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

Obviously I raise these issues because they go to the entitlements of workers and apprentices. In days gone by, a young person left school, went to work for Telstra as a 16-, 17- or 18-year-old and spent the rest of their working life there because it was a good, secure job with decent entitlements, such as long service leave and superannuation. That is the crux of the debate this afternoon.

It goes to the issue that, 10 years ago, in June 1996, Telstra alone employed 76,522 full-time people entitled to these long service leave entitlements. Optus employed another 4,000. Total industry employment with access to decent long service leave entitlements was 85,000 to 90,000. However, the figures now reveal that there are only approximately 67,750 people employed in the telecommunications industry—a loss of around 20,000 jobs. It is a trend that the government have foisted on the Australian community and it is significant given the government’s frequency in touting that they are responsible for employment growth whilst they themselves downsize—and in doing so seek to create an opportunity to reduce workers’ long service leave entitlements over time. Looking at these figures, the question needs to be asked: where is the growth in telecommunications employment?

There is no growth, only a loss of jobs through the casualisation of the workforce, often without long service leave entitlements, and the export offshore of labour intensive jobs to cheaper call centres. Is this what we want to become of one of our most important nation-building tools: to be manipulated according to political will, with jobs sacrificed to meet privatisation demands and short-term horizons? Can the country and the industries that underpin our economy afford a further deterioration of the network, further job cuts, loss of workers’ entitlements and a further running down of our infrastructure base, which is the key to our economic future? I simply say the answer is no. It would be a step backwards for working Australians. It is a backward step for Telstra. It is a backward step for the quality of telecommunication services across the nation.

The government has said that the job losses are regrettable. The Prime Minister has come out and said that he would ‘like to try to guarantee job security for Telstra workers once the company is sold but cannot’. It would have resolved issues on the long service entitlements of these workers if he could have given an ironclad guarantee. I believe the government has only itself to blame. The call centre closures and job cuts are a response to continuing market pressures for cost reductions which are in turn a consequence of privatisation. It is the government’s policies that have brought the job losses about, and the issue has been returned squarely to its door. Yes, Telstra’s recent $3 billion profit will add to the shine of the sale, but it is a profit that has been bought through a shedding of staff and it cannot continue forever. Obviously this bill is about potentially creating an opportunity in the future to reduce costs by reducing long service leave entitlements after the three-year transitional period. These cuts are unsustainable and, I believe, not worth it if the true cost of privatisation is Australian jobs.

The pressures of privatisation are likely to leave the telco operating on a shoestring budget with respect to staff. This week in the media, Telstra came under fire from the tourism industry on workers’ entitlements after confirming that it had introduced a holiday ban in the lead-up to Christmas for some staff in certain divisions. While it is not clear which sections will be affected by the ban, Telstra has forced certain staff to suspend annual leave until Christmas. This is an important issue. It is at a time when the domestic tourism industry continues to slump. This is hardly a move that acts in the nation’s best interest and it begs the question: would company policy be different if the telco were in full public ownership?

I raise these issues because a recent survey by the tourism industry, which is dependent on an efficient telecommunications industry, revealed that Australians had accrued 70 million annual leave days owing to them, at an estimated worth of around $11 billion to the economy. The federal government tourism body has even been forced to launch a campaign trying to convince companies to get employees to take a break—using long service leave, as currently provided, to do so—as an opportunity to assist the Australian tourism industry. This is an important matter, because it is about seeking leadership from large companies such as Telstra to set the example and get their staff to take a holiday or long service leave to enhance their health and to maintain their capacity to do the job for Telstra.

It is a commonly understood fact that well-rested employees contribute far more and have higher productivity levels if they can take a rejuvenating break in the form of annual leave or long service leave. Taking a holiday should not be just seen as an optional extra. Long service leave is not an optional extra. It has historically played an important role in developing an acceptable overall package of employment conditions in addition to a salary for Australian workers. It is a vital part of our wellbeing as a nation. It is a vital part of what is required by families to survive in a very stressful world. It is a vital part of securing our future.

In conclusion, can I say that my concerns go one step further. I raised my concern about the bill’s short-sightedness. My concern applies not only to the sale of the telco but to the government’s failure to also protect the superannuation pension promise made to up to 1,800 Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme Telstra employees. Perhaps the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations would like to comment on this issue in his response this afternoon. Their membership of the Superannuation Scheme will be terminated as a result of Telstra’s full privatisation and it is an unfair act in what is increasingly becoming an unfair workplace. It is another promise broken by the government—and a cruel one at that, with no compensation provided for these workers.

I stand with my colleagues in condemning the government for its failure in this regard, especially as no comparable provision has been made to ensure the pension promise is delivered, as was the case with the full privatisation of Qantas. I also support the second reading amendment, moved by the member for Perth, condemning the government for its failure to guarantee the rights of Telstra workers who are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. As we all appreciate, when we have these responsibilities to make some changes—putting aside whether they are the right changes with respect to the sale of Telstra—we must have regard to the entitlements of workers and their families. Long service leave is important, but just as important is the right of workers to retire with some dignity. These workers joined the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme in good faith. They expected to see out their working life as full members of the scheme with appropriate entitlements.

The failure of the Howard government to provide in a similar way to which a Labor government provided for the entitlements of Qantas workers when Qantas was privatised just shows the unhealthy attitude of the Howard government to the needs and aspirations of Australian workers and their families. I commend the second reading amendment to the House and simply say to the Howard government: it is about time you started to think more about not only the rights of workers and their families with respect to long service leave entitlements and guarantees into the future but also the existing superannuation entitlements of some Telstra employees. I commend the second reading amendment to the House.

See this speech in context