Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

I particularly want to raise the issue today that Senator Minchin has already referred to—that is, the future superannuation arrangements of some 1,800 Telstra employees who are to effectively receive a cut in their promised pension arrangements as a consequence of the privatisation of Telstra. As I raised yesterday by way of an example, the reductions in the promised defined benefit are significant. They vary from employee to employee, but I have been contacted by a number of existing employees of Telstra who, when they commenced employment with Telstra, joined the CSS. The example I gave yesterday was of a foreman-linesman who, because of the sale of Telstra and the new pension arrangements that will have to be entered into, will effectively have a cut in the promised pension benefit of $11,000 a year. The impacts vary depending on the circumstances of the 1,800 employees.

We would expect more from Senator Minchin. We do not expect much from Senator Coonan; in fact, we expect nothing from Senator Coonan in her role in this matter. Labor argues that one of the difficulties the government has with the treatment of these Telstra employees is that they have not even been offered any ongoing or comparable pension benefit. In the case of the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas, Senator Minchin is frankly being a bit disingenuous. He makes the correct point that the employees in those cases did not continue in the CSS. However, those employees, continuing in their service with Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank, had at least a comparable superannuation benefit pension fund promise that was met by Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank. That is not the case with respect to Telstra privatisation.

In addition to that, today I have been able to release secret correspondence—it is not secret now, of course; I got hold of it, probably to Senator Minchin’s embarrassment—between Telstra and the privatisation unit of Telstra. It makes a point, I think a very valid legal point, that—aside from the possible illegality, given the successor arrangements that are being put in place for these 1,800 employees—at least questions Senator Minchin’s role in this. It refers to the 2004 deed of release signed between Telstra, the Commonwealth government and Telstra Superannuation Pty Ltd. It draws the attention of officers in the privatisation unit to legal advice that Telstra had received with respect to that deed of release. That is at least one of the legal arguments which Telstra presents to the government to say that continuing membership of the CSS should be allowed because of the deed of release. But I would argue—I have already referred to it—that, because the disadvantage to be suffered by these 1,800 employees with the cuts in their promised pension benefit is so significant, the government faces a significant legal issue.

I have asked the minister today whether in fact this matter has been considered by the pension regulator, APRA. APRA do take a very tough position with respect to any attempt to reduce the pension benefits that were promised with respect to a defined benefit. Did the government consult with APRA on this matter? There is a possible constitutional issue about reducing promised pension benefits. So, as a consequence, both the government and Telstra may be open to legal action by at least some, or all, of the 1,800 Telstra employees who are being significantly disadvantaged by the failure of the minister to deliver at least a comparable ongoing pension benefit that has been promised to them as membership of the CSS. (Time expired)

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McLucas mentioned the Telstra job cuts in the Cairns and Maroochydore call centres. No doubt she is very concerned because those places are located in her electorate of Queensland. When Labor was last in power, unemployment was at 10.9 per cent and one million Australians were unemployed. Over the last 9½ years we have seen 1.8 million extra jobs created in Australia. Almost one million of those 1.8 million jobs have been full-time jobs. In relation to Telstra’s job numbers, Labor has no credibility. Telstra’s staff numbers fell from 90,000 to 76,000 between 1990 and 1992. At that time, Kim Beazley was the communications minister. Since then, the competitive framework set by the government has allowed more than 150 providers to enter the industry, which, according to the International Telecommunication Union, employs approximately 77,000 people. Work commissioned by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, estimated that the government’s competition reforms in 1997 have increased employment by around 23,300 people. Service standards have also improved over this time.

The government is focused on ensuring that consumers reap the benefits of new technologies, lower prices and better services. And we will ensure that all carriers, including Telstra, comply with their regulatory obligations—unlike the Labor Party, which revealed yesterday that, if elected, it would water down the regulatory regime and the key consumer protections in order to boost Telstra’s share price. Labor opposes what it referred to yesterday as ‘government imposed regulation which threatens Telstra’s earning prospects’. What this means is that Labor will water down the regulatory arrangements, leaving consumers stranded, all to boost the share price of the largest and most profitable telecommunications provider in the country—this from a party and a shadow spokesperson who have accused the government of fattening the Telstra calf for market day. What extraordinary hypocrisy from the Labor Party. The evidence shows that encouraging competition has benefited all Australians and the overall economy by creating jobs and reducing prices for telecommunications services.

Yes, Telstra is reducing its workforce. But remember that there are 150 other telecommunications companies in Australia who are employing Australians as well, and we now have record low unemployment in this country. Under Labor, unemployment was at record highs and the telecommunications market was a cosy duopoly consisting of just Telstra and Optus.

In relation to the Cairns and Maroochydore Telstra call centre closures, it is disappointing news because it does affect 83 staff in each centre. The government never likes to hear about job losses, particularly in regional communities. Telstra has advised that all affected staff in Cairns and Maroochydore will receive full redundancy benefits to assist them to find other employment, either internally or externally. This includes assistance with career planning, financial planning and advice, preparation of CVs and interview skills, and assistance with internal and external job searches. These job cuts are part of Telstra’s much-publicised transformation program, which was announced in November 2005. Telstra’s transformation program involves reducing its workforce numbers by around 10,000 over the next five years as a result of the introduction of new technologies— (Time expired)

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage was extraordinary because the minister did not know the answer to the question so he sought to waffle for approximately five minutes of his response time. But I would like to enlighten the minister as to what is going on in Defence facilities. An email has been circulated, titled ‘Opportunity for paid overtime’, that articulates how personnel are being sought to be security escorts for cleaners at Defence sites after hours and being paid for the overtime. The email states: ‘The security escorts will be required for possibly the next three weeks, Monday to Friday, from 1700 to approximately 2200 hours, with the possibility of some weekend security escorting from 10 o’clock through to six o’clock. Please advise your staff accordingly.’ And it goes on.

But this absolutely ludicrous situation—where Defence Force personnel are being paid overtime, and presumably penalty rates, to escort cleaners—has arisen because the new contractor, Serco Sodexho, has insisted on employing their workforce, as they take over that contract, on AWAs. That has resulted in a number of those cleaners saying, ‘No, we don’t want AWAs; we want an ongoing collective agreement as we have had in the past.’ The contractor has been insistent that AWAs be applied, so of course those qualified cleaners with their security clearances have either not applied for or not been offered a job with the new contractor.

I do not know whether the new contractor did not anticipate the issue of the requirement for security clearances, but I have to say I would commend Defence for that requirement, because they are obviously very conscious of the security requirements. I also have to say I commend the cleaners involved, because they obviously have to take very seriously those security clearances that are provided to them. But it is easy to reflect on the Department of Defence providing this, because it raises the question: why is the Department of Defence willing to pay overtime to Defence personnel, to escort these cleaners, on the back of this issue of whether the contractor pay an AWA or pay a collective agreement? And it leaves me with very little choice but to make the assumption that there is some pressure on that contractor—and, indeed, on Defence—to stick with their line on the AWAs, because it makes no sense at all that there be an imposition on the taxpayer as a result of the additional cost to Defence by virtue of the overtime payments necessary to get these cleaners on-site.

What is going on here is the tail end, or perhaps the ongoing saga, of a dispute that relates to how these workers were transferred over. As the minister said, there is no doubt that Serco Sodexho have come in and won this contract from previous cleaning contractors. In the transfer of the workforce to the new contractors, they have hit a problem with negotiations. A union is involved, the LHMU, which has sought to represent the cleaners and initially had to argue, I think successfully, that the award rate of pay be reflected in the AWA that was being offered. But since that time the workers themselves have wanted to pursue specifically a collective agreement, and it was at that point when negotiations fell apart.

I know that Serco Sodexho do have collective agreements in other places, with other employees. Again, this is further evidence that there must be some pressure by this government to be using these contracts to perpetuate its ideological commitment to AWAs; whereas clearly this problem could be solved if the contractor were willing to negotiate a collective agreement with their workforce and with the union involved. This is prima facie evidence of how ideological this government is in pursuing AWAs. It is not only at the expense of the quality of life and the work experience of qualified and proud cleaners who have done this job for 10 years but at the expense of good management and, I would suggest, of the morale of Defence personnel. (Time expired)

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, I will commence by acknowledging the fact that the proprietor of the brickworks concerned is a person who has achieved a great deal in Western Australia. Starting from a low base, he has built up a very diversified and successful business in building and construction, in cement and concrete manufacture, in the fabrication industry and in transport. In achieving that success, he has along the way alienated and aggravated the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia. One of the reasons he has aggravated and alienated them is that he does not bow or kowtow to union heavy-handedness or thuggery.

When we come to this place, obviously those who support such tactics want to make some mileage out of the recent approval by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services of a site at the Perth Airport for a new brickworks. The most important thing that can be said about the new brickworks is that it meets a very important demand, particularly for young people seeking to build their first homes in Western Australia. Anybody who has an understanding of the Western Australian building and construction industry, particularly the cottage industry, knows that there is a chronic shortage of bricks.

There are only two effective brick producers—the Midland Brick Company and Austral. That duopoly situation is very unhealthy for homebuyers, particularly young homebuyers. I note that that is not a concern of the Labor Party in this debate about the airport. I note that they do not give a fig at all for the fact that bricks are scarce and very expensive. They do not care that builders are hard-pressed—and, unlike my learned friends on the other side of this chamber, I talk to builders about the fact that they are very hard-pressed to comply with their contractual time constraints, given the shortage of bricks.

I would have thought that, if senators on the other side and, indeed, the Western Australian government and the Australian Labor Party were doing the right thing, they would be interested to see the supply of bricks to the housing construction industry increase and, with that, the market constriction would be eased. But, no, they simply seek to make political points out of the fact that Mr Len Buckeridge and BGC have been given a leasehold, a commercial lease, on land at the Perth Airport upon which to construct a brickworks. The emissions from that new brickworks will be Australia’s lowest for a plant of that size and dimension. This is a world-class, cutting-edge, state-of-the-art brickworks which will emit virtually less than five per cent of the emissions of its comparative competing brickworks, so I am told.

The point about all this is that questions relating to the brickworks are about nothing more or less than crass politics. It really is a bit sad that senators from Western Australia on the other side of this chamber think that it is a good thing to attack someone who has built up an industry, built up a business, who seeks to provide an industrial capability to the people of Western Australia, as isolated as we are, for housing and construction, because they happen to be of a different political persuasion. That is, of course, indicative of the state of mind of very many in the Labor movement at the moment. It saddens me that someone who has achieved so much and who seeks to achieve more is going to be belittled and pilloried in his work because of that. My question is: why can’t we leave politics behind here and focus on the benefit to Western Australians in their ambition to acquire and construct a home?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take note of the contribution from Senator Johnston opposite, and I have a feeling that when he is referring to WA senators across the other side of the chamber he is referring to me. Senator Johnston, it is only fair for us to get a few points very clear. This is not about a personal attack on Mr Buckeridge and BGC. This follows on from 5,500 signatures on a petition from the people of Hasluck around the suburbs of High Wycombe, Maida Vale and Rosehill, where the proposed brickworks will be built. This is not a bunch of union thugs that have filled in 5,500 signatures; it is the people of the electorate of Hasluck. Senator Johnston, you know very well that not only have your colleagues Senator Adams and Senator Lightfoot been pulling out all stops to assist the 5,500 people in trying to stop this brickworks but also the Liberal member for Hasluck, Mr Stuart Henry, has been doing so.

Mr Stuart Henry has been putting out a lot of information opposing the brickworks in the seat of Hasluck too, Senator Johnston, so I do not think that was a fair interpretation of our efforts to try and stop the brickworks, approval for which has been granted to Mr Buckeridge. Whether it be Mr Buckeridge or any other builder who has come from blue-collar grassroots or wherever, congratulations to him. This is what it is all about: it is about trying to stand up for the people of Hasluck who do not want this brickworks in their backyard.

In rising to speak on the motion to take note of questions today, Mr President—I am sorry, Mr Deputy President; that is a faux pas but I hope it will come true in the future—I refer to the question asked of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. We saw a characteristically underwhelming and pathetic display. I was waiting for an answer to the question I had asked but it did not come forward. You have to wonder why the Prime Minister would hang Mr Stuart Henry, the member for Hasluck, out to dry. The Perth Airport brickworks will drag him down; there is no doubt about that. He has even admitted that, as can be seen in the latest newspaper clipping. The Prime Minister and the transport minister at the time, Mr Warren Truss, bent over backwards in their haste—this is what it is all about—to approve the availability of the airport land for Buckeridge to commence construction of these brickworks. In Mr Henry’s own admission, he went begging and pleading to the Prime Minister for the brickworks not to go ahead, but, sadly, his voice carries no weight within the party room. Unfortunately, there is a long history of Liberal Party ministers bending over backwards to help their mate Mr Buckeridge.

For those who are not aware—all Western Australians will remember—the Peppermint Grove Shire Council issued a stop-work order against Mr Buckeridge’s own company, Homestyle Pty Ltd, when it was found guilty of departing from council approved building plans. The then Liberal minister, Mr Paul Omodie, who is now the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, came out and rejected the advice of his own department and overturned the stop-work order. At least Mr Henry has been trying, as I say, but Mr Henry is just collateral damage in the war for campaign donations.

The people of Hasluck are not silly. They know that his voice carries no weight and they will make their decision come election time next year. To make matters worse for Mr Henry, there appears to be a concerted effort amongst his own Liberal colleagues and their strategist to kick him while he is down. In yesterday’s edition of the West Australian newspaper, reporter Mr Andrew Probyn published leaked details of Liberal Party-commissioned Crosby Textor polling which shows that Mr Henry is looking pretty crook. To add insult to injury, the leaker made the claim that Mr Henry was ‘not doing enough to save his seat from being returned to Labor’. It is very hard to be seen to be doing a lot to save your seat when your own colleagues come out, sharpen the knives, whack you between the eyes with an axe and stick a knife between your ribs. That is what has happened in the seat of Hasluck.

Senator Adams and Senator Lightfoot have been pushing out information, using their postage entitlements to get it all out there, and saying: ‘We are really doing a wonderful job. So is Mr Henry. But it is not our fault. It’s the state government’s fault.’ It is a greater insult to Mr Henry that the state government’s voice would carry more weight in the party room or with the Prime Minister than his own. It is a very sad state of affairs. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.