Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share 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.

See this speech in context