Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I formally second the amendment, Mr Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to support the comments of the shadow minister for industrial relations and member for Perth concerning the rights and entitlements of Telstra employees. In doing so, it is with some pleasure that I second his second reading amendment. I say that because the amendment focuses the House’s attention on the issues before the House this afternoon that go to the future entitlements and the working conditions of Telstra employees. As the member for Perth has informed the House, the opposition will support the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Amendment Bill 2006. But, while supporting the bill, I express some concerns as to the intention of the government towards the ongoing long service leave entitlements of Telstra employees, and this afternoon I intend to make some comments about the superannuation entitlements of Telstra employees.

Whenever the Howard government introduces legislation of this kind, it highlights, unfortunately, its inability to have a greater vision for Australia—and that is what is happening with this bill before the House. The passing of the bill will provide a transitional period of three years for Telstra employees to remain covered by the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act from the day on which the Commonwealth ceases to have a controlling interest. That is going to be a black day in Australia’s history, and we know that day is not far into the future. The government is well down the path of its $20 million advertising blitz to try to encourage, through radio and television, unsuspecting Australians to purchase Telstra shares. This advertising blitz coincided with the launch of the prospectus earlier this month.

We all appreciate that actually getting that prospectus together and finally making it available for public consumption was the outcome of a huge fight between the government and the Telstra board. Putting that aside, the bill today is about providing Telstra employees with some degree of certainty about their accrued and future long service leave entitlements. Hopefully it will minimise any negative impact of the sale of Telstra with respect to Telstra employees and their families. I simply say that bills such as this are very important. Workers give employers great support, and historically Telstra has been a well-respected Australian employer. People actually wanted to work for Telstra. The history of Telstra also shows that it was a good trainer. It was a terrific trainer of technicians and apprentices, with highly respected and recognised apprenticeship training opportunities around Australia. It is therefore only appropriate that, with the potential sale of Telstra and the walking away from its responsibilities by the Howard government, those loyal, longstanding employees are actually given some protection; and that is what this bill is about.

This bill appropriately allows Telstra time to arrange an alternative process. In saying this, I urge Telstra to continue, at a minimum, to offer employees long service leave entitlements at the existing levels once the transitional period has expired. There is no good reason why the existing Telstra employees’ long service leave entitlements should be reduced at some point in the future. I think that is appropriate, because one of the biggest problems in Australia at the moment, given the wages surge occurring in some sectors because of a huge shortage of skilled tradespeople, is trying to encourage workers to remain with a particular employer for an extended period of time. Decent superannuation and long service leave are part of a package to assist employers such as Telstra in retaining the loyal service of workers, who historically never thought about leaving. The truth is that, with the privatisation of Telstra and a change in culture, there is every reason to suspect that, at some point in the future, rather than being forced to take redundancies, some of these workers may choose to leave because they do not see the same sense of loyalty that previously existed at a Telstra management level and at a government level—when it was clearly a government mentality.

With respect to the rights of the Telstra employees, I simply say that the three-year transitional period appears adequate. It reportedly has the support of Telstra and its workforce. It will not change the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Act 2005, which protects preprivatisation long service leave entitlements accrued by Telstra employees. That act also provides for a three-year transitional period. Telstra staff are currently employed either under a certified agreement or an AWA, both of which provide for long service leave. Today’s amendment will provide much-needed certainty for employees on both arrangements, beyond the term of the existing certified agreement and for those who are currently engaged on AWAs. It will ensure that their entitlements will not fall below current levels for the next three years—an interim solution. That is a good and fair outcome for workers in the immediate future. It reflects the fact that this is a sensible bill, a bill that will provide some consolation for the employees of Telstra, who face much uncertainty in their short- and long-term future thanks to the Howard government’s absolute obsession with privatisation.

Labor continues to oppose the government’s sale of Telstra, and in doing so echoes the sentiments of many Australians across the nation, especially those in rural, remote and regional Australia. I also express some concerns with this bill as I believe it highlights the government’s short-sightedness. We would not be standing here today debating this bill if the Howard government recognised the fact that Australians want to continue to own Telstra. We are all shareholders at the moment. That is the truth of it: we are all, as Australians, shareholders in Telstra at the moment and there is no good reason to actually change that share ownership provision as it currently exists in government hands. The problem is that the Howard government wants to see Telstra no longer in government ownership—no longer with a public focus. Without good reason, it is consumed with full privatisation. For good reason, the Australian community see Telstra not as a privatisation opportunity but rather in the same way as the Labor Party does—that is, an essential building block for the future of Australia. I say that because nearly all Australians depend on the Telstra network in one way or another, whether it be for business, industry, health, education or simply as a resident.

The fact that the government treats the sale of Telstra as a political plaything is a disgrace. Its sale is, first and foremost, in the Liberal Party’s interest, not in the interest of the Australian people, and that is not good enough. This is an outfit worth billions that should be used to position Australia for the future. It will be worth an estimated $8 billion if the float goes ahead as the government has planned, but the reality is that it would be worth so much more if we used it strategically to position Australia for the future. It is an outfit the world would love to have as it currently exists in Australia. It is the key to our competitive position as a nation in the future, not just in the telecommunications industry but in many industries which depend on reliable telecommunications services being provided to Australian consumers and businesspeople at a reasonable cost. It is about making sure that we invest in our future with respect to broadband improvement to guarantee that we are able to secure our economic prosperity in the decades ahead.

Anyone who reads the papers or watches the news on television understands why Telstra needs to be retained in public ownership. It is a critical component of our economy that underpins industries across the board. Its privatisation provides no guarantees for its future or sensible management in the nation’s best interest. We are already unfortunately seeing the effects of the looming sale. Only in July this year the media reported that the telco was to slash up to 12,000 jobs nationally over five years, with New South Wales to feel the brunt of the cull. The job losses continue a sliding trend. According to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Telstra currently employs about 40,000 workers, a figure that has been on a downturn over the last 10 years. That has coincided with a decade of government under Prime Minister Howard.

The fact is that this government has only ever had one telecommunications policy in 10 years of government, and that is selling Telstra—the full privatisation of Telstra, step by step. A lot of ordinary mums and dads and small shareholders are now suffering as a result of the previous sale of Telstra in shares. The fact that the Prime Minister spruiked what a good investment the shares were at the time means they are now suffering the impact of a dud investment encouraged by the Prime Minister. The result has been a slow-down, as a result of government action, in investment in both the infrastructure and the skills base that Australia needs to provide advanced communications services.

Historically the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and their instrumentalities were actually at the forefront of apprenticeship training in Australia. The full sale of Telstra effectively is a further step down the track. The result is that the Commonwealth will make no direct contribution towards apprenticeship training to any government department or instrumentality in the years to come. The biggest losers in that context—

See this speech in context