- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 18 September 2001
Ansett Airlines Collapse
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 42 of 46
| Next Item »
Page: 16720
Urgent Motion
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.58 p.m.]: Honourable members who have spoken in the debate have made very clear the enormous impact right across Australia of the collapse of Ansett, the disgraceful management of Ansett by its board and, particularly, the involvement of Air New Zealand in running down Ansett's funding to the point that it is no longer able to operate. The impact is deeply felt in New South Wales as a result of the consequent collapse of Hazelton, Kendell and Aeropelican air services that are absolutely essential to regional and rural areas in carrying passengers and linking those centres to Sydney. The honourable member for Murray-Darling gave a most graphic description of the impact of the loss of air services on Broken Hill and the enormous difficulties it has created. Those difficulties are replicated across New South Wales. That impact has been felt very strongly in Newcastle—by the 44 full-time employees of Aeropelican, and the loss of air services between Belmont and Sydney.
I turn now to the dramatic impact of the collapse of Ansett throughout the community, on travel agents, those who supply fuel or food, and people involved in the tourist industry. Two schools in my electorate—St Pius X High School and the Hunter School of Performing Arts—had planned, since February this year, to send 28 students on a cultural exchange to Catania in Sicily. They had also arranged to spend a week in Rome. Those students raised $67,000, and that money was paid to Traveland on Monday 10 September. On 12 September the group's Commonwealth Bank cheque was cashed by Traveland and, of course, on that day the liquidator-administrator was appointed from PricewaterhouseCoopers to take over the affairs of Ansett.
That move had the effect of freezing those funds. In fact, the funds are lost to the students. The 28 students, their parents, and families throughout Newcastle and the Hunter have been caught up in a situation wherein the funds that were to be used to pay for flights with Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific have now been captured by the collapse of Ansett, and they are being treated as secondary creditors. I received notification of this from Miss Gabriella Smith, Mrs Enza Pigliacampo and Mr Tony Kelly, the Deputy Principal of St Pius X High School. Since Monday the school and I have been involved in discussions with Traveland and the administrator from PricewaterhouseCoopers—of course, that has changed and Arthur Andersen has now taken over.
I must say a great deal of effort has been put in by the school and by Traveland to try to do something about this situation, because the students were due to fly out of Australia on Saturday 22 September. At the moment they are facing the prospect that their entire trip has been destroyed and their funds lost. I hope that QBE Insurance and the administrator can come to some decision that will enable these students to undertake the trip, to repay the hospitality they showed to students from Catania and spend time with their hosts in Sicily. This is just one small example of the destruction caused by the collapse of Ansett, both in a business sense and to communities across New South Wales. It is an issue that we must act on. I commend the Minister for his quick action and I call on the Federal Government to move rapidly to keep these regional airlines in the air until such time as a solution can be found. [Time expired.]
Mr GEORGE (Lismore) [8.03 p.m.]: I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lachlan. Like every other regional centre in receipt of rural aviation services, my electorate has been shattered by the loss of the services of Ansett and its subsidiaries, particularly Hazelton Airlines, into Lismore and Casino. The news of the collapse rocked Australia last week, following the devastating news from America. It certainly was "The week that was!" As honourable members are aware, I represent the electorate of Lismore. Both Lismore and Casino have been serviced very well by the Hazelton network. I know that the community was saddened when Hazelton was taken over by Ansett only months ago. Fortunately, the Hazelton network is still there; the infrastructure remains in place. Thank goodness Ansett did not have time to dismantle it. I hope that in the future someone will purchase Hazelton Airlines and re-establish services.
In Casino, and Lismore—where Hazelton had its regional office—some 30 jobs have been lost. One pilot with more than 25 years service with Hazelton, Captain Ian Jones, woke one morning to be told, "Sorry, we are not flying this morning." That was a devastating blow, particularly to pilots, the ground staff, auxiliary staff, office staff and management, led by Maurice Gahan, who have dedicated their service and time to the people of the North Coast. Casino has been overlooked in the new round of approvals for flights to take place. Lismore is receiving flights at this stage, but certainly not the volume of flights it needs to service the area. It is simply a stop-gap situation at this stage. We hope and trust that the Hazelton network will be purchased and services recommenced shortly.
No flights are operating at Casino, but I have received an assurance from Richmond Valley Council General Manager, Ross Shipp, that the airport will not be closed. They are doing their best to get services back into Casino following the collapse of Hazelton Airlines, a division of Ansett. I pay tribute to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which has agreed to deploy additional aircraft to regional areas to transport patients, who previously relied on an Ansett-owned regional airline, to Sydney-based medical specialists. The loss of these services will be felt, in particular by those who need to get to major cities to, and receive medical treatment. Where do we go in the future?
Other honourable members spoke about the need for one regional airport in the area. The region has three airports, at Casino, Lismore and Ballina. As a result of the collapse of Ansett communities are now fighting each other. One person is saying we need one regional airport and another is saying we need all of them. We have communities at loggerheads and fighting each other because of a problem caused by the failure of Ansett. I urge the community to stick together. Regional and rural areas need these services and we do not need the local community fighting amongst themselves in an attempt to gain particular services. We need to pull together in country and regional areas to support the local communities through this difficult time.
Mr BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [8.08 p.m.]: On a news broadcast this evening there was an announcement that some American airlines are to reduce flights by 25 per cent and will stand down more than 11,000 employees. In Australia the administrator said today that Ansett has debts of $2 billion. In addition the Federal Government has announced that it will allocate $400 million for the protection of workers entitlements, to be paid for by way of a $10 levy on airline tickets, until it can sort out whether any money will be forthcoming from Air New Zealand in regard to the Ansett airlines debacle. My comments basically relate to the impact on Newcastle airport and the Hunter economy, and the importance of air services to local regional economies.
Six or seven years ago Port Stephens Council and Newcastle City Council took over the 25-hectare lease of Newcastle airport. In that time there has been spectacular growth. Last year there were 200,000 passengers a year out of Newcastle airport and 95,000 passengers out of Aeropelican. The population of the Hunter Valley is only 500,000. About 500 people work at the regional airport at Newcastle. It has become a real synergy for work development in the aeronautical industry. There are multimillion-dollar investments in taxiways, terminals and aprons. There is employment with the final assembly of the BAe Hawk lead in fighter and a 25-year maintenance program for it.
I am very concerned about the attacks on air New Zealand. My understanding is that Auckland airport produces something like 10 per cent of New Zealand's gross domestic product [GDP]. In the Hunter we have a vision for Newcastle airport involving something like 10 per cent of the Hunter's GDP by 2030. If Air New Zealand collapses after the Ansett debacle it will impact on the viability of not just Auckland airport but the New Zealand economy, the Australian economy and tourism in Australia and New Zealand. We are probably on the brink of an implosion of the tourism sector in this part of the world. There could be a 25 per cent reduction in flights from the United States. People will be hesitant to fly if they do not need to. Ansett has collapsed with $2 billion in debt and the rescue package is basically about workers entitlements, not getting Ansett up and running within the next few days.
The longer the situation continues the more likely it appears, with action being taken against Air New Zealand, that that airline may go down the same path. From everything I have read about Air New Zealand, it is becoming very wobbly. On the positive side, on 12 November Freedom Air will commence services from Auckland to Newcastle. There will be three direct flights in each direction. We understand that about 500 people a week come from New Zealand to the Hunter. We are hoping to develop that into a major tourism pathway both ways. We have great hopes for that, having seen the departure of Impulse from Newcastle area. Ansett going under will also affect tourism because of the Star Alliance links that Ansett had. I am giving my views only from the point of view of the Newcastle area but the collapse of Ansett will have an impact on tourist destinations all over Australia, and tourism is our big employer now.
Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [8.13 p.m.]: It gives me no pleasure to speak to this motion. A number of people tonight have been all too ready to cast aspersions on people from all political persuasions but no-one has addressed possible solutions to the problem. Members of Parliament who are interested in this issue—many are interested only in the politics of it—should refer to the report of the New South Wales Air Transport Summit Working Group. It was put together by a number of people in the Parliament, including the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs and the honourable member for Lachlan—I agreed with much of what he said earlier—and others within the Parliament and within the aviation industry. The document contains a number of recommendations that Federal, State and local governments should give credence to. If some of the members who spoke in this debate had read that report before making accusations they might have gained some knowledge of the problem.
Obviously, it is a tragedy that Ansett has gone the way it has. A lot has to do with the management of that organisation. But prior to Ansett collapsing there were problems in relation to regional aviation. A moment ago the honourable member for Port Stephens referred to the problems faced by Newcastle. People from Newcastle may regard it as part of regional New South Wales, but many people from regional New South Wales regard it as part of the Sydney-Newcastle-Wollongong corridor. Various legislative and corporate arrangements are having an impact on the capacity of the people of Newcastle—with much larger populations than many other communities—to have access to their major metropolitan area. Therein lies a clue to what is happening. The economic dogma that has been presented over a number of years by Federal and State governments is not working in its application to regional Australia. People who believe that it will only be the small and the weak that fall prey to some of the economic dogma that is being presented are being proved incorrect. There is a classic case in the reaction from Newcastle through Aeropelican to the collapse of Ansett.
There are solutions to the problem, and we should look very carefully at the report I mentioned. Local, State and the Federal governments have to look at the way they have levied charges, the way they have milked the aviation cow. The State Government has removed some charges but it could do more than it has done. I was disappointed that today the Premier walked away from the issue, saying that it is completely a national issue. Obviously, it is not all national; it has a lot to do with the development of our State. The national Government has a significant influence and it should consider removing the 10 per cent costs on regional airlines to see effect that has. Then, if necessary, the State Government should at least be open to considering subsidisation. The honourable member for Lachlan and the honourable member for Bathurst made significant points when they talked about the essential service nature of the industry. Air services are not a luxury for Broken Hill, Cowra, Gunnedah or Inverell. They are an essential service. Government has to look at all the charges that can be removed. Then government and society generally have to find ways to assist regional communities to maintain basic community services such as access to air transport. [Time expired.]
Mr PRICE (Maitland) [8.18 p.m.]: I support the motion and reject the amendment. I do not disagree with many of the comments of the honourable member for Tamworth. I do not think it is just a matter of government charges. This issue was brought about to a significant extent by very poor management and very expensive private enterprise operations. It seems to me that before any government invests any money in taxation reduction or direct subsidisation there should be a very close look at the style of management that operated the companies. The Federal Government's solution to the problem of workers entitlements is to put a $10 levy on plane tickets. That is not government intervention; that is taxation in another form by a government that claims it does not increase taxes. Forget the 8¢ on a litre of milk and the GST! It now proposes to add another $10 to the cost of a plane ticket to cover workers entitlements. Those costs should have been covered by the private companies that run the airlines taking out some form of insurance.
The area in which I live has a private airport that is operated by the Royal Newcastle Aero Club. Yanda Airlines operated services to Sydney from that airport and connected also with flights to Singleton and Scone. Sadly, as a result of petrol contamination some time ago Yanda was forced out of the skies. It has been unable to pick up trading since and has ceased operation. As a result, my electorate is not serviced by an airline. If I wish to access an airport from my home in the Dungog shire, I have to drive for an hour to Williamtown or 1½ hours to Belmont, which is operated by Aeropelican. That is hardly worth the trouble if I am travelling to Sydney, which is a 2½ hour trip by car. This problem runs a lot deeper than arguing about who subsidises whom, and who removes charges. It seems to me that management of the airlines is the main problem.
Mr Windsor: You obviously have not had a look at Yanda's numbers.
Mr PRICE: That is beside the point. The State Government has taken the tax off the airport access, no-one has chosen to come in and the town is without the service that it had enjoyed for many years. I could give the honourable member for Tamworth my view about flying with Yanda, but it is my view and not for publication. I lived through the National Textiles problem. Subsidies were poured in by State and Federal governments to prop up the industry and it still collapsed with no return to the governments, which had put in millions of dollars over a number of years. The directors walked away with their fees and their bonuses. The only reason that the workers got their just deserts was purely and simply because of the relationship between the Federal Government and a company director.
It does not matter what the problem is. We need to restore regional air services wherever we can. Williamtown has been serviced by Qantas and that service will remain. I understand that Aeropelican would become viable if it could get back into business. It has been suggested that the local pilots and company employees could operate the system profitably if they could afford to purchase it. But I do not know whether that is the answer. Policies should be examined that would improve the opportunity for regional airlines to recommence or for a larger operator to resume the services.
At the time of the bus accident at Grafton the nearest blood supply was Newcastle, and it seems to me that it may be difficult to get vital supplies to areas of crisis other than by air. A number of significant problems involving the safety of the community seem to have been overlooked or not considered to be relevant. We are too busy worrying about who is paying and who is not paying, and what charges should or should not apply. We need to direct our attention principally to operators who can demonstrate an ability to manage and to operate with their own resources, albeit perhaps with shareholders funds or a corporate pool. It would be appalling to accept the view of the Federal Government. If Air New Zealand has a role to play in supplying some of the money, that is fine. But we should be advised as to why it abdicated its responsibility for a major operation in this country by stealth. That was a criminal act and it is unfortunate that we do not seem to be able to take action to resolve it. I support the urgent motion. [Time expired.]
Mr WEBB (Monaro) [8.23 p.m.]: I would have liked to have spoken to the condolence motion moved earlier today relating to the events that transpired in the United States of America last week. The motion we are now debating is the motion moved by the Minister for Regional Development. Unfortunately, he got it wrong. He has generated a debate that has set Federal and State governments against one another rather than a debate about the 17,000 jobs that have been potentially lost in the Ansett collapse. Across the State tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in affiliated companies. I fully sympathise with the honourable member for Lachlan, who moved an amendment to the motion urging the Government to follow the approach adopted by the Queensland and South Australian governments, both of which offered concessions to airline organisations to fill the void. The second part of the motion referred to the devastating effects that the collapse of Ansett will have on country communities and businesses and the 1,300 jobs that will be put at risk.
We should be talking about the 17,000 jobs that will be lost across the country and about all the associated airline and transport businesses and industries across the State. We should be talking about the tourism industry, which is reliant on aircraft traffic to provide sustainable industries. We should be talking about the Merimbula-based Hazelton and Kendell airlines, which operated to Melbourne and Sydney, and the consequences for Ian Baker, the operator of Merimbula airport, who lost $40,000 on the day of the announcement. The future will be difficult for him and for businesses that operated out of that airport. It will be almost impossible for local business people to get to Sydney or Melbourne to carry out their business.
The future will also be difficult for industries on the far South Coast of New South Wales that rely on tourism because the Government has closed down logging; it has closed down farming through native vegetation legislation. The Government has made major changes to the agriculture base of the far South Coast and throughout the Monaro electorate, and that has impacted on tourism. The urgent motion is not about the collapse of Ansett or about job losses; it is about one government against another. I have spoken to staff in the office of the Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services. They have been working 24 hours a day to fill the gap. People from overseas with connections to small airlines and turboprop aircraft manufacturers have spoken about filling in the regional airline gap. The State Government has done absolutely nothing about it, but John Anderson and the Federal Government are working 24 hours a day to resolve the problem that has resulted from a commercial collapse. It is not the responsibility of Federal or State governments to fill the void left by the collapse of a commercial operation such as Ansett .
The collapse of Ansett is sad for all of us because it has been an icon. Earlier we heard how different parts of the Ansett corporation started. But it has collapsed, and it is up to Federal and State members to do what they can. We do not want to attack one other, but we could have heard about the tax incentives that can be provided. We could have heard about payroll tax incentives that the State Government could initiate. We could have heard about the GST commitments that this State could have made. But we have not heard any of that. All we have heard from members opposite is an attack on the Federal Government. That is not good enough for those in the industry or for those who rely on aircraft for regional transport. That is not a good enough message for the people of the Canberra airport group, who have lost a substantial amount of business as a result of this recent collapse. Federal and State governments must work together with local government in relation to this important matter. We have to support the Snowy Mountains airport and other private airports. [Time expired.]
Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [8.28 p.m.]: I am sure all honourable members regret the collapse of Ansett airlines, but we must realise that the signs had been there for some time. In the boardrooms of Ansett and certainly in the boardrooms of Air New Zealand those messages were not understood or considered. Members will recall the expensive "Absolutely" campaign, which was run to reclaim the faith of travellers after the Ansett debacle when the fleet was grounded at Christmas and again at Easter. Clearly, the message was there. When companies are going bad and cannot afford to do what is necessary, the first thing neglected is maintenance of cars, engines, planes and other necessities. That is why the Ansett fleet was grounded.
It was all well and good to get the fleet back in the air and to spend a lot of money on a publicity campaign, but unless the planes are returned to the air now, there will not be a buyer for Ansett and regional passengers will suffer greatly. With the possible exception of Virgin Blue, Qantas will be the monopoly carrier around Australia. As all honourable members would be aware, passengers do not get the best deal when there is a monopoly, except perhaps for those from the more wealthy areas of Sydney who can afford to pay. Those in the bush, who are probably the most disadvantaged in this country, will have an even more difficult time.
One day the truth about Ansett's collapse will come out. I do not want to get into apportioning blame; today I will merely state the obvious. There is an urgent need to guarantee worker entitlements for the employees of Ansett. We hope that Air New Zealand plays its part in trying to bale out Ansett Australia because 17,000 people depend on Ansett getting back into the skies one way or another. The collapse of Ansett would easily be the biggest corporate collapse in Australia so far as jobs are concerned. If it were not for the recent tragic terrorist attacks in New York and Washington the collapse of Ansett would be the only thing people would be talking about in Australia today: the collapse of an airline that goes back to when Sir Regional Ansett formed his own airline company after building his own planes. Whether it be the State governments, the Federal Government or industry, somebody has to try to save the airline, the workers' jobs and entitlements. Clearly, the Federal Government has the major responsibility, whether we like it or not.
Mr Windsor: What about the state of the roads in Cessnock?
Mr ASHTON: My colleague the honourable member for Cessnock will talk about Cessnock in a little while but other than the roads in Cessnock the most important thing is the Ansett collapse. The proposal by the Federal Government to sell Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and Bankstown Airport, turning it into a second Sydney airport, does not have any great future when one realises that there may not be enough air carriers to use these major airports. Two years ago Compass collapsed, unfortunately, and a few months ago Impulse, a second air company also collapsed, demonstrating that a pattern is forming. When I was a kid there was TAA, Ansett and Qantas. Other than small regional operators there was one private large-scale carrier in Australia, and it has now gone to the wall.
TAA no longer exists and there now remains only the part privatised, part government-owned Qantas. That causes one to question whether the Federal Government is in control of our skies. Obviously, I am not a great believer of privatisation or I would not be on this side of the House. I believe in it to a degree because one needs that motivation. I hope that the Federal Government realises that if it has a few million dollars to spend on keeping a few illegal immigrants out of the country, it should have a few hundred million dollars to keep a great national carrier flying. [Time expired.]
Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [8.33 p.m.]: The last speakers have said they do not wish to apportion blame but that is what they did. I shall not do that because my concern is for those in my electorate who depend on air services or who have been employed by subsidiaries of Ansett. Whenever problems occur with air transport, the regional centres always come off worse. Somehow someone can always find a way to provide services between the capitals. During the pilots strike the Federal Government of the day supplied Air Force planes to fly people about Australia but no-one thought about regional centres. They were simply forgotten, as they often are. That is sad because, notwithstanding the fact that many people depend on air services, those in regional areas depend on them almost totally.
Air services in Albury-Wodonga have an amazing history. My first memories of air services were of TAA, which vacated the scene and Ansett took over. When the pilot strike was on and Ansett was not able to fly to Albury-Wodonga, Hazelton Airlines, which was a small organisation in those days, stepped it to fill the breach. I well remember that the company flew nine-seater aircraft to Albury-Wodonga and even though they only had only nine seats those planes were a godsend; they were much appreciated by the people in my area. Hazelton then leased larger aircraft. Many people in Albury-Wodonga remained loyal to Hazelton for a long time because they appreciated the assistance given to them during the pilots strike. Kendell then began flying to Albury-Wodonga and from Albury to Melbourne. The company was finally taken over by Ansett and then provided services to Sydney and Melbourne.
Ansett has employed numerous people in Albury-Wodonga. A number of Kendell pilots live in Albury and fly from Albury to Sydney and Melbourne. They include cabin staff, airport staff, check-in staff, baggage handlers, caterers who provide the meals on Kendell services, motel proprietors who depend on travellers for much of their custom, and travel agents. Car hire companies have also been affected. I was talking to some of them today and their businesses have been cut in half overnight. Although the ski season is coming to an end many people pass through Albury-Wodonga, stay in motels and spend money on their way to the ski fields. The Ansett problem is having a detrimental effect on the local economy.
On Thursday Ansett employees will march down the main street of Albury to let people know of their plight. I hope something can be done, not only for air services between capital cities but for regional centres. I am especially concerned about regional centres that are served by Ansett and its subsidiaries exclusively, because they have been left high and dry. Fortunately, for some time Albury has had a Qantas service to Sydney. That has been a godsend. However, I am concerned about my constituents who need to go to Melbourne in an emergency because they no longer have an air service. It is time to stop blaming each other and get together as a community and as a nation. We need to ensure that when companies start flying into regional centres they are given support so that they can continue to provide vital services to the people of regional Australia.
Mr HICKEY (Cessnock) [8.38 p.m.]: The collapse of Ansett airlines is obviously having a terrible impact on tourism, which is one of the major industries in my electorate. That impact is felt particularly throughout rural and regional Australia. People from ten regional centres can no longer travel by air. The honourable member for Tamworth referred to the importance of air travel to communities in the more remote areas of New South Wales. The collapse of Ansett has caused the loss of 1,300 regional jobs, which will adversely affect our economy and the 10 regional air services that relied solely on Ansett.
The New South Wales Government has already moved to abolish licence fees, yet the Coalition continually blames us for not solving the current problem. One must point to the Federal Government, which has foremost responsibility in this area but which has done absolutely nothing to address the problem. The closure of Ansett will affect rural and regional economies. For example, honourable members have heard that Broken Hill has lost $500,000 worth of conferencing, which is a major components of that town's economy. Ansett's collapse has also had an impact on Aeropelican, which dispatched 13 return flights to Sydney every day. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ansett Australia and operates out of Belmont Airport in Lake Macquarie. In 2000 Aeropelican carried more than 96,000 passengers and reported a profit of more than $1 million. It is said to be Ansett's most profitable subsidiary in terms of asset returns.
The grounding of that Aeropelican will have a tremendous impact in the region. It employs 40 people directly and many others, such as taxi drivers, careers, suppliers and maintenance workers depend upon it for their living. The daily service from Belmont to Sydney began in 1971 and it has carried more than two million passengers in the three decades since then. Sadly, many of my constituents have said that, in the absence of this direct air service, it is faster to drive to Sydney than to Newcastle airport at Williamtown and board a flight there. The administrator is considering several options designed to save the service, including partial purchase by an outside investor or the complete sale of Aeropelican.
The city of Lake Macquarie has the largest population of any local government area, with close to 200,000 inhabitants. Belmont is the only airport in the city and Aeropelican is the only service. It also serves Newcastle and, to a lesser extent, some parts of the Central Coast. Driving to Sydney has an adverse impact on the environment and contributes to many traffic problems in the metropolitan area. It is sad that the Federal Coalition Government will not even consider attempting to alleviate some of the pain by acknowledging the hard facts and providing monetary subsidies not just to Aeropelican but to Ansett as a whole. We must consider the cost of running an airline. The Premier referred to the fact that 10 per cent of that cost goes directly to the Federal Government. Therefore, if the New South Wales State Government were to subsidise any part of Ansett 10 per cent of that State subsidy would effectively go straight to the Federal Government. We would never see that money again and the citizens of New South Wales would derive no benefit from it. [Time expired.]
Mr McGRANE (Dubbo) [8.43 p.m.]: I endorse the comments made in this debate by various speakers from both sides of the House about the collapse of Ansett. One wonders what is happening in the Commonwealth of Australia. First there was the collapse of HIH Insurance, then One.Tel, the New South Wales Grains Board and now Ansett. We must question the accounting systems that big Australian companies apply as well as the auditing of those companies. Four major corporations have gone down the gurgler in the past six to eight months, which inspires a total lack of confidence in big organisations on the part of general public.
As many honourable members have said, Ansett is an icon of the air industry both in Australia and overseas. The company acquired regional airlines such as Hazelton Airlines and Kendell Airlines. Dubbo was Hazelton's biggest base and the airline was the longest serving in the west. Before I became a member of this House I was the mayor of Dubbo, and the council always favoured managed competition. We fought tooth and nail with both Federal and State governments opposing the current system, which has opened the airways to everyone. The managed competition is exactly what we need in Australia, especially in the airline industry. If there is a monopoly in the airline industry—that is the prospect we face at present—we will receive a reduced service and higher air fares. Nobody wants that.
People in the regions must be able to access not only the cities of New South Wales but also other States and overseas countries. Conversely, experts from interstate and overseas must be able to travel easily to country areas. I have much experience of the airline industry in Dubbo as I was the mayor of that city for eight years and I have been the local member now for two years. In the past four years passenger movements from Dubbo to Sydney have increased by 30,000 annually from about 85,000 to 115,000. That is the result of managed competition, which has allowed the operation of Hazelton and Eastern Airlines, which is tied to Qantas. We need to solve this problem without passing the buck between State and Federal governments, and I believe the Inland Marketing Corporation [IMC] at Parkes has arrived at such a solution.
The IMC comprises councils who support the corporation's endeavours to move freight from inland Australia to countries overseas. The IMC has expressed interest in bidding for control of Hazelton Airlines, which would then be owned by the councils of New South Wales. I believe it is logical that a regional airline should be owned by the people of the regions, and Hazelton would continue to compete with the Qantas subsidiary, Eastern Airlines. We need that competition. The IMC proposal, which was made in the past two days, should be considered seriously and I am glad that the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs is in the Chamber to hear my comments. The IMC has the infrastructure necessary to assume control of Hazelton Airlines. That company was purchased only recently by Ansett and so could quickly become a separate identity that serves and is run by the regions of New South Wales. [Time expired.]
Mr COLLIER (Miranda) [8.48 p.m.]: The Ansett collapse shows once again that the Federal Government must change the Corporations Law to ensure that all workers' entitlements are held in a secure trust fund and made available immediately for workers if their employers go belly up. We all feel sympathy for Ansett workers but Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill to pay them what is rightfully theirs. The Ansett collapse affects not just people in regional areas; it affects people in the city—those who live in the Sutherland shire and in my electorate of Miranda. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the Mayor of Sutherland Shire Council, Councillor Tracie Sonda, and her husband, Ray. I have spoken to Ansett workers from my shire who have lost their jobs, workers such as Jennifer Enriquez of Kareela—an enthusiastic and committed worker with a young family—who has worked for Ansett for 13 years.
Ansett is like a second family to Jennifer. She recalls vividly the excitement and euphoria of the Sydney Olympic period, and the happy heady days when Ansett workers like her contributed to promoting Sydney and Australia to the rest of the world and producing the greatest Games ever. Last Saturday Jennifer, who leaves home normally at 5.30 a.m., was asked to go in and clean out her locker. The neighbours and her husband, Ray, sat on the lawn waiting for her to return. Jennifer is optimistic. Jennifer and workers like her do not want a golden handshake—all they want is what is rightfully theirs. We all want workers to be paid their just entitlements in full, but these must be paid by the companies and not by the Australian taxpayers. Workers who are sacked because of company failure should at least have the comfort of knowing they will receive their full entitlements. That simply is not happening in the Ansett case.
Ansett workers may receive up to eight weeks redundancy pay, via a levy imposed on air travel, at some uncertain time if they are lucky. Jennifer Enriquez is owed 12 weeks long service leave and two weeks holiday pay, before receiving any redundancy payment entitlement. The Federal Government's proposal takes no account of years of service. The person who has worked for Ansett for 37 years will receive the same as somebody who has worked there for three years. Jennifer stands to miss out on thousands of dollars like other workers, many of whom have young families and mortgages. But she is not alone in the shire in being affected by the collapse. David and Jennifer Morris of Oyster Bay are a young couple with a young family who booked a holiday with their three children through Ansett. They saved up from the wages of their cleaning jobs for a holiday in October. The kids have never been on a plane and, of course, are really looking forward to it. Jennifer and David, being the people they are, paid cash in advance for their tickets. Guess what? They have been told they have lost their money. They are not going on holidays and their kids are bitterly disappointed.
Returning to the employees, Ansett employee entitlements are likely to run into millions of dollars. The Federal Government's proposal for a levy on airline tickets means that sacked employees will receive only a fraction of what they are entitled to. The proposed $10 levy on air travellers is yet another knee-jerk reaction by the Federal Government. The existing Federal scheme, which was introduced after the collapse of National Textiles, has been a complete failure in anyone's language. Even before the collapse of One.Tel and Ansett the Federal Government put the loss of employee entitlements around the nation at $110 million per annum. In its first year the scheme paid workers only 3 per cent of the loss entitlement. The scheme is a failure.
The Federal Government has not learnt any lessons from the collapse of HIH and One.Tel. With the collapse of Ansett we now have the biggest mass sacking in Australia's history, yet still the Federal Government does nothing more to fully protect workers' entitlements. It has the constitutional power to amend the Corporations Law and others laws to introduce a national scheme that will ensure that workers' entitlements are held in trust. The Federal Government has the power to ensure that workers receive their full entitlements and that Australian taxpayers do not foot the bill for corporate failure. In this House in June I raised the need to introduce such a scheme following the One.Tel crisis. It is time our local Federal representatives in the shire took the bit between their teeth and advocated a comprehensive scheme that fully protects the entitlements of all workers.
Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [8.53 p.m.]: It is hypocritical of the honourable member for Clarence, the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs, to move a motion calling on the Federal Government to restore 17,000 jobs in a private industry. The Minister should tell us about the jobs that were lost from his electorate when the electricity supply for the area was privatised and became NorthPower. He should tell us about the jobs in his electorate that disappeared down the drain because he has been absolutely silent on that. Ansett is a private company; NorthPower was a government-funded institution that took jobs out of his electorate and he said nothing. Ansett is a private company that has dudded us. I draw the House's attention to a cartoon by Emerson in today's Coffs Harbour Advocate under the heading "Trans Tasman jumbo" and point out that it contains a picture of a white pointer shark.
Air New Zealand was less than honest with the Australian Government; it did not fulfil its obligations to the Australian people. I believe it bled Ansett of its assets in order to prop up its own company and then ran down the regional airlines to the nth degree. I know Kendell and Hazelton airlines well. Those stand-alone companies will be picked up by a commercial investor and will operate again into regional and rural New South Wales. Ansett deserves nothing more than castigation for what it did in Coffs Harbour. Prior to the collapse of Ansett the local agent was sacked because, according to Ansett, it would save $50,000 a year. I believe that by collusive tendering Ansett replaced that agent with someone from Tasmania. We lost local jobs well and truly prior to last week's collapse. The local operator and some of those people within Ansett deserve what they got after the shoddy deal they gave to Dennis Martin and his staff. The only bright side was that at least staff obligations were met by Dennis Martin. The majority of those people now have a future in jobs in different sections of the industry within Coffs Harbour.
We cannot expect a Federal government to pick up the liability for any international company that comes into Australia, duds the Government, goes belly up. If this State Government were serious, it would instigate a scheme similar to that in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia that gives assistance to remote and regional areas. Because of their remoteness, those areas receive subsidies from their State governments. On several occasions today the Premier said he would not entertain nor accept a scheme along those lines. Yet the Minister for Regional Development has the hide to ask the Federal Government to cover the entitlements of 17,000 jobs. The Federal Government has already given a solid indication to the Australian people that it will pick up the liabilities belonging to the Ansett employees—that is, long service leave, holiday pay, sick leave, et cetera.
We know the collapse of Ansett has had a devastating effect on regional and rural New South Wales, not just through the loss of passenger services but also through businesses that rely on those airline services to supply local jobs. The people who assist passengers on and off planes, those who provide the food, beverages, fuel, et cetera, will suffer long-term effects through the collapse of Ansett. Yet this Government stands by and promotes a political motion because it may be advantageous for it at the upcoming Federal election to win on the numbers. We see through the Minister's hypocrisy; we know he has done nothing for regional New South Wales. The people of his electorate know what he did regarding the change to NorthPower. He is a hypocrite and a liar.
Mr NEWELL (Tweed) [8.58 p.m.]: Members from both sides of the House have agreed that towns and regions across country New South Wales have been affected by the collapse and withdrawal from trading of Ansett and its related companies. Members from both sides of the House have quite rightly illustrated how people have lost their jobs as a result of this collapse and withdrawal from trading. The collapse of Ansett and its related companies calls for action, but the debate is where such action should come from. It is not only New South Wales that has been affected. When a major part of our national infrastructure goes out of business, national action is required. The Minister for Regional Development is quite correct to call on the Federal Government to take immediate action to restore regional air services and protect the 17,000 jobs that have been lost.
As all honourable members know, many of the 17,000 jobs are in regional New South Wales and other parts of regional Australia. Just as we are able to give illustrations of the effect on our regions, members in other States are able to do the same thing. It is part of the umbrella organisation of the national Government that is responsible and therefore it is the Federal Government that should act. I understand that 7,000 direct and indirect jobs have been lost across New South Wales and that 1,300 jobs have been affected across regional New South Wales. In any parlance it is a national catastrophe when that amount of income and effort are withdrawn. In my electorate in the Northern Rivers there has been a total shutdown of Ansett airlines and related airport activities, which has resulted in the loss of 60 flights per week—30 in and 30 out.
The latest count is that the shutdown has directly affected 75 employees, about one-quarter of whom are residents of the Tweed. Obviously, the majority of those affected live on the Gold Coast. Although the flights carry a substantial number of people, many of whom are tourists and destined for the Gold Coast market, a significant but indeterminate proportion travel into New South Wales. Gift shops, catering services, bar services and other associated services have been closed down at the Gold Coast airport. The administrators have brought in security services to build a fence around the Ansett terminal. It has been cordoned off. It is no longer functioning. Those who worked there are now at home wondering where their futures lie.
An earlier speaker referred to workers entitlements. This catastrophe illustrates the need to take action at a national level to protect workers entitlements. Allowing companies to retain long service, holiday pay and other entitlements is not on. It might be good enough for John Howard to use the taxpayer to bail out his brother's company but it is not good enough for him to go to ground and do nothing in this situation. The collapse of Ansett airlines and its associated companies should be addressed at a national level in another forum so that workers entitlements are protected. The motion moved by the Minister for Regional Development deserves support. I certainly oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lachlan.
Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [9.03 p.m.]: Currently 11 regional routes in New South Wales are without a very important lifeline. The lifeline is not only economic, it is not only social—it is medical and a range of other things. It is communication between the major city of New South Wales and regional areas of New South Wales. Butler Air Transport ran a DC 3 in my electorate from Coolah to Burren Junction, Tooraweenah and Goodooga. In 1956 Reg Ansett very aggressively took over Butler Air Transport, and services to the north-west were no longer existent. On its final flight over Goodooga the DC 3 took off with two passengers. As a farewell it looped the loop over the town. It is amazing that no-one reported it to the Civil Aviation Authority. We know that Air New Zealand has pulled out of Ansett. Its legacy is a fleet of, let us face it, worn-out aeroplanes that cost millions of dollars per year to maintain. In its wisdom Air New Zealand decided not pursue maintenance or replacement of those craft.
Australia does not make aeroplanes: they are made in either the United States or Europe. With our dollar at US50¢ the cost of fuel and parts for all aircraft from the Cessna 172 all the way up to the Airbus is very expensive. Had we lost the Bledisloe Cup, Air New Zealand might be slightly more tolerant towards Australia than it is at the moment. The honourable member for Tamworth interjects, but he would, in a way, agree with me about the anti-Australian feeling. Air New Zealand scuttled Ansett. The biggest problem is that employees of Ansett are left with very little future, despite the assurance from the administrators. But if we can get regional services operational quite a few of Ansett's employees will maintain their employment.
Last year 1,400,000 passengers came to Sydney from regional New South Wales. So far as we are concerned it is very important to maintain those routes because my understanding is that Hazelton and the other subsidiaries of Ansett were operating at a profit in regional New South Wales. The administrator was very quick to act when he decided to close down regional airline services together with the rest of Ansett. Everyone is laying the blame on everyone else. The South Australian Government and the Queensland Government—led by Peter Beattie, who has been proactive in this matter during the past two or three years—have underwritten flights to regional towns in Queensland and South Australia. I fail to see why the New South Wales Government cannot do the same. It is obvious to me that the Premier has decided to pass the buck.
[Interruption]
It is all very well to blame the Federal Government every time this Government passes the buck. [Time expired.]
Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [9.08 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Minister for Regional Development and oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lachlan. Whilst, for obvious reasons, the debate has thus far featured many more country members of Parliament than city members, the issues covered in the motion are clearly of great significance to both city members and regional members of Parliament. That is particularly the case in relation to former Ansett workers and their entitlements. I understand that there were 17,000 employees of what was Ansett Australia and that approximately 4,000 of those are resident in New South Wales. A significant proportion of them obviously reside within metropolitan areas. In addition to that there is obviously a whole series of other people who work for enterprises that are dependent indirectly upon Ansett and whose employment will be in some jeopardy as a result of what has happened.
The consequences that flow from the Ansett collapse in my view clearly underline the completely unsatisfactory approach adopted by the Federal Government for some time to workers entitlements. The Federal Government's attitude towards workers entitlements is an absolute disgrace! It is a matter that honourable members have addressed before in this House. Certainly I have spoken previously about Renite Furniture, STP and Dome Engineering. They are clearly matters of great significance to my constituents. For example, many of my constituents were involved in the Maintrain dispute. The primary principle, of course, is that the entitlements of workers ought to be paid by their employer. The money that accrues to those workers is their money; it is not money that is owned by employers. For employers to take that money and use it for their purposes, rather than reserve it for employees, is, as a matter of principle and morality, theft. It is not the bosses' money; it is the workers' money.
The argument to the contrary of that, of course, is that if you take the money out of the firm and set it aside to keep it for the workers, as you ought, somehow or other the company is not going to be able to function and that is seen to be a very bad thing. The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the money that should have been set aside for workers' entitlements in fact belongs to the bosses rather than the workers. That is the problem with that argument and it is the only argument ever trotted out in any sense to justify the position that is usually adopted. Resolution of this issue obviously requires a national response. It cannot be done on a State-by-State basis. Regrettably, the Federal Government has failed calamitously in trying to do anything at all to deal with the issue of workers entitlements.
The only time the Federal Government responds is when there is immense pressure—when the Prime Minister's brother was involved the Federal Government came up with the money. When there is a massive disaster such as the collapse of Ansett it comes up with some political quick fix. It is all well and good for workers entitlements to be met in the way they are going to be met. It is good that those entitlements are to be covered. The method that is being used is wrong as a matter of principle, for two reasons. First, the public is expected to pay for this by way of an additional tax on airline tickets. That is wrong. It is wrong because that money should have come from the employers. If the money had been reserved as it ought to have been we would not be in the position where, once again, the public or the taxpayer is subsidising workers entitlements.
The theme that runs through all of these examples is that managements of various sorts are delighted to privatise the gains, but only too keen to socialise the losses. When they make a profit, they want to hang on to it. When they go belly up and cannot pay the workers all of the entitlements that they ought to pay, they start looking for others to pay. In the case of National Textiles it came from the taxpayers. In this case it is coming from members of the public. One of the issues is that this is a thoroughly cynical approach on the part of the Federal Government. If it is a politically significant enough issue—that is, if it is the Prime Minister's brother's company or Ansett, 17,000 people are involved and we are a few weeks away from a Federal election—the Federal Government will run around to try to find a solution. It will not do that for a host of other companies, apart from the dodgy and inadequate scheme that it has dreamed up whereby only a small proportion of workers entitlements are paid for. It is yet another example of the Federal Government's refusal to deal properly with the issue of workers' entitlements; of being only too delighted to let companies privatise their gains and socialise their losses. When the companies go belly up and make a loss, the public has to pay. That is not what they want when they make a profit.
Mr TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [9.13 p.m.]: I join with previous speakers who have expressed concern about the devastation that has occurred as a result of the collapse of Ansett. I think the editorial in today's Daily Telegraph sums it up pretty well. The headline reads, "Sorry mess born out of ineptitude". I also share the concerns expressed by honourable members about the flow-on effect, not only to the staff members and their families but to all of the contractors. The flow-on effects from a collapse such as this are devastating and will continue to be so. In fact, we are only seeing the start of the very negative flow-on effects from this company collapse. I agree with the editorial headline in the Daily Telegraph, particularly the word "ineptitude", because it cannot be said with any credibility that this was not being set up to happen. It had been known for some time that Ansett was in trouble. There is no doubt about that.
If honourable members look at the business paper for this House, they will see notice upon notice relating to this issue. There is one listed in my name, dating back to May, expressing concern about the loss of services being faced by regional communities. I took it upon myself to write to the Deputy Prime Minister to express my concern on behalf of the communities of Inverell and Glen Innes, who had an immediate reduction in services when reduced competition issues were announced—that is, when Impulse Airlines was taken over by Qantas Air Link and Hazelton by Ansett Australia. I am pleased to say I received a response two months later, not from the Deputy Prime Minister but from Senator Ron Boswell, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport.
The content of the letter is of concern because it highlights the Federal Government's blind pursuit of deregulation. When disasters like this happen not enough people cast their minds back to the framework and policy making that was going on at that time. I want to quote from the third paragraph of the letter I received. I have the letter here. If honourable members suggest I am being selective, I am. I will read the third paragraph of the letter but I am happy to make the letter available to any honourable member who asks for it. It states:
The viability of air services is a matter for the airlines. In the final analysis it is up to the local communities to support these services for them to remain viable.
What the letter is really saying is, "Do not bother us with this. It is a private sector situation. If people in the country are not going to use the services, we will not worry about it. It is not our problem." That is the most disgraceful and misleading comment that could be made by anyone, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport. The electorate of Northern Tablelands had good air services to Inverell, Glen Innes and Armidale. We were on a trial in Glen Innes and Inverell and about to lose that service because we went down to one airline, Qantas Air Link. That company instigated a trial. I congratulate Qantas Air Link on going into those other ports, but I fear what having one airline will do in the longer term. Let me quote the figures from the trial. In March, when we had a service provided by Impulse Airlines, before the loss of competition, there were 1,230 traffic movements for the month. In April there were 1,084 traffic movements and in May there were 1,065. When Qantas took over the figures were 724 in June, 522 in July and 343 in August.
If the service is put on at a bad time, prices are raised, and there is no competition, the result will be what a single operator wants: figures showing that the service is no longer viable. I fear for the future of country airlines. I also fear the attitude that is coming out in the correspondence that I am happy to make available. I agree with the sentiments of the former Leader of the National Party that the State should do more. Other States have got onto the front foot in this regard. But I share the concerns about one government subsidising other governments and vice versa. Let us get the government charges out of the airline industry altogether. The Federal Government has to come to the party in that regard and the State Government, if all costs are taken out, should consider other methods of compensation to ensure that competition and good services exist in regional communities for the future.
Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [9.18 p.m.]: This motion is about seeing what ideas may emerge from this Parliament for restoring services for non-metropolitan air service consumers who have been so sadly affected by the Ansett collapse. It is particularly important in relation to rural areas because in the metropolitan areas at least Qantas has been able to take up the slack. But that has not been happening in non-metropolitan Australia. Therefore, we seek to debate the matter to see whether there are better ways of doing things. Up to 1,300 direct jobs are at risk in non-metropolitan New South Wales. Many more indirect jobs are at risk in tourism and other industries that cater to overseas visitors.
In my area of the Hunter Aeropelican suddenly went out of business and 44 staff lost their jobs. It had been a very profitable part of Ansett's operations for quite a few years. Like many of the non-metropolitan air services other than the Qantas system, Aeropelican started as a private venture to create a local service and merged with other organisations. Hazelton comes into that category. I expect that Kendell would have been the same. There have been others. Changes in modern economic rationalist times have resulted in mergers that have left people outside metropolitan areas vulnerable. Tremendous ideas are coming from the staff of Aeropelican. A staff buy-out has been proposed. The staff have called on the administrator to accept their offer.
Keith Black, one of the pilots at Aeropelican, is the leader of the staff. They hope that if no higher offer is made to the administrator their offer, which is on the table, will be accepted by the administrator if he is interested in restoring services. The buy-out is modelled on a similar employee purchase of United Airlines in America. A decade or so ago that proved to be an extremely successful response and the airline was able to resume flying after a similar collapse caused by bad management. Like many other members of Parliament, I have used non-metropolitan air services. I have often flown with Hazelton to Armidale to attend business at the University of New England, where I serve on the council. This motion gives members an opportunity to offer their ideas on how to answer important questions in regional New South Wales.
In the Hunter 28 children from two high schools had arranged a cultural exchange with Italy. I have intimate knowledge of the issue because I was involved with fundraising for a student from the Wallsend electorate. She raised enough money for the trip, because her parents could not afford to send her away. Because the students went to the wrong branch of a Traveland agency—one wholly owned by Ansett rather than a franchise—they have lost their tickets and there is some doubt about whether the insurance system will be good enough and quick enough to recover the money in time for the kids to travel next Saturday. I hope that some solution can be put together fairly quickly so that those students will be able to undertake their cultural exchange to Italy.
In looking at the collapse of Ansett we need to ask where all the money went. According to the weekend newspapers, last year the Murdochs walked away with about $580 million of it. Obviously, they did not miss out. But where has all the rest of the money gone? I was not born a capitalist but I wonder how the free marketeers can sleep in their beds at night when the markets have put 17,000 highly skilled people out of jobs, destroyed a business operating over 40 per cent of Australia's air services, and so severely damaged Australian tourism. Where are the rescue operations in the free market? I am wondering why the free marketeers of the Liberal and National parties are insisting that somehow it is up to the State Labor Government to rescue the various Ansett operations. I refer to the Treasurer's press release of yesterday showing what the State Government has already done in approaching the administrator to get something done in New South Wales.
Ms HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [9.23 p.m.]: At the outset I add my sorrow and sympathy for all those who have been involved in the tragedy in the United States. I also convey my absolute outrage at the atrocities that have occurred there. Last week I wrote to the United States Ambassador expressing on behalf of all the people of Burrinjuck our sympathy. Our hearts go out to you. I have just had dinner this evening with some Americans. The stories they told have left me in no doubt about what people in the United States are experiencing. It is nothing short of extraordinary. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lachlan on behalf of the Coalition. It reads:
That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That" and insert instead:
This House calls on the New South Wales Government to follow the Western Australian, Queensland and South Australian governments in offering payroll tax concessions and other assistance, such as direct subsidy, to assist in restoring air services to regional communities throughout rural New South Wales.
I also congratulate the honourable member for Lachlan, who today celebrates 20 years in this place. He has done an outstanding job. No matter what portfolios or positions of responsibility he has held he has always been a very effective and good local member. He can teach us all many things. Coming back to the subject before the House, I have listened with interest to the Carr Labor Government trying to absolve itself of all responsibility in relation to regional transport in this State. It has claimed that the Federal Government is using taxpayers money to get people out of trouble in relation to statutory entitlements.
I assure people that the Federal Government will do whatever it can to make sure that Air New Zealand and Ansett in the first instance try to meet the statutory entitlements before going that extra mile. The Federal Government has been responsible and will ensure that unpaid wages, annual leave, long service leave and redundancy payments will be met in the long term. I also draw the attention of members to the polls that have come out today that show 60 per cent of people are now leaning towards the Federal Coalition Government. That is good news indeed, because that Government is fiscally responsible.
The Federal Minister for Transport today mentioned that 34 of the routes that were served exclusively by Ansett or its subsidiaries have been restored. All but six have been restored. The Government is still working on those six, and at this stage there are two for which it has not been able to find a full solution. That shows the speed with which the Federal Government is addressing these concerns. It is only a week since the disaster was brought to the attention of the public and already 34 routes are back in operation. That shows how good the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport truly is. Even though I do not have a regional airline within my electorate, Wagga Wagga airport services constituents from a large part of my electorate living in places such as Batlow, Tumut, Adelong and Gundagai who travel to Wagga Wagga.
Almost 200 people are employed by Kendell Airlines and those jobs are threatened, and some constituents in my electorate work with Kendell. There is now no direct service between Melbourne and Wagga Wagga. Tumut lost its regional air services about eight years ago. I made representations to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services on behalf of Tumut Shire Council, but I am yet to receive a reply. So Tumut relies very heavily on Wagga Wagga for air services. Transport in the electorate of Burrinjuck is in chaos. The roads desperately need upgrading and there is no public transport.
On many occasions I have spoken in this House about the condition of roads on the south-western slopes. Following the airline crisis more pressure is put on the people in my electorate to do their best to get around. I have referred to the status of roads in the south-west slopes many times by petition, by private member's statement and by notice of motion; it is a true crisis. At 11 o'clock last Thursday night on the Gocup Road, just outside Gundagai, I was run off the road by a B-double semi-trailer. I am lucky to be here today. If it takes a by-election to fix the roads in the south-west slopes, maybe that is what the Minister wants. But I certainly hope it does not come to that. [Time expired.]
Miss BURTON (Kogarah) [9.28 p.m.]: I begin by clarifying a few things. First, every week, day after day, when this House sits and the Federal Government abrogates its responsibility, it is obvious that the State Opposition has no say with the Federal Coalition. The State Opposition says that certain matters are a State responsibility. But we have a Constitution; we have a separation between State and Federal responsibilities. Aviation is a Federal responsibility. I draw the attention of the House to something of great importance to my electorate, and that is workers entitlements. I will explain that at great length, because those who believe they were born to rule, those on the other side of the House, do not understand the history or what workers entitlements are.
It is quite simple: Over the years unions negotiated pay rises for workers to take into account the consumer price index or the rising cost of living. Certain things were negotiated in lieu of pay increases, including long service leave, sick pay, superannuation and, something that was not negotiated by the unions, membership of a health fund. We are talking about payments that are earned on a weekly basis by employees. Every day workers earn money, their take-home pay. That take-home pay includes certain entitlements that are supposed to be, in good faith, put aside by the employer. The employer is supposed to be responsible. Members opposite are always going on about how great employers are, but they never stop kicking to death the trade union movement or the workers.
Tonight members opposite have spoken rubbish about what the State Government is doing. This is all about a Federal responsibility, and it is about time Opposition members woke up to themselves so that we may take them seriously. The reason so few of them are present is that no-one in New South Wales takes them seriously. The rubbish they have spoken in this debate is testament to the feeling of the electorate. Some people who live in my electorate have worked for Ansett for 10, 15, 20 or 25 years. They have worked loyally and faithfully for a company that was supposed to be putting away money earned by those workers. The Federal Government says that there is a national scheme of workers entitlements. But how ridiculous is this? The Federal Government is telling people that they earn money every week and the company is supposed to put that money away for them. That is their entitlements; money earned in lieu of a pay rise.
That money was meant to be put aside for the workers, for later on—for long service and superannuation, for sick pay, the things that are part of their pay packet and that they have already earned. The Federal Government is saying that if the company goes bust because the management is useless, the taxpayer should prop up the company. Jodee Rich can run off with all the money he likes, do whatever he wants, and transfer all his assets into his brothers' or sisters' names, and taxpayers are expected to come along and find money that they have already earned. How ridiculous is that!
Members on the other side of the House have absolutely no idea. They are supposed to be experienced, but I have listened to the debate all night and cannot believe that they would say that the State Government should pick up the point. This is a Federal Government issue, but it has, once again, abrogated its responsibility. Since I was elected to this Parliament the Federal Government has done nothing but abrogate its responsibilities. Every time that has been drawn to the attention of members opposite they whinge and say that the State Government should do something. The Opposition is actually asking the State Government to pay the airlines, to pay taxes that have been imposed by the Federal Government. They want to rob Peter to pay Paul. But the reality is that the workers deserve their entitlements. [Time expired.]
Mr PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [9.33 p.m.]: What an extraordinary speech! I know that the honourable member for Kogarah has had a great deal of involvement with the union movement, but let us remember, when she blames the current Federal Government for the difficulties that Ansett and its workers are facing, that when Labor was in government and the current Minister for Local Government was a member of that Government, it did not do a single thing to protect workers entitlements. Bob Hawke, a former Prime Minister and former leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, did not do a single thing. Now the State Government is critical of the Federal Coalition Government for not doing anything for workers entitlements. Labor had 13 years to do something, yet it talks about the Opposition doing nothing.
The gods of the Labor Party, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, did not do a single thing. But I will tell honourable members what they did for the airline industry. What did they do about the pilots strike? They totally ignored it. How many pilots lost their jobs during the pilots strike? If we want to talk about industrial relations in this country, let us talk about the pilots strike and Bob Hawke's attitude towards pilots during that strike. If honourable members choose to take the high moral ground on this issue, they must take the moral responsibility that goes with it. I have heard some extraordinary speeches, and that of the honourable member for Kogarah was certainly one of them. I return to the situation with Ansett. No member of this Chamber would deny that the collapse of Ansett is having significant repercussions throughout the State. Ansett owns Hazelton Airlines, which is the only airline company that services my electorate of Murrumbidgee.
The honourable member for Murray-Darling is present in the House and I certainly understand the problems that face the people of his electorate. Many people in his electorate and those from Hay, Balranald and the rapidly growing area of Hillston, depend on airline services from Griffith. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Murray-Darling is totally committed to the future growth areas in the south-west of his electorate. The loss of Ansett and Hazelton services will, unfortunately, stifle some of that growth. I would like to see something positive happen. I note that the Federal Government—John Anderson in particular—is working on all possible options to have Hazelton back in the air as soon as possible, servicing those regional routes, including those to Narrandera and Griffith, in my electorate.
The demise of Ansett has repercussions not only for industry but for hospitals, medical services and the like. The politicising of this issue is particularly distasteful. The Minister for Regional Development takes every opportunity in this House to constantly deflect debate to what the Federal Government should be doing. It would be interesting to know what Labor would do in the unlikely event that it won the next Federal election. Perhaps the Minister might address that question in his reply. The honourable member for Kogarah referred to the number of Labor seats in this Parliament. That is because Labor lied at the last election and the previous election. Labor said it would remove the tolls in western Sydney and increase police numbers, but those promises have been broken. There was a swing against Labor at the Auburn by-election and there will be another swing against Labor at the next State election because Labor's lies will not be tolerated by the people of New South Wales. I hope airline services will be restored to regional New South Wales as soon as possible for the benefit of everyone in this State.
Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [9.38 p.m.]: The House has just witnessed one of the most outrageous examples of ratbag ravings from the honourable member for Murrumbidgee that I have ever seen. I shall bring this debate back to how this Ansett tragedy has affected ordinary people. I want to read a letter I received from a constituent, Mr Grant Brown, who lives in Rockdale. The letter is dated 11 September, so it predates by some days the ultimate demise of Ansett. Mr Brown stated:
I write with grave concern for my employment future with Ansett Australia and formally request your help to make this known in Federal Government.
I interpose that in his own way Mr Brown felt that I might have some influence in Federal Government. It is obvious that I do not have very much influence with either John Howard or Mr Anderson. He further stated:
I left my unfinished home locked up only on the Sunshine Coast Queensland after a long period—four years—of very little employment to move to Sydney to get a job and have now been employed continuously for 38 months with Ansett Australia. If my employment situation changes for the worst due to the high cost of rent and living in Sydney I will be forced to return to my home, go on unemployment benefits and seek what little work is available in an area of very high unemployment. At 47 years of age with no trade qualifications I am deeply concerned.
Yours sincerely,
Grant Brown.
That letter gives a poignant perspective to the Ansett issue. The northern boundary of my electorate is the Cooks River, and on the other side of the Cooks River is Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. A large number of people in my electorate work at Sydney airport, for individual airline companies, the Sydney Airport Authority, or retailers within the various complexes. They work as cleaners, mechanics, flight attendants, pilots and shop assistants. Ansett is a major employer in the district and many of its employees live in my electorate. Sue Johnson, another employee, said:
I have been a proud Ansett employee for 15 years … We are a company of dedicated and loyal employees, who over the years have been asked when difficult times have been on our company, to dig deep, work harder, work better, work faster, work smarter. And I believe we have done that when it was needed!
But at the end of the day they have been terribly let down. She continued:
Ansett employees at the front line! I'm talking flight attendants; pilots; reservations agents; sales agents; check-in staff, baggage handlers; aircraft cleaners.
We can make Ansett a great airline again! What we need is ownership. People who have management skills to take care of the money and are able to manage a great business!
This is a tragedy for working people, particularly those who live in my electorate. [Time expired.]
Mr KERR (Cronulla) [9.43 p.m.]: I wish to take up the sentiments of the honourable member for Kogarah, who mentioned abdication by the Federal Government as if it were some king hit. Let me deal first with the action that the Federal Government has taken, the history of aviation and the former Labor Government. When it became known what was happening with Ansett, and the administrators said that the cupboard was bare and that it was going to ground all flights, the Government took action at the earliest possible opportunity. Those measures included Qantas undertaking to fly stranded Ansett passengers free of charge on the return leg of their journey and the Government establishing a support program for stranded passengers to cover their reasonable travel costs back home and short-term accommodation until they could arrange travel.
Qantas and Virgin offered greatly discounted fares to Ansett passengers holding tickets they could not use. The Government immediately commenced action to compel Air New Zealand to meet its obligations in regard to the entitlement of Ansett employees. The Government arranged for a special number of Ansett employees to register immediately for the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme and provided immediate access to job-matching services through the job network.
Qantas established a register of Ansett staff and gave a commitment to former Ansett workers for preferential consideration for new positions. At its first Cabinet meeting the Government announced expansion of the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme. Qantas quickly offered an undertaking to do whatever it could to provide services to the 34 regional destinations previously served only by Ansett or its subsidiaries. The Federal member for Cook, Bruce Baird, and I met with a number of Ansett employees on Saturday morning at Lilli Pilli and Cronulla. In marked contrast to the previous Federal Labor Government, Mr Baird undertook to take action to see what could be done to alleviate the plight of Ansett employees.
Government members might recall the saga of Compass, which was totally abandoned by the Labor Party. Its employees were human beings: if you pricked them they bled; if you tickled them they laughed. However, their treatment at the hands of a Labor Government contrasts starkly with the series of measures—by no means exhaustive and comprehensive—that I have outlined tonight. Every honourable member is sympathetic to the plight of Ansett employees. That is why Bruce Baird spoke to them and will take further actions on their behalf.
Mr Black: And did nothing.
Mr KERR: That is not true. The honourable member for Murray-Darling should not judge everyone by his own standards. He is a member of a government that has done precisely zero, unlike his Labor colleagues in Queensland and Western Australia. At least they have provided concessions to ensure that the disaster is mitigated to some extent. The honourable member for Murray-Darling is a member of a Government that has walked away. In the immortal words of the honourable member for Kogarah, it has abdicated its responsibilities in this area.
Mr Black: You did not have a 17½ rail trip.
Mr KERR: No, I did not, but I am sure it is a great consolation to Ansett employees to learn that the honourable member for Murray-Darling did. This motion is political payback to the Federal Government. Instead of working together, this Government has seized the opportunity to criticise the Federal Government.
Mr Merton: The cupboard is bare.
Mr KERR: Yet the Carr Government's cupboard is bare, in the words of the honourable member for Baulkham Hills, when it comes to providing any assistance. We must work together. I am happy to work with my Federal colleagues and to continue to push the Carr Government to do what its Labor colleagues have done. What did the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs, who is at the table, do for Compass employees when he was in Canberra? What assistance did he provide? [Time expired.]
Mr STONER (Oxley) [9.48 p.m.]: There is no doubt that regional air services are of the highest priority to this State. However, the motion moved by the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs is a total cop-out by the Carr Labor Government and an abrogation of its responsibilities as the Government of not only metropolitan but regional New South Wales. It is appropriate for Parliament to debate this problem and, more importantly, to develop some constructive solutions to it. This issue is about fundamental equity of access by country people, not only to transport but to economic development through tourism and other industries and to specialist medical and other professional services.
This issue did not arise suddenly with the collapse of Ansett and its subsidiaries, Kendell Airlines, Hazelton Airlines and Aeropelican. It came to the fore as a result of the increased competition in Australian air services represented by Impulse and Virgin Blue and the squeezing of margins within the industry. This commercial pressure caused Eastern Airlines and/or Qantas to pull out of Kempsey, leaving only Impulse in that market. When Qantas purchased Impulse it decided to use the former Impulse planes on other regional routes, leaving Kempsey without any air services whatsoever. The airport nearest Kempsey is at Port Macquarie, some 45 minutes away.
Mr Black: Try Broken Hill.
Mr STONER: We are talking about the east coast. Before the collapse of Ansett I wrote to all State Government Ministers asking them to instruct their staff to use the Impulse service direct to Kempsey and thus ensure its viability. Government staff were flying with Eastern Airlines, a Qantas subsidiary, to Port Macquarie and then driving to Kempsey. As a result the demand figures for Kempsey flights were understated. I received many and varied responses from Ministers. Some, like this motion, were a flick pass to the Federal Government and others were a flick pass to other Ministers. In some instances I received no reply. Very few Ministers addressed the issue of ensuring the viability of the air service out of Kempsey.
I then arranged a petition indicating support from the people of the Macleay district for an air service out of Kempsey in the hope that we could negotiate flights with Hazelton. Hazelton had shown some interest in starting a service from Kempsey to Port Macquarie to Sydney, and the entire population of the Macleay was hopeful that that service would be introduced. Unfortunately, the collapse of Ansett has extinguished that hope as well as jobs at the Port Macquarie airport. My constituents employed at that airport had their jobs saved by the takeover of Impulse by Qantas, only to lose them a second time with the Ansett collapse.
What has the State Government done about this situation? It has cut State licence fees for regional air services to the tune of $50,000 per annum across the entire industry, although some early statements suggested that that reduction might apply to each operator. That is only 0.2 of 1 per cent of regional air service costs. Yesterday afternoon it was reported that the Government is considering underwriting part of Ansett's regional fleet, as the South Australian Government has done. I urge the Government to continue to pursue that and other options and to factor Kempsey into its deliberations. We need constructive action such as payroll tax exemptions for regional airlines, which is only fair given the massive subsidisation of public transport in metropolitan New South Wales. The Government must pursue measures such as that rather than the transparently political point scoring, which the wording of this motion sets out to achieve. The State Government must work with the Federal Government instead of cynically attempting to score political points for Federal Labor in this election year.
Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [9.53 p.m.]: I did not plan to speak in this debate, but when I heard the honourable member for Kogarah ranting and raving I felt compelled to spring to my feet and say a few words in response. The motion before the House is almost entirely about regional air services. It is about immediate action to restore air services. There are some differences regarding the way in which that should be achieved, but I think all honourable members understand the importance, especially to the tourist industry, of reinstating regional air services to country New South Wales. The honourable member for Kogarah seems to think this debate is about worker entitlements, the unions and benefits for the workers. I do not see anything in this motion about that.
Ensuring the entitlements of workers made redundant by the collapse of Ansett Australia is important. Important though it may be, it is not the central issue that we are debating tonight. Indeed, the Federal Government has taken very timely action to ensure that most of those entitlements are met. Tonight I heard on the news that the original $300 million that was promised after the news of the collapse of Ansett had been increased to $400 million. I understand that will cover holiday pay, long service leave and up to eight weeks redundancy pay for each worker. Anyone listening to the honourable member for Kogarah would not have understood that the Federal Government had done that. One would have thought that the Federal Government had done as much for Ansett employees as the Hawke Labor Government did for Compass employees more than 10 years ago. That is not the case. There is a clear understanding from the Federal Government that those workers will be looked after if Air New Zealand cannot do so.
How stupid is the union movement? It wants the entitlements to be paid to its members. One can understand that, but if the money is to come from anywhere, first it will come from Air New Zealand. Air New Zealand is on the ropes; it is nearly broke. What did the union threaten to do? The union threatened to stop Air New Zealand from flying in Australia. That would cut its profit and knock millions of dollars out of the company, yet the union believes that would help the workers get their entitlements. Even the Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand had something to say about that. She did not think it was too bright.
The union movement was not content with that. It then forced the resignation of the airline's administrator. That has also put back the workers' cause potentially by months. That is the sheer bloody-minded intransigence of the union movement that the honourable member for Kogarah was championing. Who was she trying to look after? Was she trying to look after the Ansett employees who live in her electorate, or was she just fulminating and foaming at the mouth because she does not know any better? This motion talks clearly about the restoration of regional air services and the protection of jobs, and notes the devastating effects this collapse will have on country communities and businesses. That is a given.
If the Government and its members, such as the honourable member for Kogarah, are fair dinkum about doing something about that, they will put their money where their mouth is. They will bring forward the payroll tax cuts. They will bring forward temporary subsidies for routes to get planes back into the air again. They will not froth at the mouth, like the honourable member for Kogarah, about workers entitlements. They will understand that the best thing for those workers is to get planes flying, to get passengers on board and to get some revenue coming into whatever replaces Ansett. I regret to say that Ansett will not fly again in its previous form.
Mr WOODS (Clarence—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [9.58 p.m.], in reply: When the Federal Howard Government first came to office a Minister in that Government made its position clear. He said there is no role for the Federal Government in regional development. Time and again members of the Opposition in this House have told us that there is no role for the Federal Government in the issue before us. Even if there is no role for the Federal Government in regional development, it still has a responsibility in relation to this issue: the responsibility for trade and commerce among the States. The motion relates to the aviation industry and, therefore, under section 51 of the Constitution there is a role for the Federal Government.
Time and again members opposite have said that this Government has had the hide to politicise this debate by claiming that the Federal Government should be doing something about the collapse of Ansett. There was a wake-up call and there has been ample time for the Federal Government to respond. In June this year a communique went out from the regional airlines summit. The State Government and the Independents were represented at that summit. New South Wales Farmers, the New South Wales Local Government and Shires Associations and the Tourism task force were also represented. A widely representative group of people came together to try, in a bipartisan way to reach a consensus—and a consensus was reached. That meeting called on local, State and Federal governments to jointly examine ways in which they could forgo a proportionate amount of income. Mr St Clair, the Federal member for New England, represented the Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services. The Federal Government knew about it and there has been absolutely no response.
The State Government has responded. The State Minister for Transport took off the licence fees—that is the only direct charge the State Government had—but there has no response at all from the Federal Government. Worse than that, the Federal Government stood by and allowed Ansett to swallow up Hazelton and Kendell, which were at that time financially viable. It allowed Ansett to be swallowed up by Air New Zealand. It stood by and watched a number of regional communities lose a number of air services, and for some months it has watched Australia's second airline go under.
Time and again members opposite have said we should not have a shot at the Federal Government. If nobody has a shot at it, nothing will happen. It is clear from the statements of the Deputy Prime Minister that he will not help Ansett. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour, who is a great example of mediocrity at its best, said the same thing. The Deputy Prime Minister said he would not help Ansett "because it runs a little counter to everything we sought to do in aviation, which is to recognise that the private sector does a better job than the public sector". Representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator Ron Boswell said:
The viability of air services is a matter for the airlines and it is up to local communities to support them.
The Federal Government has let the Australian people down completely on this issue. It is no wonder that Terry McCrann said this of the Deputy Prime Minister in the Daily Telegraph last week:
… the man who must be the most incompetent transport minister we've ever had …
If John Anderson is the most incompetent transport Minister we have had, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is the most incompetent member this House has ever had.
Question—That the words stand—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 49
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Aquilina
Mr Ashton
Mr Barr
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Crittenden
Mr Face
Mr Gaudry
Mr Greene | Mrs Grusovin
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Mr Knowles
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch
Mr Markham
Mr Martin
Mr McBride
Mr McGrane
Mr McManus
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Ms Moore
Mr Moss | Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mrs Perry
Mr Price
Ms Saliba
Mr Scully
Mr W. D. Smith
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whelan
Mr Woods
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Stewart
Mr Thompson |
[Noes, 33
Mr Armstrong
Mr Collins
Mr Debnam
Mr George
Mr Glachan
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson
Mr Humpherson
Dr Kernohan
Mr Kerr
Mr Maguire | Mr Merton
Mr O'Doherty
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Oakeshott
Mr D. L. Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Richardson
Mr Rozzoli
Ms Seaton
Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris | Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Webb
Mr Windsor
Tellers,
Mr Fraser
Mr R. H. L. Smith |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.
Last modified 31/03/2009 15:47:19 : Update this page