The humiliation of Qantas is now complete
Justice Lee did acknowledge the airline had – to a limited extent – held senior management such as Joyce responsible for their actions.
But there was little solace for the airline in his reference to an obscure 17th century French play he referenced in the judgement: 'It goes too far to conclude Qantas is now simply like Tartuffe; pleading virtue only when cornered and feigning contrition while harbouring no genuine regret. I do think persons of responsibility within Qantas do now have some genuine regrets, but this more likely reflects the damage this case has done to the company.'
The latest damage is easily judged by the fact that the $90 million fine was much closer to the $121 million requested by the Transport Workers' Union (TWU) than the $40 million baseline set by Qantas. It represents a humiliating rebuff of the airline's argument it had expressed remorse and undertaken significant culture change as a prevention measure.
Justice Lee took issue with two particular points of the Qantas PR campaign when it came to determining the airline's contrition – and the size of the penalty.
One was the recurring theme that it had sound commercial reasons to outsource its 1820 employees.
It 'overlooks the obvious reality that since man first started to engage in commercial activity, the motivation to engage in unlawful conduct in carrying out such activity can be accurately characterised as being predominantly a commercial one,' Justice Lee said.
The judgement may bring the fallout to a close for Qantas, but it raises the stakes for the rest of corporate Australia.
The other was the airline's unwillingness to acknowledge that the conduct was unlawful and accept responsibility for it.
Another issue that seemed to rankle Justice Lee was Qantas declining to make Hudson available as the obvious person who could provide direct and compelling evidence of the corporate change and contrition the airline has undergone.
Loading
After all, she was one of the most senior executives under Joyce and leads the airline now.
Instead, Qantas offered their HR boss Catherine Walsh, who joined the airline last year from PwC.
Was it a pragmatic cost of doing business for Qantas?
As Justice Lee's judgement said, it may have been an 'informed and deliberate' decision by the Qantas legal team given it would have been reasonable for Hudson to be asked about the extent of her knowledge of, and involvement in, the outsourcing decision.
Qantas, which made a $1.39 billion in underlying profit before tax for the December half year, may have preferred to pay a $121 million penalty than risk Hudson appearing before the court.
The judgement may bring the fallout to a close for Qantas, but it raises the stakes for the rest of corporate Australia with the awarding of at least $50 million of the penalty to the TWU for bringing the illegal conduct to light when no government body showed interest.
Justice Lee noted the payment would 'strongly incentivise' unions to bring prosecutions under the Fair Work Act against corporates with deep pockets – which is exactly what the big end of town fears.
But he also proved sceptical when it comes to relying on the union's discretion to decide how much of the $90 million penalty would be handed to the sacked workers.
Loading
Justice Lee said he would hold further hearings on how the remaining $40 million will be shared between the union and affected workers.
If the judgement raises questions about Hudson's cultural revolution at the airline, investors can at least take heart that Qantas chairman John Mullen is less than a year into his role.
Mullen is finally making his presence felt, with marketing guru Todd Sampson being shown the boardroom door this month. His departure should not be the last.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
9 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
I've changed my mind about red tape, but cutting it won't solve everything
Another favourite supposed productivity booster would be for the Albanese government to reverse the industrial relations changes it made in its first term, which were intended to shift the balance of bargaining power away from employers and towards employees. Business's third idea is for governments to cut back all the 'red tape' that has tied business up in knots and to improve planning and the approval of major projects. It's not hard to see how this would make businesspeople's lives a lot easier and add a bit to their profits. Loading But here's the thing: it's equally easy to see that reducing excessive regulation and speeding up the approval of major investment projects and even ordinary homes could indeed make a probably small but worthwhile improvement to the economy's productivity. Certainly, those hard-nosed folk at the Productivity Commission are convinced. In her speech on Monday, the commission's boss, Danielle Wood, gave some hair-raising examples of excessive regulatory requirements. One provider told the commission it is required to complete 15 separate accreditation processes across the health and social care services. Another said it was accountable to 350 pieces of legislation and regulations, and has a minimum of 16 program audits every three years – many of which require them to provide the same information over and over. Yet another service provider said the cost of repetitive audits and accreditation processes runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Loading Elsewhere, businesses complain of delays extending to years for the approval or rejection of major construction projects, and many months for ordinary homes. Now, I used to be sceptical of demands to get rid of red tape, fearing they were disguised demands by business fat cats to be able to damage the natural environment wherever they saw fit and build housing anywhere and everywhere. But the greater specificity of the latest proposals has convinced me there's a real problem that is indeed wasting a lot of the private sector's time and money. Part of the problem is government agencies responsible for protecting the environment, or occupational health and safety, or public safety who, in their zeal, set the highest standards without regard for all the other things we need to protect – including our standard of living. They're like the French teacher who wants their students to spend all their time preparing for their French test, at the expense of all the other subjects they're being tested on. But a further complication is overlap between our three levels of government. If businesses in particular fields are being regulated by federal, state and local government, with overlapping and conflicting regulations and separate forms to fill in, this is confusing as well as wasteful. Loading And then you've got the sad truth that government departments and agencies are constantly temped to abuse their power over the rest of us, and often do. We know how private monopolies commonly overcharge and give their customers poor service. They do this for no other reason than that they can. But the government is also a monopoly, and its departments and agencies are just as commonly able to abuse their power over us. They are the law, we can't take our business elsewhere, and if it suits them to wait many months for their approval to build something, that's your problem, not theirs. They save a little by employing too few workers to keep the approval process to time, and you bear the cost of the delay. The more you think about it, however, the more you realise that streamlining regulation, so that a better trade-off between the many conflicting objectives of government is achieved, and the many cases of overlap between the three levels of government, won't be easily or quickly done. Maybe it would take a royal commission, with a continuing monitoring authority, rather than a three-day roundtable.
The Age
9 minutes ago
- The Age
I've changed my mind about red tape, but cutting it won't solve everything
Another favourite supposed productivity booster would be for the Albanese government to reverse the industrial relations changes it made in its first term, which were intended to shift the balance of bargaining power away from employers and towards employees. Business's third idea is for governments to cut back all the 'red tape' that has tied business up in knots and to improve planning and the approval of major projects. It's not hard to see how this would make businesspeople's lives a lot easier and add a bit to their profits. Loading But here's the thing: it's equally easy to see that reducing excessive regulation and speeding up the approval of major investment projects and even ordinary homes could indeed make a probably small but worthwhile improvement to the economy's productivity. Certainly, those hard-nosed folk at the Productivity Commission are convinced. In her speech on Monday, the commission's boss, Danielle Wood, gave some hair-raising examples of excessive regulatory requirements. One provider told the commission it is required to complete 15 separate accreditation processes across the health and social care services. Another said it was accountable to 350 pieces of legislation and regulations, and has a minimum of 16 program audits every three years – many of which require them to provide the same information over and over. Yet another service provider said the cost of repetitive audits and accreditation processes runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Loading Elsewhere, businesses complain of delays extending to years for the approval or rejection of major construction projects, and many months for ordinary homes. Now, I used to be sceptical of demands to get rid of red tape, fearing they were disguised demands by business fat cats to be able to damage the natural environment wherever they saw fit and build housing anywhere and everywhere. But the greater specificity of the latest proposals has convinced me there's a real problem that is indeed wasting a lot of the private sector's time and money. Part of the problem is government agencies responsible for protecting the environment, or occupational health and safety, or public safety who, in their zeal, set the highest standards without regard for all the other things we need to protect – including our standard of living. They're like the French teacher who wants their students to spend all their time preparing for their French test, at the expense of all the other subjects they're being tested on. But a further complication is overlap between our three levels of government. If businesses in particular fields are being regulated by federal, state and local government, with overlapping and conflicting regulations and separate forms to fill in, this is confusing as well as wasteful. Loading And then you've got the sad truth that government departments and agencies are constantly temped to abuse their power over the rest of us, and often do. We know how private monopolies commonly overcharge and give their customers poor service. They do this for no other reason than that they can. But the government is also a monopoly, and its departments and agencies are just as commonly able to abuse their power over us. They are the law, we can't take our business elsewhere, and if it suits them to wait many months for their approval to build something, that's your problem, not theirs. They save a little by employing too few workers to keep the approval process to time, and you bear the cost of the delay. The more you think about it, however, the more you realise that streamlining regulation, so that a better trade-off between the many conflicting objectives of government is achieved, and the many cases of overlap between the three levels of government, won't be easily or quickly done. Maybe it would take a royal commission, with a continuing monitoring authority, rather than a three-day roundtable.
Sydney Morning Herald
11 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Roundtable should consider new carbon pricing scheme
With the government's economic roundtable now under way (' Federal government's productivity summit begins', August 19), it will hopefully be looking at raising the revenue to fund the transition to net zero. We know that nine months after the introduction of the carbon tax in 2012 our carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation fell to a 10-year low, while the ABS reported a 2.6 per cent growth in the economy over the two-year period. After the Abbott government replaced the tax with an Emissions Reduction Fund, emissions started growing again as before. Surely now is the time to reconsider the reintroduction of a carbon pricing scheme. We know it works. Peter Nash, Fairlight Tessa Forshaw, an Australian scientist from Harvard, hits the nail on the head with her dissection of what's missing from the productivity roundtable and what's holding Australia back. It's a risk-adverse mindset (' Australia can't fix productivity without confronting its innovation hesitation', August 19). Our scientists are first-class, but too often have to move to the US or the UK to capitalise on their ideas. And that mindset has a lot to do with politics. The Hawke/ Keating government was not afraid to take risks. Since then, the chaos in Canberra and the Coalition's lost decade have landed us where we are now. Our Labor government has a thumping majority but is afraid to do what obviously needs to be done – because of the way politics works in Canberra. Under these circumstances, how can the populace be anything other than risk-averse? If we can't fix our politics, how can anything else work properly? The ray of hope is that the vote for the major parties continues to fall. Gary Barnes, Mosman Another topic that deserves discussion at the productivity round table is the multi-billion dollar diesel fuel rebate. Our current system refunds mining companies $495 for every 1000 litres of diesel used off-road. The Safeguard Mechanism penalty, meant to encourage emissions reduction in heavy industries, then charges these industries $5 for the resulting pollution. This is clearly a ridiculous situation, subsiding both pollution and the lame status quo. The productivity roundtable should adopt the Grattan Institute's proposal to wind back this generous diesel rebate, apply an emissions charge instead, and begin the shift to road-user charging. Mark Wills, Northcote (Vic) Paul Keating once said Ross Gittins was the only economist worth listening to. Personally, I never miss his column. So where is his inclusion in this week's roundtable? Judy Nicholas, Kambah (ACT) Qantas pays the price It's encouraging that Justice Michael Lee has not only upheld workers' rights, but also chastised Qantas for its unconscionable behaviour in profiting from the misery of its workers (' Payday for union as Qantas fined $90 million ', August 19). Perhaps the tide has finally turned against the decade-long conservative free-for-all that elevated profit and unethical business practice above workers' rights and drove the imbalance between wage increases and soaring profits. I'd take issue, however, with the suggestion that unions mount 'frivolous' cases. Generally, when a case is brought, it is to pursue fair and proper treatment. Alison Stewart, Riverview Justice Lee's judgment against Qantas highlights the value of unions. With no government agencies prepared to take on the might of Qantas for its sacking of baggage handlers, the Transport Workers Union (TWU) stepped up all the way to the High Court and won. Former CEO Alan Joyce and his minions engaged in conduct that damaged, both personally and financially, thousands of employees who had given decades of honest and faithful service to Qantas. Who stepped in to seek compensation for these workers; the government? No, it was one of the much-maligned unions that conservatives and the Murdoch press demonise at every opportunity. As a long-term union member I always saw the value of fighting for the rights and entitlements of workers. I applaud the TWU and the entire union movement for their tireless (and undervalued) advocacy on behalf of all Australian workers. Stronger together forever. Tony Heathwood, Kiama Downs The Morrison government gave Qantas about $2.7 billion in assistance during COVID, for which the taxpayer received no equity and lost a mountain of luggage. Last October, the company was fined $100 million for selling tickets for flights it had already decided to cancel. Now they have been fined $90 million for illegally sacking workers. Furthermore, they have killed any aviation competition in the regions by destroying REX through cross-subsidising their routes. Put plainly, the Spirit of Australia has become the Spirit of Mistrust and Exploitation. Malcolm Freak, Armidale Justice Lee's findings against Qantas and its IR breaches should send a clear warning to the Coalition shadow bench should it seek to water down employees' rights and embolden big business to maximise profits at the expense of workers' hard-fought and won entitlements. Severino Milazzo, Maroubra Why is ex-Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce not asked to repay some of his massive golden handshake? It was surely his decision to sack staff. Richard Harman, Banora Point Taco Trump Peter Hartcher's reference to Donald Trump's 'snivelling display' at his meeting with Vladimir Putin has many echoes of then British PM Neville Chamberlain's grovelling 'pilgrimage' to meet Hitler in 1938 (' How Trump went from American eagle to cooing pigeon ', August 19). Not only did Chamberlain (and France) agree to hand over part of what was then Czechoslovakia to Germany without that country's knowledge or consent, but like Trump's spurious claims of a '10 out of 10' outcome for his Alaska meeting, Chamberlain returned to England waving a piece of paper which he claimed represented 'peace in our time'. It's truly depressing to see the leader of the country that played such an important role in saving the world from Nazi and Japanese domination behaving in such a craven and cowardly manner in the face of a tyrant like Putin. Martyn Yeomans, Sapphire Beach It is all very well for Peter Hartcher to attack Donald Trump for his vacillation and possible motives for his efforts to end Russia's war against Ukraine, but the unaddressed question that needs answering is whether the best, if not the only, way to end the war is for the Western democracies to briefly take up arms on the side of Ukraine in defence of the principles of national sovereignty and peaceful co-existence. Ross Drynan, Lindfield In his letter, Peter Thornton admires Donald Trump for meeting some of 'the worlds' nastier autocrats' (Letters, August 19). He misses the fact that Trump isn't being altruistic. Rather, he admires them and feels they share something that he doesn't with other leaders. This isn't something for which to offer kudos. Luke Crosthwaite, Surfers Paradise Netanyahu gone astray The current diplomatic spat between Israel and Australia has its origins in Benjamin Netanyahu's desperate fight for political and personal survival (' Wong rebukes Israel's move to cancel visas for Australian diplomats ', August 19). As Netanyahu has become progressively alienated from Israel's sensible centre, he has had to reach out to right-wing nutters like Simcha Rothman, who was denied a visa to Australia, to cobble together a governing coalition. A more moderate Israeli regime would have ended the Gaza conflict long ago. The surviving hostages would have been returned, thousands of Palestinians would still be alive and receiving food and medical services, and many Gazan buildings would still be standing. While extremists like Rothman remain in power, the war will continue and former allies such as Australia will cut more of their ties with Israel. If Netanyahu regards Australia's support for peace and humanity as antisemitic, it shows how far he has strayed from the mainstream of civilised behaviour. Mike Reddy, Vincentia Veteran Middle East peace negotiator (is that an oxymoron?) Aaron David Miller thinks Australia's move to recognise Palestine will only encourage Hamas to hold on (' Stance on Palestine has no impact ', August 19). Naturally, he's supported by the usual pro-Israeli lobbyists. Meanwhile, Egypt and Qatar have negotiated a ceasefire with Hamas, which plainly demonstrates the gulf between rhetoric and reality (' Hamas accepts Arab-mediated ceasefire deal ', August 19). Phil Bradshaw, Naremburn It isn't a surprise that US Middle East adviser Aaron David Miller would declare our stance on Palestine 'has no impact'. It's just another way of creating obstacles to action, like throwing about the term 'antisemitism' at any criticism of Israel and most importantly, the inexcusable actions of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. The global coverage of the Harbour Bridge march started more federal government action and caused more international consternation. It may be true that this is not having much impact 'on the ground', but I think the surest option now would be demanding the removal of Netanyahu from office. Enough is enough. Anthony Connolly, Beacon Hill Kean for change We owe a lot to Matt Kean for placing the NSW Liberal Party firmly in the climate action camp (' Balancing act: keeping parties cool on climate,' August 19). But with his departure from politics, the job of keeping the party there has been more difficult, given the 'climate wars' that are tearing the federal Coalition apart. In many ways, it's a pity he did not stay on to become opposition leader, but we can't blame him for eschewing this thankless job. He's right where the action is now, and we couldn't ask for a better, more qualified person to be chair of the Climate Change Authority. We should all wish him well. Ken Enderby, Concord Bridging transport gap Defecting from the inner west some years ago, the friends I left behind half jokingly called it a bridge too far, and time proved them right. Buses and trains, regular by day, after dark became scarce, unreliable or affected by dreaded trackwork, as if the city wilfully shut itself down. The metro has miraculously changed all that and made Sydney cosmopolitan (' How a year of metro has shaken up the way Sydney moves ', August 19). I now think nothing of seeing a show, and however late it finishes, a train will arrive within minutes, and I'll open my front door half an hour later. That type of service is no bridge at all. Peter Farmer, Northbridge Unloved tax Perhaps the best way to judge the potential effectiveness of tax changes to repair the budget bottom line is to look at voters' reactions (' Australians want Albanese to act to fix system – except for one tax,' August 19). The greater the effectiveness, the greater the opposition. The GST is a 'lovely tax' because it is paid continually by everyone, even those who reduce their income tax to zero through negative gearing or retirement with superannuation. No surprise that voters are opposed to an increase, despite it being one of the lowest in the world. There are parallels with the historic carbon tax – very effective in reducing emissions as it was paid by everyone, but tax-hating voters voted it down. It is almost surprising that there is more support for a change to negative gearing and capital gains discounts, however, the unfairness of these in favouring the well-off is a key factor. Geoff Harding, Chatswood Best defence After all the speculation about AUKUS, the expectation is that the agreement will be upheld after the Pentagon review by US defence official Elbridge Colby. But is it really in Australia's best interests? Our cities will still be wide open to attack by conventional naval and air forces, as well as by missiles, rockets and drones. Right now, a hostile navy could shell Sydney for half an hour and Australia would have to surrender in the absence of a missile defence system. And we can't count on the US coming in to bail us out. With the government splashing money on anything but defence, we need to spend the AUKUS money not on submarines, but on protecting our cities and deterring aggressors. Paul Everingham, Hamilton Improving lives Your article (' The 'miracle nation' at 60: How Singapore thrived against the odds ' August 11) relies heavily on longstanding detractors with well-worn criticisms to paint a skewed picture of Singapore. They claim that middle-class Singaporeans are 'truly squeezed' and that working-class citizens are 'worst affected by social inequality'. The facts say otherwise. The government heavily subsidises housing, healthcare and education, and provides additional support for those with less. Our progressive system of taxes and transfers has reduced both income and wealth inequalities, with the Gini coefficient, which measures income or wealth inequality, now at its lowest in almost two decades. Singaporeans continue to support the People's Action Party government because it has delivered results and improved lives, especially for the lower-income and broad middle. Anil Nayar, Singapore High Commissioner to Australia Vicious cycles A friend was walking home on the footpath of an inner Sydney street this week when a delivery e-bike slammed into him and knocked him to the ground. The rider flew off the bike onto his helmetless head and was taken to hospital unconscious. My friend sustained injuries to head, thigh, knee and hands. This street has a dedicated cycleway all the way along it. Passers-by urged my friend to take the bike rider's details for possible litigation, but my friend is aware that the rider is most likely a young migrant worker on a temporary visa with no recourse to any support from his employer, no money of his own and in contravention of the law. When will this delivery industry be properly regulated? When will its employees and pedestrians have proper legal protection? Bikes and cycleways proliferate now in Sydney. I am all for them, but I know when I come to Sydney I need to be very, very careful when walking the streets. Bruce Mcintyre, Armidale Playing politics Riley Brown gave it a good stir, but I think the respondents missed the underlying irony (Letters, August 19). The 'identity politics' that so distresses Mr Brown is just a weaponised label invented by conservative culture warriors, outraged at growing societal pressure to be less racist, less misogynist and less inequitable than they'd prefer to be. It attempts to usurp victimhood from the real victims. It's a tactic of distraction. Jeffrey Mellefont, Coogee
