JACKSON, Ms Ann Maree, Spokesperson, Australian Aviation Ground Handlers Industry Alliance [by video link]

RICHARDSON, Mr Stuart, Spokesperson, Australian Aviation Ground Handlers Industry Alliance [by video link]

Committee met at 09:30

ACTING CHAIR ( Senator McDonald ): I declare open this public hearing of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. The committee is hearing evidence for its inquiry into the future of Australia's aviation sector in the context of COVID-19 and conditions post pandemic. I welcome you all here today. This is a public hearing, and a Hansard transcript of the proceedings is being made. Before the committee starts taking evidence, I remind all witnesses that in giving evidence they are protected by parliamentary privilege. It is unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to a committee, and such action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt. It is also a contempt to give false or misleading evidence to a committee.

The committee prefers all evidence to be given in public, but under the Senate's resolution witnesses have the right to request to be heard in private session. It is important that witnesses give the committee notice if they intend to ask to give evidence in camera. If a witness objects to answering a question, the witness should state the ground upon which the objection is taken, and the committee will determine whether it will insist on an answer, having regard to the ground that is claimed. If the committee determines to insist on an answer, a witness may request that the answer be given in camera. Such request may, of course, also be made at any other time.

The Senate has resolved that an officer of a department of the Commonwealth shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of the officer to superior officers or to a minister. This resolution prohibits only questions asking for opinions on matters of policy and does not preclude questions asking for explanations of policy or factual questions about when and how policies were adopted. I particularly draw the attention of witnesses to an order of the Senate of 13 May 2009 specifying the process by which a claim of public interest immunity should be raised.

The extract read as follows—

Public interest immunity claims

That the Senate—

(a) notes that ministers and officers have continued to refuse to provide information to Senate committees without properly raising claims of public interest immunity as required by past resolutions of the Senate;

(b) reaffirms the principles of past resolutions of the Senate by this order, to provide ministers and officers with guidance as to the proper process for raising public interest immunity claims and to consolidate those past resolutions of the Senate;

(c) orders that the following operate as an order of continuing effect:

(1) If:

(a) a Senate committee, or a senator in the course of proceedings of a committee, requests information or a document from a Commonwealth department or agency; and

(b) an officer of the department or agency to whom the request is directed believes that it may not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the officer shall state to the committee the ground on which the officer believes that it may not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, and specify the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document.

(2) If, after receiving the officer's statement under paragraph (1), the committee or the senator requests the officer to refer the question of the disclosure of the information or document to a responsible minister, the officer shall refer that question to the minister.

(3) If a minister, on a reference by an officer under paragraph (2), concludes that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the minister shall provide to the committee a statement of the ground for that conclusion, specifying the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document.

(4) A minister, in a statement under paragraph (3), shall indicate whether the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document to the committee could result only from the publication of the information or document by the committee, or could result, equally or in part, from the disclosure of the information or document to the committee as in camera evidence.

(5) If, after considering a statement by a minister provided under paragraph (3), the committee concludes that the statement does not sufficiently justify the withholding of the information or document from the committee, the committee shall report the matter to the Senate.

(6) A decision by a committee not to report a matter to the Senate under paragraph (5) does not prevent a senator from raising the matter in the Senate in accordance with other procedures of the Senate.

(7) A statement that information or a document is not published, or is confidential, or consists of advice to, or internal deliberations of, government, in the absence of specification of the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document, is not a statement that meets the requirements of paragraph (1) or (4).

(8) If a minister concludes that a statement under paragraph (3) should more appropriately be made by the head of an agency, by reason of the independence of that agency from ministerial direction or control, the minister shall inform the committee of that conclusion and the reason for that conclusion, and shall refer the matter to the head of the agency, who shall then be required to provide a statement in accordance with paragraph (3).

(d) requires the Procedure Committee to review the operation of this order and report to the Senate by 20 August 2009.

(13 May 2009 J.1941)

(Extract, Senate Standing Orders)

ACTING CHAIR: Witnesses are specifically reminded that a statement that information or a document is confidential or consists of advice to government is not a statement that meets the requirements of the 2009 order. Instead, witnesses are required to provide some specific indication of the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or the document. If you agree to provide an answer to a question taken on notice during the hearing, please note that answers are due by close of business on Monday 20 September.

I now welcome representatives from the Australian Aviation Ground Handlers Industry Alliance via videoconference. Do you wish to make an opening statement?

Ms Jackson : Yes, we do. We have a prepared statement that we'd like to deliver, thank you. We appreciate the invitation to speak at this Senate hearing this morning. We are here to warn that hundreds of airline flights will be grounded this summer because thousands of critical aviation ground operations workers are leaving the industry, as they have been excluded from the Australian government's support package for the rest of the sector. This will have an enormous effect on jobs, business confidence and consumer confidence at precisely the time the Australian economy should be recovering from the COVID pandemic as state and international border restrictions lift.

We would like to make three major points. Firstly, aviation is structured into three key areas: (1) airlines; (2) airports; and (3) ground operations, which are performed by specialist outsourced companies such as ours. Aircraft cannot fly without all three. Aviation ground operations workers perform up to 15 key functions at airports, including: aircraft safety inspections before take-off; taxiing aircraft onto runways; ensuring that baggage and cargo are safely balanced in aircraft holds; communicating with aircraft control towers; managing all aircraft movement on the ground; aircraft cleaning; driving passenger buses across tarmacs; in-flight catering; baggage and cargo handling; and, importantly, security assessment of passengers at check-in.

The second point we'd like to make is: last month the Australian government announced a $750-a-week support package designed to protect local aviation jobs and ensure these skilled workers are available when normal flight schedules resume in the coming months. However, specialist aviation ground operations workers have been denied support; only airline staff are eligible. Without this support, a large proportion of the aviation ground operations workforce have sought more financially secure work outside the aviation industry. It will take us six months to recruit, train and accredit new staff to federal government standards before ground operations can resume. Without aviation ground operations workers, planes cannot fly.

The unintended consequence of the wordy policy initiative has a national effect. Airlines could be grounded in November, December, January and February, right when the country opens up. Madam Acting Chair, you will fully understand the impact of tourism in your region and across Queensland. The Prime Minister states our pathway for economic recovery is vaccination. However, right when the country is vaccinated and opening back up, aircraft will be grounded, as aviation ground operations workers will not be available. Without aviation ground operations workers, planes cannot fly.

Our final point is that the solution is simple: extend the $750 per week available to airline staff to include the ground operations sector, and invest $69 million now to ensure ground operations workers stay connected at a time when Australia's economy is opening up. The impact to the $1.4 trillion economy is the loss of billions and billions of dollars in economic activity. The Australian Aviation Ground Handlers Industry Alliance wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Barnaby Joyce MP, on 3 August, and we are still waiting on a reply. Copies of our letter and press releases have been supplied to all senators. Thank you for your time, and we're open to taking questions.

ACTING CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Senator SHELDON: I welcome everybody this morning; thank you for joining us. The alliance has been very vocal about retaining domestic airline capability payments, which only provide payments for direct airline employees. Is it true that anyone working for a third-party service provider such as yourselves is excluded? If so, how many workers around Australia have been excluded from the program?

Mr Richardson : Approximately 9,800 specialist aviation ground handler workers are in Australia, and all ground handling workers have been excluded from the federal government funding.

Senator SHELDON: What happens to those workers who have been left out of government support, and how many people are currently stood down or redundant who could receive those payments? It's not quite clear.

Mr Richardson : I haven't got a full figure. We believe it's in the realm of 6,000 that are currently stood down. Most of those are not receiving any funding because they're not in declared disaster zones. That includes the states of Tasmania and Queensland, the territories of the Northern Territory and the ACT, and also the states of South Australia and Western Australia; no-one is receiving any funding whatsoever in those states and territories outside of the COVID disaster zones. Of those members that are currently stood down in the aviation ground handling industry, I would have to say—and I'm only hazarding a guess here—that 3,000 to 4,000 are not receiving any funding whatsoever.

Senator SHELDON: What do you think the consequences will be? I've seen that you've highlighted—thank you, Ms Jackson—the likelihood of airlines being grounded in November, December, January and February, right when the country opens up. In particular, could you outline the effect on regional Australia and then the potential effect on the cities?

Ms Jackson : Certainly. In regional Australia, outsourced ground handling is 100 per cent for both check-in and baggage handling. What we're seeing is that most of our staff have sought secondary employment simply to be able to pay bills and to put food on the table. Our concern is that, when the country starts to open up and flying resumes, those staff may not come back to us, because that secondary employment is a little bit more stable than aviation is at the moment, and therefore we will have to recruit new staff, and that lead-in time will take us six months. The time for recruitment, training and then accreditation is quite lengthy. For safety reasons, we wouldn't expect just to employ new staff off the street and have them in front of aircraft within a four- to six-week period. There's a lot of training and a lot of compliance. For safety, we just wouldn't do that. So the likelihood of aircraft being grounded because we simply don't have the staff is very real.

Senator SHELDON: Could you just describe to me the training and compliance that people need to do as a matter of regulation, as well as good performance?

Ms Jackson : Yes, I certainly can. It's quite in-depth. If somebody is what we call brand-new [inaudible] we obviously put them in less safety-sensitive roles, until they can gain some experience. From a baggage-handling point of view, that might entail being in a baggage room and accepting and sorting baggage. As experience levels grow, they then move up the ranks and start to learn to do driving on tarmac. They might then start to learn to complete loading aircraft. A good six months in, that's when responsibility starts to sit with the new recruit for learning weight and balance of aircraft and being a leading hand, for instance. That all depends on the ability to learn. From a check-in point of view, there is approximately six weeks worth of compliance—security compliance, passenger acceptance and, of course, customer service—before accreditation, to be able to process a passenger onto a flight. That person will be buddied for six weeks with another experienced person before they're allowed to work on their own behind the check-in counter. Then they wouldn't be experienced enough to be in a supervisory role or a leading hand role for a good six months. So, for instance, if in a regional setting we have all our staff not return to us, you can see that there is a long pathway and a long lead-in time for recruitment, training and then accreditation to be able to turn aircraft around.

Senator SHELDON: As to the security aspect of the training, you mentioned passenger acceptance as one example. Is that security training a requirement under the act? It would seem logical to me that we're trying to make sure that either terrorists or people who are unbalanced aren't turning around and putting our aviation industry at risk.

Ms Jackson : That's exactly right. Of course, there are checks and balances for any new recruit to be able to apply and be accepted under the aviation security identification program. Once a new recruit is accepted under that program, there are terms and conditions that, to remain employed, they must abide by under Australian regulation. Then, on top of that, there is training. You're quite right: in terms of frontline security assessment of passengers, it's crucial and part of quite rigorous training around acceptance of passengers. There are certain questions that we are required, under the regulations, to ask every passenger. Then, if there is a concern from any one of our staff members, in terms of perhaps an unstable person at check-in, there's certainly a pathway to identify that person. Training is quite comprehensive in terms of next steps on the day.

Senator SHELDON: The evidence you have just given is important evidence. It seems, to me, to be quite disturbing that we have already had incidents of people within Australia trying to take devices onto airlines, which were picked up by check-in staff and security workers. Is that a real threat? Do you think it's a real possibility, if we don't have the trained staff in place?

Ms Jackson : I think that is an ongoing threat. I think it's a threat regionally, it's a threat in the capital cities and it's something that's ever present. Whether we're in the midst of a pandemic or whether we have a downturn in flying, that's there all the time. It's important that we don't take our eye off the ball in terms of that, but it's certainly a threat all the time.

Senator SHELDON: The current minister for transport is Barnaby Joyce. His regional electorate includes airports in Tamworth, Armidale and elsewhere. We're going to hear from the Wagga Wagga council later today. Does the decision to exclude outsourced workers particularly impact workers at regional airports like Tamworth, Armidale and Wagga Wagga?

Mr Richardson : I'll answer this one. We are the ground handling company that looks after the Wagga Wagga airport staff and we would be [inaudible] the week down to six. That impacts not just our staff but the staff of the airport itself. The same is happening for Tamworth and Armidale, and [inaudible] down to four. Effectively, the disengagement we are seeing as company directors [inaudible] and our trainers are leaving the business and our supervisors are leaving the business, and that becomes the issue [inaudible] staff members that understand the security implications for airports. It's not just ground handlers [inaudible] staff disengagement because they cannot keep the staff members. So the security of Australia airports is [inaudible] and I don't want to bring that up lightly but that's what our staff members are trained to actually detect [inaudible] see is we will not have the trained staff there if there's no current engagement of [inaudible] all parts of the industry that are leaving and disengaging [inaudible] We can't send trainers across borders. We cannot [inaudible] because we can't move our trainers to where they need to go. So I think the security aspect really needs to be looked at in gauging these experienced staff members.

Senator SHELDON: I have some other questions if we've got time.

Senator McCARTHY: Good morning to our participants today. I just wanted to ask some specific questions in relation to the Northern Territory, if I could. I'm not sure whether that's directly to you, Ms Jackson, or not. I want to ask what particular aspects we have in the Northern Territory that are of concern to you, in terms of the roles for ground handlers here.

Ms Jackson : I don't think there's anything in the Northern Territory that is different to any other state. What we're seeing is just the fact that staff are leaving us in droves. There is a massive amount of disengagement around staying in aviation, because it's so unstable, with borders opening and closing. The pathway is vaccination, which is terrific. However, unless borders are opened, aircraft won't fly, and until we get some stable flying in aviation it's going to be really difficult for us to retain our staff. We will be able to retain them if we are granted the $750 a week that's available from the federal government to airline staff. But, given that we're third-party suppliers to the airlines, we've been excluded from that funding to the airlines. Therefore, our staff have to leave us to go and pay the mortgage, put food on the table and take care of their children. That is our difficulty at the moment. We want to keep them connected. There are only so many Zooms and phone calls that we can make and so much trying to encourage staff to stay that we can do. Unless we're able to retain them and keep them connected with some type of funding, and government funding, then it's going to be very difficult for us. Therefore, we're warning that flights will be grounded and we won't have the staff to turn them around and get aircraft off the ground in the coming months, right when the country will be opening up.

Senator McCARTHY: We've got the aircraft storage area in Alice Springs. Is there anything the alliance can tell us about that storage capacity? Is there anything different with that? We're obviously going to be hearing from them throughout this inquiry too, so I just wonder whether there is anything there that you might want to share with us.

Mr Richardson : I'm not really across the aircraft storage, and I'm not quite sure whether Ann Maree is either [inaudible]. When those aircraft depart, they would have to be looked at by the engineering department, and they would be flying out empty. I believe that the complexity of that issue is not quite the same as what we're talking about, only because those aircraft will then go to where they are required to start their operation. They will have to be looked at by engineers, but engineers have to be brought into the Northern Territory to actually do those aircraft checks, so, again, there will cross-border problems, and the engagement of aircraft engineers will be paramount to make sure that they can depart.

Senator McCARTHY: They were the two questions that I had, Chair, so I'm happy to defer to Senator Sheldon.

ACTING CHAIR: Thanks, Senator McCarthy. I have some questions as well. I want to ask you about the reopening. You've possibly read submissions from the other people who've provided submissions to the hearing. I was interested to read some of the data from the surveys around vaccinations from the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and from the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association. I want to ask you whether you, as an organisation, have a policy on how you are approaching vaccinations in order to provide a safe environment. I understand everybody's pushing to have customers vaccinated. Do you have a policy on vaccination for your ground crew workers?

Ms Jackson : I'm happy to answer that. We have currently drafted a policy within our organisation around mandatory vaccination. We had a review of the policies that Qantas and Virgin have recently released and we've also taken a survey within our workforce just to understand how the workforce is feeling in terms of the word 'mandatory'. However, it is our view that, with what we received in the responses to our survey, most of our employees want to have mandatory vaccination within our business. So we've taken the view: let's talk to our people. Everyone wants to get back to work. Everyone wants to see aircraft flying again. If that means that I can be employed as a completely vaccinated employee, then I'm willing to do that, and that's really the response. We'll take that advice. We have drafted a [inaudible] for comment, and we will head down the mandatory vaccination line.

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Sheldon was asking earlier about the number of staff across Australia who were grounded. It is the reality, isn't it, that Sydney airport is such a hub for flights and airlines and, with New South Wales closed as a hotspot, it's made it very difficult for the rest of the nation—even for states that aren't closed, like Queensland, where I am, or WA—to get people flying again. Of course, there's so much hesitancy now; people don't want to cross borders unnecessarily, because they're worried about getting trapped on the other side. Do you have views on how that is going to unfold? The hesitancy around travel is now a very real issue, isn't it?

Mr Richardson : It is a real issue. The government have done a wonderful job by looking after the [inaudible] with pilots and with flight attendants. That's pretty much what we're talking to you guys about today: it's all well and good to look after 50 per cent of the operational crew, but aircraft can't fly without the ground staff as well. We can't put passengers, baggage and cargo on planes. The issue that we're talking about is that the pilots and the flight attendants are covered under this government grant but the ground staff are not, and that's where the opening up of the aviation industry, when we do get to 80 per cent—which we are all aiming for and looking for—is going to be really difficult.

As you said, Sydney airport has been decimated, and, anecdotally, Gold Coast airport didn't have any flights last Tuesday or Wednesday, two days in a row. I think it's the sixth-busiest airport in Australia, and there was not one regulated passenger transport aircraft the other day. It's a real issue across the board. We all want borders to open. We all want to be able to go and visit our family and friends and our business colleagues, and that's the biggest issue that we can see across the board, come Christmas. Prime Minister Scott Morrison mentioned in the paper over the weekend [inaudible] that are in WA. To do that we need aircraft to fly, and that's what the real [inaudible]. The ground handlers will not be ready until February.

ACTING CHAIR: Given the flights have scaled down so much and will take time to scale, and given the workforce shortage in every industry right across Australia, what is a reasonable pathway for government to support a scaled-down part of the industry as opposed to every ground crew worker? Do you have views on what that would look like?

Ms Jackson : If I'm hearing you right, you mean if there was scaled-down support for current workers?

ACTING CHAIR: Yes. Obviously, we'd love to think that we'll go back to 100 per cent of flights as soon as the borders reopen, but it feels to me like that won't be the case. What would be reasonable to be asking government to support in terms of ground crew, particularly given that there is so much work available in other industries? I appreciate what you said about training and security and all of those things. I'm not lacking an understanding of the issues that you've raised.

Ms Jackson : I think what we've proposed is really what we're thinking will allow us to keep current staff, who have lots of experience, who are already trained and who have lots of experience with security around aircraft loading issues and all the things we mentioned. If we could keep them connected and stop them from having to go and look for work in other industries, by being able to provide them with $750 or some portion of payment to keep food on the table, then we don't have this really long pathway in terms of all our training and accreditation. We could open up as soon as next week if all the flights came back, if we could keep our current staff connected to us, and that's the key.

When we had JobKeeper 12 months ago, we were able to pass on that funding from government to the staff to keep them connected to us. At the moment, we don't have that funding, because they're not airline staff; they're third-party contractors. By not being able to keep them connected to us by providing $750 a week, we're losing them, and we'll have to start from square one again. I think that is really the key for us. If we can keep them connected to us so we don't have to find new staff and retrain them, that will give us the benefit of being able to, as I say, start operations as soon as next week.

ACTING CHAIR: It is a real challenge, isn't it? I have every industry, regionally, screaming out for workforce. I guess the very happy situation is that at least there are other jobs for people and that it is not the desperate situation of very high unemployment at the same time. I thank you very much for your considered submission and your time this morning. Please go with the committee's thanks.