Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Air Navigation and Civil Aviation Amendment (Aircraft Crew) Bill 2011. This bill seeks to reverse the long-term successful trend of Australian governments in progressively opening up the Australian economy to international competition. I oppose this bill as it will unduly hamper what are successful Australian businesses. This bill will undermine the aviation industry, an industry which is amongst the most competitive, open and transparent in the world.

This bill amends the Air Navigation Act 1920 and the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to provide that an Australian airline, or a subsidiary of an Australian airline, is not issued an international aviation licence unless it provides the same wages and conditions to overseas based flight and cabin crew operating its flights as if they were directly employed by the airline. In essence, this bill undermines what should be the reciprocal opportunity for Australian airlines to compete with foreign businesses in their own markets.

Why on earth are those supporting this bill trying to impede Australian businesses from competing in foreign markets on the same terms as any other Australian business? As the coalition have always maintained, the management of private—and indeed public—companies and the decisions determined during the course of running their businesses should be the exclusive remit of those companies. This bill illegitimately impinges on the ability of a company—including our iconic and much-loved flying kangaroo—to make decisions in order to facilitate the effective management and running of its businesses. Individuals and Australian businesses should not be subjected to any legislation that removes their paramount and indisputable right to run themselves and to compete internationally as they see fit.

As a means by which to fully understand the opportunity that lies before Australia, it is imperative that we reflect on Qantas's value to the Australian economy both past and present. The history of Qantas is an extraordinary Australian success story. Established in the Queensland outback in 1920, Qantas has become Australia's largest domestic and international airline. It is held in high regard all over the world and considered one of the very best and safest long-distance carriers. The flying kangaroo is one of the strongest and most recognisable brands, which represents so much more than just a company; it represents the optimism and the success of Australian enterprise. Qantas has a strong reputation for safety, operational reliability, engineering and maintenance, and customer service.

Of the almost $15 billion of income earned by Qantas in the financial year 2010-11, the overwhelming portion was generated within the Australian economy under our laws and industrial relations rules. Qantas employs approximately 35,700 people, with 93 per cent of them based within Australia. The company is inextricably linked with the development of civil aviation in Australia and represents the confidence we have in Australian businesses to compete successfully in a globalised economy. From the humble beginnings operating fragile biplanes that carried only one or two passengers in open cockpits, Qantas, the flying kangaroo, now proudly operates the new Airbus A380s, flying some 450 people halfway around the world in a day. One would be hard pressed to find a better advertisement for Australian enterprise and our nation as a whole. Qantas's employees, shareholders and indeed Australia's national interest will all be well served in the long run if it can fully grasp the unprecedented opportunity for growth so often deemed the 'Asian century'.

There are a number of flaws in this bill that would have implications for its enforcement and negatively impact on the profitability of airlines operating in Australia. Firstly, the bill is extraterritorial in its scope. There is uncertainty about whether the bill imposes Australian employment conditions extraterritorially, forcing airlines to offer Australian wages and employment conditions to employees based outside of Australia—in Thailand, Singapore and so on. This may mean that it is inconsistent with Australia's bilateral air services arrangements. This bill has serious implications for airlines operating in Australia and their international competitiveness and profitability in both domestic and international markets. It is not reasonable or fair to expect any business but particularly airlines not to be able to compete in foreign markets on the same terms as other businesses competing in that market.

This bill also misguidedly uses air operators certificates, or AOCs, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Air Navigation Act 1920 to attempt to regulate industrial relations issues. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority was highly critical of the bill in this regard, stating in the CASA submission to the committee inquiry:

… CASA is seriously concerned that the addition of a workplace relations function would oblige CASA to become involved in negotiations between AOC holders and their employees on pay and working conditions … The perception of CASA as an independent safety regulator could be compromised if it were to become involved in vetting the pay and working conditions of AOC holder’s employees.

It simply does not make sense. CASA has long been held in this country as an organisation that is solely dedicated to the safety of Australians and to ensuring that AOC holders operate in the air with safety standards second to none elsewhere in the world. On the issue of fatigue management and safety, the airlines disputed the need for additional regulation. CASA stated that it was 'not aware of any negative safety trends' regarding AOC holders' foreign based crew.

The bill also contains a number of terms and conditions that are vague and would lead to uncertainty for those affected by the bill and for organisations such as CASA, who would have to implement certain functions. This makes it difficult to implement and an unnecessary burden on industry.

The Qantas grounding last year was nothing more than the culmination of protracted industrial action by trade unions against Australia's national airline. Make no mistake: this dispute was all about—