Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by opposition senators today.

Eighteen months ago, on this side of the chamber, we told the Australian people that, to coin a phrase, it wasn't going to be easy under then opposition leader Albanese, but, as it turns out, that was gravely underestimating how things played out. In fact, it's more than not easy now. With cost-of-living pressures and high energy prices, life in this country has, frankly, become an absolute cost-of-living nightmare for the Australian people under the now prime minister, Anthony Albanese. And the shambles doesn't end just at those two items. There is now, of course, and new fissure line in this flimsy excuse for a government, which is, of course, the state of the aviation industry in this country.

This government's policy of protecting a carrier and slugging Australian travellers with the high cost of airfares is yet another impost on Australia and the Australian people. This opposition wants to see, as do all Australians, an affordable, reliable and safe aviation industry where our airlines are prosperous, are functioning properly and are providing well-paying jobs around the country, but that is simply not what we're seeing. Don't take it from me; take it from Professor Rico Merkert, who is a professor of transport and supply chain management at, I think, the University of Sydney. Professor Merkert says that the government's decision to deny Qatar Airways the right to fly an extra 21 flights per week into Australia's three biggest cities is, in actual fact, more than likely returning Australia to the old days when we protected a national carrier at the expense of Australians and their hip pockets. In fact, he has calculated not only that it does not end there but that this may in fact be a billion-dollar-a-year impost on Australians, in terms of economic damage. By conservative estimates, the decisions may actually cost the economy that figure per year in lost income from things like tourism, visiting friends and relatives, business travel, freight and all sorts of other things.

What we're seeing at the moment in the airline space, I think, is things getting significantly worse before they even getting anything like close to better. Cancellations and delays are on the rise month by month. The Albanese government is making decisions that are actually stifling competition and keeping airfares high, and this is all happening right in the middle of an already crippling cost-of-living crisis. Australian travellers and tourists have been paying up to 50 per cent more for airfares since the COVID outbreak of three years ago. Minister King's decision to reject the proposal from Qatar Airways really is now shown to be nothing more than another economic disaster, and a tourism disaster as well, for this government.

This Qatar proposal was to increase passenger and freight capacity by a further 28 flights per week, which would have doubled the existing capacity. In simple terms, that is one extra flight per day to Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. The criticism doesn't stop just at Professor Merkert. Former ACCC chairman Rob Sims said if there was ever a time to allow new entrants into the market with these cost-of-living pressures and a return from the COVID times then this surely would be it. The Prime Minister and Minister King claimed to be protecting the markets but the executives of every major airline except Qantas actually support a review of this decision. Even former Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan has joined the call for these matters to be reviewed.

The cost of airfares is now a crippling matter for Australians. International airfares are now 50 per cent higher and seat capacity is 25 per cent lower today compared to prior to the COVID outbreak, according to the latest bureau data. We know that more seats on more flights means more competition. This is what we on the side of the chamber know: it is how you use the market properly, how you use the deflationary pressure on airline fees and on airfares. Industry research suggests this decision by the Albanese Labor government could actually have brought the economy an additional $788 million a year in economic activity.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak to the motion moved by the opposition to take note of all answers to questions that they asked in question time because it gives me an opportunity to address the answer given by Minister Watt to Senator Cash's question about our closing the loopholes policy. It is not unusual to hear those opposite criticise any attempt by this government to cut loopholes, to make sure people are not undercutting the wages of Australians, and to increase wages, because we know that under their government it was policy to keep wages low. They wanted to keep wages low as their economic policy.

We want to get wages moving, and that is exactly what our cut the loopholes legislation is all about. Because when you cut the loopholes that exist in the industrial relations system, we know that people have better access to better pay. The example Senator Cash asked about and the information that Minister Watt was able to give to her relates directly to one of the biggest loopholes, one of the biggest rip-offs in our industrial relations system—that is, when a group of employees agree fairly and bargain fairly with their employer to a set of wages and then that same employer uses a labour hire company to undercut that agreement. It is not just bad economics, it is not just dodgy but it is un-Australian to make an agreement and then turn your back on it. That is what is happening in legislation at the moment because our industrial relations system has a loophole that allows this to happen.

On this side of the chamber we want to cut the loophole. We want to make sure there is no loophole that allows workers' wages to be undercut, or for businesses to be undercut that are paying fair wages. We want to get that loophole out of the system. Those opposite want to keep those loopholes in the system. They are pro loophole; we are anti loophole. We are pro worker; they are anti worker. They always have been. It is no surprise. We are having a cost-of-living debate in this country. Those opposite are coming in here and asking the government to take action on cost-of-living, to do more things on cost-of-living, to make sure we are taking care of people and that they have money in their pockets. Why at the same time would they be opposed to measures and policies that would lift the wages of everyday Australians? The mind boggles. The other thing we know and I know very well is that in regional communities this labour hire rort is rife. It is a huge problem in the mining industry, a huge problem in regional Queensland. People have been telling governments for years and they told the previous government for a decade that this was a problem that needed to be fixed.

What happens when those workers are underpaid, sometimes by $30,000 or $40,000 a year? What happens when they can't take a holiday? What happens when they can't buy a house? What happens when they have to work on Christmas Day for a different rate of pay? What happens is that regional communities lose out because workers are not spending money in the local shops, they're not buying houses in the local community and they can't tell their kids that they can go to school in that regional school next year. The footy clubs lose out. That's what happens in regional Queensland when these loopholes exist. That you can come in here and defend these loopholes is in complete opposition to any idea of standing up for regional communities and regional workers, but that's what we're going to see from Senator Cash and the others opposite in the months to come. They will find every reason under the sun to try to prevent workers from getting a pay rise. They always have and they always will.

Those opposite have an opportunity to consider this legislation and the loopholes that exist in our industrial relations system. I hope that over the next couple of months Australians get the chance to hear from brokers like Ron and Simon from Moranbah and Brody from Rockhampton, who I had the pleasure of meeting a few months ago. When you listen to their stories and the impact that this has on their lives, there is no possible way that you would want to keep these loopholes in the industrial relations system. I hope those opposite listen to people like Brody, who's been on a labour hire agreement for years. He deserves better. Rockhampton deserves better. Regional Queensland deserves better. But they won't get better from those opposite. Only a Labor government will deliver legislation that cuts the loopholes.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers provided by government ministers to coalition questions today. Calling the responses given by ministers 'answers', particularly in relation to questions regarding Qatar Airways is, frankly, a bit of a stretch. This government has been desperately doing all it can to deflect legitimate criticism, reject accountability and obscure the truth about its dealings with Qantas and the former CEO Alan Joyce and the Qatar Airways proposal.

Australians are rightly fed up with Qantas, particularly over the last 18 months. It is a company that was once held in such high regard by the Australian public, but Australians are even more fed up with this government. Over the past week and in the chamber today the arrogance of this government has been on full display for us to see here and for all Australians to see across the country. We can't get straight answers out of them, and the answers they do provide are retracted or are changed a few days later.

Australians watching at home are left to come to no other conclusion than to suspect that this government is running a protection racket, but it is so caught up in its own spin that it can't even remember from day to day whether that protection racket is for the Prime Minister, for the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government or for protecting Qantas's profits. It appears that Labor are making things up as they go along. They have chopped and changed their story on the Qatar Airways proposal to try and wriggle out of a problematic situation and avoid being held accountable.

In an article that I was reading this week, published on the Sydney Morning Herald website, Latika Bourke wrote:

Federal Transport Minister Catherine King says the detention and forced examinations of Australian women at Doha airport during the pandemic was not behind the decision to deny Qatar Airways' request to double its Australian flights.

That was written on 26 July this year. It is the complete opposite of what Minister King said this week, when she claimed that one of the reasons she rejected the proposal from Qatar Airways to increase passenger and freight capacity was because of those searchers. Which one is it? What is the truth? What are the other reasons for rejecting this proposal that the minister alluded to but has refused to elaborate on?

There is no doubt that the forced strip-searches of Australian women were degrading and humiliating and an incredibly inappropriate invasive breach of privacy, and it is absolutely appropriate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has raised our strong objections with the Qatari government. Why then, is the transport minister implying today that this was part of her reason for knocking back Qatar Airways when she is on the record previously as saying that it wasn't. Just over a week ago, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, when asked at a doorstop interview about the Qatar proposal, said:

Qatar can fly into Adelaide as many planes as they like as big as they like. They can fly in other planes, which are bigger and bring in more people.

Again, if the strip searches of Australian women were at least part of the reason that the minister knocked back the Qatar Airways proposal, why would the Prime Minister last week have been urging Qatar Airways to fly more Australians here into existing ports?

Something, frankly, doesn't stack up, and this government is under pressure because the public can see it and they are rightfully angry. The transport minister, the Prime Minister and this government cannot provide straight answers to very basic questions. Even in this chamber today, with members of the opposition asking questions about this, we are no closer to uncovering the real reason the minister rejected the Qatar Airways proposal. This lack of transparency and accountability is, frankly, becoming a hallmark of this government.

This whole saga has sent Labor ministers scrambling to hastily backtrack on their own previous statements. Just this morning, Assistant Minister Thistlethwaite said that he had been very critical of Qantas when grilled by Sky News' First Edition host, Peter Stefanovic. But Minister Thistlethwaite seemed to have conveniently forgotten posing in a Qantas marketing photo just over three weeks ago, when he stood alongside Alan Joyce, the Prime Minister, Minister Burney and the other 'yes' campaigners. Mr Thistlethwaite was all smiles for that photo opportunity, and so was Mr Joyce, because he'd got what he wanted when the government blocked Qatar Airways flights, and so was the Prime Minister, because he'd got what he wanted: another picture spruiking the Voice.

In the absence of the government doing the right thing, the Senate has agreed to establish an inquiry into this matter. I'm very glad that that has happened, because maybe soon Australians will finally find out what's going on.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate for its indulgence. We've heard about closing loopholes today, with questions about closing loopholes. Isn't it just amazing that we've seen that the opposition—the Nationals and the Liberal Party—who we know are for low wages, are also for no wages? I'm going to explain that: they're for low wages to make sure that aviation workers and miners don't get an increase in pay, and they're for no wages because they want to make sure that gig workers don't get a decent go. What we've seen is that they've voted to delay minimum standards that will save the lives of gig workers; they've voted to trap permanent casuals in insecure work for longer; they've voted to delay the criminalisation of wage theft; and they've voted to delay the introduction, ultimately, of a road haulage proposition. These sorts of delays are going to affect some of the most disadvantaged people in our community, including people who are literally dying on our roads.

Solutions and propositions have been put by Peter Anderson, the National Secretary of the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation. You would have thought they'd back him. He says: 'Our unity shows how critical it is for the federal parliament to pass reform into law to give all industry participants a fighting chance.' Warren Clark, the CEO of the National Road Transport Association, says: 'We need change that bolsters our viability, builds productivity and enhances safety for everyone.' Rod Hannifey, from the National Road Freighters Association, said: 'We need to make sure drivers can come home safely at the end of every trip.' That's why we need all the Senate recommendations enacted without delay, going to the issues and the recommendations that have come into legislation for the future here.

What's clear is that we've got people dying on our roads, we've got people dying on our streets and we've got food delivery workers losing their lives. We've got people not receiving at least some minimum standards where they have the capacity to get a reasonable income and a flexible income—because that's what the propositions are for: people on employee-like arrangements.

Unlike those opposite, I have actually worked, and I'm very proud to say I've worked, for the largest small-business organisation in the country. They won't like hearing this, but it's actually the Transport Workers Union of Australia. I've represented tens of thousands of owner-drivers—single operators. In fact, if I brought all the small-business organisations together, the businesses they represent, which usually aren't that small, wouldn't come up to the number of small businesses that I've had the privilege of representing in the years of my previous life as a union official.

What they're saying, and what the industry's saying, is that they want to make sure that there are standards for people who are out on our roads, that there's fairness and that there's not a B team, an A team, a D team or a Z team. They're saying there should be standards for everybody; that everybody not meeting those standards is culpable; and that good employers should be able to operate in a competitive market which means you don't have to kill people or see people losing their lives because of the systems that are put in place by powerful organisations above them or because of the pressure of markets where there is no regulation. To come here and yet again delay the opportunity for us to make sure that we can rectify the horrific consequences that are happening in that industry is absently appalling.

Then we go to the delay in criminalising wage theft. There's not a loophole that those people opposite don't want to keep open. They want gig workers to get nothing. They want road haulage to be in an industry position just like the position for gig workers. Companies have come together and said that gig workers should have a fair say. Even gig companies are signing up. But those across the way can't. The opposition—the Nats and the Libs—just can't sign up to it, because they are fundamentally ideologically opposed to any concept that good people can come together, whether they be businesses, unions, workers or owner-drivers—who are small businesses—and say there is a solution for working people. When you get a solution for working people, you get productivity boosts, you get fair competition and it means you don't have to rip your own employees off or make a decision to leave the industry. The decisions that have been made here and these delays will have direct and fundamental impacts on people's lives.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For a man who spends so much time in the air, whether it's travelling internationally to grace the world stage or whether it's coming to Western Australia for his very short visits to get his photo opportunities on all the things that don't really matter to Western Australians, you would think that Prime Minister Albanese would know more about the Australian aviation industry than he does. The Prime Minister has been called out this afternoon in question time. He has been held to account for his comment on ABC radio when he said, 'In Australia, we have the most open aviation market in the world, bar none.' The Prime Minister said on Sky News, 'In fact, it's the most competitive market in the world.'

I don't know what the Prime Minister of our country is doing when he is flying around, but he clearly is not thinking about the state of Australian aviation, because the ACCC's 12th and final airline-monitoring report made the state of airline competition in Australia very, very clear. At page 2—the Prime Minister does not even need to read very far into the report—the ACCC report said:

After showing signs of improvements earlier in the year, the latest rates of flight cancellations and delays have gotten worse and remain poor compared to long-term industry averages.

That statement from the ACCC is not one that backs in the Prime Minister's views about the state of airline competition. The report goes on to say:

The duopoly market structure of the domestic airline industry has made it one of the most highly concentrated industries in Australia, other than natural monopolies.

Here is a prime minister leading our country, spending a lot of time on an aircraft, and making the wrong call and saying the wrong thing about the state of airline competition.

Senator Watt, representing the minister for transport, came into question time today quite proud of the government because they have announced their aviation green paper. We heard Senator Watt say the aviation green paper was going to do a variety of things. Guess what? It looks like and it sounds like the aviation green paper is plagiarising the sorts of things that have already been said and the sorts of recommendations that have already been made by the ACCC's monitoring regime. That monitoring regime, in its conclusions, has already said, 'Duopoly market structure has led to minimal competition between airlines' in our country. It has said, 'Outcomes limited by the domestic airline industry have been underwhelming.' That's the ACCC's word—'underwhelming'. Its third recommendation was that the arrival of Rex and Bonza would need to grow if Australia is to have more effective, competitive airline industry. Its fourth and final point in its 12th and last report was, 'Legislative and policy changes could encourage further airline competition and improve outcomes for consumers.' It specifically referenced policies that would better protect airline customers. Guess what? That is exactly the same sort of thing that Senator Watt proudly came to the Senate in question time today and said the aviation green paper is looking at. Why is the government choosing to reinvent the wheel when it comes to driving better aviation policy in Australia? Why?

After all of the noise we have heard about flight cancellations, rising airfares and poor customer service, the government is still sitting on its hands on the one meaningful thing it can do—arm legislators like me and other senators in this place, arm consumers and others interested in watching over the airline industry, and reinstate the ACCC airline industry monitoring report. It's not a hard decision for the government to make. I wouldn't be surprised if the recommendation from the ACCC is already on Minister Leigh's desk or even the Treasurer's desk. Why do I say that? Because the very last statement in the ACCC report is an invitation from the ACCC to the government to extend the monitoring program.

Question agreed to.