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

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 the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Abetz) and Senators Ronaldson and Brandis today relating to the Qantas dispute.

If ever there was a parable of the incompetence, the inability to act swiftly and decisively, of this government it was seen last Saturday afternoon, and the Australian travelling public, some 80,000 of them in Australia and overseas, were the victims. What we know—and Senator Evans has confirmed this today in answers to questions from Senator Abetz, Senator Ronaldson and me—is that he was told early in the afternoon of last Saturday of the imminent announcement by Qantas that they were going to lock out the workforce and ground the fleet in response to the guerilla industrial action to which they had been subjected to for weeks by the Transport Workers Union and other Qantas unions. And what did they do? They did nothing. Like a deer caught in the headlights, they did nothing. As Senator Evans has told the Senate in the last hour, they then sought advice.

You would think, Mr Deputy President, given all of the indications from Mr Joyce and other senior executives of Qantas for weeks and months on end, that if the industrial dispute that had plagued Qantas were not brought to an end soon Qantas would have to take divisive action. The very least a competent government would have done would have been to have had a contingency plan for what steps it could take under the Fair Work Act to secure the wellbeing of the public. But, as Senator Evans has told the Senate, they did not even have a contingency plan. When the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Mr Hubbard, the Minister for Tourism, Mr Ferguson, the minister for transport, Mr Albanese, and Senator Evans were rung by Qantas as a courtesy shortly after 2 pm last Saturday they then sought advice and later that evening, after the grounding of the Qantas fleet had already taken place, after 80,000 people had been inconvenienced, after the nation had been thrown into a transport chaos, late that night they then brought an application before Fair Work Australia under section 424 of the Fair Work Act.

The grounding never had to happen. The lockout could have been avoided and the grounding would have been avoided if the minister had had contingency plans in place, as he ought to have done, to make a declaration under section 431 of the Fair Work Act—his own piece of legislation, the Prime Minister's pride and joy. The minister could have made a declaration then and there—certainly it could have been done within the three hours between the government being informed of what was likely to be coming and Mr Joyce's press conference at 5 pm—prohibiting the industrial action. If that declaration had been made, if the government had acted swiftly and sure-footedly, that would have been it. The industrial action by the unions would have been prohibited, the imminent lockout by Qantas would have been prohibited and the grounding of the aircraft announced by Mr Joyce at 5 pm would not have occurred.

You would think, wouldn't you, Mr Deputy President, that faced with an imminent grave industrial dispute—as grave as any this nation has seen since the last period of Labor government—the government would have been prepared for that contingency. It would have had the section 431 declaration, which would under the terms of the act have taken effect immediately, ready to go. But it did not. As I said before, like a deer caught in the headlights, it then wondered to itself in its collective brain, 'What do we do now? Let's take advice.' If ever there was an industrial dispute that had been foreshadowed and anticipated for weeks if not months, it was this. But, rather than put itself in a position to take immediate action available to it and save the Australian public this pain, expense and inconvenience, the government did nothing.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian government is strongly committed to having a vibrant and resilient aviation industry in Australia, recognising the enormous contribution aviation makes to our economic strength as a nation. Yesterday Fair Work Australia granted the government's application to end all industrial action at Qantas. This is a win for the tens of thousands of passengers who were left stranded by Qantas's extraordinary action and for the one million people working in tourism across Australia.

Qantas employs more than 35,000 people, with 90 per cent of those jobs based in Australia. Further, 90 per cent of Qantas's heavy maintenance operations are also carried out in Australia. In the national aviation white paper the government acknowledged the critical need to develop and retain a highly skilled workforce to ensure Australia's aviation sector remains strong into the future. The government is also strongly committed to ensuring that Australian airlines are majority Australian owned and based in Australia. The government strongly supports these provisions being maintained to ensure that Qantas remains an iconic Australian brand.

Yesterday's decision confirms the Fair Work Act is robust and the independent umpire has a critical role to play in the industrial relations framework. As a result of the government's swift action, up until midnight yesterday there had been 137 domestic flights and 33 international flights. This was delivered as a result of Labor's successful Fair Work system, which restored the balance in industrial relations at Australia. Under the old Howard government, unions could take industrial action, bosses could lock workers out and governments could intervene—exactly what we have seen here. This section of the Fair Work Act is substantially similar in its terms to sections in earlier versions of workplace relations legislation. It enables the Fair Work industrial umpire to deal with a dispute that has implications for the national economy. Let's be clear: it was Qantas's extreme action that escalated this dispute. We acted decisively and immediately to terminate the industrial action on both sides. This has got workers back to work and planes back into the sky. No-one directly involved—not Qantas, not the unions—asked the government to intervene. All parties assured us they were still at the negotiating table as late as Friday.

I would like to point out that this inflammatory language around using section 431 does nothing to help get planes back into the air or the dispute resolved. The fact is that the government was notified only a short time before Qantas decided to shut up shop. Anyway, a termination under section 431 would ultimately have led to arbitration and there would have been a real risk of a challenge in the courts, which would have continued the uncertainty for Qantas, its employees and the travelling public. I repeat: the measures taken by the responsible ministers were appropriate and have seen Qantas planes back in the air within 48 hours.

I have seen reports today that legal experts said the Gillard government made the right call, as making a declaration under section 431 would have left open the risk of a challenge in the courts from the parties. This would have further delayed the resolution of this matter and continued the uncertainty for Qantas, its employees and the travelling public. It would have prolonged the inconvenience for the travelling public and continued the uncertainty for Qantas employees. What the government sought to do was to use the surest way to have the issue resolved by bringing the hearing before the independent umpire, to get all the evidence before an expert full bench who would determine the case. Getting all the parties into Fair Work Australia is the best way to get a resolution to this dispute and give certainty to the Australian public.

It is extraordinary that Qantas made the unilateral decision that they did. The fact is that at no stage did they, as Mr Joyce has confirmed, raise with any government minister their intention to lock out their workforce and therefore lock out their customers and ground the airline. This was an extraordinary decision. The government's concern was to make sure that we acted to get Qantas back in the air to make sure that Australians could travel for business, for family reasons or for holidays, whether it be domestically or overseas. The government's intervention ensured there was a timely response to that issue.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This action of Qantas over the last few days reminds me very much of the shearers dispute back in 1982. Qantas had six planes grounded. You have lease payments to make on your machinery. You do not lease a Kenworth truck, sit it in a shed all week and expect to have money at the end of the month to pay your lease. Business is no different. They had six planes grounded that could not be serviced because the engineers would not work overtime. As a result of that flights were being postponed, flights were being cancelled and the public were being let down because they did not know whether planes could be relied upon as far as leaving on time and arriving on time goes. Here is a problem running the business. The message is clear: a business has a level of tolerance before they will take further action.

I will take you back to the shearers in 1982. 1982 was a terrible drought through South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and into Southern Queensland. I remember our ewes were due to start lambing in September. You have got to shear the ewes before they lamb. In August, the shearers went on strike for more money. We were not very happy about it. We just went on shearing away ourselves at home on the quiet, not making too much noise about it while others were on strike. In October 1982 they went on strike again. In the meantime graziers were suffering the worst drought in decades. In March 1983 the shearers went on strike again. The umpire said you could use wide combs and finally the graziers said, 'Enough is enough.' People were dismissed and since those days we have not had one dispute in the shearing industry in Australia. There is a clear message there.

Some of the union thugs have said, 'We will bake Qantas slowly.' If you want to destroy Qantas, you are going about it the right way—leaving their planes on the tarmac unserviced, parked away and unable to be used. A business like Qantas has to compete in the world market, where we have pilots from Thai Airways paid a lot less than Qantas pilots and we have Etihad and Emirates probably buying their fuel at one-tenth of the price Qantas has to pay for theirs. Mr Deputy President, as you know, I often say life is about fairness. I have been a shearer and a truck driver. I have also been a farmer and an employer. I have been on both sides of the fence. You must treat your workers properly, but the point is: when you start grounding airlines so they cannot earn any money and are cancelling flights and delaying flights, what can they do? Surely the government knew what was happening. Mr Alan Joyce from Qantas had made it quite clear in several meetings. But, no, the unions were going to bake Qantas slowly. What a terrible thing to say: we will bake an Australian icon, the flying kangaroo, slowly.

I have seen some of the wages. The pilots are on $350,000 to $500,000 a year. That is good money, but it should be good money because they have such an important job to do looking after the safety of hundreds on board. We know that Qantas have the best pilots and the best record of any airline in the world. But the bottom line is that they have been losing hundreds of millions of dollars on their international flights. What is going to happen? Will they sell that side off and become a domestic airline? Will Australia lose its international airline? We do not want that to happen. Once the Labor Party privatised Qantas and sold it off, it had to make a profit. If they continue to make a loss, the business fails and everyone loses their jobs.

The engineers get paid very well on the figures I have seen—some $145,000 a year. They have a vital job to see that those machines are serviced well so that they are reliable and safe. They do it well. But the bottom line is that, when the unions say, 'We are going to bake Qantas slowly,' that is when the management says, 'Enough is enough. We have got enough planes sitting idle that cannot be serviced. We are delaying enough flights. We are losing our reputation of being a reliable carrier.' That is when they had to act. The point is the government did nothing. They did not read the tea leaves. They did not know what was going on. They could have acted. They could have prevented it. The inconvenience caused to the tens of thousands of Australians and overseas visitors who were left in limbo, with nowhere to go and not knowing what to do, could have been prevented. Will the government ever take on the union movement? Never, because the union movement finances their campaigns.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was somewhat puzzled when Senator Williams began his speech with a reference to the wide comb dispute of the 1980s and I thought to myself, 'What is the relevance to this debate today?' Then it struck me; it hit me like a bolt of lightning. Senator Williams is doing what those opposite in the Liberal Party and their leader have been doing for the last couple of days—using this Qantas dispute to divert attention from the fact that the Liberal-National coalition do not have a policy when it comes to industrial relations. They do not have a policy on workplace relations in this country. They do not know whether they are going to include individual contracts as part of their statutory scheme. In fact, many of those opposite believe that individual contracts should be a part of the industrial relations regime. Jamie Briggs and Kelly O'Dwyer have let the cat out of the bag on several occasions.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: the senator should be using the correct titles for his colleagues.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Nash. I remind all senators to address members in the other house by their correct titles.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will, Mr Deputy President. They have spilled the beans on several occasions. On several occasions they have said that individual contracts should be a part of the Liberal-National coalition policy on industrial relations. Yet we have not had an announcement. We do not know what their approach is going to be to this very important economic issue. The reality is that this debate is not about whether section 431 or 424 of the Fair Work Act was the appropriate way to deal with this dispute. The fact is that this is simply about a lack of policy by those opposite when it comes to workplace relations.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're in government.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not just me, Senator Williams, who has been saying this. I want to read you a quote from none other than Peter Reith, the former workplace relations minister in the Howard government. He said on the Drum yesterday that:

Abbott said of the dispute that "it is not a policy problem, it is a competency problem". These comments are obviously inaccurate … Tony only said that because, as everyone knows, the Abbott Coalition no longer has a policy on industrial relations.

They are the comments of the former Howard government minister for workplace relations. He realises that the coalition do not have a policy on industrial relations and the Australian public and the media are quickly beginning to realise that those opposite do not have a policy when it comes to industrial relations. The provisions that have been discussed in respect of this dispute—whether section 424 or section 431 of the act should have been used in these circumstances—are really irrelevant. The fact is that those provisions have been a part of industrial legislation at a national level in this country since 1993. They were introduced as part of the Brereton reforms in the Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993. During the whole period of the Workplace Relations Act and Work Choices under the Howard government, these provisions were available to be used, and there were several disputes where there was potential harm to the national interest and potential damage to the economy. How many times during that period did the minister for workplace relations under the Howard government use section 431 to make a ministerial declaration? A big, fat zero—never! The provision has never been used, yet those opposite come in here—the ultimate height of hypocrisy—and seek to criticise us for not using the provision.

When we were informed by Qantas of their ambush on the Australian flying public and the international public, we acted quickly, we acted decisively and we acted appropriately. We sought advice and got an urgent hearing with Fair Work Australia—we got a hearing on a Saturday. And what do you know? They heard the application and they acted appropriately—they terminated the bargaining period. The act worked. I finish with Peter Reith's quote:

I shuddered when I realised that senior Liberals including Tony Abbott were publicly encouraging PM Gillard to intervene …

They are the comments of Peter Reith, the former workplace relations minister. He got it right and the government got it right.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Before I call Senator Nash, for those who have been diligent in following the chamber, Dunaden is the winner of the Melbourne Cup.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President, for that advice to the chamber. Just when you think there cannot possibly be another issue that this Labor government can stuff up, here we have it—yet another stuff-up by the Australian Labor Party and the Labor government. Can you believe it? We think that maybe one day this government will show that they can govern in a mature, sensible and thoughtful way.

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

I don't think anybody thinks that!

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis, I will take that interjection. He has informed the chamber that he does not think anybody thinks that, and he is probably right. But we do hold out hope that maybe one day the 20-something million people around this country can see this Labor government make a sensible, practical decision with a correct outcome—something that is not a stuff-up. But no, here we have another one. We have had this debacle of an issue with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport being told of the announcement by Qantas that there would be a lockout of the workforce and a grounding of the fleet. That is pretty clear. I think even this minister could understand what he was being told at that point about what was impending and what was going to happen. But what did the government do? What did the minister do? What did the Prime Minister do? Absolutely nothing. It is simply beyond them; they are incapable of properly running the country. They are simply incapable of doing it. On the weekend we saw yet again exactly the same issue happening with yet another stuff-up.

There was no contingency plan. The government did not seek any advice until late in the piece. The senator speaking before me was railing about how it all went off to Fair Work Australia. He did not point out the fact that that happened way down the track. It was the wrong course of action to take. I will tell my colleagues why it was the wrong course of action to take: just in the last 20 minutes or so Qantas has confirmed that it:

… would not have grounded its fleet if the federal government had used the Fair Work Act to invoke ministerial powers …

This is exactly what the shadow minister, Senator Abetz, the New South Wales minister and the Victorian minister had all been asking for. We now have it confirmed that Qantas would not have grounded the fleet if the government had indeed taken the action that the coalition was asking them to take all along. I quote:

Asked if the fleet would have been grounded if the government had used section 431 of the act, a Qantas spokesman said: 'No. If a declaration had been made under section 431 of the Fair Work Act, Qantas would have been prevented from issuing a lockout notice to these employees covered by the three unions' …

What we have here is 48 hours of mayhem and 80,000 people whose travel was disrupted and who were put to great pains because of the inaction of this government. This could all have been avoided, every single bit of it. For this government to say today that it has acted appropriately is absolute rubbish. This is a government that has a complete inability to govern. We only have to look at things like pink batts, the BER debacle, the cash-for-clunkers scheme, GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch, the citizens' assembly that never happened, the inability of the government to protect the borders and the absolute stupidity of this government's bringing in a carbon tax. Why should we be the slightest bit surprised that when the issue arose with Qantas it would again stuff it up? No surprises there—it is simply unable to govern.

It is interesting that the Prime Minister, who said during this whole issue that the last thing she was going to do was pick sides and that she was not going to involve herself in making statements about either side of the dispute, labelled Qantas's actions as extreme but did not admonish the unions for their debilitating campaign. This government does not have a clue. It is like having the country run by a bunch of kindergarteners—and that is not being very kind to kindergarteners, whom I actually hold in very high regard. This absolute disaster of a situation could have been avoided and the government knows it.

Question agreed to.