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

My question is to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. Does the government accept any responsibility at all for the huge inconvenience to the travelling public and the damage to our economy and international reputation due to the grounding of the Qantas fleet? Does it bear any responsibility?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Abetz and the Senate would be well aware, our industrial relations system under the Fair Work Act—as it was under Work Choices—places primary responsibility for the conduct of industrial relations and enterprise bargaining with the parties. They are responsible for the process; they are responsible for their actions.

We have been concerned for some time that the dispute between three unions and Qantas was getting worse and that relations between the unions and Qantas were deteriorating. Minister Albanese and I were both engaged with all the parties, trying to encourage them to reach a negotiated settlement. All those parties—Qantas and the unions—indicated that that was their preferred option as well. They continued to believe that a negotiated settlement was possible in terms of the disputes that they were dealing with. They wanted to continue the negotiation process. They were appearing before Fair Work Australia regarding at least two of those matters, utilising the good offices of Fair Work Australia in those processes.

As people are aware, on Saturday Qantas took the decision to lock out its employees from eight o'clock on Monday evening and as a result of that decision indicated that it would close its operations from 5 pm on Saturday. That obviously caused enormous disruption in the Australian aviation industry. The government then acted swiftly to intervene in the dispute by seeking to get Fair Work Australia to issue orders to terminate the action of both Qantas and the unions. I am pleased to say that Fair Work Australia did do that. It did award the orders that the government sought. As a result, all action has been terminated.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. It appears that the government takes no responsibility. Why did the minister and the government fail to heed the multiple warnings from the tourism industry, cabinet minister Martin Ferguson, Webjet, the New South Wales and Victorian premiers and Qantas and not intervene earlier, particularly when certain union officials were saying, 'This is going to be a big fight to the death,' and, 'We will bake them slowly'?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not take the advice of Peter Reith about not interfering in the dispute, but clearly his contribution to the debate was interesting. We intervened and sought orders from Fair Work Australia when the dispute between Qantas and the three unions significantly escalated, escalated to a point at which the airline was effectively shut down. We received no warning of that decision by Qantas until the afternoon that they took that action. They rang us to advise us that that was what they were doing. That obviously completely changed the circumstances of the industrial dispute. We immediately had a telephone meeting of ministers. I was authorised to seek Fair Work Australia orders to cease the industrial action. Fair Work Australia met immediately that evening to begin that process. The result is the appropriate one in the circumstances. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that Qantas did warn the minister and the government of its intention to ground its fleet, how could the government then claim that it was not warned—indeed, that it was ambushed? Was Mr Sheldon of the Transport Workers Union correct when he said, 'I have no confidence in Chris Evans's capacity to deal with the fundamental industrial relations issues of this country'?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand last week I was being criticised for not having the confidence of Mr Sheldon and now I am being criticised for being too close to him, for being run by him. It is amazing how the Liberal Party can change their position to suit the politics of the day—but have no policy, no consistency and no contribution.

Can I make clear that at no time prior to Saturday afternoon—although it was late Saturday Perth time when I received the call from Mr Joyce—had Qantas canvassed the issue of a lockout of their employees. They had never advised us that that was an option they were considering, let alone one they were going to exercise. They advised me, as they did Minister Albanese, that they had taken that decision, had had it authorised by the board and were going to move immediately to close their airline. That was the first that we knew of it.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also about Qantas and goes to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. I ask the minister: is it true that under the Fair Work Act a 72-hour warning period is required by workers for industrial action but was not required of Qantas for its lockout? Will the government be looking at rectifying this imbalance so that employers are required to give a 72-hour warning, at least on such lockouts, so that we do not see tens of thousands of Australians and other people stranded as they were by this sudden announcement of the lockout and the close-down by Qantas?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Qantas advised the government on Saturday afternoon that they would be locking out all employees covered by the three enterprise agreements and represented by the three unions involved. They indicated that they would be doing that at 8 pm on Monday evening—that is, they were giving notice of the lockout and therefore meeting the conditions for protected industrial action that apply to employers under the act. So, in terms of the decision to take industrial action against their employees, and lock them out and prevent them from attending work, they gave notification of that.

But, in a secondary move, Qantas took the decision that they would not allow their planes to fly during the period between the notification of the lockout and the lockout coming into effect. They took the decision on grounds which they argued were related to safety and the potential actions of their employees—which, I must confess, I am not that clear about. But they argued that, as a result of their concerns in that regard, they were forced to take action immediately and therefore they would be closing down their operations at 5 pm on the Saturday. So in fact the lockout had not occurred when Qantas took the decision to close down the airline and start cancelling flights and grounding aircraft. So, Senator Brown, the answer probably hinges on some of these technical questions, but they were not able to lock out the employees until 8 pm, and they provided that notification. But they then took the decision to close the airline immediately and cause the sort of disruption that we saw. (Time expired)

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question on the legislative obligations of Qantas. Is the minister able to accommodate the requirements of the Qantas Sale Act 1992 part 3(7)(f) which prohibits Qantas 'from conducting scheduled international air transport passenger services' other than under the name 'Qantas' and Qantas's announcement that it will invest in a premium airline based in Asia with a different name?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown's question I think can be answered by saying that the Qantas Sale Act is the law of the land and Qantas are bound by that act. The government's advice is that, at this stage, there is nothing to indicate Qantas's proposed plans breach the Qantas Sale Act—but clearly that would be something we would keep under review when more details emerge as to how they might proceed in the general direction they have indicated. The Senate would be aware that Qantas have a number of subsidiaries that operate both locally and internationally, such as Jetstar, and they have diversified into those subsidiaries over the years. But our view is that the Qantas Sale Act is currently being complied with. Clearly, as the law of the land, it would have to be complied with, but we will obviously monitor any developments to ensure that Qantas continue to comply with the act.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I notice that Minister Albanese in fact said just today that the government would not countenance any breach of the act. Can the minister explain how that prohibition on Qantas conducting scheduled international air transport services under a registered name that does not include the expression 'Qantas' meets with Qantas's announcement of Jetstar Japan, to begin by the end of 2012, with international services starting within a year?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not mean to try and avoid the question but I am not competent to provide the sort of advice that Senator Brown asks for. I am happy to take that on notice, but it goes to an act outside of my portfolio. I am not briefed as to the specifics he raises, other than to say that, as I said, the act is law and Qantas will have to comply with that. I also note that his question goes to an announcement of an intention by Qantas, so action not yet taken. As I indicated in response to the earlier question, we will continue to monitor Qantas's activities, if you like, as they move down this path, to ensure that whatever action they take is compliant with the Qantas Sale Act. But I am happy to take on notice the specifics of the question asked and ask whether Mr Albanese, as the relevant minister, can provide any more information.