Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Chair of the Economics Committee, Senator Ronaldson, I present the report of the committee on the Qantas Sale (Keep Jetstar Australian) Amendment Bill 2007, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to incorporate some remarks about the report.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Family First campaigned strongly against the Qantas takeover for three reasons —jobs, jobs and jobs.

Job security is a huge issue in Australia —it is a major concern for Australian workers and their families —and Family First wants to ensure that jobs stay in Australia and are not sent offshore.

Protecting Australian jobs is Family First’s top priority because that gives workers and their families peace of mind.

It is extremely disappointing that the Economics Committee has decided to oppose the Qantas Sale (Keep Jetstar Australian) Amendment Bill 2007.

The decision reflects the Government’s lack of commitment to Australian workers and their families as well as Australian jobs.

It is not the first time the Government has abandoned Australian workers.

The Government’s workplace changes removed guarantees for public holidays, meal breaks and overtime and penalty rates. Family First voted against the WorkChoices legislation – I repeat, voted AGAINST the workplace changes —because they undermined family life and forced workers to bargain for conditions which were previously protected.

Now Australian workers at Qantas and its associated entities will also have to fight – to retain their jobs – as increasingly the company slashes costs in its quest to boost profits.

Jobs matter – all jobs matter – and job security is crucial for families.

Family First’s bill would have closed a loophole where currently only part of the Qantas Group is covered by the Qantas Sale Act.

Qantas associated entities are not covered and the company can exploit that loophole to send Australian jobs offshore and to reduce wages and conditions. That is what Family First wanted to stop.

Sadly, both the major parties have been reluctant to stand in the way of a huge debt-ridden $11 billion buyout that threatens the jobs of thousands of Australian workers and their families.

Family First’s amendment to the Qantas Sale Act would have closed this loophole and ensured that restrictions that apply to Qantas – including rules about maintenance, training and administration – also applied to Jetstar and other associated entities like catering.

It is not difficult for Qantas to push operations into associated entities with a lower cost base like Jetstar. There is extensive evidence this is happening, even at the expense of Qantas-badged services’ growth and profit.

Michael Ryan, co-founder of pioneer low cost airline Ryanair commented on the Qantas strategy:

I would imagine that what they [Qantas] are trying to do is put as many of Qantas’ routes into Jetstar [as possible].

More recently, one commentator has argued that the Airline Partners Australia takeover deal

is predicated on Qantas growing. The only place that can happen, with a company altering scale, is outside of Australia. And the only platform that can happen from, is Jetstar. Why? First, because Jetstar’s cost base is made so wonderfully competitive because Dixon & Co don’t have to deal with Qantas’ 13 unions. And second, because all the growth in the airline business is in the discount airspace.

As a result of this conscious strategy by Qantas to move more and more seats to Jetstar, more and more people will find themselves flying on Jetstar rather than on a Qantas flight.

Qantas has been transferring more and more of its seats to Jetstar, because of Jetstar’s lower costs and higher profits. As one reporter wrote, “Jetstar’s ... behind the improvements in all of the key measures of Qantas’s performance and its falling cost base.”

In another example, Qantas is using associated entity Australian Airlines to cut costs on Qantas-badged services. Jetstar may also end up flying aircraft on behalf of Qantas under Qantas colours, completing the corporate manoeuvre to achieve lower cost flights with fewer Australian workers and lower conditions.

It is vital to tighten the Qantas Sale Act given Qantas executives at the hearings stated:

The act does not require [Qantas] to maintain a majority of facilities in Australia ...

Family First was startled at the inquiry to hear Qantas executives admit “... all jobs within Qantas are under review ... It.

We already know the attitude of Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon about his workers and job security. Mr Dixon has said that his workers should be grateful to have jobs. Further, he has said profits are more important than workers and their families:

I sometimes get criticised for this, but I have always seen shareholders as our most important stakeholders. I know some CEOs say look after your customers, look after your employees, and the returns for shareholders will follow. I do the exact opposite.

Representatives of maintenance workers told the hearing about their involvement in an ongoing review:

I can say categorically and the Seabury consultants that were engaged by Qantas have said so quite bluntly that their recommendation to the Qantas board is to offshore the whole lot. We are struggling to save Australian jobs in maintenance and engineering.

The jobs are not only valued by the workers and their families, but by many others who have related and dependent employment.

Family First believes there is more to running a business than making a profit. Companies like Qantas and its associated entities have an obligation to the communities they serve.

Protecting  Australian jobs for workers and their families is Family First’s top priority which is why Family First believes the Qantas Sale (Keep Jetstar Australian) Amendment Bill 2007 must be passed by the Parliament with amendments.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.