Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Long Service Leave Legislation Amendment (Telstra) Bill 2009. I can indicate from the outset that the coalition does not oppose this bill and will be supporting its passage. This bill has the effect of continuing arrangements established by the Howard government regarding the treatment of long service leave for employees of Telstra.

In 2006, we introduced a previous bill to ensure that employees of Telstra were able to continue enjoying the benefits of long service leave provided under the Commonwealth Long Service Leave Act. We did this in an endeavour to ensure that the transition from government to private ownership of Telstra occurred in a manner that was cohesive, workable and practicable. We did not wish to alter the working conditions for any employee working for that telecommunications company. At that time a transition period of three years was envisaged. As is now apparent, that period will soon expire and there is a need to extend coverage in a manner consistent with the approach and intention of this bill.

I can indicate to the House that the shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, the member for Stirling, for whom I currently act, has received a communication from Telstra management to indicate that they support the passage of this bill. I note with interest that the communications indicated that this bill is the result of an agreement between Telstra, its employees and the relevant union, in this case the CEPU.

Like many other keen observers of matters involving workplace relations, I was reminded that things within Telstra had not always been so rosy. Previously, there were long-running disputes between Telstra and the CEPU about a wide range of matters. The disputes in that workplace were widely publicised and heated. Those disputes occurred for a number of reasons and involved a number of technical and perhaps even philosophical disagreements. However, in my view, those disputes boiled down to one simple issue: whether or not Telstra had the right to speak with and engage its employees directly without having to go through a third party intermediary. Telstra, of course, has previously adopted a position that I believe most, if not all, employers in the country would agree with, that being that, if we want to speak to our employees directly, we will. There is nothing wrong with management and workers sitting down to discuss issues that affect them both. This is called employee engagement.

Those on this side of the House recognise that workers and management are the two most important and valuable players in any employment relationship. The actions of workers influence the success of the business and the success of the business influences the benefits and culture that the workers enjoy. Employment relationships are two-way streets. Both workers and management have obligations to each other. They both benefit from improving the lot of each other. Facilitating employee engagement is something that the coalition supports. We believe that workers and management are best placed to work things out amongst themselves, in a fashion which is amicable, effective and constructive.

While third-party interference is sometimes warranted, by and large it does little to achieve what could have already been achieved had workers and management spoken directly. Often, sadly, it results in situations that benefit neither the workers nor their managers. Strikes, protests, lockouts, stand-downs, placards and picket lines are all features of the disputes in workplaces where there has been the involvement of a third party. When these types of actions occur everyone becomes a loser in the end. Productivity drops, workers lose pay and the culture can be adversely affected. In contrast, workplaces that adopt a focus on employee engagement are winners.

There has been much research conducted into the benefits of direct employee engagement. For example, direct employee engagement leads to increased levels of emotional attachment. Employees who have a high emotional attachment are more likely to experience higher levels of personal reward for their efforts at work. They feel as though they are working towards a common purpose and have a higher level of personal fulfilment. Direct employee engagement also leads to increased levels of employee empowerment. There is nothing wrong with having a workplace where employees know that they have a say and a role in the broader direction of a business. Letting workers have a say should be a key objective in all workplaces; they make a contribution to a business and deserve to have the right to be heard. Worker commitment levels have also been shown to be markedly higher in workplaces that engage employees directly. A committed employee is likely to experience better feelings of job security and is much less likely to leave for another workplace. Their morale is higher.

Higher levels of empowerment, commitment and personal reward are all significant benefits for employees and workplaces generally. Of course, enterprises benefit from employee engagement, too. Once again, studies have shown that workplaces using direct employee engagement have less turnover, higher levels of productivity, higher levels of staff morale and increased levels of customer satisfaction. When you take an approach of direct employee engagement everyone wins, and this is how it should be. I believe that all workplaces in Australia would agree with me.

However, as I observed earlier, sometimes this is not always the case. Moving away from engaging employees towards engagement via third parties detracts from the benefits the former approach brings. In this context one has to question the intention of Labor’s recent changes to the Australian workplace system. Sadly, these changes facilitate, encourage, and sometimes even mandate, the involvement of third parties in a workplace.

We acknowledge that Labor’s new laws are in their infant stages; however, the signs so far are not looking good. Broadly speaking, we are beginning to see an upwards trend in the levels of industrial action. So this will be a key test for Labor’s laws. Will they facilitate the reasonable and beneficial approach of employee engagement or will they take Australian workplaces backwards to the old days of strikes and disputes? Returning to Telstra, it was with this question in mind that I was briefly heartened by the advice received about the agreement reached about this issue in that workplace. I say ‘briefly’ because I then read the weekend papers and saw this headline, ‘Telstra unions set to strike’. I do not wish to get into the details of this dispute, which is apparently about a pay rise, except to observe that one comment reported in the article concerned the CEPU’s displeasure with the company for speaking directly to its employees about the terms of their pay offer. In essence, this was one third party criticising one party to an employment relationship, the employer, for having attempted to directly engage with the other party in the relationship, its employees. I find such criticism perplexing, particularly given the irrefutable benefits of direct employee engagement, which I spoke about a few moments ago. How anyone can be critical of an employer attempting to engage directly with their workers is beyond me. It does represent a genuine concern.

However, if those comments in the weekend papers are not already concerning enough, things get worse when we consider them in the context of a recent decision by Fair Work Australia involving Transfield Services. In that decision, the new tribunal effectively banned the company and management from talking with each other. Orders were made that required the employer to communicate with their own employees but only via a third party. The result was that the benefits of direct employee engagement—productivity, employee empowerment and fulfilment, and a better workplace culture—were effectively stopped by the order of an industrial tribunal. And this stop was the result of an order made under Labor’s new workplace system by their new tribunal.

These are early days for Labor’s new laws and some say that there is much to be said for giving them the benefit of the doubt. But I believe workplaces are entitled to be concerned about where the new laws are taking them. It looks like the new laws are so far failing to facilitate the reasonable and beneficial approach of employee engagement and by default are taking Australian workplaces backwards to the old days of strikes and disputes. I struggle to see how this goes towards the government’s stated aim of creating a balanced, flexible and productive workplace system. But it is a case of watch this space: those on this side of the House certainly will be, as will Australian workplaces in general.

I remain hopeful that, whatever the future holds, Telstra and its workforce are able to achieve a resolution to their current circumstances. I also remain hopeful that the agreement giving rise to this bill becomes the norm rather than the exception. It is with this in mind that we support the passage of this bill. The bill reflects an agreement achieved in a manner that we believe should be encouraged throughout Australian workplaces—an aim that I hope will not be hindered by Labor’s new laws.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do not have to scratch very hard to see Work Choices coming out from the Liberal Party. It is always there; it always has been and it always will be. What we have just had in the contribution from the member for Boothby on the Long Service Leave Legislation Amendment (Telstra) Bill 2009 was a veiled threat that we should be going back to individual contracts. It is probably not that surprising, given the recent statements from the Leader of the Opposition. I think it serves as a warning to all Australians that the other side of politics simply cannot be trusted with workplace relations. They want to put in place an unbalanced system like Work Choices. They do not get it that the last election was fought largely on this issue, and they lost. The Australian people made it clear what they thought of those unfair and unbalanced laws, yet at every opportunity the opposition brings out the anti-union rhetoric, and we heard more examples of it again from the member for Boothby. It is also worth putting on record that, unlike management consultants and lawyers that work for employers and are third parties, unions are actually made up of the workers who work for the employer. They are not third parties that are intervening; they are representing in a collective manner the workers of a particular enterprise. Quite frankly, until the Liberal Party get that, they can never be trusted on workplace relations.

The telecommunications sector is one of the fastest growing, most dynamic sectors in this country. But, as the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union says, the sector’s success does not rest on wires, satellites and signals. Its future depends upon the strength and skills of the people who work in the industry. Today, the Rudd Government is putting through a commonsense amendment to long service leave legislation to give Telstra workers a little piece of mind in terms of their long service leave benefits. I will give a brief outline of why we have come to this position. When Telstra and its predecessor, Telecom, were government owned or, in more recent times, when the government was Telstra’s majority shareholder, its employees were covered by Commonwealth long service leave law. After Telstra was privatised, this coverage was continued as a transitional measure for three years, due to end on 24 November this year, after which workers would be covered by relevant state or territory laws. In the meantime the Rudd government is heading towards a seamless national economy by pursuing the most ambitious program of reform in business regulation in the nation’s history. Through this process we are developing a national long service leave scheme. If we were to continue with these transitional arrangements, Telstra workers would have to move to their relevant state and territory schemes, then back to the new national long service scheme as part of our seamless economy goal. This measure will avoid complexity for the company and uncertainty for employees. Telstra, the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union and the Community and Public Sector Union requested these amendments to avoid complexity and uncertainty in their industry.

The Long Service Leave Legislation Amendment (Telstra) Bill 2009 amends the Telstra Corporation Act and the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Act to extend the application of the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act to Telstra. Once developed, a National Employment Standards long service leave standard will apply to all employers covered by the Fair Work Act, including Telstra. It is essential that the bill passes through both houses of parliament in these sittings in order to ensure continuous application of the Long Service Leave Act, which otherwise sunsets on 24 November.

In keeping with the best reforming traditions of the Hawke-Keating Labor governments, the Rudd government is moving towards a seamless national economy. One of the concerns I hear constantly from businesses in my electorate of Dobell, on the New South Wales Central Coast, is that the red-tape burden has grown and grown and grown over a long time. Some have told me that it is like The Blob, the 1950s science fiction movie: it is gobbling up investment, jobs and opportunities. That is why the Rudd government is out there making sure that there are these reforms to our economy and that we move towards this seamless national economy.

During the 1800s in Australia, one of the most significant arguments in favour of federation was the need for a uniform rail system. Each colony operated its rail system on a different rail gauge. Without a uniform gauge, trains could not cross colonial borders. At a time when trains were the main means of long-distance land transport, intercolonial trade had to unload and reload goods and produce at each border. This Federation-era experience is a good model of Australians overcoming barriers to prosperity for the good of the nation. If we were able to bring consistency to different state laws 110 years ago, surely it is time for us to bring consistency to our business regulation systems.

The red tape burden in Australia is stifling economic growth and productivity. We all know that today’s productivity growth is tomorrow’s prosperity. We all know that growth and increasing productivity mean more jobs for Australians. It is no secret to the businesses of the Central Coast that red tape is strangling jobs in our region, as it is around the country. In 2009 Australia is an economy subject to no fewer than nine regulatory regimes overlaying regulations, with the eight states and territories each seeking to regulate in their own way. In some cases, those regimes are duplicated by national regulation imposed at the Commonwealth level. In the 2006-07 financial year more than 31,700 Australian businesses were operating in more than one state or territory. More than 4,300 operated in every state and territory, meaning they dealt with all nine different regulatory regimes. These statistics alone show how important it has been that, in the 18 months since coming to office, the government has demonstrated its commitment to Australia having a seamless national economy.

Like the Federation example of a national railway network, a new national law covering long service leave will help create a uniform approach in our national economy. Long service leave is an almost uniquely Australian product. For a history of the scheme I looked at a research paper from the Labour Ministers Council. Long service leave is a period of paid leave granted to employees after a period of continuous employment with the one employer. In certain industries, such as construction, stevedoring and coal mining, policymakers in the past have allowed the entitlement to vest after a period of continuous service in that industry, regardless of the number of employers.

The entitlement has its origins in the 19th century Victorian and South Australian civil service acts. These provided for civil service officers who had completed at least 10 years of service to be granted leave of absence with pay for periods of six or 12 months. The purpose of the leave was to reward those who had performed long and faithful service in the colonies by providing an opportunity for them to return to the United Kingdom. All state and Commonwealth public servants were subsequently granted the entitlement. It was then gradually extended to other public sector employees.

Long service leave began to be included in federal awards by consent in the late 1940s. It did not become a standard employment condition for all employees until the passage in the 1950s of long service leave legislation in all states. The purpose of such legislation, according to parliamentary debates prior to the introduction of the Long Service Leave Act 1955 in New South Wales, was to reduce labour turnover, provide a reward for long faithful service and enable employees halfway through their working life to recover their energies and return to work renewed, refreshed and reinvigorated.

In 1964, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission arbitrated its first long service leave award to provide what has become the standard provision for non-Public Service employees: 13 weeks leave after 15 years service, with pro-rata payment in lieu on termination of employment after 10 years of service. State legislation and existing awards were amended to provide the same entitlement. South Australia later introduced a 10-year qualifying period for the full 13-week entitlement, but this has not been followed by other states. Public sector employees generally have more long service leave entitlements. Whilst long service leave entitlements are currently predominantly provided for under state laws, the Commonwealth makes legislative provision for long service leave entitlements for those employed in the Commonwealth Public Service.

The next stage in the evolution of the almost uniquely Australian entitlement of long service leave is being developed now. We are developing a national employment standard in long service leave. This next step will apply to all employers covered by the Fair Work Act. Long service leave is one of the 10 national standards to be introduced by this government. The others will be a standard 38-hour week, annual leave, parental leave, flexible work for parents, sick leave, community service leave, public holidays, information in the workplace, notice of termination and redundancy pay.

Fair Work Australia gets the balance between flexibility and fairness right. There is of course—and we heard the contribution from the member for Boothby—an alternative view to the thinking that underpins Fair Work Australia. That is, of course, the extreme view of those opposite. I acknowledge that the member for Mayo, one of the architects of Work Choices is now in the chamber. The excesses of Work Choices have been consigned to the dustbin of history. All the members of the opposition who voted for Work Choices in the last parliament should be ready to be held to account for their actions in the next federal election.

The previous member for Dobell, Mr Ticehurst, was a Work Choices true believer if there ever was one. He voted for Work Choices 23 times. We know that the opposition, in their hearts, still believe in Work Choices. We saw that in the advertisements in the last election and we have heard it in the speeches in this place, including a contribution from the member for Boothby on this piece of legislation. Whilst every speaker has said that in this place they will not be opposing the legislation, they have nonetheless gone on to talk about their true beliefs and have exposed their support and continuing commitment to Work Choices and to its principles.

I notice the member for Mayo is speaking after me. It should not be forgotten that he was a key adviser on Work Choices under John Howard.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just refer to standing order 76—the member should address the subject of the bill.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. It has been a wide-ranging debate. I call the member for Dobell.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is just a personal attack.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. The member for Dobell has the call.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to pay tribute to the Your Rights at Work campaign on the Central Coast and the work those people did in highlighting these unfair laws in my electorate. To the great dismay of members like the member for Mayo, his creation was discarded by the voters of Australia. I do wonder if the member for Mayo and the former member for Dobell agree with the member for O’Connor, who said the only problem with the Howard government’s unpopular Work Choices legislation was its name.

The government’s agenda is to create a productivity- and investment-friendly, seamless national economy that keeps the Australian tradition of the fair go alive in the workplace. Australia is well placed to emerge from this global financial crisis. But the road ahead will be long and tough. The Australian Labor Party is the political party of vision and reform. We are the only party with the ability to bring the nation forward through the stormy economic times. We are the only ones with the ability to make tough economic decisions as required while not forgetting Australia’s belief in social justice and a fair go. We need to build for the future. We need a building decade for productivity. This is an important bill for Telstra and Telstra workers, and I commend the bill to the House.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great honour to follow the member for Dobell, who is on his long march to the front bench. He is only a couple of steps away. After that wonderful contribution of light and grace, I am sure he will be sitting there in the not too distant future with the member for Blaxland, who is at the table and who recently was promoted—rightfully too, I would have thought—to a higher position within the Labor Party and is on his march as well. It is a great honour to speak in this debate. I will not, however, go down the same road of vicious personal attacks that the member for Dobell unfortunately felt he had to resort to instead of concentrating on the debate—that does disappoint me. He knows the subject of the bill so well and it is so close to his heart. He spent many years working as a union official before he entered this place. I congratulate him and the other 80-odd per cent of Labor members of parliament who have followed that path.

On the Long Service Leave Legislation Amendment (Telstra) Bill 2009, I do have some familiarity with this issue. In 2006, the then government moved to ensure that Telstra workers were covered for their long service leave entitlements. The sale of Telstra meant that the workers were potentially going to fall out of the Commonwealth scheme, because they were not covered by the terms, and fall back to inconsistent state conditions. As the member for Dobell rightly pointed out in his history lesson on long service leave, different states have different levels of long service leave entitlement, which would have created massive confusion for Telstra workers, leaving some worse off and some better off. From memory, the balance was that most would have been better off but some would have missed out. So the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations moved to ensure that that situation was remedied. The then shadow minister for workplace relations, the member for Perth—who is now the Minister for Foreign Affairs—rose in this place and supported our moves at that time. It is with that same sense of bipartisanship that we stand today and support the government’s move to extend these provisions. It does raise a question, though, about what happens when the government’s plan to split Telstra up comes into being. What happens to the employees? I am sure the government are thinking at this time about what impact that will have on employees. That is the background to the issue.

Telstra is, of course, a company that over a long period has had many vicious and nasty industrial disputes. Many famous industrial disputes have originated in Telstra—or Telecom, as it was, when it was a government instrumentality. Today we see that tradition continuing. A report in the Weekend Australian is headed ‘Telstra unions set to strike’ and states:

THE five-month ceasefire between Telstra and its main union is on the verge of collapse.

This is because what had been a period of industrial harmony in Telstra has come to an end due to the changes made by the government with its Fair Work Act and particularly the good faith bargaining provisions, which will see this massive increase in industrial disputes. The Reserve Bank governor has said already that, if you have this massive increase in industrial disputes, you will see pressure being put on interest rates. That will unfortunately be the result of the government’s changes. We are seeing that already with big companies like Telstra at war with their unions because of the rights in the new act for third parties to intervene, as used to be the case. It is an issue which is very important for the parliament to consider.

It was brought to my attention by Workplace Express, which is a fantastic service dealing with industrial relations news, that the Australian Industry Group, a very firm supporter of the government, has put out a ‘First 100 days’ Fair Work Act bargaining provisions booklet, which talks about the changes brought about by the Fair Work Act and what it has done to the industrial landscape around the country. The report is actually quite critical of the new IR regime, which is surprising given the position of AiG in recent years. According to the Workplace Express report, the booklet says:

… the key principles that have emerged include that parties have the right to bargain hard and that industrial action cannot be taken prematurely.

In the booklet, the AiG says that since the 1 July introduction of the new bargaining laws the industrial climate had undoubtedly changed, with unions pursuing new claims with some vigour. This highlights the problem that we are starting to see. We have seen it with the stuff-up on the award modernisation. We have seen it with the Fair Work Act going too far and giving too much power to third parties to intervene, which will cause a massive spike in industrial disputes. That will be terrible for the Western Australian resource sector, where we are already seeing massive increases in these types of disputes. We have seen massive increases in the number of unfair dismissals. An article in yesterday’s Financial Review highlighted very strongly the changes in attitudes to unfair dismissal since the act was passed, which will of course impact enormously on small business.

In summing up, this is a bill which I support. I have had something to do with it in the past. It gives Telstra employees a lot of certainty. It does highlight the inconsistency of long service leave arrangements around the country, which is an issue I believe the government is turning its mind to. One measure that the government may be considering and which I think would be a massive mistake, particularly for long service leave, is a portable employee entitlements scheme. That would be a huge new tax for small business. It has been part of the Labor Party platform in the past; we will have to wait and see whether we see it in the future.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Long Service Leave Legislation Amendment (Telstra) Bill 2009. As the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations noted in her second reading speech, this bill is designed to ensure the continued application of the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act to Telstra pending development of national long service leave arrangements for all federal system participants. The bill is an interim measure that recognises the particular historical circumstances of Telstra.

In the absence of the measures proposed in the bill, Telstra will need to transition from the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act to multiple state and territory schemes, when current transitional arrangements expire on 24 November 2009, and then back to a Commonwealth scheme when new national long service leave arrangements are implemented through the National Employment Standards. The government agrees with Telstra and with the relevant unions that a sensible solution to the complexity and the uncertainty that these multiple transitions would cause is to extend existing transitional arrangements until the new national employment standard on long service leave is in place. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.