The Greens' Accusation: AirTrain's Tax Evasion and the Cost to Queenslanders
The Brisbane AirTrain service, a private venture operating on public infrastructure, has sparked controversy over its tax practices and the financial burden it imposes on Queenslanders. The Greens MP, Michael Berkman, has accused the company of tax evasion, highlighting a concerning pattern of financial arrangements that benefit the foreign owners at the expense of local taxpayers.
The Tax Evasion Allegation
Berkman's claim centers on the financial reports of USS Axle, the company behind the AirTrain service. These reports reveal that between 2015 and 2025, USS Axle paid zero income tax. The company's complex financial structure, including a loan from its parent company, Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), based in the United Kingdom, suggests an attempt to avoid tax obligations. This is particularly concerning given the company's exclusive deal with the state government, which grants it significant control over public transport to the airport.
Impact on Queenslanders
The AirTrain service, with its high fares of $23.30 per person, offers a faster option compared to the shuttle service and connecting buses. However, the Greens argue that this convenience comes at a cost. While Queenslanders struggle with rising fuel and transport costs, the foreign owners of AirTrain are allegedly avoiding their tax responsibilities, creating an unfair financial burden. The situation is made more critical by the fact that AirTrain is the primary public transport option for international visitors during the 2032 Olympics, raising questions about the state government's commitment to transparency and fair taxation.
Nationalisation as a Solution
Berkman proposes a radical solution: nationalising AirTrain. He suggests that the state government should buy back the service for $45 million, offering a fairer deal for Queenslanders. By nationalising the service, the government could reduce ticket prices to 50 cents, similar to the Gold Glider bus line, and extend its reach into the airport. This move would send a powerful message, demonstrating a commitment to transparency and ending the perceived hold-up of Queenslanders by private corporations.
Broader Implications
The AirTrain controversy raises deeper questions about the relationship between private companies and public infrastructure. The Greens' accusation highlights the need for stricter oversight and transparency in such arrangements. It also underscores the importance of ensuring that public services are accessible and affordable for all Queenslanders, especially during major events like the Olympics. The proposed nationalisation of AirTrain could be a significant step towards achieving this goal, but it also raises questions about the potential impact on the service's efficiency and the state government's ability to manage such a complex transition.
In conclusion, the Greens' accusation regarding AirTrain's tax practices and the financial burden on Queenslanders is a call for urgent action. It prompts a re-evaluation of the current arrangement and a deeper examination of the role of private companies in public infrastructure. The proposed nationalisation of AirTrain is a bold move that could bring about significant changes, but it also requires careful consideration of the potential consequences and the broader implications for the state's public transport system.
