KAINE, Mr Michael, National Secretary, Transport Workers Union of Australia [by video link]

ACTING CHAIR: Welcome. I invite you to make a brief opening statement before the committee asks questions. Do you wish to make an opening statement?

Mr Kaine : I will make a brief statement. Since the last time we were before the committee, there have been some significant events which I'm more than happy to take questions on in relation to detail. A couple of those important matters include the decision of the Federal Court in the Qantas case. When we were last before you we had a variety of workers provide evidence—including evidence from Damian, who has given to the committee evidence about the people that he represents, marriages breaking down, the mental health stress and the financial stresses as a result of the outsourcing decision of Qantas, despite them being in receipt of hundreds of millions of dollars in JobKeeper payments which were designed to keep workers connected with their employer. That decision came down at the end of last month. The Federal Court found that Qantas had acted illegally in outsourcing those workers. We are now in a position, unfortunately, where Qantas has indicated it will appeal that decision.

To the best of our calculations we understand that, over the course of now weeks of hearings, on each and every day of those hearings Qantas has spent around $40,000 to $55,000 on those legal proceedings. This is a company that's been in receipt of approximately $2 billion worth of community support during the course of the virus. We have seen nothing from the federal government about this case, this finding of illegality. It is incredibly disappointing, and it's a real note of caution to all of us, particularly for those workers, because we're now in a situation in aviation where we are facing a skills drain as a result of more recent decisions and omissions in policy that could well cause a situation where aviation is not ready to get back up and running again.

I will leave it at those thoughts. Suffice to say, I have some information to convey to the committee about our concerns with the current status of support for aviation. I'm happy to run through that now, but perhaps I can hand back to you to go to questions and that might come out in the course of questioning.

ACTING CHAIR: Thank you.

Senator SHELDON: You made the point in your opening submission, Mr Kaine, regarding whether the airline industry will be ready, up and running when the uptake comes—when we open our borders up both domestically and internationally. The Australian Aviation Ground Handlers Industry Alliance said to us this morning that airlines could be grounded in November, December, January and February, right when the country needs to open up. Do you think that grounding is a real possibility?

Mr Kaine : Unfortunately, we think it is a very real possibility. When this most recent package was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, he said that it was crucial to keep sovereign capacity, that it was crucial that as soon as the economy opens up this sector of the economy is up and running. But the package that was released does not live up to that ambition. In fact, it is a very real possibility that the entire industry could be unable to work, could in fact be grounded, because there is now a significant—'leakage' is not the right word; I would say 'torrent'—torrent of exiting of skills from those fundamental job functions at an airport that have not been supported through the package. In particular, we talk there about ground handlers, caterers—those below-wing functions that were mysteriously omitted from the government's aviation package. The retaining domestic airline capacity package of $130 million applied to above-the-wing operations initially, and then it was adjusted to say 'all workers in airlines'.

I've just mentioned the fact that Qantas illegally outsourced all of its ground handling work, and then, mysteriously, we had all of ground handling being omitted from this government package. It's not the first time government policy seems to have aligned with Qantas' wishes; it happened back in March, when the airline came out and spoke about doing quite well domestically—COVID was a little bit at bay at that point in time and their domestic operation was fine—but said they were going to need support for their international arm, and the very next day there was the announcement of an international aviation support package of $200 million. That substantively supported only Qantas, because only Qantas is presently undertaking—or will undertake upon reopening—international operations. Virgin has closed down its international arm for the time being. Rex is not flying internationally. So all that support funnelled into Qantas.

What we have here is a blinkered set of policies that is abandoning a critical part of aviation. Our information from on the ground, from these ground handling companies and from our members, is that these companies, because they are not able to access that support, are now having to let workers go and let those skills go with them. You need the capacity to skill up and have a skilled workforce ready, willing and able. It's not to the point that there is an aviation accreditation support program that is said to provide training assistance to ground handling companies, because if you don't have the capacity to keep them on the books then that training is no good for you at all.

So there's a massive gap in this package. It's going to result, and is already resulting, in a leakage of skills away from this industry. People cannot be stood down indefinitely without pay. They won't be able to support their families and so they'll leave. Four companies will have to make those positions redundant. That means we're in the position of having a massive gap in our aviation capacity. Indeed, it could well lead to the situation where our aviation capacity is grounded for period of time when we need it the most.

Senator SHELDON: We have the situation where Qantas outsourced 2,000 ground-handling workers' jobs. Now there has been a Federal Court decision requiring them to re-employ those 2,000. Do you think that there's an irony there, or is there a disappointment, in the fact that when the 2,000 were outsourced they weren't getting financial support, but now that the Federal Court has ruled they should be insourced they'll now receive a support package? Is there a degree of irony in all that?

Mr Kaine : There is a degree of irony, and there's also a degree of concern about the sequence of events here. We know from court documents that Qantas management had prepared in great detail for a present concern that they had about the outsourcing decision, and that was that the federal government would come out swinging against it. That's right: they feared that the federal government would come out swinging against it. Why? Because Qantas had identified that outsourcing these workers was contrary to the spirit of the JobKeeper scheme. The spirit of the JobKeeper scheme, of course, was that workers would remain attached to their jobs for the pandemic. That was the reason they were in receipt of those JobKeeper payments.

Of course, when the outsourcing decision was made Qantas, I guess, breathed a sigh of relief, because you could have heard a pin drop from the federal government. They said nothing and, to the extent that they did say something, they simply said, 'Well, this is the inevitable consequence of COVID.' It wasn't COVID at all; the Federal Court has blown the lid on that mythology. The reason those workers were outsourced was because they were a strong collective who had bargained for and achieved good terms and conditions and good job security, and who were ready, willing and able to bargain again in 2021—and, if necessary, exercise their industrial rights to take strike action in support. The Federal Court found that it was an illegal reason—and, indeed, it is an illegal reason under our laws—and Qantas has now been ordered to redress that and there are court proceedings now related to the reinstatement of these workers.

That's where we are: we have a pod of workers pushed away, outside this company; an aviation package which has been brought in to support workers not in that category, that is, only workers directly engaged by airlines—surprise, surprise!; and now we have an order for those workers to be re-engaged, which means they would receive this package. So this is the dog's breakfast which comes when you put policy in place selectively—policy which we say is mysteriously aligned with the desires, commercial aspirations and musings of Qantas.

Senator SHELDON: Thank you for that. Regarding outsourcing which already took place before the pandemic: do you think that post pandemic, which is one of the issues we're considering in the committee, we should be guiding the aviation sector in a different direction?

Mr Kaine : Absolutely. I think that there are examples of companies which understand better the incredible value and discretionary effort they get from workers when they are directly connected with their company. There's the pride that they get from being directly engaged by the label that they work for.

An example of that is Virgin, which has decided to maintain at current levels the insourced portion of their workforce—and not only that, but to look for opportunities to further insource those very small portions that have been outsourced. So this is important, and I think what we would all understand here—and, Senators, you'd be very well placed to understand it, with the work you've been doing over the course of COVID—is that there is a fragility that has been exposed by COVID when work is contracted away from an employer, one or two steps. Once that occurs, workers are left in less secure arrangements. They are subject to casualisation, part-time arrangements and terms and conditions which are less than ideal—and sometimes illegal, as has been found in the case of Swissport. They're a very deliberately fragmented workforce, so that they can't get together collectively and activate the industrial rights that have brought workers so far in our country over so many decades. And of course the opposite is true. When you have a workforce that is engaged internally for a long period of time, then generally they have good terms and conditions; they have good job security; they put incredible discretionary effort in for the benefit of the company, because those workers are often there for 10, 15 or 20 times more than the average manager is at those operations, and they're the ones that build the company and maintain that culture and structure over time. It's better for our economy, it's better for those workers and it's better for the company, in terms of their service levels and their reputation. So I think COVID has taught us a lot. I think the Federal Court taught us a lot last month when they said: 'You are a company that has managerial prerogative, but you can't breach the law and if you do act illegally then we're going to call you out.'

Senator SHELDON: Thanks, Mr Kaine. I just want to go to this question that has been raised. The Aviation Ground Handlers Industry Alliance and the ASU have given us evidence that theirs and the concerns raised by the Tourism and Transport Forum don't appear to be being properly considered by the government, including correspondence that was sent on 5 August from the ground handlers industry alliance. What has been your experience with the government's consultation on the existing scheme in particular?

Mr Kaine : I think this is another area in COVID that we really need to learn from. The consultation has been non-existent with workers throughout COVID from this federal government, unfortunately, and particularly in relation to these areas. These are areas where workforces, and, dare I say it, trade unions, have a lot to offer, because of their understanding of and their embeddedness—if there is such a word—in the sectors that the government is making critical policy decisions about. So there's no consultation ahead of these snap decisions, and that is very much to the detriment of the sector. But, even when we've raised the lack of consultation and put forward positive and productive suggestions—and the Transport Workers Union has written on several occasions to key ministers and to the Prime Minister, setting out our concerns about these gaps and the potential consequences that I've outlined to you, Senator Sheldon, and some of the pathways forward to deal with them—there's been a deafening silence. Very rarely, in return there'll be a perfunctory letter saying, 'Here are all the packages we put in place,' and I think I've taken you through three of them already that actually demonstrate the gap, as opposed to suggesting the solution, and they don't do anything about addressing the core concerns here.

What is really needed of course is something that is going to support the entirety of the aviation sector, and supporting the entirety of the aviation sector means supporting all workers to remain connected with their jobs so that their skills are retained, so that companies have the confidence that they can march into the next week without worrying about whether they can actually service the industry into the future. At the moment, we don't have any of that certainty, and the government, unfortunately, evidently to us—it's not a political statement; it's a statement that flows from experience—is not listening and is not responding.

Senator SHELDON: Thanks, Mr Kaine. You've given us evidence this morning regarding the potential for airlines to be grounded because of this lack of take-up, including lack of take-up of money being paid to companies to which work is being outsourced, to keep them retained. Are there concerns that skilled and experienced aviation workers who have left the sector due to a lack of support won't be coming back to the sector when they are needed to ramp up?

Mr Kaine : I think that's the precise concern. The overarching concern that we have here is that workers are leaving the industry permanently. Much as I hesitate to say this, you can understand that attitude, because they've been abandoned. Workers who are not directly engaged by airlines have been abandoned, and the companies that engage them have been abandoned. Some of those companies have a very poor track record, and some of those companies have a very good track record. That distinction has not been addressed. One might understand the government being discerning and saying, 'Look, for a company like Swissport, which has a casualisation rate of about 97 per cent, we're a bit reluctant to provide support there, because we think that the turnover at that company and the industrial and safety record of that company are so poor that they're not really deserving of that support.' But for a company like dnata, which is now owned overseas but is an Australian-born company with strong Australian management and a good commitment to secure, permanent jobs, you would think the government would say, 'We should be supporting a company like this.'

Rather than support dnata, of course, the government left dnata out of the original JobKeeper package because of a quirk of its ownership. It was nothing to do with the workers, who had been working for the company and paying their Australian taxes, in many cases, for decades. They were left abandoned there and now are left abandoned again by this gap in the policy that was recently announced. Of course, the reports we are getting are that that is leading the company to have to make very hard decisions about stand-downs without pay—in those circumstances, of course, workers will leave, because they have to look after their families—or redundancy, which leads to the same place. The notion that these workers would flood back in is fanciful. We need to save them right now, before they leave. We need to support them and support those good companies so that we're ready to rock and roll again. Otherwise, we will have a situation where Alan Joyce may have a multimillion-dollar campaign that people say brings a tear to their eye but where the tear that will be brought to the Australian community's eye will because they won't have an aviation industry at all, because it will be grounded for months for lack of skills.

Senator SHELDON: Thank you very much for that evidence. I will have some further questions if time permits.

ACTING CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Sheldon. Senator O'Neill, I see you've joined. Do you have questions for the Transport Workers Union?

Senator O'NEILL: Just one. One of the things that people have a heightened awareness of now is their health and wellbeing and how important it is in a public place for us to be aware of the connection that we have with one another. In terms of community confidence that would lead to the development of a robust tourism industry in Australia, and in terms of the general attitude of confidence in the health and wellbeing of people who choose to get on a plane and move around when we get our capacity to do that, what are the implications of the fallout of the COVID crisis so far for the aviation industry, and what are the particular pressure points in terms of coming back to safe, healthy travel? How critical is a stable workforce for that?

Mr Kaine : Sorry, Senator. I got most of your question, but it jumped out for a second. Could you repeat the last 10 seconds of the question?

Senator O'NEILL: It was about the confidence of the community to come back to being tourists—their ability to hop on a plane and feel confident that everything about their health and wellbeing is being given proper consideration by a stable and secure workforce.

Mr Kaine : Yes. At the moment, I think it follows from what I've said that we're actually in severe jeopardy of that not occurring. We say that there are some short-term matters and some long-term matters that need to be taken care of to ensure that [inaudible]. We need a national plan, really. That has been sorely missing. We've jumped from ad hoc policy announcement to ad hoc policy announcement, trying to bandaid over the gaps. It's been led, we think, by the commercial considerations of some of the large operators, especially Qantas, as opposed to taking a step back and thinking about what's required.

We need to maximise jobs that are secure. That is of critical importance. Secure jobs in any industry are important, but, when you're talking about aviation, there are no second chances at 30,000 feet. You need people to be there. You need people to be committed to their company, to be fully trained, to have the confidence that they have a job tomorrow, to not be under the thumb of management and to not be scared that their jobs are going to be contracted out the next day. And, while we're in COVID, we need strict conditions to apply to government funding to make sure that the funding is used for the intended purpose so that we don't have a situation where a company like Qantas can take hundreds of millions of dollars worth of JobKeeper, designed to keep workers connected with their task, and then illegally outsource thousands of them as a kind of community reward. That's outrageous.

Of course we need appropriate protocols for passengers and workers, and this would include, we think, not just a rightful focus on vaccination, making sure that there's access to vaccination and paid leave for vaccination; it also follows that there should be a preflight testing regime in place so that the general flying public can have confidence that everything is being done not only on vaccinations but also on making sure, to the extent possible, that those flying are not flying with the virus and transmitting it from A to B. They are important things to be done.

The more medium- to long-term things have been exposed in aviation. The public really needs to be moved away from this notion that whenever things are bad in aviation—and one thing you can be sure about with aviation is that there will be a black swan event. We don't know what it will be. Now we're in the mother of all black swan events, but we know that even when this virus passes there will be another event. It will be ash from a volcano. It will be—God forbid—a terrorist attack. It will be something of that nature that will affect aviation deeply, and we've got to get out of this cycle of the community funding the losses and then being hit by the situation where the company squirrels away the profits. We have to normalise. That means considering doing what many countries around the world have already done through this crisis, and that is taking a deeper public interest, including a financial interest, in our aviation companies so that the community can have more of a say about how it weathers the troughs and the peaks in aviation. That is going to be critical.

We also need some regulatory intervention. We need a standing tribunal or commission that can look at aviation and make sure that standards are kept and that each player in the aviation market is paying its fair share and pulling its own weight. That would resolve the dog-eat-dog attitude that exists at the moment, which is not instilling confidence in anyone and has been greatly exposed in aviation. So they are the short-term, medium-term and long-term strategies we think are needed to make a difference.

ACTING CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Kaine. I have been asking everyone giving evidence today what their sector's views are on vaccine passports and mandatory vaccinations. What are the TWU's views on how we move forward on that particular topic?

Mr Kaine : We think that maximising vaccination is clearly critical right across our community, and unions right across [inaudible] critical community value of maximising vaccination. We also know, of course, that vaccination against COVID is highly effective but not completely effective. People will still contract the disease, and they will still transmit the disease. Maximising vaccination means that you need to remove any barriers to vaccination. There has to be access to the vaccination. The vaccine has to exist—of course, doses have been an issue, though hopefully becoming less so—and you need to ensure that workers and families are not out of pocket for going and getting vaccinated. We need a national vaccination-leave approach to make sure we maximise that. There is, in aviation in particular but also across other industries, a very low level of vaccination hesitancy. That's not the issue here. The issue is access, and access has those two elements I mentioned—physically getting access and making sure people are not financially disadvantaged by taking the vaccination.

In conjunction with that, because of the important but partial effectiveness of vaccination, we also need appropriate testing regimes. For the Transport Workers Union, this is a critical point. In aviation that means you do have to have preflight/preshift testing, and we have to have funded rapid testing, whether it's antigen or PCR testing—whatever the expert say—so that we can maximise our insulation against the disease. Of course, in road transport we need to make sure that there's a testing regime in place that is flexible enough for our supply chains to keep moving and not to jeopardise the fatigue safety of workers by requiring them to wait for hours at stationary testing points. These are all critical matters. They're matters that we've already written to the Prime Minister about on two occasions, together with industry support. We've yet to hear back, and we're hopeful that we will hear back. We think they're the key elements for the future.

ACTING CHAIR: I'm watching the truck drivers with real concern. That's a premiers issue; you need to talk to them about what decisions they're making at borders. But, yes, I'm well aware that they're getting out of hours and having some real challenges with crossing borders, so any support you can give them will be terrific. Unfortunately, we are out of time, Mr Kaine. Thank you very much for the time you've taken to provide your submission and evidence today. Please go with the committee's thanks.