Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

He might be. Senator Joyce has a cheeky grin on his face; I do not think they are related. They might be, but very distantly. According to Alan Joyce, the Qantas Group would have to quite simply pull out of its Darwin and Cairns operations. That is scaremongering of the highest order. It is misleading, and the Qantas Group, to my understanding—and Senators Sterle or Gallacher can correct me on this—has not given us details of how much the cabin crew make as a proportion of their costs. I think Senator Sterle is saying that is the case; it has not provided that information, as it indicated that it would during the Senate inquiry.

This threat, made in the Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee's 6 February 2012 hearing into the bill raises the question: is the Qantas Group so dependent on underpaid workers that it will fold a number of its routes if it has to pay people a fair wage? It has been estimated that cabin crew costs make up less than 10 percent of aircraft operating costs, according to an article from the Economic Times in January 2010, and, as I said we are still waiting for that information.

I have asked questions of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in the Senate to see if the circumstances surrounding visas could be clarified. They could not. There appear to be stricter rules applying to international airlines with international crew, but little that applies to international crew on Australian airlines. I strongly urge that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship investigate these circumstances because it is not right, and it is not fair that overseas workers be exploited to make an Australian airline a quick buck.

During the committee inquiry process I faced accusations that I had something against Qantas and did not want it to succeed. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I was on a Qantas flight this morning. Like most Australians, I feel an incredible sense of pride in the flying kangaroo. There is nothing better than sitting in a foreign airport and catching sight of that red tail as the plane thunders past. There are few companies that inspire such fierce loyalty among its employees and its passengers. The very reason I fought so hard for these changes is I share that same loyalty. I do not want a truly Australian Qantas to be a thing of the past, and I do not want Australia's safety reputation to be in any way compromised as a result of cost-cutting measures.

The true intention of this bill is not just to protect overseas workers from being exploited. It is also to make sure there are regulations in place to stop staff being pushed to their limits and into a physical and mental state that is just not safe; not to them and not to the passengers they are there to protect in the event of an emergency. In an emergency, cabin crew must react instinctively to direct passengers and operate safety equipment—they must not be physically and mentally exhausted from excessively long hours. There are also the post-flight conditions to think of. For years, cabin crew members have been complaining to Jetstar about excessively long duties that have left them too tired to travel home safely. I have heard a number of stories of people having accidents on their way from a long shift because they were simply too fatigued.

I also note the similarities between the circumstances I have outlined and changes that the government has made in a similar area. 'Flags of convenience' are almost universally popular in the shipping industry. Essentially, your ship abides by the rules of whichever country it is registered in—hence the popularity of Panama and similar countries, where the laws relating to everything from safety and maintenance to workplace conditions are far more lax and, in some cases, virtually non-existent.

In 1992, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure published a report titled Inquiry into ship safety: ships of shame, which detailed stories of crews paid a pittance or not at all, of unseaworthy vessels, of uncertified crew and poor safety equipment, of falsified documents and of brutal treatment. The committee found that commercial pressures were the major factor behind these problems. A further report in 1995 revisited the issue because the exposure of the first report had 'not ended the exploitation, denial and physical abuse of seafarers'.

Finally, some changes came into effect in January 2010, with the regulations for the Fair Work Act specifically stating that vessels with continuous voyage permits and those with three or more single voyage permits issued in a 12-month period are covered by the Fair Work Act. If the government has deemed it reasonable to take this step there is no reason it cannot deem it reasonable to take similar steps for the aviation industry. Effectively, if a foreign registered ship is travelling from Sydney to Melbourne and is carrying domestic cargo it must pay Australian rates and conditions. What difference is there when we are talking about an Australian aircraft flying a domestic route and carrying domestic passengers, but not paying its workers on that flight Australian rates and conditions? It is as simple as that. If we can deal with 'ships of shame' we should be able to deal with 'planes of pain'.

The government must take action on this. It is not fair. It is not acceptable. It is, quite simply, unjust. It is exploiting overseas workers and it is also taking away Australian jobs in circumstances where they should not be taken away. This is only one small aspect of the problems facing Australia's aviation industry, but it is an important one not just in terms of safety but also in terms of people's rights.

I said earlier that my involvement in these issues has raised more questions than answers. This is one of the very few answers; this bill and the amendments circulated do not place an undue burden on airlines. This is about fixing an anomaly—a loophole—that needs to be sorted out here and now. This is an opportunity for this chamber to deal with it. This is an opportunity to remedy a clear loophole that must be sorted out once and for all.