Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

But it is a good speech, don't you think? This bill has 'call Australia home' in its title, and we want to make sure that we maintain Qantas in Australia. We all have similar beliefs. But to keep Qantas here we have to make sure we give it the capacity to compete. If you are going to jam a tax on the fuel, it will not be able to compete. If you are going to jam a tax on basically everything it does—a new carbon tax on every bit of power that it consumes—then Australia will not be home for Qantas. Nowhere will be home for Qantas, because it will go broke. This is a mad, manic economic policy from the Australian Labor Party. That is basically what is going to happen.

Senator Sterle talked about us competing with China. He does not want Australia to be like China, and neither do I. I want the Chinese to be like the Chinese and I want Australians to be like Australians. We are all very happy with our identity, but the Labor Party will take us down to the lowest common denominator if it continues to put on excessive overheads so business cannot compete. The most obvious overhead at the moment is the carbon tax. If we really wanted to keep Australia home to Qantas, we would be making sure that we removed unnecessary overheads and did not impinge on the business's capacity to compete in overseas environments. Where do we stop? If we start with Qantas, the next time BHP opens a mine in Africa or Indonesia are we going to insist that the workers at the mine get paid Australian wages? It would be a very noble gesture, but it would not work. It would be impossible. So how can we do it to Qantas or Jetstar? It is just not going to work. Yes, there are rights and obligations but we do have protections via access arrangements for major routes in Australia, and this is a mechanism by which we can support Australian jobs and conditions of employment in Australia.

We do want to make sure we do whatever is in our power to not put a burden on the company and send it out the back door. Rather than prosecute the company, we want to encourage it to, of its own volition, make sure it stays a vibrant Australian organisation. It is doing that the moment because it is still making a profit, which is good to see, while other airlines are going broke. Other airlines are heading out the back door, and we want to make sure that that does not happen to our airline so in the future we can still turn up at the airport and see the big red-tailed plane with the white kangaroo on it and say it is a representation of our nation—and long may that be the case. We have shown in the past a capacity to ensure Qantas remains an Australian company. That was part of the Qantas Sale Act, and it remains the case. But you either grow or disappear. If Qantas is growing in other markets, ultimately that is good for us—it is good for the bottom line of the company and it ultimately keeps the company on the books and in the air. It is obvious that to do that it has to deal with the commercial realities of the places it operates in.

The bill proposed by Senator Xenophon seeks to amend the Qantas Sale Act 1992 and impose tougher requirements on Qantas and Jetstar operations. The bill would change the make-up of the Qantas board and give minority shareholders greater rights, and require Qantas to undertake the majority of its heavy maintenance and flight operations and training in Australia. I just do not think you can do that to an organisation. It is for the stewardship of the organisation to try as best as it can to make sure it stays profitable. We have seen an incredible deterioration in the relationship between the management of Qantas and the workers, and we are happy to see that that situation now seems to be resolving itself. We want to make sure that continues. It is not in any person's interests to have planes parked at the airport with no-one flying in them—it is not in the interests of the airline, because of course if it is not flying it is going broke, and it is not in the interests of the workers, because if they are not working they are going broke.

The restructure was strongly opposed by the Transport Workers Union and the Australian and International Pilots Association. It was also opposed by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Senator Xenophon, the Greens, the Australian Labor Party—particularly Senator Glenn Sterle—and Bob Katter. All of these parties claimed that the restructure breached the intent of the Qantas Sale Act but acknowledged that the restructure most likely did not breach the legislation in its present form. That is basically the issue before us at the moment. The Qantas Sale Act, which is what this legislation goes to, was introduced when Qantas was privatised to ensure that Qantas remained in Australian hands. It required that no more than 49 per cent of the issued share capital of Qantas Airways may be owned by foreign persons. That remains the case. It also said that Qantas must maintain its principal centre of operations and its headquarters in Australia. I am not suggesting for one moment that we have not had people who have pursued us to change that, but we have not changed it. We have made sure that Qantas is maintained as an Australian organisation. It also said that the name 'Qantas' must be preserved for the company's schedule of international passenger services.

We will not be supporting Senator Xenophon's bill because it would require the majority of Qantas's heavy maintenance, flight operations and training facilities to be located in Australia, and additionally these requirements would be extended to Qantas subsidiaries and associated entities. Once more, if it is all right to do it to Qantas, why not do it to Woolworths, why not do it to BHP, why not do it to any other organisation—why not do it to private organisations when they decide to go overseas?