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

I have received letters from the honourable member for Wide Bay and the honourable member for Chifley proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important—that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Wide Bay, namely:

The failure of the Government to act to avoid the grounding of the Qantas fleet.

I therefore call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

Today in question time we received repeated assurances from this government that it had done all it could to prevent the Qantas strike, that it had done all it could to prevent the grounding of Qantas aircraft and that it had acted decisively in response to the warnings it received that this grounding was about to happen. What is now absolutely clear is that the government could have acted to prevent the lockout and prevent the grounding. They could have done so and they had plenty of time to do so.

In an interview just half an hour or so ago, Qantas confirmed that, had the government intervened, they would not have grounded the airline. In a simple statement, they have undermined everything that the government said to us in question time today and all of their lame defence over the last two or three days. The clear fact is that the government could have prevented those 48 hours of chaos and that they could have done it easily. I quote directly from that report:

Asked if the fleet would have been grounded if the government had used section 431 of the act, a Qantas spokesman said: "No."

He said no. It goes on:

"If a declaration had been made under section 431 of the Fair Work Act, Qantas would have been prevented from issuing a lockout notice to these employees covered by the three unions," the spokesman told AAP.

Not only would Qantas have acted in a decent and responsible way and not grounded its fleet but, had the government actually taken the action available to it under section 431 of its own act, Qantas also would have been prevented from locking out its employees. It would have been a simple matter for this government to prevent those 48 hours of crisis. It was simple for them to do it, but they did absolutely nothing. This is another example in the conga line of this government's failures—its inability to deal with issues, its inability to be decisive and its inability to deliver stability for our country.

The government say that it is all about job security, that they are looking after the job security of Qantas workers. But there they are only worried about one job—only one job is insecure—and that is the job of the Prime Minister. She was interested in her own job security in this particular matter. When you look around and see that there are 32 former union bosses in her caucus, it is pretty obvious what delivers her job security. On top of that, we have the Transport Workers Union frontrunner for the ALP presidency, Tony Sheldon, the man who is in fact running this dispute for Qantas. In fact, he boasts in his campaign video to the delegates going to the ALP conference that, among his attributes for the job, he was 'running the Qantas dispute'. So who is making these decisions? Who is guaranteeing the job security of the Prime Minister? It is the union bosses. It is Tony Sheldon, the man who is running the Qantas dispute.

So the government, to try to cover up their own inability to take the decisive action that our country needed at that time, have spent the last two days vilifying Qantas—they are blaming Qantas for their own failure to act. Qantas had given them plenty of warning. Qantas had told them time and again that their airline was in trouble, that it was bleeding to death as a result of union action. But the government took no notice. Then, at 2 pm on Saturday, when Alan Joyce, in an appeal for help, rang several government figures to tell them that they would be grounding the airline, the government simply spurned his entreaties. Here was an airline in trouble, pleading for the government to help. The government could have acted immediately to resolve this issue, but in fact they did nothing—and all they have tried to do subsequently is to demonise Qantas to cover up and mask their own failings.

We know that there was disagreement amongst the various ministers. To give credit to the minister for transport, it is pretty obvious that he wanted the government to intervene but others did not.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

The minister is saying he did not want the government to intervene. That means he is just as guilty as the Prime Minister. The 100,000 passengers who were held up and whose travel was disrupted as a result of this dispute can blame the minister for transport just as much as they can blame the Prime Minister, because the government could have acted.

The government did not need to have all of the measures required under section 431 of the act in place by five o'clock; all they had to do was to tell Alan Joyce that the government would act, and Qantas would have withdrawn the grounding of its fleet. The lockout was only going to occur two days later—

Ms Rishworth interjecting —

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Kingston does not look like the honourable member for Lyons. If she is going to interject, she ought to move to her own seat because it is disorderly for her to continue to do as she is.

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

At 2 pm on Saturday afternoon the government were notified that Qantas intended to ground the airline. They had plenty of time to call Mr Joyce and say, 'We will intervene,' and then the grounding would never have occurred. After all, it was not until two days later that the lockout was due to occur. The government had plenty of time to intervene. A simple phone call to Alan Joyce or to a Qantas spokesman would have meant that none of this trouble occurred. None of it needed to occur.

The Prime Minister should have known that she had the capacity to intervene. After all, she was the minister who painstakingly put together the Fair Work Act. She is an ex union lawyer, so she ought to know a bit about the way in which the law works. She said that she could not act under section 431 because it had not been tested. It had not been tested, of course, because the Fair Work Act is only a couple of years old, and all of the other companies that have been put in a position where they have been blackmailed by their unions have just backed away—they have rolled over.

The government probably thought that Qantas had a bit of a reputation for rolling over and that it would do it again, so they just spurned the company and took no notice of all the warnings that had been given week after week and month after month that this dispute could lead to the grounding of the airline. If the government do not think that section 431 is of any value, why did they put it in the legislation in the first place? It was their bill; it was their legislation. If it will not work, what options does a company have if it needs to resolve an industrial action?

Bear in mind that the 48 hours of the dispute and its events were not the first time passengers had been inconvenienced by Qantas flights not being able to operate. The unions, in a tag team, had been week after week calling strikes, disruptions and work-to-rule campaigns—all sorts of attempts to disrupt confidence in the airline. Frequently they would tell everybody there was a strike on and, five minutes before it was due to happen, they would call it off, knowing full well that passengers had already made other arrangements and ensuring that there would be the maximum possible disadvantage to their employer while their own wages were not even affected.

This kind of disruption was going on week after week after week. There were many more passengers affected during those rolling actions of the unions than there were in the 48-hour grounding. It had been going on for month after month, yet the government did not take any notice of it. It is quite all right for the union to strangle a company day by day. It is all right, as far as the government are concerned, for the union to bake their employer over a long period. It is okay, from their perspective, to have the unions demand that people not fly on their own employer's airline. All that sort of thing did not provoke anything other than a couple of casual words from ministers.

The reality is that they could have intervened right back then. Qantas management were saying, 'We have taken just about all we can,' but the government kept silent. Qantas had reportedly already lost over $70 million before last Saturday and were bleeding $15 million a week. If that had kept going, inevitably Qantas was going to fail. The airline Australians love, the airline that carries our country's name around the world, would have failed because it was being put to death by a million cuts by unions who seemingly wanted more and more and who had no respect for the importance of their company's being profitable in order for it to be able to pay them better wages.

Let us not forget that Qantas is hardly some kind of wage and salary scrooge. Their employees are the highest paid in their profession. In many cases they are the highest paid in the world. Qantas had settled agreements with 10 other unions, so they were able to reach industrial agreements with unions. But there were three who were holding out, and these three unions had made it clear that it did not matter much what sort of offer was put on the table; they were not really interested.

They wanted guarantees that workers would continue to be employed in positions that did not even exist anymore—where the work was no longer there. They wanted long-term guarantees of employment. No company can do that. We do not expect a trucking company to employ people who make horse shoes just because they once used horses and carts; we expect a company to modernise. We expect the workforce to modernise and to take advantage of the new technology in modern aircraft. That means that the workforce is going to have to change, piece by piece, as time goes on.

The government knew all this was happening. Qantas had been around this building for week after week, talking to government members and opposition members. They knew it was happening, but they had no contingency plan in place, it seems. They must have assumed that Qantas were just going to allow themselves to bleed to death over a year and that there would be no need for the government to act. But even when they were warned—even when a decisive statement was made by Qantas that they would be doing something by five o'clock that day—the government did nothing.

The government could have acted—they could have saved the inconvenience to 48,000 Australians and they could have resolved this dispute immediately. What Fair Work Australia did 48 hours later could have been done by the government in one hour. It could have been done immediately. We could have got to a compulsory situation where the dispute was off and the parties' negotiations were continued. The government could have delivered that on Saturday afternoon, but they did not; they waited until the airline was grounded. Then, all of a sudden, the government could find a reason to go to Fair Work Australia and have it intervene. Why couldn't they have done it an hour earlier?

The suggestion that Qantas had not specifically asked the government to invoke section 431 is another one of the many misleading statements that the government is peddling. Does the fire brigade wait to be asked before it goes in and fights a fire? No, it knows that the curtains are on fire and need to be put out. This government did not see the house on fire; they essentially did nothing and delivered us 48 hours of chaos. All the Prime Minister had to do—or one of her ministers, if she was too busy over in CHOGM, meeting with all the important leaders from the Commonwealth countries around the world—was to call.

She could have put the foreign minister in the chair for a while to look after affairs. He is quite experienced in these things. He probably could have done it ably. But she did not do that. Neither did she lift up the phone and talk to Qantas like she does to all the sporting champions and other people who are in the news. She did not bother. If she was too busy, I am sure the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport could have done it. He has rung Mr Joyce many times; he said so himself. He could have rung up and said, 'We will fix the problem.' It did not have to be fixed by 5. It could have been just a promise to Qantas that the government would act. But the government did nothing.

The government is entirely to blame for the 48 hours of inconvenience to Australian travellers. It was in a position to do what it could do, but it did not act. It did not act, because its bosses are the trade unions. It did not act, because the people who pay the bills for the ALP are the very trade union officials who are running this dispute. The man who wants to be President of the ALP in a few weeks time—and I hope he does not succeed over some of the other excellent candidates who are seated in this room—is the one who is running the dispute, and this government did not have the courage to stand up to him. This government did not have the fortitude. It was not sufficiently decisive to solve a problem when it could have been solved, and it caused 100,000 people to suffer unnecessarily. (Time expired)

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

What an extraordinary position put by the Leader of the Nationals. In 15 minutes there was not a single word of criticism of Qantas management for the unilateral decision by their board to lock out their workforce and ground the airline.

Mrs Griggs interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Solomon will change places with the Chief Opposition Whip if she wants to continue to interject.

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

There was not a single word of sympathy for the 68,000 Australians who were inconvenienced by the Qantas unilateral decision. The fact is this: there are in industrial disputes often two sides—employers and employees. They bargain between each other and have discussions in order to settle their industrial agreements. Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, said this about his view of industrial relations:

… parties to an industrial dispute should make their own arrangements … without any government involvement.

That has been the position of those opposite. That was the position with regard to Work Choices, where they changed the balance totally in favour of employers from a system where you had a fair balance in the workplace between employers and employees—and we have seen it all on display here.

After 2 pm on Saturday, Qantas notified the government of their decision to lock out their workforce on Monday night from 8 pm and to ground their fleet, national and international, from 5 pm. The consequences of that for this iconic Australian company were severe. The fact that it was done on the weekend leading up to the Melbourne Cup Carnival and the fact that it was done while CHOGM was taking place in Perth add to the damage to the company's reputation as a result of this unilateral decision. When I spoke to Mr Joyce on Saturday afternoon after 2 pm, I asked him if there was anything the government could do. His position was very clear: he argued that the board had made a decision on Saturday morning and he was simply informing the government of that position.

At no stage prior to Saturday afternoon had Mr Joyce or anyone else from Qantas raised the prospect of a lockout of their workforce. At no stage had anyone from the opposition or the government or anyone else, in the millions of words that have been written and spoken about these issues, raised the simple idea that Qantas would take what in the words of Mr Joyce was the 'unbelievable decision' to lock out its workforce and shut down its entire domestic and international operation. Yet these clowns opposite would suggest that it was a government decision to do that. It was very clearly a decision by Qantas, yet those opposite are incapable of uttering a syllable of criticism of this extraordinary position. Imagine what those opposite would say if the pilots had rung up and announced that they were unilaterally from 5 pm refusing to fly aircraft and shut it down! This was an extraordinary position. People had been boarded on planes and were taxiing to the ends of runways. Planes were recalled and people offloaded.

This is not Rio Tinto—this is not a company which has relationships with businesses at the top end of town or internationally. This is a service industry that relies upon its workforce and the relationship with its workforce to deliver good, positive service on the ground. You do not get met by Alan Joyce when you book in to a Qantas flight. When you sit on the flight you do not get served by Alan Joyce. The plane is not flown by Alan Joyce. The plane is not fixed and made safe by Alan Joyce. This is a massive miscalculation by the company.

I have been a friend of Qantas and will remain so. This is an iconic Australian brand, but it is an iconic Australian brand which is about not just its executive but also its workforce. The relationship is interdependent: to have a successful Qantas you need the commitment of its workforce. You need sensible outcomes, which is why I went the extra yard and convened meetings in my office between Mr Joyce, Mr Sheldon and me. Real progress was made; with a bit of goodwill there could have been an outcome. Indeed, as a result of those discussions eight days before the announcement of the lockout, the Transport Workers Union cancelled their industrial stoppages last week, and both Qantas and the TWU are on the record in the media in the early part of last week about the prospects of a resolution in the common interest.

Yet we know now from Fair Work Australia that, the day before I had that meeting, Qantas management had received a report about a lockout of its workforce and the safety implications for the airline. On no occasion in the face-to-face meetings, in the phone conversations or in the text messages with other government ministers and me—not once—did anyone from Qantas say, 'By the way, we're thinking of locking out our workforce and shutting down our business.' Quite frankly, that was an extraordinary and reckless decision that has an impact not just on the company but also on the national economy.

When this government was confronted by this unilateral decision by Qantas, we acted. We were told after 2 pm that Mr Joyce would be on his feet from 5 pm to 5.20 pm on Saturday. I was on my feet at 5.45 pm with a comprehensive response including the appeal to Fair Work Australia and the fact that we established a task force in my department as well as the fact that we moved 3,000 extra passengers on Saturday night thanks to Virgin Australia. We acted in a comprehensive fashion. Fair Work Australia went through 16 hours of hearings to come up with a decision, and we got Qantas back in the air.

Let us be very clear about the statements Mr Joyce has made. Mr Joyce cannot say and will not say anywhere that he gave anyone in the government any warning whatsoever about the lockout that led to the grounding of the fleet. What Mr Joyce did say, very publicly, was that aircraft were being grounded due to the engineers' actions, that seven aircraft had been grounded, that if it continued more aircraft would be grounded and that it could reach a point where Qantas would have to take further action. At no stage did Qantas ask for government intervention in this dispute. That is a point that has been confirmed by the Qantas CEO, Mr Joyce. Indeed, Mr Joyce told Senator Evans, the workplace relations minister, that, were the information to go public before the 5 pm announcement, then Qantas would bring it forward and ground the airline immediately. They raised safety questions, and I spoke to CASA about whether there were any safety concerns whatsoever which would justify the grounding of the airline. We had a clear indication from CASA that that was not the case.

All this occurred one day after the Qantas AGM. The Australian Shareholders Association, talking about the matter, said, 'Today the ASA believes that management had the ability to make applications under the Fair Work Act without disrupting customers and damaging the airline's global brand.' That is what shareholders had to say about this decision.

Yet from the opposition—the only people in Australia who are not happy that the planes are back in the air—we have not once heard a word of criticism against Qantas. We have not heard a word said about how it was reckless to elevate a dispute to the level where it hurt the national economy, which is what the Qantas submissions to Fair Work Australia did. Their submissions and their statements were saying that they were taking this action in order to cause damage to the national economy. Yet there was not a single word of criticism from those opposite. Not once has anyone over there said that it was unreasonable for the travelling public to be held as hostages. This was not just a lockout of the workforce; this was a lockout of Qantas's own customers. It is an extraordinary position for a company in the service industry to take.

Perhaps we know why. We know their ideological commitment to Work Choices. We know that the Leader of the Opposition has had all sorts of problems in the past with being straight with people. Indeed, in a speech to the Sydney Institute on 5 June 2007, he had a cracker of a quote which says a lot about his character. He said, 'one man's lie is another's judgment call.' The Leader of the Opposition was asked two questions today. The first was, 'Did anyone from Qantas speak to you or your office prior to Saturday about the possibility of a grounding?' It was followed up with, 'Mr Abbott, the question was whether your office was forewarned of the dispute—can you answer that?

Mr Abbott responded like this: 'Ah, look, my office was in regular contact, ah, with Qantas. Qantas—as anyone in Parliament House would know—ah, have basically been patrolling the corridors of Parliament House for weeks now, alerting people to the seriousness of the dispute. Thanks very much.' Then he ran; he ended the doorstop. Today, have a close look at the transcript of what he said in his personal explanation—have a close look at what he had to say. When was he notified of the specific grounding of the fleet at 5 pm Saturday? That is the question that he responded to; it is not the question he was asked by journalists, and it is not the question that he evaded twice—not once but twice. Of course, the opposition have form when it comes to these issues.

We on this side of the House have a balanced approach to workplace relations. We have criticised unions, and I have criticised unions, when they have stepped out of line, and I will continue to do so. But I will also continue to criticise management when they step out of line. This was a militant action which was totally out of proportion to the debate that was occurring. Indeed, over many months there have been more Jetstar cancellations than there have been Qantas cancellations while this dispute has been going on. (Time expired)

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the matter of public importance: 'the failure of the government to act to avoid the grounding of the Qantas fleet.' This is an absolute public importance issue. In fact, we have just heard the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport try to convince the House that he fully backs the Prime Minister's actions. Yet today in the Daily Telegraphit states that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the Assistant Treasurer are believed to have argued for an immediate intervention to save people from being stranded. I wonder where the Telegraph got this information? Who put those leaks out? Publicly the minister is holding and toeing the government line—even coming into this House and stating that this is the way it had to be. It was reported in the media today at 3 pm that a Qantas spokesperson was asked if the fleet would have been grounded if the government had used section 431 of the Fair Work Act, and the spokesperson said, 'No; if a declaration had been made under section 431 of the Fair Work Act, Qantas would have been prevented from issuing a lockout notice to these employees covered by the three unions.'

Enough members of the cabinet must be aware of the very real impact this fiasco has had on our tourism sector, both in terms of short-term bed nights and in terms of the damage done to 'Brand Australia'. The visuals across the world of people sleeping on airport floors because they could not get into accommodation or because they could not afford to stump up the money for the hotel room to be reimbursed is not a good image of Australia. This could have been avoided. The Prime Minister keeps using the words 'decisive action'; what the Prime Minister has is divisive action. It is divisive action which has got the community angry with Qantas, angry with the unions, and, more importantly, angry with this government. This Prime Minister said she had no notice of the issue. I refer to an article in the Australian by Joe Kelly on 21 October. The article is headed 'Tourism begs PM to step in on Qantas'. I am sure that the Prime Minister and her advisers, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the Minister for Tourism would read the Australian. I am particularly sure that they would have read this article, because the tourism industry was begging the Prime Minister to step in and take action. In fact, according to Flight Centre managing director Graham Turner, the government should have stepped in to force a solution to the dispute. He said:

If they can't do that, it makes you wonder why we elected a government. This is exactly the sort of situation where they should be actively searching or forcing a solution.

For the Prime Minister to come into this House on not one day but two days and say that she was not aware of the seriousness of the situation defies any ounce of credibility.

Today is Melbourne Cup day, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper. You may have backed a winner or you may have lost. That is the Australian way. But let me tell you: the tourism industry in Melbourne has lost, and it has lost massively. In fact, today in the paper it is reported that the general manager of Melbourne's Adelphi Hotel said that they are sitting on about 80 per cent occupancy when they should be on 100 per cent. For him to miss out on 20 per cent of his business around Melbourne Cup day is a cruel blow. It does not get any better in Melbourne for the tourism industry than Melbourne Cup day. This government, because of its failure to act, has let down the tourism industry.

When the announcement was made, my phone was inundated with calls from Western Australia and Queensland. As you know as a Queenslander, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is now the peak tourism season up in the north of Queensland. But the bed cancellations have ranged between 10 per cent and 20 per cent. This is an industry that is coming off the back of natural disasters, the global financial crisis and all of those things that impact the tourism industry. It is an industry that runs on very, very small margins of profitability. But now, in their peak season, when they needed the government to step up to the plate, what did the government do? They pretended they did not see it was coming. They pretended there was no issue.

I am not here to defend Qantas; neither am I here to defend the unions. I am here to defend the tourism industry—people with their own skin in the game, trying to make a living. Before Saturday's move by Qantas management, the carrier had to cancel 629 flights. Before Friday, Qantas had to reschedule 387 flights. Part of the issue has been that the unions gave notice of intention to strike, which affected flights, and then call it off at the last minute so that they did not lose any wages because of strike action. But Qantas, having to act responsibly, had to cancel flights. This minister who has just addressed this MPI has failed to condemn the union movement for its action, which has totally disrupted our tourism industry and affected our brand: Australia. But I have to say to you that he is not on his own. In fact, the Minister for Tourism himself will stand and talk about all of the effects on the tourism industry from the global financial crisis through to natural disasters, yet he is the minister who has failed to act. The minister is reported to have said that he has urged that the tourism industry 'not be hung out to dry because of this industrial action'. Yet this is the minister who, when it has come to actually getting behind the industry and supporting the industry, has walked away.

Let us face it: what is his track record? Since 2008 Australia has slid from fourth place to 13th place in international tourism competitiveness according to the World Economic Forum. This is the minister who keeps explaining it away, but he is also the minister who did not stand up when this government increased the passenger movement charge by 24 per cent—that is, from $38 to $47 per passenger—in a very price-sensitive market. Their income from the charge is $630 million this year and will increase to $755 million by 2014; at the same time, they are only spending just over $130 million on Tourism Australia. This is the minister who sat back and watched while Customs' budget for processing people when they arrive in Australia was cut by $34 million. This is the minister who has presided while cuts were made to Chinese and Indian trade events—and they are our key target markets. This is the minister who sat back and watched cooks and chefs be removed from the skilled migration list. To top it all off, this is the minister who warned that a carbon tax would disadvantage the aviation industry, yet, in a hypocritical move, then turned around and voted for it. The industry demands a minister who will not pick sides but will stand up for the tourism industry overall and for good and proper management so people can go about and do what they do—that is, create the experience of a lifetime for people. This government has watched over the total destruction of our international reputation.

This Friday in Parliament House, as part of the Abbott opposition's industry review, I am holding a special day in an 'Industries for Australia's Future' review of tourism. It will be attended by groups like the Australian Hotels Association; the Restaurant and Catering association; the National Tourism Alliance; Tourism Training Australia; the Accommodation Association of Australia; Tourism Accommodation Australia; Caravan, RV and Accommodation Industry of Australia; the Australian Tourism Export Council; and the TTF. I know what they will be taking as their first issue of debate on the day when we gather the information on things that are important to them. The first issue of debate will be how this crisis is bringing their industry to its knees when they have just been able to get back up. They were knocked down by the GFC. They were knocked down by the natural disasters. They wanted a hand to get up, and what this government has done is give them a sucker blow. It has knocked them back down on their knees and said, 'It's all Qantas's fault.' This is the government that could not see the signs coming through the industrial action. Would it sit down with people? Would it take decisive action? No; this is the government that takes divisive action. It prefers to drive the wedge between Qantas and the workers and, more importantly, the tourism industry, which relies on the aviation sector as one of its key industry aspects.

I have pages and pages of quotes that have come in to me from industry players about the effect of this industrial action on them. As I say, I am not here to bag Qantas; I can understand the decision they took. I am not here to bag the unions; they are standing up for what they believe in. I am here to stand up for our tourism industry, which is the innocent party in all this action, because the government failed to act. (Time expired)

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

It is special to be able to participate in this debate. Am I the only one in this place who gets a little bit nervy when I hear those opposite calling for government intervention on industrial relations? These guys have great form on intervention. We remember Patricks. We remember their other great intervention, Work Choices. If they on that side of the fence had had their chance on this, it would not be flying kangaroos; it would be flying Rottweilers. These people, who have never walked away from a chance to stuff up an IR dispute, are now calling for government intervention and calling on the industrial umpire to get involved in this when they spent the best part of their time in government neutering the role of the umpire in sorting out disputes. They are now saying that we should find some way to intervene. They spent the last election telling us that Work Choices was dead, buried and cremated—though I do not know how something can be dead, buried and then cremated. Putting that logic aside, here they are clipping the defibrillator onto the corpse of Work Choices and arguing that we should be having intervention by the government in industrial disputes.

Whose side are they on? Who are they standing up for? We have had half an hour of contributions from those opposite. Who are they standing up for? The member for Wide Bay was here bemoaning and wringing his hands over the fact that Qantas had been demonised. He did not once stand up for the 68,000 members of the public who had had their worlds or their plans thrown upside down and had all this chaos inflicted on them by a board and a senior management who were executing industrial hardball. We did not hear anything from the member for Wide Bay. We almost got close with the member for Paterson talking about the impact on others, but he could not quite get there to support the general public.

The other thing is that we are getting this rewriting of history by those opposite, who are telling us to intervene. When pressed weeks ago, they did not say a thing. They said it was not up to them to pick sides, and that is right. They also have form when it comes to the aviation sector. When people were locked out of Boeing up in Newcastle and stuck for weeks—close to a year—locked out, they never stood up for those people. They do not stand up for the general public. And what is their answer now? On Friday, it is: 'We don't pick sides.' On Saturday, it is: 'Get involved.' All of 24 hours and they are straight in, telling us now to 'pick up the phone'. I love their fascination with phones—boat phone, jet phone, today it is bank phone. The Leader of the Opposition does not work out of an office, he works out of a telephone exchange. He has got phones connected to every sector of the economy, to every sector of Australian life, and there he is, ringing everyone. But we have not heard them stand up for the 68,000 people, the mums and dads, stuck here and abroad—not a peep. Worse still, they chastise the Qantas workforce.

The Qantas workforce have the temerity to ask for this: a more secure job. As they see jobs being offshored, they are asking for a way to make their jobs more secure. They are even prepared in part to take a wage outcome that is lower than inflation, but their priority is job security—that is what they want to see. Those opposite say that it is too much to ask for someone to have a more secure job. These are the people who trawled through every workplace in the country wringing their hands about the cost of living, telling us how the cost of living was so important to them. How do you manage cost-of-living pressures when you don't have a job? They will not stick up for that. When people are out there trying to protect their livelihoods, you do not hear a peep out of them. It is simply outrageous that they can sit there and not say one word about the way Qantas went about locking out a workforce, disrupting the plans of the public and wrecking the economy.

I am going to put it bluntly: Qantas's actions represented industrial bastardry. They were prepared to put the public in front of a battering ram and force them straight into the middle of an industrial dispute, and not even care about the impact. It is simply a disgrace. A national carrier was prepared to turn on its own public, the flying public, and not care for one moment. It was a preplanned decision. Hotels: booked in advance. Couriers delivering lockout notices: planned in advance. Emails to workforces: planned in advance. And they did not give any advice whatsoever to the share market that they would lock out their workforce and shut down their operations; there was no forewarning that that would happen. It is not surprising now that a whole stack of questions are being asked.

Qantas are taking comfort in this dispute from the words that are being uttered by others in other boardrooms. That demonstrates a complete disconnect from the general public and the public mood. They should not, with respect, be taking comfort from the boardroom; they should not be listing to those people. They should be thinking about the mum who is expecting a child and is stranded, who wants to get back to Cairns but cannot because their operations have been shut down. They should think about the families who were reported about in the weekend papers, like the family trying to get back to another part of the country to see a sick father. They should be listening to the people whose lives were upended as a result of this. Now they are trying a last stand to justify what they are doing, trying to find some excuse for the total disruption to the economy and the total disruption of 68,000 people. Imagine if you were stuck on the other side of the world. Imagine if you had parents who were trying to come back to Australia, who were told when they got off a connecting flight that the next flight was not happening and who are stuck in a place they do not know. These are people who do not know how they are going to get home and their families here have no idea what is going to happen. They are being used—absolutely used—as pawns in this game. This should not be forgotten.

We have moved swiftly. We have got the planes back in the sky because of the actions that have been taken. Mind you, Qantas could have taken the action themselves to try and suspend or terminate the bargaining period. They did not. Why? Because they knew they would not have the ability to argue the case in front of Fair Work Australia that they needed to stop this. They were not able to do it, so they stuffed up the plans of 68,000 people in the most incredible fashion they could muster. That is what they did. They chose that path.

The New South Wales and Victorian premiers wrote to the government. The Victorian government had power to intervene. When they referred their IR powers to the federal level they had an ability to intervene in disputes that they thought were important and would have an impact on their state. Victoria did not intervene, not once. Instead, they thought they would pull a stunt by writing a letter. If they were so concerned about the impact, why didn't they turn up to Fair Work Australia and argue the case? Why? Because they could not, they did not have the means to. Instead, a national carrier was prepared to upend the national economy, and we were forced to move quickly to deal with this. It is simply disgraceful. But it amounts to nothing when compared to the fact that those opposite are silent. They are not prepared to urge moderation, not prepared to urge all sides in this debate to get back to the table and not prepared to urge for common sense. Instead, they are just egging on and giving comfort to some ideology that persists within the Qantas boardroom that this is the way you sort disputes. It is not. The way you sort the dispute is get to the negotiating table and fix it up. Don't hold the national economy to ransom. Sort your problems out at the negotiating table.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will follow on from the earlier comments by the shadow minister for transport and Leader of the Nationals, who again confirmed that it has been established as a fact that the Prime Minister and other Labor ministers were contacted by Qantas and warned about the potential move to ground its fleet. In the lead-up to his decision, Mr Joyce spoke to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese, and then to the Minister for Tourism and the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations about the issue. They did absolutely nothing at all. They completely failed to act. Earlier today senior Qantas executive Olivia Wirth confirmed that she had personally spoken to the Prime Minister's chief of staff to let the Prime Minister know that Mr Alan Joyce was available to speak to the PM. In fact, Ms Wirth said Mr Joyce was standing by, ready to talk with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did nothing in response to those approaches, and Qantas sources have confirmed Mr Joyce waited until five minutes before his decision to ground the fleet to hear from the Prime Minister.

This is a gross failure to act by the Gillard government and this could well have been avoided if they had acted. Instead they chose to sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing. We talk about the huge inconvenience to the thousands of people who have been left stranded in Australia and around the world, but that is nothing compared to the cost to the Australian public and to the Australian economy in general. It has been a huge blow in particular to my area, the Cairns and Port Douglas region. While the shadow tourism minister in his contribution talked about the national impact of the government's inaction on tourism, I would like to keep mine very local.

Nowhere has the government's failure to act been felt more acutely than in Far North Queensland, in particular Cairns and Port Douglas, which rely on tourism as their main economic driver. Operators have been hit by a perfect storm of economic blows over the past couple of years. We have endured the global financial crisis; we have been hit by the high Australian dollar; we have had the nation's highest unemployment rate. The tourism industry was forced to stand by and watch the impact of the New Zealand earthquake and the Japanese tsunami, both key inbound markets for Cairns. We then had the floods in south-east Queensland and Cyclone Yasi. While these two natural disasters did not directly impact on the Cairns-Port Douglas region, they sent a message across Australia and the world that Cairns was closed for business, even though the industry was unaffected and ready to greet visitors with open arms. This had a huge impact on businesses in the area, in spite of many representations and pleas to this government for assistance under category D for the extension of natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements. It fell on deaf ears. There was zero support for any business affected by these events in our region. We have seen over 400 of our small businesses fail in the last two years.

You could see that many of our businesses were certainly feeling the pinch and the Qantas debacle was the last thing we needed. For two days no international or domestic flights from Qantas were in the air. Quite frankly, it is almost the last straw for many of our small businesses. I received an insight into this disaster, this government's handling of the Qantas debacle, through one small business in Cairns. I had to change my Qantas flight to a Virgin flight and I was taken to the airport on Saturday by hire car. In passing I have to say well done to John Borghetti and his team for accommodating so many passengers affected over the weekend. The driver, who was also the hire company's owner, told me had already had eight cancellations. I was picked up at about 10.30 in the morning. He said he could possibly survive if the Qantas grounding lasted only one or two days, but if it was any longer than that—a week or two weeks—he said he could not keep going, particularly after two disastrous years. He also said he had accumulated $60,000 in debts that other companies owed him, resulting from the impacts of Yasi. It shows you the serious problems the industry has.

The trouble faced by that hire company is replicated right across the entire region. This is the type of small business that the Gillard government does not understand and, quite frankly, does not care about. The government does not comprehend how seriously tough it is for small businesses in a regional area such as Cairns and Port Douglas. Through this series of setbacks and body blows to the tourism industry, the Gillard government has done absolutely nothing. It has failed to act; it has sat on its hands; it has done nothing to help businesses going to the wall over the past two years. The Qantas debacle is but the latest example of this. There has been no coordinated approach or support for the tourism industry in Far North Queensland, because the Gillard government just does not comprehend the value of tourism to regions such as Far North Queensland. It does not understand and it just does not care. Businesses big and small in Far North Queensland are in absolute despair. They cannot keep going much longer, when they are constantly hit by forces outside their control. They cannot keep going without some sort of sustained, coordinated assistance.

The government could have taken action under section 431 of the Fair Work Act. We are told that failure to do so was a result of uncertainty in relation to that clause because it had never been tested. That clause was written by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went ahead with section 424, which had never been tested either. Really, there is no excuse. Travellers and businesses had to endure 48 hours of chaos, which this government could have averted. It is very shameful. I sit here and listen to the other side constantly attacking us for supporting a business that is absolutely vital. I have not heard any comment from over there about the tactics that have been used by the unions in bringing us to this situation. This is something that the Prime Minister could have picked up the phone and talked to Qantas about on Saturday; she could have picked up the phone and talked to Qantas about this—and I am sure she was speaking to the unions—six months ago. She could have done it three months ago. She certainly could have done it last week, and she was given more than ample opportunity to do it on Saturday. She chose not to do it.

Again, this government have shown that they have absolutely no idea about what is required in relation to dealing with any sort of crisis. Let us have a look at it. Let us talk about the boats that keep arriving, the pink batts or the BER. The Labor Party knew there were risks but of course they failed to act. This is a very unfortunate problem that we have. All of these disasters that we see, one after the other, after the other, form a list far too lengthy to repeat at this point in time. I suggest that their successes could be measured on the back of a postage stamp.

Many people were sitting in airline terminals around the country and around the world because the Prime Minister was sitting on her hands. And there were many businesses up in my region sitting there holding their breath waiting for another disaster to fall upon them that was a direct consequence of the inaction and the total lack of understanding and caring of this terrible, disastrous Gillard government. (Time expired)

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a pleasure to rise to speak on this MPI on Qantas. It is disappointing that we even have to have this debate. What is disgusting is the fact that those on the other side talk about nothing but blaming the government. There is no talk about the passengers being disadvantaged. There was mention of the tourism industry, but there was no mention of passengers by the opposition. That is because they are not actually interested in the impact that this has had on the Australian economy or passengers. Their interest is in playing the blame game. I did not think I could be any further amazed by the opposition and their negativity but today, and the debate yesterday in this House, has shown how far the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party will go to capitalise on any incident in this country.

The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition will go to all lengths for political opportunism. If it is a decision of a local government having got some sort of funding from the federal government and then doing something wrong, it is our fault. If the state government do something and they get some funding, it is our fault—we must have caused that. It seems that anything that happens in this country is the Labor government's fault. That is what the Liberal Party are about. They are about blaming. They are about opportunism. They are about opposing everything.

We have heard so many inconsistencies in this debate. We have heard that we should have foreseen this happening. We heard that the Prime Minister should have picked up the phone days ago, as we heard yesterday; we are now being told that the Prime Minister should have picked the phone up six months ago in relation to this debate—despite the fact that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has said that he has had numerous discussions with Qantas and the unions in relation to this dispute in recent times to try to help reach a resolution in this matter. So the government has been involved in trying to reach resolutions in this matter. But, of course, that is not convenient for the opposition to talk about.

When is the opposition going to say that a company, when it makes a decision, should be held to account for it, just as individuals are? There should be some accountability by Qantas in this debate. And there is on this side of the House. We are holding Qantas to account for the decision they made. No-one else made the decision; Qantas management made this decision.

We are being told that this was foreseeable, but the fact is that Alan Joyce, in his press conference on Saturday afternoon when he said that they were grounding all flights, was asked by a journalist, 'Why didn't you tell the shareholders at the meeting the day before that you were going to do this?' and Alan Joyce's response was, 'We only made the decision to do it this morning.' But apparently we were supposed to know that six months ago. The Liberal Party are full of nothing but political opportunists. They will go to any lengths to try to milk a vote out of this, because that is what they are about.

I just want to get some facts on the record. I do believe the Australian people have the right to know the facts in this dispute. In the Australian yesterday, Alan Joyce said:

THE action I announced on Saturday was the only option available to Qantas to cut short the destructive industrial campaign that has devastated the airline over recent months.

Under the Fair Work Act, no other choice was viably open to us.

I believe the Australian people and all of those customers of Qantas, the tens of thousands of customers who were left disadvantaged over the last few days by the Qantas decision, have the right to know that section 423 of the Fair Work Act specifically says:

(1) FWA may make an order suspending or terminating protected industrial action for a proposed enterprise agreement that is being engaged in if the requirements set out in this section are met.

Requirement—significant economic harm

(2) If the protected industrial action is employee claim action, FWA must be satisfied that the action is causing, or is threatening to cause, significant economic harm to:

(a) the employer, or any of the employers, that will be covered by the agreement; and

(b) any of the employees who will be covered by the agreement.

Section 423 enabled Qantas at any time over the last few weeks to file an application to suspend or terminate the protected industrial action—not because of a view of threatened harm to the national economy but in relation to significant economic harm to its business.

Qantas have said that the protected action that was being taken by the unions was costing them $15 million a week. We have since heard that the decision that Qantas made to ground its fleet was costing $20 million a day. So the unions' protected action was costing Qantas $15 million a week and Qantas's action was costing them $20 million a day, yet Qantas—let us be clear, it was not the government and not any other party—chose not to go to Fair Work Australia, the independent tribunal, at any time over the past few weeks prior to Saturday's announcement to seek to suspend or terminate the bargaining period. That was available to them. Qantas should be honest with the Australian people, instead of saying there was no other response that they could take.

The other side say that the Fair Work Act is flawed. If we want to talk about flawed legislation, I can stand here all day and talk about Work Choices. The independent tribunal under Work Choices had no ability to resolve disputes because their hands were tied behind their back. So employers or employees could not go there to seek any sort of resolution to disputes. Their hands were tied behind their back. This government introduced the Fair Work Act that provided those mechanisms for both employers and unions to utilise when they are needed.

Qantas was able to use section 423. An order could have been made under subsection (7), which states:

FWA may make the order:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application by any of the following:

(i) a bargaining representative for the agreement—

being the employer or the unions—

(ii) the Minister;

…   …   …

(iii) a person prescribed by the regulations.

Fair Work Australia approved the protected industrial action. Before industrial action in Australia can occur it has to be approved by Fair Work Australia, so Fair Work Australia had approved this industrial action. Fair Work Australia were aware of this industrial action, having granted this protected industrial action by the unions. If Fair Work Australia considered that significant economic harm was imminent to be caused to Qantas, they could have suspended or terminated the bargaining period. But even Fair Work Australia—I know we are being told that we should have had crystal balls for all of this—did not initiate of their own motion a suspension or termination under this section.

We have heard that the government should have used section 431, intervened and put a declaration in place. Unlike the Liberal Party, we believe it is important to get the facts argued before an independent tribunal and have the independent tribunal determine the matter. That is a better course of events than a minister coming over the top, intervening and just imposing a decision on the parties without hearing all of the circumstances. As a consequence, because the government did not use section 431 and impose a decision and instead used section 424 and took the matter to the industrial tribunal, that tribunal was able to hear arguments from all sides and come up with a determination that resulted in giving the parties 21 days to negotiate and, if need be, it arbitrating and making sure there is a decision in this matter. That is a better course of events for Qantas, for its workforce and for industrial relations in this country. It is about time the opposition started telling everybody the true facts in this matter. (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has concluded.