Editorial:

Ansett: there is an alternative

The Ansett saga is far from over as the administrators attempt to either 
find a new buyer for the airline or arrange to sell off Ansett assets to 
various buyers. No one has paid the staff their entitlements. Immediately 
the Tesna bid of Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew fell through, the various 
parties to the negotiations began to point the finger and attempt to shift 
the blame.

Overall, the events reveal the stupidity and incompetence of the capitalist 
system as the profit motive drives the considerations of the parties 
involved, irrespective of their declarations about looking after the jobs 
of staff and "serving the public".

The fact is that Australia's air traffic will not support three major 
airlines. The high fares exclude the possibility of a large part of the 
population travelling by air.

At one time, Australia had an efficient and publicly owned airline,Qantas, 
and before that, two carriers — one national and the other international. 
Qantas, which became both a national and international carrier, was 
privatised by a Labor Government and its not inconsiderable profits flow to 
shareholders, not to the travelling public. Fares are set to rise following 
the elimination of Ansett.

An integrated passenger and freight service is essential to cover 
Australia's vast distances. Many centres can only be effectively serviced 
by air. And because this service is so important for the people of 
Australia, it should be publicly owned. If this had been the situation, the 
Ansett bankruptcy would not have happened.

How would a publicly owned airline operate?

First of all its charter, drawn up by the Government and legislated into 
law, would require the airline to administer a social policy of genuine 
service to the community. This would cover both fares, the obligation to 
provide services to country communities and commitments to staff.

A publicly owned airline would have a management committed to public 
ownership — not one that sabotages the public ownership concept and the 
responsibility that goes with it. A commitment to public ownership would be 
a requirement for appointment to management.

Part of its social commitment would be support for the best possible 
conditions and wages for staff. Workers' wages, working conditions and 
entitlements are never secure under private ownership.

Another advantage is that the profits earned would be available for the 
prompt upgrading of equipment and as a contribution to the nation's budget 
revenues.

In the past publicly owned enterprises — Qantas, Telstra, Australia Post, 
and the Commonwealth Bank were big revenue earners for government. All this 
is being thrown overboard as these enterprises are privatised or their work 
"outsourced".

A publicly owned airline would cover all aspects — the aircraft, their 
maintenance, the ownership of terminals and the employment of all necessary 
staff. It would provide both for passengers and freight including an 
overseas service.

The claim that a publicly owned enterprise is necessarily bureaucratic and 
inefficient is nonsense and is disproved by the success of publicly owned 
enterprises in Australia in the past. They certainly function better than 
Ansett, HIH or Enron did. It depends on the competence of management and 
their commitment to public ownership.

But governments, which would appoint management, can just as easily replace 
management. This is a process that employees can also take part in. In the 
case of private ownership, employees play no part whatsoever in the key 
decisions of management or the appointment of its managers.

Unfortunately, in all the negotiations that have taken place to keep Ansett 
afloat the alternative of a publicly owned airline enterprise has not been 
raised.

ACTU leaders threw all their weight behind Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew only 
to have their fingers burnt. Greg Combet, ACTU Secretary, is reported as 
now saying that the ACTU would not trust Fox and Lew again.

The policies of the ACTU call for public ownership and it is time that 
trade union leaders dusted off their own ACTU Congress decisions and 
started to campaign for them rather than just accepting whatever some group 
of money-grubbing capitalists offers.