Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was very interesting to watch that confected outrage. No doubt there will be some more—

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not confected at all. You're—

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is very unparliamentary. No doubt there will be some more when you listen to my speech. Today I am standing up to speak about Qantas and the Fair Work Act. In the industrial dispute that grounded a nation, there is one thing on which both sides of this chamber can agree: the grounding of Qantas's entire fleet on Saturday was damaging for Qantas, for its workers, for the travelling public and for the Australian economy and our international reputation. But how did we get here? Today on the front page of the Australian newspaper, the National Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Tony Sheldon, conceded that it was the Prime Minister's changes to the workplace relations laws that led to the crippling protected action that culminated in the airline's grounding.

Those opposite say that this is the Fair Work Act in action. And indeed it is. It is a major deficiency of the Fair Work Act that our national airline, critical to our national economy, was forced to shut down for 48 hours to try to resolve an industrial dispute. What was evident in the industrial dispute between the unions and Qantas management was that the protected action was a deliberate strategy to force new job security clauses. The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary, Steve Purvinas, stated publicly that they planned, through protected action, to 'bake them'—Qantas—'slowly' and that the rolling stoppages could last for 'at least 12 months'. He even stated that passengers should 'probably be looking at airlines other than Qantas'. It is hard to see where good faith applies in this scenario. How can Mr Purvinas claim to be representing Qantas employees when he is recommending Qantas customers use its competitors?

This example highlights the broader problems with the government's Fair Work Act. It highlights what some have described as the inequitable and unsustainable power shift towards the unions that the Fair Work Act has resulted in. We read yesterday morning that the industrial action in Qantas has now spread to the waterfront, with the Maritime Union of Australia now taking action against a third stevedoring company. Strikes will now be conducted in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne following on from strikes already conducted in Fremantle. Strikes and bans will also hit the BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance coalmines in Queensland. Shipping Australia's chief executive made the point:

… strikes were being taken early on in negotiations, with talks only having just begun at DP world.

This is fast becoming the modus operandi of the ever more militant unions—strike first, negotiate later. They take legally protected industrial action over a long period of time, a tactic which is designed to slowly kill the competitiveness of a company—a death of a thousand cuts. Let me be clear: ever-expanding industrial action will hurt the Australian economy.

Concerns with the Fair Work Act have been expressed by business leaders, commentators and captains of industry alike, all speaking out against what is fundamentally flawed policy. The former managing director of the Patrick Corporation, Chris Corrigan, makes the point in yesterday's paper:

Industrial relations in Australia is based on a fundamentally false premise; namely, that the bargaining landscape is so skewed in favour of the employer that unions need to be given extraordinary privileges to compensate for the so-called inequality.

Mr Corrigan joins other business leaders, such as the chairman of Fairfax Media, Roger Corbett; the chairman of Nufarm, Donald McGauchie; Asciano's Malcolm Broomhead and Adelaide Brighton's managing director, Mark Chellew, who said:

… the industrial relations legislation is more likely to lead to disputation to the extent of strikes than what the old legislation was even 10 years ago.

The Prime Minister's laws are a throwback not only to what existed before the coalition's laws but to what existed before the Hawke-Keating government. Even the Australian Industry Group have voiced their concerns, with Heather Ridout saying:

The idea that the Fair Work Act represents the perfect balance between all the competing interests and should not be altered is simply not sustainable.

Economist Judith Sloan highlighted three key failings with the act:

The first is the type of industrial behaviour allowed under the protected action. The second is the lack of prohibited content in enterprise agreements. Finally, the thresholds in the act are too high for parties seeking the termination of projected action.

Clearly the government needs to review the act. (Time expired)