Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. On Saturday Qantas management took the extreme step of grounding our national carrier. But within 48 hours Qantas got what it wanted and is now on a fast track to arbitration, where it may be able to avoid the protections—for job security and against offshoring—that the workers have been so strongly seeking. Now that the government has begun the process before Fair Work Australia, what is the government's plan to ensure that Qantas will keep jobs onshore and that management is not able to take further extreme actions that will affect the Qantas brand?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. I say to the member for Melbourne in this parliament, as I have said outside this parliament, it is not my intention to offer running commentary about the issues in dispute between Qantas, trade unions and employees whilst the conciliation process is happening. I do not think that would be the appropriate thing to do and I do not intend to do it.

The circumstance of the dispute now is that the government has acted to get industrial action out of the way, and now we are in the conciliation period. Qantas and the trade unions involved should use this conciliation period to get the issues in dispute resolved. I do understand from the point of view of the trade unions that there is a job security issue that they are seeking to pursue; the right way of pursuing that now is in the conciliation with Qantas. I say again: if the conciliation with Qantas does not end in an agreement, then the industrial umpire Fair Work Australia can at the end of a 21-day period impose a determination on the parties.

I note that in his question the member for Melbourne used the term 'may' in relation to whether or not the issues about which he is concerned end up featuring in that determination, if Fair Work Australia ends up making one. That will be a question for Fair Work Australia—to deal with those issues if conciliation fails.

But I believe it is in the national interest, in the interests of Qantas and in the interests of the employees of Qantas to use this opportunity now—with industrial action not occurring—to get around a table and get this resolved. I remind the House that the termination of industrial action is the termination of all industrial action, whether it be taken by unions or whether it be taken by Qantas by way of lockout. So the opportunity is now there for the parties to get this resolved for the long term, and they should use it.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the economic impacts of the recent actions taken by Qantas?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. As members are aware, on Saturday afternoon Qantas took the extraordinary action of grounding its entire international and domestic fleet. This action posed very significant risk to our economy, to employment and to the business community more generally, and that is why the Prime Minister took immediate and decisive action to get Fair Work Australia involved. The consequence of that is that planes are going to be back in the air. We understand the seriousness of the situation, even if those opposite do not. They might think they can play a political game with this, but these matters are too serious for the politicking of those opposite. We took our responsibilities extremely seriously. I want to explain to the House why we took our responsibilities so seriously.

In August Qantas carried a massive 1.5 million domestic passengers; that is something like 50,000 passengers a day. In the same month it carried half a million international passengers. So this decision of Qantas to lock out its workforce—without notice—posed a very significant risk to our national economy. The decision by Fair Work Australia was a significant breakthrough in resolving this difficult dispute, because what we would have seen if this were a protracted dispute is knock-on effects right through our economy.

I am a Queenslander; I understand the importance of aviation to the tourist industry. But it is not just the tourist industry. We understand the importance of aviation when it comes to our mining industry—for example, fly-in fly-out miners. All of these are immediately affected—and that is before you go to the tens of thousands of businesses in the tourist industry and elsewhere—everybody, right down the supply chain, who would have been affected if this dispute had gone on. So the Prime Minister acted decisively and acted immediately to deal with this dispute.

But what we are hearing in the House today is the game playing and the politicking of those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition is all opposition and no leadership. He would rather see the country fail than the government succeed. But, when you get to a difficult national issue like this, you have to put the national interest first, and this government will always put the national interest first. We did it during the global recession and the global financial crisis, despite the opposition of all of those opposite who did not want to see us stimulate the economy. This side of the House will always put jobs first. We will always try to do everything we can to keep the doors of small business open, because we are committed to the national interest. They are just committed to their own selfish political interests.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to this morning's analysis of the impact of the Qantas strike action by Bell Potter Securities: 'The impression left on foreign investors in Australian assets is a very poor one. The perception of union militancy increases equity risk premium, while the fact the incumbent government did nothing about the rolling strikes until it was forced to also reflects very poorly on Australia.' Treasurer, when were you first made aware of the grounding of the Qantas planes and what did you do to try and prevent it?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The most important thing you must do when you are handling an industrial dispute is put the national interest first, and that is what this government has done. When the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport was informed of their decision, which they said was non-negotiable, he rang me—he rang the Treasurer—and I then spoke to him. I subsequently spoke to the Prime Minister and to a number of other ministers to bring them together and to put in place the swiftest possible action that we could, given the threat to our national economy. So we acted as soon as we possibly could, we acted within the law of the land and we acted with a genuine desire to resolve this dispute.

I know that those opposite want to take sides in a dispute. We know that they always take one side when they are talking about industrial relations, and we know they never take the side of the workers. But what we will do on this side of the House is work in an even-handed way within the industrial relations system to make sure that both the employers and the employees are heard, and we will do that in the national interest.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. How did the government's Fair Work Act help in the lockout of workers by Qantas and get Qantas planes back in the air? How does the handling of this dispute compare with previous industrial disputes?

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Reid for his question. I know that he is a long-time campaigner for fairness in the industrial relations system. When we came to government, we reintroduced fairness through the Fair Work Act. I am asked how this played a role in the resolution of this dispute. It played an important role, but it was the act facilitated by the decisive action of the Prime Minister that got the planes flying again.

This was a situation in which Australia was confronted with a company that, with very little notice and no intention of changing its mind, had determined to ground its entire fleet domestically and internationally, which would have led to the crippling of the Australian economy and the stranding of tens of thousands of passengers around the world. What the government did was take immediate action when it learned of this intention. It took this matter to Fair Work Australia. The matter was convened that night and adjourned the next day so that the case for the impact in terms of the national interest and the economy could be determined. As a result of that adjourned hearing, the industrial action was terminated—not just suspended but terminated. That has now allowed the circumstances in which, over the next three weeks, the parties are required to bargain in good faith to resolve this dispute, and, if that cannot be done, it will be compulsorily arbitrated upon. That is what will happen because of the act and because of the actions by the Prime Minister.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr Abbott interjecting—

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am asked, and I hear all of this from the other side, about what the government should have done and when; let us just reflect on their view of what the government's role in similar circumstances would be. This is what the Leader of the Opposition on a previous occasion has said in relation to government involvement in industrial disputes:

The Government must be highly selective about the cases where it seeks to intervene. In general, the parties to an industrial dispute should make their own arrangements … without any government—

assistance. In other words, these hypocrites who sit opposite are trying to make the issue of how we should have got involved when we did, yet they themselves do not believe in government involvement. If there is any doubt about that, I remind people what the architect of Work Choices had to say a week ago. This is what Peter Reith had to say:

A lot of people say there’s a dispute so let’s get the government to fix it. Quite frankly that is old thinking … It’s an idea that we—

meaning the Liberal Party—

abandoned for a very good reason … when it comes to a dispute the government is not the solution …

That is the thinking of those on the other side. So do not come here, with your cant and hypocrisy, saying where the government should have intervened earlier; look at your own form. If you want to understand where this dispute could have ended up, look no further than what happened in the Patrick dispute, where, rather than try to get a resolution, you fanned its continuation. You had a midnight cabinet meeting to pass legislation that legitimised the sacking of an entire workforce and its replacement by a scab workforce. That is your view of industrial relations; it is not ours.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. On how many occasions prior to 2 pm on Saturday did Qantas advise the minister that, if industrial unrest continued, it may have to ground its fleet?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his maiden question on aviation in 4½ years—I thank him sincerely. If the shadow minister had access to Sky, he would know that I have indicated very clearly that this morning, after Mr Joyce gave an interview with Fran Kelly, I rang Mr Joyce and informed him that I would be making public the fact that on no occasion had Qantas ever raised the issue of a lockout of its workforce—

Honourable members interjecting —

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The member for Lyons, the member for Dawson—order!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Joyce will confirm that on no occasion did Qantas ever raise the issue of a lockout of its workforce—

Opposition members interjecting—

if you listen—to me or any other government minister.

Honourable members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will resume his seat.

Mr Champion interjecting—

The member for Wakefield is warned! The member for Sturt on a point of order, and I just remind people they can shout all they like and I will not give the call to somebody, like I did.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the minister was asked a short and specific question about how many warnings he had been given about the grounding of the fleet, not about a lockout of workers.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt will resume his seat. He has made his point of order. He cannot debate the point of order. The minister is aware of the question. He understands the responsibility to be directly relevant and the minister has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am being directly relevant, Mr Speaker. On Saturday afternoon I received a phone call from a staff member who had been contacted by a staff member of Alan Joyce, the CEO of Qantas. He indicated to me that Mr Joyce would be making a phone call to me to advise me of the situation.

I rang Mr Joyce back when I did not hear from him at 1.51 pm. I still did not hear from him. I rang at 1.55 pm. I still did not hear from him. I rang at 1.58 pm seeking to ascertain what the information was. Mr Joyce rang me—

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Joyce—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. The member for Kooyong will now be buying drinks for some people who cannot contain their enthusiasm on my right because he would have been dealt with but, no, people think that they can interject. That is not the way it works. There is no point of order. I am listening carefully to the minister's response. He is responding to the question and if people, when they make their commentary, want to dwell on what words are in the answer and not in the answer, it is up to them but they will not do it now. The minister has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Joyce rang me after 2 pm on Saturday afternoon. He informed me that according to him the board had made a decision on Saturday morning that they would lock out their workforce at 8 pm on Monday evening and that they would ground the fleet due to safety concerns at five o'clock that afternoon.

The fact is that, in terms of Mr Joyce's position during that conversation, he indicated very, very clearly that the grounding of the aircraft was as a result of the air operator certificate advice to him that the lockout from this evening at 8 pm would result in safety concerns according to Qantas. Indeed Mr Joyce indicated that that was the case. Mr Joyce had indicated in a number of meetings I had with him that planes had been grounded, and that is public knowledge: seven planes had been grounded.

On 18 October, Qantas released a press release saying:

If this overtime ban continues, we will be grounding even more aircraft.

They did that publicly, but the fact is that the licensed engineers union lifted the overtime ban and all industrial action for three weeks, and the only action that was taking place was pilots wearing red ties. (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasure and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. Will the Assistant Treasurer outline how the government's actions to get Qantas planes back in the air put the interests of consumers, business and passengers first?

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Chisholm for her question. She, like every member of the government, is animated by the national interest, and of course the way in which the government approached the Qantas lockout of its workforce reflects the commitment of the government to ensure the national interest of people and the economy is upheld.

On Saturday afternoon, mid-afternoon, the government was notified by Qantas that they would lock out their workforce from 8 am Monday morning—that is, baggage crew, ramp crew, caterers, licensed engineers, international pilots and short-haul pilots; however, they said that, because they were going to lock their workforce out from 8 am Monday morning, all planes would have to be grounded from 5 pm on Saturday. All planes in the air would be allowed to finish that leg and thereafter 155 planes would be grounded, not by the unions but by the management of Qantas, and 140,000 passengers around the world and throughout Australia, because of industrial action by one of the parties in a negotiation, were forced to have their plans inconvenienced, business trips inconvenienced, the tourism industry of one million people inconvenienced, families wanting to be reunited visiting sick relatives inconvenienced. What the government did was take appropriate steps under section 424 of the Fair Work Act to immediately make an application to terminate the industrial action and, in the alternative, if the tribunal did not find favour with that application, suspend the industrial action. All through the evening of Saturday night, senior representatives of the department of transport and the department of tourism attended these hearings and the evidence went—

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: how has any of this got anything to do with the Assistant Treasurer's portfolio responsibilities?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Menzies might have tried that point of order on the question and I still would have ruled against him. The question was in order. Now the problem for the minister is that he remains directly relevant to it—he has been doing a pretty good job of it so far.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. There was evidence given by the secretaries of two Commonwealth departments about the impact upon the economy by Qantas's action. Then, for 12 hours on Sunday, evidence was led as to why the industrial action by all parties, principally triggered by Qantas's action, should be terminated.

Assisting the government by attending those 12 hours of hearings on Sunday, I can report to the House that I did not trip over any members of the Liberal Party trying to fix this dispute. They were happy to churn out the press releases.

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The House will come to order!

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact, if any member of the opposition had bothered to turn up, they would have realised that, when Qantas was supporting the government's application to terminate the bargaining periods and cease the industrial action, at no point did Qantas allege that, if they had just had a chance to speak to the government before 5 pm, none of this would happen. Qantas never put that on the record in the 12 hours of legal hearings.

Furthermore, at no stage did Qantas make an alternative application and say that the government should be pursuing another section of the act. In fact, it was very clear that the independent umpire, the Fair Work tribunal, acted decisively and made its decision. Thank goodness this government put in place this act to provide for a tribunal that would stand up to resolve the industrial action.

Let the record be clear: if Qantas and Alan Joyce had not taken the industrial action against the workforce, these planes would not have been grounded and there would have been no upheaval to the Australian economy.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. I refer the minister to a statement of Mr Alan Joyce on Radio National this morning. Mr Joyce was asked about his conversations with ministers and he said: 'I said on multiple occasions'—to ministers—'we could get to a stage where we'd have to ground the airline.' That was the statement of Mr Alan Joyce on Radio National today. So I ask the minister for transport: is he claiming that this statement of Mr Alan Joyce was an attempt to mislead the Australian public?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Indeed, I had a number of meetings with Mr Joyce. As I indicated at the press conference, I would not normally make these public, but, given they appeared in the Daily Telegraph on page 3, I think I am entitled to do so. I met with Mr Joyce firstly on 11 October, with staff. I then met with Mr Joyce on the Friday before last, 21 October, along with Mr Sheldon, in my Marrickville office. I have a good relationship with both Mr Joyce and Mr Sheldon. I offered to facilitate discussions between the parties in order to resolve these issues. As a result of that discussion, Mr Sheldon, on behalf of the TWU, called off the industrial action which was proposed for the following Wednesday, because real progress was made.

That afternoon, I had another meeting with Mr Joyce in my Marrickville office. The following Wednesday, I had another meeting with Mr Joyce and Mr Sheldon in my Marrickville office. Again, last Wednesday progress was being made towards a resolution of the dispute.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the detail that the minister is going into, but the question was very specific: was he advised by Mr Joyce about the grounding of the fleet?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister is aware of his responsibilities.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had those meetings as well as numerous text messages and phone conversations—indeed, I have probably had more conversations with Mr Joyce in the last fortnight that I had with my family, because we were determined to get a resolution to this dispute.

At no stage did Mr Joyce do either of two things. At no stage did Mr Joyce publicly or privately ask the government for any intervention into this dispute. That is the first thing. The second thing is: at no stage did Mr Joyce indicate that the grounding of the Qantas fleet was imminent and that it was under active consideration. Indeed, on Saturday, throughout 12 hours of hearings before Fair Work Australia, Qantas indicated very clearly that the grounding of the fleet was because of the lockout of the workers at 8 pm on Monday evening. You do not have to trust us on that; you have to look at the transcript of Fair Work Australia from 10 pm to 2 am on Saturday evening into Sunday morning and from 2 pm yesterday afternoon through to 2 am this morning. Throughout that entire time Qantas have said they relied upon their safety concerns due to the grounding of the fleet. That is why they grounded the fleet at 5 pm. Indeed, Mr Joyce in the conversation with me raised specifically safety concerns. I indicated in the question I got from our side of the House earlier today that I sought advice from CASA on Saturday afternoon, after being advised by Mr Joyce, about whether there was any justification for the grounding of the fleet and I was told there was none.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Tourism. Minister, why is it important to the tourism industry that the government took action on Saturday?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Page for the question because it goes to my prime concern with respect to the action of Qantas last Saturday—that is, finally giving the tourism industry some certainty to actually get on with the job. On receiving the phone call, the government took the natural course that it should take: act decisively and terminate all industrial action because, as of Saturday, the parties had in essence given up the ghost. They had effectively said to the government that they were incapable of resolving this issue. The commission has now very decisively said that it has terminated all industrial action and the parties are now to seek to negotiate these issues in good faith. But from tourism's perspective it is about time we had a certain degree of certainty. How much pressure can this industry bear? Just think about the challenges that it has confronted over the last 12 months. Think about the Japanese market and the impact of Fukushima. Think about Cyclone Yasi and the natural disasters, like the floods earlier this year, and the associated impact on the tourism market in New Zealand of the earthquakes that have damaged visitation to Australia from New Zealand.

The tourism sector is centrally important to the Australian economy. It employs directly and indirectly just under one million Australians. Qantas is our most important carrier, both domestically and internationally. By way of reference, Qantas's international share is almost 18 per cent of total flights and provides approximately half the domestic air travel services in Australia. That is not only important to international visitation and, I might say, domestic tourism; it is also centrally important to me as the Minister for Resources and Energy. It is reflected in why we are spending the proceeds of the minerals resource rent tax on fixing the airport roads in Perth—the most important piece of infrastructure not only to the tourism industry in Western Australia but also to the resources sector when you think about the importance of fly-in fly-out workers. The Australian workforce is becoming more and more mobile in terms of suiting the needs of us delivering that huge investment pipeline of $430 billion, of which $140 billion is in the LNG sector, which is currently propping up the Australian economy. Asia presents us with an opportunity, not only from a resources perspective; I might also say that Asia is our new frontier from a tourism perspective with growth of 10 per cent per year—a capacity to actually double our numbers by 2020.

I simply say as the CEO of Tourism Australia, Mr McEvoy, appropriately said in a media release issued today: 'This decision finally provides certainty for tourism operators in Australia. It says that, both domestically and internationally, Australian tourism is open for business. We now have certainty, a capacity for people overseas and from within Australia to actually start planning their Australian holidays for this forthcoming summer.' I simply say to the industrial commission: you were right to adopt the recommendation of the Prime Minister to act decisively and to cease all industrial action so we have some certainty for all those small and medium sized businesses to prop up the tourism sector in Australia.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Did any minister propose that the government make a declaration under section 431 of the Fair Work Act to end the Qantas dispute? If not, does that not indicate that the government was more concerned about the lockout of union members at 8 pm on Monday than the impact on the travelling public on Saturday?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question because it enables me to explain something about section 431 that throughout the course of question time has been ignored by the opposition as they twist and turn the facts to try and seek their very silly political story. Let me explain to the Leader of the National Party about section 431. I think he and the opposition need to understand this so that they stop misrepresenting the situation to Australians. I have been asked a question about section 431 and I am answering it.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question was about whether any minister had proposed action under section 431. I was not seeking a detailed explanation of what is in the section.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I know the facts stand in the way of the opposition but they are going to hear the facts. Section 431 is the section of the Fair Work Act that enables a minister to make a declaration about industrial action. The opposition have pretended all of this question time, and they have pretended in the public debate, that the way in which that section works is that a minister just gets out a sheet of paper and scrawls on it 'I declare' and then it is done. In creating that impression in here and in the public debate, the opposition are peddling a falsehood. The peddling of that falsehood should stop here and it should stop now. It is not the right thing to do—in circumstances where the national interest is engaged, where tens of thousands of Australians have been stranded and where Australians have been anxious about the circumstances of the national economy—for the opposition to peddle that falsehood. Section 431 does not enable a minister to get out a piece of paper, scribble 'I declare' on it and sign it. That is not how it works. The minister needs to be satisfied of certain facts in order to make the declaration; the minister needs to inform himself or herself.

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister has the call.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know the facts are not helping the opposition, but screaming does not change the facts. So let us listen to the facts for the first time. Section 431 does not enable a minister to just get out a sheet of paper; the minister would have to have the evidence before them that would enable them to come to the conclusion about the national economy. In terms of advice and the extension of procedural fairness, the obligation may extend to hearing from the parties affected, and when the declaration is made it is subject to judicial review. So if the minister makes a declaration—bearing in mind that this has never been done in Australia before—it would very likely end up before a court, and a court would be able to traverse all of the facts and all of the circumstances.

If the government had taken that course, it would have been a step into a legal unknown in the sense that this section had never been tested before, and inevitably, given the circumstances of this dispute, it would have ended up in a court case. So rather than putting the nation in the grip of that legal uncertainty for week after week and month after month—which the Leader of the Opposition is clearly recommending—we used the section of the act that has resulted in industrial action being terminated and planes getting back into the sky this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to peddle this falsehood because he is desperately unhappy that the Fair Work system has worked to terminate this industrial action. He is always barracking for his political interest rather than the national interest. The performance of the opposition today has been truly shoddy indeed.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Would the minister update the House on the impacts of the proposed Qantas lockout on the travelling public?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Braddon for his question. He knows that we on this side of the House believe there is a need for a balanced approach in industrial relations between employers and employees. There is one thing that is very clear though, which is that we are on the side of the travelling public. That is why we intervened in this dispute on Saturday.

Mr Hockey interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for North Sydney is warned.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were 68,000 Qantas passengers affected by this unilateral and extreme decision by Qantas management on Saturday. Those opposite, in their questions and interjections, imply that people somehow should have known that Qantas was about to ground every single plane domestically and internationally. Did they say that that was a prospect at any time? Is there a single commentator, aviation writer, opinion writer, journalist or businessperson in the nation who thought that Qantas would take the step of grounding every single plane in their fleet in Australia and internationally, with the consequences for their brand?

When unions stepped out of line—like when the secretary of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association said 'Don't fly Qantas'—I was critical of them, and the Minister for Tourism was critical of them.

Opposition members interjecting—

Something you will never hear from those on the other side of the House is a balanced approach. So when the employers, through a lockout of the workforce, grounded the airline, we were also critical of them, as you would expect. For those who suggest that somehow the government should have known that this was going to occur, I refer you to the comments of the Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, himself. In his press conference at 5 pm he described this decision as unbelievable. He stated, 'We're making the unbelievable decision to ground our airline.' Indeed, it was quite an extraordinary decision, of which no-one received fair notice—not its customers, not its employees, not the government. The government was first informed of a statement by the CEO of Qantas at 2 pm on Saturday afternoon. The government acted. I was on my feet with a comprehensive government response 15 minutes after Alan Joyce finished his press conference. Indeed, the CEO of Qantas indicated to the Minister for Workplace Relations, Senator Evans, that were this information to become public he would bring it forward and ground the airline immediately, as Senator Evans indicated at the press conference earlier today. The fact is that this is a vital industry, and that is why the government took action. Those opposite say the government should have prevented this, but Alan Joyce, the CEO of Qantas, does not argue that that is the case.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her previous answer where she indicated that, under section 431 of the act, a minister needs to be satisfied of the seriousness of an issue in the national interest before they use that section. I further refer her to the answer that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure has given today where he indicated that he had had countless meetings with Qantas and the union about this matter, and the answer that he has just given where he has indicated amply that he fully understood the seriousness of the action being taken by Qantas on Saturday. Prime Minister, what more did you need to know before you acted under section 431 to protect the travelling public of Australia?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to answer the question because it once again goes to the fiction and falsehood that the opposition are pursuing here. It is truly a disgraceful course of conduct when we are dealing with issues in the national interest. I say again to the opposition: when they are not in this negative mode—if they ever get into anything other than this negative mode—perhaps when they go back to their offices and sit down quietly and perhaps when the Work Choices fever ekes out of their veins, they should get out the Fair Work Act and start looking at some industrial law and they should think about it.

This is the declaration a minister makes when the minister needs to have evidence that he or she is acting legally appropriately—that is, that the test has been met about significant damage to the national economy. The minister does not just have a little think to themselves; they need to have the evidence. They also need to make sure that every step that they take can withstand judicial review, because this can be judicially reviewable. Ministerial declarations can be judicially reviewable.

Let us be very clear about the course the Leader of the Opposition would have had this nation on. Let us go through all the ridiculous hypocrisy we have heard today. We have got the Liberal Party now talking up the role of the industrial umpire. They spent a decade trying to kill it. Now they are talking up the role of the industrial umpire. They cannot wait to run in front of the industrial umpire after a decade of trying to kill it. We have got the Liberal Party talking up the role of arbitration when they spent more than a decade pursuing the case that arbitration was killing the Australian economy and we needed to be in a world of enterprise bargaining—the Liberal Party talking up arbitration after they brought us Work Choices, clearly calculated to end the safety net, to limit arbitration, to not enable fair bargaining and to kill the industrial umpire. That is what the Liberal Party did.

Against that backdrop of Work Choices, they get out the Fair Work Act, they go, 'Oh, I'll have a look at it, a bit of a newspaper and a bit of a think'—and now I am an industrial relations lawyer apparently—and then they peddle this falsehood that a minister can just scrawl a declaration on a piece of paper. It would have been judicially reviewed. That is what would have happened. There would have been months potentially of legal uncertainty. This section had never been used before.

The Leader of the Opposition is now saying to me, 'Why did you put it in your act?' It was in predecessor acts. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition wants to get Peter Reith on the phone and ask him that question—another question coming from the Leader of the Opposition's direct ignorance about workplace relations law because he does not care about jobs and he does not care about fairness at work. He has never bothered to learn anything about it.

The Leader of the Opposition, in suggesting that this was the better course for the government on Saturday, is peddling a falsehood. The government went down the course that had greater legal certainty, that would get the result that we needed, that is, that planes were back in the sky and—guess what—they are. That is what we did. We succeeded in getting planes back in the sky. The Leader of the Opposition would have had this nation on a course where—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: in any interpretation of being directly relevant to the question she was asked, what we have just heard is quite clearly in no way relevant. She was asked how much more evidence she needed to be convinced that it was in the national interest in light of what had been—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. It would be preferable if there was less argument that is directly relevant, but the Prime Minister has the call.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The interjection shows the falsehood. The test is not what I needed; it is what would have survived a subsequent judicial review. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to have this nation on a course of months of uncertainty. We wanted to fix this problem and we did. We know that that has hurt you—that people are getting back on planes—because that is how negative you are. (Time expired)