George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. I refer the minister to comments made by the Prime Minister on 17 Oct—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brandis is entitled to be heard in silence and I am entitled to hear the question—and so is the minister.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I refer the minister to comments made by the Prime Minister on 17 October when, in relation to the Qantas dispute, she said, 'The last thing I am going to do is pick sides.' I also refer to the Prime Minister's press conference last Saturday when she said, 'I'm not going to involve myself in making statements about either side of the dispute.' Given those remarks, can the minister explain why the Prime Minister and other senior ministers labelled Qantas's action 'extreme' but failed to utter a breath of criticism of the unions' campaign to, in the words of the president of the TWU, Mr Tony Sheldon, 'bake Qantas slowly'?

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

The senator really answers his own question in the course of asking it. What the Prime Minister was saying during those various periods was that we were not picking sides. We encouraged the parties to negotiate in good faith and use the services of Fair Work Australia if they needed them, but to resolve the dispute. That was exactly the sort of advice that both the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Albanese, and I were giving. So the government has been totally consistent throughout on that matter. When there have been inappropriate comments like those made by the Secretary of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association—he made some totally inappropriate comments—at least three ministers, I think, spoke publicly criticising those comments as being inappropriate and not helpful to good industrial relations. The Prime Minister, quite rightly, regarded the decision by Qantas to lock out thousands of its employees—most of whom were not undertaking industrial action currently—from their places of work as extreme. At 8 o'clock on Monday night it was going to lock out thousands of its employees, most of whom, as I said, were not taking industrial action currently and some of whom were taking industrial action that consisted of wearing non-uniform ties. We regard that as extreme. I think most people in Australian industrial relations regarded it as a fairly extreme step. Even those who supported it would argue that it was a very extreme step. It is the equivalent of an all-out strike by all employees of an employer shutting down their industry. It is the employers' equivalent. You would have been highly critical of a walkout of all the trade unions and all their members and you would have described that as extreme, and rightly so. The Prime Minister is perfectly accurate in describing Qantas's actions as extreme.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the government was made aware of plans for a lockout, including the imminent grounding of the Qantas fleet, not later than early on Saturday afternoon, isn't the lambasting of Qantas by the government just a way of deflecting—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, just resume your seat. Senator Conroy, I am entitled to hear the question.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn't the lambasting of Qantas by the government just a way of deflecting the hard questions about why the government failed to act sooner, in particular by making a declaration under section 431 which would have taken effect immediately?

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

As I understand it now, I found out about it at the same time the opposition claims it found out. And we are not actually sure whether they may not have found out about it a bit earlier. Mr Abbott has apparently refused to answer at a doorstop when he found out. In fact, he ended the doorstop and left. So I think there are questions. The government has been very clear about when it found out. It is now a bit of an open question as to when the opposition found out. But, as I have repeatedly said, when advised by Qantas as a courtesy—not offering us options, not inviting us to intervene, but advising us of their actions and advising that if it leaked they might take that action earlier; that is, they would not be deterred from taking that action—we sought proper advice, followed that advice and were successful in ending the dispute before the lockout was due to occur.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Does it not follow from the minister's last answer that the government did not seek advice until it had been told of the imminence of the lockout? Had the government sought advice sooner than that, would it not have been in a position to make a 431 declaration immediately and thus avoid the lockout, avoid the grounding and avoid 48 hours of inconvenience to the Australian travelling public?

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When there is silence we will proceed.

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

No, Senator Brandis, it does not follow. The government was in receipt of advice from its department and the legal team inside the department about issues at Qantas over a period of months. All those options had been presented to the government and discussed. When we found out—sometime after two o'clock on Saturday afternoon—about the lockout we sought further advice about the alternatives open to us, and senior ministers discussed that. We were in a position, Senator, if we had chosen, to take that action. But we also knew the hurdles involved in that, and the advice to us was that the preferable action was to use clause 424 as a quicker and more efficient way of resolving the dispute. We followed that advice and—guess what—it worked. The government was successful. You have just got to recognise that, Senator. (Time expired)

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time to debate this is after question time. When there is silence we will proceed.