House debates

Wednesday, 12 September 2007

Statements by Members

Ansett Australia

11:47 am

Photo of Steve GeorganasSteve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Today, 12 September 2007, marks the sixth anniversary of Ansett being put under external administration. There is no question that the collapse of Ansett had a huge impact on Australia, with 15,000 staff losing their jobs, and an estimated 60,000 people in associated industries being affected, over 200 of whom lived in the federal seat of Hindmarsh.

For these former Ansett employees it has been six long and generally disappointing years since Ansett’s collapse. These years have consisted of times of hope and despair as the prospect of receiving entitlements has slowly diminished. As of April this year, hundreds of ex-Ansett employees were still waiting on $93 million worth of full entitlements. Some ex-employees are waiting on tens of thousands of dollars of their own money. The primary victims of the company’s collapse are the longstanding and loyal employees of Ansett—individuals who devoted decades of their lives to the airline. They are some of the most deserving of their entitlements.

These have been six years in which the government said they were doing the right thing by the workers yet subsequently diverted some $60 million out of the greater post-collapse Ansett assets and ticket tax away from the ex-employees. Many Ansett workers blame the federal government for the airline’s collapse. It is understandable that they are furious that some of the funds raised from the $10 ticket levy paid by passengers are being spent on airport security, while former staff are still waiting to recoup their entitlements. In a well-received announcement concerning the air passenger ticket levy on 28 September 2001, the then Deputy Prime Minister and minister for transport stated:

The Government has imposed the levy to pay for the entitlements of Ansett employees.

This was reported in a number of dailies, including the Sydney Morning Herald, which read: ‘The levy ... was imposed to guarantee the entitlements of Ansett workers ...’ Nowhere did it say that the levy was to go towards paying regional upgrades of security at airports. I do not think anyone could seriously begrudge the ex-employees receiving the assistance from the federal government in the form that it was made at the time, but it is unfortunate that, in the event of the levy raising more than what was owed to the government in repayment of the $330 million advance, any surplus was to have no connection with the plight of their ex-Ansett workers or their access to their entitlements. Instead of the Ansett ticket tax being used to guarantee the entitlements of ex-employees, as stated very clearly by the then minister, the government decided to spirit away surplus amounts for use in regional electorates. At a later date the then minister said in November 2002, perhaps to clarify:

They were never to see all of the ticket tax. It was used to fund, if you like, an overdraft facility.

Six years after the collapse, six years after the government instituted the Ansett ticket tax, people are still waiting for their entitlements. (Time expired)