Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. What has been the impact of Qantas's decision to lock out its workforce and shut down the airline on the travelling public? What has been the public response to this decision?

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

I certainly thank the member for Chifley for his question. As a result of the shutdown, at least 68,000 Qantas passengers were affected—48,000 domestic passengers and 20,000 international passengers. As a result of that, people could not get to businesses; people could not get home to their families. We had people turning up at London Heathrow Airport and other airports not knowing how they could get home. Indeed, last night I spoke to a gentleman who had booked on Qantas, had flown from the United States and was stranded in a Sydney hotel with his 34-week pregnant wife. I intervened because he was unable to get a seat on a plane. My office rang Qantas and they were able to get him and his wife seats to Cairns this morning.

They are the sorts of personal issues that were raised as a result of this issue. That is why the government was so determined to get this airline up and running. Those opposite ask why we did not do something. The Leader of the Opposition was asked a very clear question on ABC 24 on 14 October: what would be your specific intervention? He was given the opportunity to call for government intervention and he did not do so.

Mr Hockey interjecting–

That is right, and what changed between 14 October and Friday? What changed before Qantas made this decision? One thing changed: the unions—

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

The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport will resume his seat. The member for Herbert, having been warned, has continued to interject. He was warned and he has continued to interject. The action I am about to take will give a quarter on my right who say that I play favourites more ammunition. I will not name the member; I will invite him to leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). A warning is a precursor to a naming.

The member for Herbert then left the chamber.

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

One thing changed in terms of the industrial action. As of Saturday, the only industrial action that was taking place was pilots wearing red ties—that was the only action that was taking place—and making announcements to their members; yet between 14 October when the Leader of the Opposition made that statement and Friday—the same day we had the front page Daily Telegraph article and the same day we had the letters from the premiers of Victoria and New South Wales—the Leader of the Opposition changed his position. We know that earlier on he could not answer the question when journalists asked him, 'When were you told?'

The Manager of Opposition Business interjected about 'industrial terrorism'. We heard questions yesterday about 'extreme union action'—when it was a lockout by the employer. On this side of the House, it makes no difference whether you have a suit on or a blue collar—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

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

The member for Sturt is warned.

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

Extreme action not in the national interest will be condemned by this side of the House. Indeed, I said about Mr Purvinas's comments—for example, in the AustralianI was 'very concerned'. I joined criticism of the secretary Steve Purvinas. I said that Mr Purvinas's comments were 'extraordinary' because 'you need a strong company in order to employ people in order to have union members'. I took action. I condemned the extraordinary action. Those on that side of the House did not. The shadow Treasurer, to be fair, did call for intervention earlier, and I would be interested to know what the shadow Treasurer knew and when, and who he was informed by. (Time expired)

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. Did the minister at any time propose the use of section 431 of the Fair Work Act to stop the industrial action at Qantas?

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

No.

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

The record will show that I called the minister and he made a response.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, 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. Will the minister inform the House how the Fair Work Act and the government's decisive actions under that act have strengthened the rights of working people and protected the national interest? How were workers treated before the introduction of the Fair Work Act?

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 member for Greenway for her question and for her commitment to ensuring that there is fairness in the workplace. I am asked by the member how Fair Work Australia has operated in the national interest. It has done this by restoring Australian values in the industrial relations framework. Those values of fairness, security, good faith and getting the balance between work and family are Australian values and they are Labor values. But they were not the values that were embodied in Work Choices. They are now embodied in Fair Work Australia.

Under Work Choices, there was no right to collective bargaining, there was no requirement for the employer to bargain in good faith, and nor was there an ability in circumstances in which the parties could not resolve their issues to have recourse to an independent umpire. As far as the opposition was concerned, they said no to collective bargaining, no to good-faith bargaining and no to an industrial umpire. We said yes to all of those things because they are Australian values.

I am asked the question about how the implementation of this act has advantaged Australia. It has done it in two ways: not just by restoring values but by ensuring that we got the planes flying again after that precipitous action taken by Qantas over the weekend.

I am also asked in this question how workers were treated before the implementation of Fair Work Australia. Well, it is Melbourne Cup day, and I always think it is a good thing on Melbourne Cup day to have a look at the form. There was the coalition form—we have talked about it before—the Peter Reith form. Their approach to industrial relations resolution is to bring in the Rottweilers and the black hoods, and sack a workforce and replace it with scabs. But that was Peter Reith. Who became the industrial relations minister after Peter Reith? The current Leader of the Opposition. Abbott continued the process going forward. We know the Leader of the Opposition did not back the former minister for industrial relations Peter Reith in the presidential stakes, but he holds the same form as the former minister for industrial relations.

I will give you some examples because it also pays in this place to have a corporate memory about how some of these disputes were handled. There was the Morris McMahon dispute, where workers were out on the grass for four months because the employer was not required to bargain in good faith. Workers were paid $11 an hour—and what was the Leader of the Opposition's admonition to them? 'Go back to work because you have a Rolls Royce deal.' Then there was negotiating the auto industry package. He required the industry to pay into a fund so that they could sue workers and unions. Then there was the Tristar Steering dispute where he would not intervene; he said it was not the role of the government to get involved. Then there was the G & K O'Connor dispute, the meatworks where workers were sacked and on the grass for nine months because they had to put up with a 60 per cent wage cut. The Leader of the Opposition stayed out of that dispute, and he refused to disclose his dealings with the company. Doesn't that sound familiar in the context of this Qantas issue today? Here he is. We know that there was engagement with Qantas, but he refuses to disclose what he would have said to Qantas had he picked up the phone. He would have said, 'Continue the dispute.' (Time expired)

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Did the minister at any time propose the use of section 431 of the Fair Work Act to stop industrial action at Qantas?

Ms O'Dwyer interjecting —

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

The member for Higgins is now warned.

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

No.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. Will the Assistant Treasurer update the House on the position of travellers with travel insurance affected by Qantas's decision to lock out its staff and ground its fleet? What factors will impact on the ability of travellers to claim for losses incurred?

Opposition members: No. No. No.

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

The member for Fadden will remove himself from the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). There are plenty of others who could be following him.

The member for Fadden then left the chamber.

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

I thank the member for Hindmarsh for asking a question that is of interest to literally over 100,000 Australians and people from other countries who are travelling on Qantas, both in Australia and overseas, and who were caught up in this issue. It is an issue that affected employees—they have been trapped in hotels overseas and cannot get back to their families because of this action. It is an issue that is important to the insurance industry, which I will return to in more detail in a moment. What rights travellers have in this—an issue conspicuously absent from the coalition's questions; it took a government member to ask this question—are influenced heavily by the turn of events from Saturday afternoon. The rights of travellers are influenced heavily by the disproportionate and precipitant action of Qantas. They are the people who grounded the planes and now make it a live issue about the insurance rights of people.

Why is it we never hear the opposition criticise Qantas? Why is it that they only ever criticise one side of the debate? They have been deafeningly silent on what they think about Qantas.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

As much as they may shout my answer down, we know that their industrial relations policy is dial a friend: ring Qantas and find out what to do.

Of course the reason why travellers in this country need information about their insurance is that Qantas could not manage their employee relations and so in turn chose to damage the economy. An otherwise smart company full of professionals could not do the day job which they are paid to do, which is to encourage their employees on a process of change. Because Qantas could not do their day job properly, travellers now need to find out what their rights are. I have spoken with the Insurance Council of Australia.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

It is very tempting but it would be time consuming. I warned the member for Higgins. She will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a), only because I just cannot wait around for a division. When I warn people I expect there to be a reaction.

The member for Higgins then left the chamber.

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

I have spoken with the Insurance Council of Australia. First of all, they say that travellers inconvenienced should check with Qantas first to see what Qantas will say to them. They tell me that industrial action is normally a predictable event, so sometimes insurance companies will not pay the cost of a lost ticket. The emphasis there is on 'normally a predictable event'. The insurance industry has said that this shutdown was unpredictable. Because of that, insurers, I have been told, not universally—

Opposition members interjecting—

If the opposition don't think it was unpredictable, they need to explain their actions.

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

Order! The minister will ignore the interjections and the interjectors will cease interjecting.

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

The insurers have said that, whilst there cannot be a blanket commitment, they will look sympathetically to claims. They do say they will assess whether or not passengers were able to mitigate their loss and if they were able to get a flight quickly what losses they incurred. Because this is an unpredictable element they are going to be more sympathetic to claims than has traditionally perhaps been the case on other occasions.

Of course, this comes down to the question of unpredictability. This event was certainly unpredictable to the flying public. It was certainly unpredictable to the tourism industry. It was certainly unpredictable to the mining industry. It was certainly not notified to the government until Saturday afternoon. But of course that does beg the question: who did know? I sat through the 12 hours of hearings in the commission last Sunday and Monday morning. I did not run into any Liberals in the lift queue trying to sort the matter out.

I do know that Qantas said that easily from 20 October this was on the cards. Of course, there is one other set of actors who can explain whether it was unpredictable. We all know where I am going here, don't we? What did the opposition know? Did you know? Were you informed at any stage? Did some of your former staff members tell you what was going on? Shame! (Time expired)

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Wright has been well behaved since coming closer to the chair, but the fact that he is now out of his new chair makes his behaviour grossly disorderly. He should behave much better.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her statement yesterday that she could not stop the industrial action at Qantas using section 431 of the Fair Work Act due to the 'endless legal challenges that would have ensued'. Given that the pilots union and the Transport Workers Union have said they are preparing a legal challenge to the Prime Minister's use of section 424, what new excuse can the Prime Minister now give the parliament for not making a declaration under section 431?

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

The opposition's campaign of misleading continues. I have explained it to the parliament once and I will explain it again to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and to members of the opposition generally. Section 431 enables the minister for workplace relations to make a declaration. The provision has never been used. It was first introduced into Australian industrial relations law by the Howard government. There were times during this questioning in parliament yesterday when members of the opposition were yelling out: 'What is it for? Why is it there?' Let us just note what the facts are: this provision was introduced by the Liberal government; it enables a minister to make a declaration; it has never been used. So my point before the House yesterday and my point before the House today—and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has taken the point out of context—is that, because it has not been used and because the advice to us is that the ministerial declaration would be capable of judicial review, the use of that ministerial declaration could then have triggered long-running court cases which would have taken us into unknown legal terrain. It has not been used before.

This is another campaign of misleading by the opposition—day in, day out. The Leader of the Opposition switched his position from government should not intervene to, on Friday, government should intervene, without any explanation as to why he changed his mind between those two points, given the escalation of the dispute did not happen until Sunday, when Qantas notified that it would be locking its staff out. To the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when the Leader of the Opposition changed his mind and the opposition started calling for the use of section 431, the other thing it misled about is the circumstances in which it can be used. It cannot be used just willy-nilly; you have to meet a particular test.

Then, of course, the opposition has misled about what the minister needs to do. The opposition yesterday and today has continued to mislead and say that all the minister needs to do is instantaneously sign a piece of paper. That is not correct. Because the matter is capable of judicial review, the minister has to have a body of evidence and there is also the prospect that the minister needs to extend procedural fairness to the parties and hear from the parties. When you properly assess, therefore, what you need to do under section 431, it means you end up in proceedings, effectively, very like—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It cannot be relevant for the Prime Minister to make up things about what the opposition said yesterday. That cannot be relevant.

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

The Prime Minister has the call. She is responding to the question.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. So the opposition has consistently raised the spectre that the minister could have just dashed off a declaration. That is not legally correct.

Then, what the opposition has consistently failed to acknowledge is that the government, in taking the action that it took, ensured that this dispute was brought to an end. I do note—because I think for completeness on the public record it should be noted—the relevant department advised the government to take the proceedings under the section that the government chose to use.

So, for all of this campaign of misleading, I would say to the opposition: the government acted to bring this dispute to an end. We are concerned about the national economy and the travelling public. We are concerned about balance in the workplace relations system. The truth is, looking at the government and the opposition, the only people concerned about the travelling public and the only people concerned about balance in the workplace relations system are the government. (Time expired)