. ACCMC members consist of an independent chair, two consumer representatives nominated by the consumer movement, another representative from industry, commerce and government, and the AFTA CEO. They are required to make decisions consistent with the ATAS charter and the ACCMC's terms of reference, which are included in the charter.

When the plan was developed, it was considered that consumers would rely on the Australian Consumer Law for any redress; however, industry has led an initiative to bring to the marketplace a range of insolvency insurances which extend further than the TCF charter. This is a real bonus for the transition to a deregulated model.

Travel intermediaries who wish to become accredited under ATAS have the option of taking out such insurance as a means of protecting against the impacts of a collapse, either of their own business or one of their suppliers. Whether a travel intermediary needs to take out such insurance will depend on the business model and the types of suppliers they deal with. This is one of the reasons why a voluntary approach may be more appropriate to contemporary industry practices.

Other reasons include that the products which are sold by agents may be already covered by an insolvency product, such as the scheduled airline failure insurance scheme. Further, some businesses may already have systems in place ensuring that purchases are protected from any business failure. Purchases made by credit card can also provide protection of a consumer's payment in the event of non-supply for any reason. In this light, caution needs to be exercised before imposing costs on Australian-based businesses compared to their global competitors selling to the same consumers.

Those agents concerned that they may not have insolvency insurance in place can recommend to clients that payment be made by credit card in the short term. I am advised by AFTA that insurance quotes for scheduled airline failure insurance and end-supply failure insurance, the two supply covers, have been available for a number of months now and many businesses have sought quotes.

There are a number of travel agent and insurance products which have been open and available to those agents. Turnaround is usually within a week or two if all requested information is provided by the agent to the insurance broker. A risk assessment is then run across the business before the quote is issued. AFTA and insurance providers are working hard to ensure insurance is in place for agents who have applied.

I understand that it is very hard to estimate what proportion of these will take up the insurance or self-insure at this stage. I believe some travel agents are keeping their cards very close to their chest, while others seek out commercial solutions. I can confirm that both Flight Centre and Travel Counsellors have advised of their own commercial solutions beyond the Gow-Gates offer of insolvency protections.

South Australia should receive approximately 6 per cent of the remaining balance of the TCF. Based on the TCF balance at 31 December 2013, and taking into consideration moneys already allocated to Choice for the consumer endowment program, and the moneys allocated to a national education program, South Australia should receive somewhere between $1.5 million and $2 million. Moneys returned to the South Australian government will at this stage be returned to consolidated revenue.

It is important to note that moneys from the travel compensation fund (up to $3 million) have already been allocated to a comprehensive national education program, which will commence on 1 July. This will be overseen by consumer affairs agencies nationally. The campaign will highlight the changes to the travel environment and help consumers to understand their rights when buying travel.

Each state and territory will support the national campaign locally, incorporating travel messaging into their existing consumer education programs. In recent months, Consumer and Business Services has provided information to the South Australian travel industry about the changes through direct correspondence to all licensed travel agents in the South Australian Tourism Industry Council. CBS has also published information on its website, including frequently asked questions.

I can confirm that the TCF coverage will cease at 1 July 2014; however, the TCF will continue to accept and consider claims until closer to mid-2015 for any claims occurring prior to 1 July 2014. Transitional provisions have been included in the repeal bill to support this position. I conclude by saying that retaining the current licensing regime for travel agents operating in South Australia will only impose additional regulatory burden and red tape compared with other jurisdictions.

Given that many travel agents operate across Australia, it is important that South Australia maintains a competitive business climate and ensures that travel agents operating here are not disadvantaged. Without a national travel compensation fund, it will be crucial to educate consumers about their rights under the Australian Consumer Law as well as the importance of using reputable travel agents. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. T.R. Kenyon): Member for Heysen, I am assuming that you have some questions. Is there a particular clause you would like to ask questions about?

Ms REDMOND: Yes, primarily about clause 3, which is the repeal of the act.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Ms REDMOND: Minister, I was interested in the comments you just made in closing the second reading debate. My questions really want to explore the effect of the repeal in clause 3 which is, of course, the crucial clause of the act.

You said that the benefits of the scheme are declining due to the way consumers purchase travel. In one sense I agree with you inasmuch as I acknowledge that a vast number of people are now doing their bookings directly. Indeed, the member for Morphett raised questions in his contribution yesterday about why this government is spending $80 million-plus for a contract with Carlson Wagonlit to do our bookings when there is a much cheaper way for us to do it—I accept that.

As it is structured, the scheme was still working appropriately to protect those people who booked through a travel agent in this state. If you get the chance to read my contribution from yesterday—and I understand that you have had illness and so on to deal with, so I accept that you have not read all of our contributions—you will see that my concern is that what we are doing is removing a protection which is working perfectly well at the present time in favour of a scheme which, although there are theoretically some protections, simply will not work in the same way.

I gave an example of someone who had booked a massive holiday to South America by way of a honeymoon. The agent paid the money on, but then two days before the wedding, the customer found out that the organisation overseas had collapsed. However, because of the existence of the travel compensation fund, that person was able to have their entire honeymoon reinstated and all their ticketing done, and so on, within 48 hours. And of course, there are subrogation rights under the legislation.

What I want to get from you, minister, is any sort of assurance that consumers will be as protected—and I am not talking about the ones who are booking online, we are not dealing with them. Will the people who currently go to a travel agent have any recourse in that sort of situation that will enable them, within 48 hours, to get their honeymoon (or whatever it might be) reinstated?

I should indicate that my brother has worked in the travel industry for his whole adult life and has been talking to me about his concerns with this legislation since before it was ever introduced in this state. My concern is that it seems to me that the consumers in this state, as of 1 July, are going to face a major detriment even if they are booked through a travel agent—I am only really talking about the people who are currently booked through a travel agent.

In that circumstance, where those people booked their honeymoon, then two days before the wedding, with the existing scheme that could be sorted, and they could still go on their honeymoon and the travel agents compensation fund under subrogation rights in the act could then pursue whoever afterwards to get back whatever could be got back, but the customer is protected. It seems to me that nothing that I have heard would allow that speed and that restitution to occur, so I am wondering if the minister could detail what steps would be available in that sort of scenario for someone once we get rid of this scheme?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I would like to thank the honourable member for her question. There are a couple of things in answer to your specific question. The decision to abolish the fund has already been made, so the fund will not exist at a certain date. That decision was made by a couple of other jurisdictions that decided to withdraw from the scheme. It is a cooperative scheme like all cooperative national schemes, and it only works when all the parties are at the table. As a result of the fund which will be wound up, there is no scheme to access. That is important. So we could not repeal it but we would have a bill, an act, but not a fund to go to.

Secondly, on my understanding, I am advised that in the example you have provided, the current scheme only provided for compensation or insurance protection for when the money was handed over from the consumer to the travel agent before the travel agent actually paid it to the supplier.

Ms REDMOND: No, they paid it when they booked everything.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I understand that, but this scheme covers where the travel agent goes bankrupt or does not honour it. I am not sure in your example from where they got their payment, but certainly that was not part of this scheme here. The current scheme, which we are discussing to repeal, essentially relates to situations where the money is tendered to the travel agent but prior to being handed to the supplier themselves.

In terms of your question, it is certainly true under the repeal situation, the deregulated model, that there will have to be a greater awareness by consumers. That is certainly true, and it goes without saying. Also important, though, is that if a consumer goes—and this is where it is important that we educate the consumer about this—to an AFTA member who has gone through ATAS and are accredited, they will have end supply insurance. That is where their protection will come from in the example you have provided.

In short, the answer is: given the circumstances that the fund will not exist from a certain date, this does not actually weaken the protection for consumers to the extent that Australian Consumer Law applies to it.

Ms REDMOND: Following on from the minister's answer, it seems that there are some problems with that response inasmuch as, even if we accept that it is currently only covering the money paid to the travel agent, which is basically to be held in trust, and they have gone belly up, defaulted or whatever, then it still seems to me that, first, accreditation is voluntary. I let the minister know that my information is that at this stage, of all the thousands of agents in Victoria, only 15 have indicated an intention to become accredited. So, voluntary accreditation is the first problem. The second problem is the issue of the insurances because, even if you choose to become accredited, the taking out of various types of insurance, once you are accredited, is again a voluntary thing, so you could be accredited without necessarily taking out those insurances. Then there is the timing issue of the ability of this fund to step in at very short notice and give restitution.

The other problem it seems to me is that, while you say the decision to abolish the fund was already made—I am aware of that. If you read my contribution, you will see that I mentioned the fact that there was a conference in this city a couple of weeks ago at which they were talking about the commencement of the new arrangements from 1 July, and we had not started debating this bill in either house at that point. The fact is that the existing act—and that is why I am asking my questions under this clause—does not actually require it to be part of a national scheme. The existing act simply sets up a scheme which says that, in order to operate as a travel agent in this state you have to be licensed; in order to be licensed you have to be a fit and proper person, not disqualified, and so on, and you have to have the insurance.

It still seems to me—I know that you cannot listen to two people at once and I used to have that job once upon a time—that there are inherent difficulties, and that it would have been preferable to leave this legislation in place, leave the Travel Compensation Fund going, and then gradually move to another system. I know that the discussion has been going on for three years—I think since December 2009 or 2010—or at least a couple of years. The discussion was agreed nationally. This again is one of these situations that I object to, where ministers go off and make a decision and tell their colleagues from other states that they are agreeing, when we have not had a chance to consider the implications in this state.

Will the minister answer another question, which relates to his comments in the close of the second reading. I understood the minister to say that funds held in the trust account were liable to bankruptcy laws. It was reasonably early on in your comments, but maybe you could look for them because I want to clarify what you meant there.

My understanding is that if you handed money to a travel agent to pay for a holiday, that money was subject to auditing and was pretty much dealt with like trust money. I do not understand how it would be that, if the travel agent went bankrupt, any money held on trust by the travel agent on behalf of the consumer—who has gone to the travel agent to book their big river cruise in Europe, or whatever, and has handed over thousands of dollars and it is in the travel agent's trust account—would be lost. Is the minister saying that if the travel agent fails financially and goes into a liquidation or a bankruptcy, the effect of that is that the bankruptcy can then take that consumer's money which was held in trust to purchase a particular travel item?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I thank the honourable member for her questions. I will try to recall all of them. My understanding—and I am not a lawyer—is that money that is held in a trust account by an agent will be subject to the normal bankruptcy and insolvency laws as they apply across the country. In other words, my understanding is that the fact that we are repealing this act does not change the operation of that law in relation to the operation of a trust account. If that is the way bankruptcy laws operate, that is the case. I do not know; I am not familiar with that area.

The reason we are repealing this act is that part of the main reason of having the act was part of establishing the fund itself; they went part and parcel. We have two things. One is that if we do not repeal the act, we actually need a stand-alone scheme to provide additional protection, because it does not exist. Secondly, if we do have a stand-alone scheme which imposes additional red tape and regulatory burdens, which means more cost, people will just purchase their travel online but through other states. You really cannot protect the consumer from the way the world has changed, to the extent that you are suggesting.

My understanding is that you are suggesting that we go it alone in some sort of scheme. Unfortunately, with two-thirds of people already purchasing their travel online—and that will increase over time—the fact is that if an agent here has an additional regulatory burden and therefore charges more, they will purchase their travel through an agent interstate, if they go through an agent and not online. I really cannot see how you can actually enforce what you are proposing unless you establish an additional fund and extra regulation, in which case, in the end, we are going to lose as the market continues to change towards online or interstate purchasing.

Ms REDMOND: I have so many questions, I do not know where to begin. In relation to that last point, it seems to me that if we could not go it alone, then the way to approach it would be to say you cannot practise as a travel agent unless this accreditation which is currently voluntary is instead compulsory. Just this morning, people on your side of the house were arguing very strongly that we had to compel certain behaviours by regulation and yet under this argument, under this particular legislation, you have said voluntary control is less intrusive and better.

It seems to me that the only way to protect a consumer—whether they are going online or otherwise—who is using a travel agent is first of all to say that you cannot practise as a travel agent unless you are accredited under this new arrangement, and secondly to say that you cannot practise as a travel agent if, having obtained your accreditation, you do not take out certain levels of compulsory insurance. As I understood what the minister said again in his closing of the second reading, towards the end he suggested that agents might recommend payment by credit card by people using travel agents. I am making some assumptions here.

I acted in a matter which you may recall, minister, of the balloon accident up in Alice Springs many years ago where one balloon crashed into the canopy of another balloon. The balloon underneath lost all its air and it plummeted to the ground. It was an awful accident. All the people—the pilot and all customers—were killed instantly. I acted for a number of the families and, as it happens, the only people who came out of that with any money were the people whose daughter (one of the passengers) had paid by credit card. Attached to her credit card (I think it was a Bankcard) was international insurance that applied to air flights and it happened to include balloons.

My question is: is it possible that under the new arrangements agents who have no training, are not accredited and do not have insurance will simply say, if they are aware of it, 'What you should do is pay me by credit card' because that will (or may) give you the protection of that sort of insurance that I have just spoken about?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am not sure whether that was a question or a statement. The question, as I understand it, is what would happen in a situation where an agent seeks to get a consumer—

Ms REDMOND: The question, minister, is: is it possible that under this new scheme you will have an agent who has no training or qualifications and who chooses not to be accredited, chooses not take out any of the insurances spoken about by you and other speakers in the course of the debate, simply says to their customers, 'I recommend that you pay me by credit card because that may give you some protection'? Is that going to be possible under this new scheme because I suspect it is?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If you do take if, if and if and if, I suppose that is possible. However, the question remains then: to what extent do you provide a burden regulation for the overwhelming majority of consumers to provide 'but if' situations? I suppose the short answer is yes that is possible, but like all legislation we make some sort of risk assessment as to what is for the common good.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Minister, on that same clause for repeal, I understand there is about $27 million in the Travel Compensation Fund. My question comes back to the $80 million five-year contract that the government signs with a travel agent to provide management of whole-of-government travel services. Has the government been contributing to that fund? If so, how much is it for management fees? I understand that on top of those management fees, then we pay our airfares or train fares or whatever on top of that. It would be a considerable amount that the government has actually paid into that fund. Is there going to be any way of clawing back any of that money now or is there any need to? Can you also tell us how much we might have paid in?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: To answer that question, you are asking a question of government as a consumer rather than as a regulator, so I would have to refer those to the relevant minister who is responsible for administering the scheme. I am certainly not responsible for administering the scheme but I am happy to put those questions to that minister and get those answers for you.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just on that, minister, if you could also get from the relevant minister information that might assist us here because, if somebody has referred you to my contribution yesterday, I have some issues—and you spoke about this. I think it was in 2002 there were about 5 per cent of people using online services and it is about two-thirds of people now. I think most members of parliament do online bookings and then refer it back to the travel agent. My concern is that we are paying what seems to be about $44,000 a day for whole-of-government travel management.

I assume that on top of that we are then paying our airfares and fees, so that agent is then possibly getting commissions; I do not know. Can you let the committee know what monetary amounts are involved? How much we are paying for whole-of-government travel, perhaps parliamentary travel as well, on top of that management fee, and is there a way we can reduce that? I think that members of parliament would do everything they can to reduce the cost to taxpayers of a resource that is now, as we are all saying, probably not as necessary as it was when I saw the original contract back in 2003 for $80 million. Are we still paying that money now? I am not so sure that we need to.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Again, I will refer that to the relevant minister and get the details. From my recollection, that matter was subject to a tender which Carlson won. I suppose that tender has an end date, and I am sure that the government would review, as it does all expenditure, better ways to deliver the taxpayer dollar. I am happy to inquire further for you.

Ms REDMOND: This is still clause 3, about the repeal of the Travel Agents Act. As I mentioned at the outset, the act basically sets up a regime, which is similar to the legal profession. To be a lawyer you have to have a licence and to have a licence you have to have insurance. The Travel Agents Act effectively does the same thing. To be a travel agent you have to have a licence and you have to then have insurance. My question on this occasion relates to that licence.

Putting aside the questions of insurance, I have already expressed fairly clearly, when you read my contribution, which I am sure you will, my concerns about the lack of protection for consumers that this generates. Can the minister advise what, if any, requirements there will be to make people who want to set up as a travel agent actually know anything about the travel industry? The member for Hammond yesterday made a very good contribution. He referred to small business operators.

You can have someone who has been practising for 20, 30 or 40 years and has a great deal of expertise in the travel industry operating their travel agency in town X. And right next door someone could come along—because there will not be a licensing requirement as soon as we repeal this—and just declare themselves to be ABC travel, set up with no requirements as to being fit and proper people, no requirements as to supervision and management, no requirements as to knowledge of IATA or any of the other requirements, and thereby put someone out of business.

Eventually, one would hope that people would wake up to the fact that someone does know about the travel industry and someone does not. Nevertheless, we are going to be exposing, I think, consumers to the risk, and they will think, 'Well, the government looks after these things. If I go to someone who's allowed to put up a sign saying they are a travel agent, they must have some knowledge, they must have some licensing.' What are the requirements, if any, to be able to practice as a travel agent?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The short answer is that there is nothing to stop a person from setting up a travel agent business. Having said that, though, in a lot of walks of life, and even in some professions, there is no regulatory scheme, and people can call themselves a whole range of things and—

Ms Redmond: Financial advisors.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, which your national people are trying to water down, if I remember correctly. Putting that aside for a moment, with the bill before us, the answer to your question is that we have to ensure that if a consumer decides to go to a travel agent who is not a member of the professional body it has additional risks (I will not say no risks), because if you are a member of AFTA there is a whole range of things you are required to do just as you do if you are a member of the Law Society or another professional organisation. There are certain standards you need to meet and maintain.

Ultimately, the question is that a consumer has to accept some responsibility and make sure that the person they deal with is a reputable person. That is true in a lot of walks in life, and we do that often by going to people who belong to professional associations. In this case, AFTA is the professional industry association which will set the appropriate benchmarks for its membership to behave and transact business in a certain way.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Ms REDMOND: I have probably only one question, and it relates to subsection (6), the very last subsection, which says:

The date of termination of the compensation fund is provided for in clause 27.1 of the trust deed.

The first part of my question is: what is that? Then, could the minister, in relation to that, clarify his comments at the end of the second reading contribution, because I understood him to say, and I was struggling to keep up with writing notes, that after the money which is going to Choice as the preferred tenderer for the provision of consumer protection education, or whatever it was, and so on, there would be about $1.5 million to $2 million, and I thought he suggested that that would be returned to consolidated revenue. Could the minister please clarify what happens to the money under this scheme?

I understand that it could not be returned to the travel agents but normally—for instance, in the Associations Incorporation Act—if you have an organisation that is set up and is holding money as an incorporated association, if that organisation fails or dissolves for any reason, then there is a requirement under the act that the assets held not be distributed to those holding them as though they were shareholders but be applied to a similar purpose.

I would not have an objection, for instance, if the money were to be applied to better educating the public about why it might be a good idea to go to a travel agent and get some protection and advice than to book online, but I would like to hear what the minister's justification is for taking money into general revenue, and into the consolidated revenue, rather than applying it to the purposes for which the money was originally held.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised that the trust will terminate on either 31 December 2015 or as soon after 30 June 2015 as the obligations under the trust are discharged. That is clause 27 of the trust deed. That is the answer to the first question.

In answer to the second question, of the amounts which have been handed back, $2.8 million is going to AFTA, $2.8 million is going to Choice, $3 million is going to consumer affairs nationally for education programs, and the balance, which is roughly $1.5 million, is just going to general revenue, which I think you disagree with, but that is what is happening.

Ms REDMOND: The minister got the question absolutely correct and I thank him for the information about how much. I just do not understand why it would not be more appropriate, given the nature of why the fund was set up, to simply apportion that remaining amount of money to those purposes or to even specify that that $1.5 million, or whatever it might be, is to provide a specific officer with knowledge of the travel industry to work in the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs, or whatever they now call it, to do the public education exercise, or whatever it might be. It just seems to me to be unjustifiable for the government to say, 'We'll have what's left.'

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I think that is more an opinion than a question, which you are entitled to have, member for Heysen. What I would say is that the judgement has been made that the amount which has been allocated for education programs is sufficient and that is what happens to be left over. That is not only this jurisdiction, but other jurisdictions as well.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light—Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (12:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (12:56): I want just to make some concluding remarks by way of a third reading address. I will not keep the house any more than about 30 seconds, but I do want to place on record my very profound concern about the repeal of this legislation. I believe that it will not do anything to enhance consumer protection in this state, nor will it do anything to protect the numerous small travel agents who are already facing difficulties because we are all aware and have all spoken about the fact that we have this increasing level of internet usage for the booking of travel. I do think that we are heading down the wrong road, and I just want to confirm that in my third reading contribution.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I just make the comment that I have noted the concerns expressed by the member for Heysen. What I would say is that, like all new schemes, they are subject to review. The ATAS scheme will be reviewed formally after 12 months and on an ongoing basis for three years, so if it does not operate as intended I am sure the relevant jurisdictions will act accordingly.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 12:57 to 14:00.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT