Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think Senator Xenophon has raised some very valid concerns on behalf of some very concerned people. Unfortunately, we just do not believe that the bill is the way to go in respect of resolving those issues. Essentially this bill seeks to impose new conditions on international airline licences and air operator certificate holders with the intention of ensuring that all flight and cabin crew employed by related airline companies are offered the same terms and conditions as Australian based crew employed directly by that airline.

The scope of the bill is very broad. It applies to a wide range of business relationships, and the cost implications of the bill would threaten the viability on a range of routes. I will highlight some of those routes later on. Senator Xenophon's proposed amendments rewrite the bill but continue to raise issues for the commercial operations of our airlines and pre-empt CASA's work in relation to fatigue management as well as departmental consideration of matters raised by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport in its report on the bill. The government does not support the bill.

The Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport has examined the bill, proposed amendments to it and has recommended against passing it. The bill is in breach of our international obligations. The bill would significantly restrict Australian airlines in their capacity to operate internationally and to form very important strategic partnerships with other carriers. Wages and conditions of employees of Australian airlines are matters for the Fair Work Act 2009, consistent with the approach the government has taken in other industries. Safety issues such as fatigue management are being addressed by the safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, following advice received from the International Civil Aviation Organisation on relevant standards and further recommended practices.

Essentially, as I have said, this bill would severely restrict the ability of Australian based airlines to compete in the international aviation market. The committee did take evidence from Virgin and Qantas in respect of specific areas of that restriction. A requirement to offer Australian wages and conditions to crew employed by codeshare partners in other countries would effectively limit Australian carriers to a very small number of routes on which they provide direct services. As a result, the choices for the Australian travelling public would be very much restricted. For example, the bill would effectively prevent Australian airlines offering codeshare services to destinations such as Nashville, Dusseldorf, Dunedin, Miami and probably quite a number of others. This would reduce the choices for the Australian travelling public.

There are also serious concerns in respect of international law, as the bill imposes Australian workplace laws on foreign airlines operating in foreign countries. The government notes that the proposed amendments have been circulated in an attempt to address some of these issues, but the bill would still have an impact on Australian airlines' ability to compete with international rivals and undermine the work already being done to manage fatigue among cabin crew. The government supports the committee recommendation not to pass the bill.

The government has paid careful consideration to the issues raised in the Senate committee inquiry into the bill in relation to fair pay for the crew of safe airlines. The government recognises that concerns have been raised about the wages and conditions that are offered to foreign based airline crew flying in Australia. These issues are related to concerns about fairness and the way airlines manage fatigue among cabin crew. But the bill makes it virtually impossible for our airlines to compete in the international aviation market. The government will be accepting the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport's recommendation that the bill not be passed.

While the proposed amendments completely change the bill, the revised bill is unnecessary in light of the ongoing work that government is progressing to address these issues. The government is currently undertaking an independent review of the Fair Work Act. The independent panel is due to provide a report to the government on 31 May. The government will consider the review panel's report and determine whether amendments to the Fair Work Act are required.

The scope of this bill is very wide. It applies to a wide range of commercial arrangements. Virgin Australia and Qantas would need to ensure that the crew employed by their codeshare partners are offered wages and conditions comparable to their own crew. This would have a significant adverse effect on the commercial competitiveness of Australia's international airlines in an increasingly difficult operating environment. This also raises serious concerns in relation to international law, our bilateral air service agreements and our mutual recognition of aviation regulatory arrangements with New Zealand, due to the extraterritorial implica­tion or application of workplace conditions.

The bill also attempts to deal with concerns in relation to the management of fatigue amongst cabin crew. Safety issues such as fatigue management are being appro­priately addressed by the safety regulator, CASA, and following advice from the International Civil Aviation Organisation on the relevant standards and recommended practices. CASA released a draft proposal on flight crew fatigue for public comment on 1 May, and a draft proposal for cabin crew fatigue is scheduled for later this year. Legislation is therefore unnecessary in light of CASA's ongoing work to provide better systems for fatigue management.

Senator Xenophon's amendments completely rewrite the bill. However, the amendments do not address the concerns with the original bill. The proposal to require AOC holders to develop a system of fatigue management is unnecessary in light of the ongoing work by ICAO and CASA. The revised bill also amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to extend the Australian workplace relations framework to all aircraft crew performing work in Australian domestic aviation.

The Fair Work Act principally regulates employment relationships. In contrast, the revised bill would impose workplace relations obligations and circumstances where there is no employment relationship. Because of this and a number of technical issues with the bill, the government does not support the revised bill. However, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations is currently considering whether the Fair Work Act covers foreign airline crew working on Australian domestic flights and whether any legislative change is required.

In short, the bill would significantly restrict Australian airlines in their capacity to operate internationally and to form strategic partnerships with other carriers, and it would certainly reduce the choices available to the Australian travelling public. Wages and conditions of employees, in Australia, of Australian airlines are matters for the Fair Work Act 2009, consistent with the approach taken across industries. Safety is the business of CASA. The amended bill is unnecessary in light of CASA's ongoing work to provide better systems for fatigue management.

I would like to say a number of other things. It is very clear that there are some widely held and deeply felt concerns amongst flight crew in the operations in Australia. They have been raised very visibly, very publicly and very appropriately by Senator Xenophon. The fact that he has been able to elevate these concerns and this dispute to this place is a significant achievement for those people. A number of them gave evidence about their fear of possible retribution, lack of promotion, lack of job opportunities and the loss of their entire career. Those people were fair dinkum and their evidence was fair dinkum. The fact that the matter has been elevated to debate in this place is a good thing, and credit is in no small part due to Senator Xenophon.

The push for cheaper and cheaper fares puts pressure on all of the airline industry operations, and on no-one more than on pilots and aircrew. The questionable practices in relation to the Thai based labour hire company are just an example of the result of the never-ceasing drive to give Australians cheaper airfares. But amongst all that you have got to remember that the reason we have flight attendants on a plane is that, when things happen, you have got to get off in 90 seconds. They are the people that have trained and trained to deal with the unlikely event of a plane coming down in a hurry. When the lights are off, there is an emergency and the slides are operating, you have got to follow the instructions of your flight crew. To push them beyond the limits of normal fatigue management is an absolute dereliction of managerial responsibility. To combine that with a miserable attempt at a salary on what is clearly a domestic Australian flight is a disgrace. Jetstar may tag their flights from Darwin to Sydney as international flights, but the reality is that the customer gets off, goes through customs and wanders away, and other people get back on, not through customs, just boarding a normal domestic service, and the flight crew who have operated the international sector then continue on the domestic sector. For those people not to be paid the same as Australian workers under the Fair Work Act is a disgrace.

If you want to take the push a bit further and, in search of cheaper fares, lower the very high pilot standards that Australia has enjoyed then there is probably a risk to that. The risk is that a person without the appropriate number of flying hours that we have required over the years may make a mistake. If you want to combine that lack of experience with fatigue and low wages then there are possibly grave concerns arising. I commend Senator Xenophon for raising that.

What I am saying, though, is that CASA and the Fair Work Act and the appropriate organisations that can represent people should have these matters resolved to the satisfaction of those people that have raised the issues with their company in the first instance. The evidence that was given to the hearing with CASA had no resolution. At least one of the witnesses made a statement that they thought that CASA would solve the problems, and, after repeated efforts, they had no resolution. That is up to CASA to respond to, but that was certainly given in evidence to the hearings. So I actually share Senator Xenophon's concerns in respect of some of these matters that have been raised. I just do not believe that this amended bill is the way forward.