Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest Qantas Qantas The Hon. J.E. HANSON Legislative Council The Hon. J.E. HANSON (15:39): There is a widely known, modern philosopher-poet by the name of Justin Bieber, and he asked somewhat recently, 'Is it too late now to say sorry?' The Hon. I.K. Hunter Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Never heard of him. The Hon. J.E. HANSON Legislative Council The Hon. J.E. HANSON: As the Hon. Mr Hunter points out, he has never heard of him. It might be too late to say sorry, but we will get to that. As observed by another slightly earlier philosopher-poet that I am sure the Hon. Mr Hunter will be aware of, Sir Elton John, 'Sorry seems to be the hardest word to say.' What am I talking about? I am glad you asked, the Hon. Mr Hunter. This week we saw something pretty huge, record breaking actually, a national first of sorts, if you care about those sorts of things. We saw the biggest breach of workplace law ever in the 120 years of us bothering to keep such laws—$90 million, a record penalty against one employer. Last year, we also saw compensation awarded to 1,800 employees sacked illegally by that same employer—a hefty sum of $120 million. You add the two together and it is close to a quarter of a billion dollars in penalty against the company that for most our childhoods, certainly mine, had a pretty special place in our hearts and in our nation, a source of pride for many. I trust most members right now would have clocked that I am talking about Qantas. With a penalty like a quarter of a billion dollars, it is not a question really of asking what someone did wrong, but rather whether they did a single thing right. In a Federal Court judgement given recently by Justice Lee that is frankly laden with quotable quotes, I really have to take us to a couple here: We are still looking through a glass darkly… leaves me with a sense of disquiet and uncertainty as to precisely what went on within the upper echelons of Qantas leading up to the outsourcing decision. Further: It is one thing for the 'Qantas News Room' to issue press releases by a CEO saying sorry; it is quite another for written assertions of contrition, recognition of wrong and cultural change to be tested in a Court room… And: If any further evidence was needed as to the unrelenting and aggressive litigation strategy adopted in this case by Qantas, it is provided by this effort directed to denying any compensation whatsoever to those in respect of whom Qantas was publicly professing regret for their misfortune… 'Disquiet', 'uncertainty', 'unrelenting', 'aggressive'—not my words, these are the words of the Federal Court. I have said before in this place that unlawful workplace behaviour is not a business model; it is just unlawful, for a government, for companies, for the individual. Financial motives are no defence against breaking the law. It seems here that, after a quarter of a billion dollars in penalty has been handed down by a judge who questions the motives and the sincerity of a company that he was penalising, what left is there to say? Firstly, let's give a shout-out to the mighty Transport Workers' Union. What a victory for that union and its members! Once the dust is settled on what it all means, it is worth asking the question that Mr Bieber, Sir Elton John and Justice Lee all occupied themselves with. In this nation where we have seen some of our largest employers engaging in wage theft, in this nation where legislation has been required to step in to help no less than one in three Australian workers subject to insecure work, and in a nation where 39 per cent of Australians—that is about 5.7 million workers—report being burnt out at work in a national poll conducted by the ACTU not less than four weeks ago, when will corporate Australia stop paying fines and start paying attention? When will they start paying attention to the effect that they are having on our nation? Why is it that sorry, an actual genuine sorry, seems to be the hardest word to say? If breaking the law really is cheaper than adhering to the law, as we have seen reported in this case, which, just quietly, is an absolutely extraordinary proposition, then how high do the penalties have to be before that is no longer the case?