Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Happy birthday, Mr Deputy President. On behalf of the opposition, I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the Qantas dispute.

I never thought I would be in a position to stand shoulder to shoulder with the National Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, but his description of the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations was absolutely right when he said:

We've got a minister who I would describe as the character out of Weekend at Bernie's. He's the dead guy that stands in the middle. He is not able to act—

he is not able to perform his duties.

The consequences we witnessed over the weekend show how prophetic those words of Mr Sheldon were, because the minister and the government failed to act in circumstances when they knew they could and should have acted. Indeed, the inconvenience to the Australian public is huge. People were denied being able to attend important family occasions such as weddings or going to assist the sick in their difficult times. Indeed, it has sent shock waves through the tourism sector, not to mention the impact on our international reputation, with 17 CHOGM leaders having to take alternative methods of transport back to their countries.

This is a government that could have taken action and should have taken action under section 431 of the Fair Work Act. Its failure to do so was described by the Prime Minister as a result of uncertainty in relation to that clause, a clause written by the Prime Minister herself when she was the Minister for Workplace Relations. What a great testament that is to her own work! What a great endorsement of her own work! And she says that because of that uncertainty, because that provision had never been tried before, the government decided to opt for section 424. That is a great line but for the fact that section 424 had never been tested before Fair Work Australia either. Which is it, Prime Minister? Which is it, Minister? Is it because the legislation had not been tested or because they were not willing to stand up to some of the union activities, especially by the now reputed next President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Sheldon?

We in this country are entitled to have air services that are reliable. Everybody knew where this dispute was headed. Indeed, the Minister for Tourism, Martin Ferguson, warned 14 days ago where it was going. Webjet was warning. The Premier of New South Wales warned. The Premier of Victoria warned. Indeed, so did I, on Meet the Press the week before—and so the list goes on. But the minister says: 'We got caught flat-footed. We were ambushed.' Well, where were they? I think he was as Mr Sheldon also described the minister. He said:

I have no confidence in Chris Evans's capacity to deal with the fundamental industrial relations issues in this country …

When the trade union movement are saying that about their own minister, one understands why the Australian public was so grossly inconvenienced over the weekend by the government's inaction.

The government now acknowledge that they were not in fact ambushed. That was just another bit of a distortion, such as why they did not use section 431. They now accept that they had three hours notice. Why didn't they say to Qantas at the time, 'We will intervene; don't ground your fleet'? Do you honestly think Qantas would have still grounded their fleet? The government could have promised action—quick action, decisive action. But of course this is a Prime Minister who can ring up a boy in a Bali prison and who can give gratuitous advice to the Commonwealth heads of government and to the European Union but who cannot run her own country and her own industrial relations system. This has been an abject failure by the government and their minister, and the government need to wear the blame for this dispute. (Time expired)