Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.

See this speech in context