<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2009-07-02" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>51</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>3</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="3345" />
  <endPage num="3419" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Public Sector Employment</name>
      <text id="200907020dcedd24a9f749b8a0000505">
        <heading>PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="3118" kind="question">
        <name>Mr GRIFFITHS</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Goyder</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2009-07-02">
            <name>PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2009-07-02T14:48:00" />
        <text id="200907020dcedd24a9f749b8a0000506">
          <timeStamp time="2009-07-02T14:48:00" />
          <by role="member" id="3118">Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (14:48): </by> My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. How many public sector jobs will need to be cut for the government to achieve the $290 million savings target in public sector wages costs set by the Treasurer in the 2009-10 budget? The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union will reportedly seek to use the new workplace laws, starting today, to pursue annual pay rises of between 4 and 6 per cent across 1,300 agreements, with better performing companies to be hit with claims of up to 6 per cent, while the Treasurer has decreed that a 2.5 per cent cap on public sector wage increases must be pursued.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="526" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. P.F. CONLON</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Elder</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Transport</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Infrastructure</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Energy</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2009-07-02">
            <name>PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2009-07-02T14:49:00" />
        <text id="200907020dcedd24a9f749b8a0000507">
          <timeStamp time="2009-07-02T14:49:00" />
          <by role="member" id="526">The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (14:49): </by> On behalf of the Treasurer, can I say that the Treasurer has brought down a tremendous budget that has maintained a historic level of infrastructure spending and has been able to exercise restraint in recurrent expenditure and preserve the state's AAA credit rating.</text>
        <text id="200907020dcedd24a9f749b8a0000508">There is no doubt that one of the things that will underpin restraint in the future will be wage restraint. I am not going to comment on the metal workers and what they pursue in the private sector. What I can say is that everyone on this side of the house is committed to achieving the wage outcomes in the public sector set out in the budget. The Treasurer has said this a number of times, but there are two manners in which the current expenditure can be saved in government: one is restraint in wage outcomes; and the other is fewer people receiving wages.</text>
        <text id="200907020dcedd24a9f749b8a0000509">There is no doubt that our preference is to achieve the restraint through restraint in wages. Mo matter what the metal workers want to say and what they want to do in the private sector, I point out that inflation forecasts are very moderate and that the wage outcomes' forecast in this budget will allow people to meet inflationary pressures, that is, their real wages will be protected if the inflation figures are correct, and we believe they are. We stand by that. I would be interested to know whether you think they should get more, because I do know that when we come into this place regularly the Liberal Party is apparently the great champion of the workers.</text>
        <page num="3381" />
        <text id="200907020dcedd24a9f749b8a0000510">I remember the member for Morphett's ferocious commitment to make sure that the WorkCover changes did not—</text>
        <text id="200907020dcedd24a9f749b8a0000511">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="56">An honourable member interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="526" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. P.F. CONLON</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="200907020dcedd24a9f749b8a0000512">
          <by role="member" id="526">The Hon. P.F. CONLON: </by> Of course, the ferocious commitment did not last that long; and Mitch, of course, crossed the floor to vote against WorkCover provisions to preserve the right of entry for unions. So, they do have a rather muddled—</text>
        <text id="200907020dcedd24a9f749b8a0000513">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="56">An honourable member interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="526" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. P.F. CONLON</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="200907020dcedd24a9f749b8a0000514">
          <by role="member" id="526">The Hon. P.F. CONLON: </by> I am sure that went down well back in Millicent—the member for MacKillop's preservation of the right of entry for unions. He went further than Julia Gillard did. But, that's all right, he is capable of having more than one view on a subject, apparently.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="535" kind="interjection">
        <name>The Hon. J.D. Hill</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="200907020dcedd24a9f749b8a0000515">
          <by role="member" id="535">The Hon. J.D. Hill: </by> Remarkably flexible.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="526" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. P.F. CONLON</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="200907020dcedd24a9f749b8a0000516">
          <by role="member" id="526">The Hon. P.F. CONLON: </by> Remarkably flexible for a bloke of his size. What I would say is that the opposition, if it were real, would do something. It would support the notion of public sector wage restraint. It would support that. It is in the interests of the state. It might, in fact, support the bill that we have in the upper house in terms of government reform. What we do know is that the business community shakes its head in disbelief at the various positions this opposition takes; and, from what I have seen, nothing seems likely to change in the future.</text>
        <text id="200907020dcedd24a9f749b8a0000517">I would note, and I have to say this, that the federal Liberal member Christopher Pyne did in fact seek to—what was the phrase? He came to bury Caesar but he seems likely to inter Brutus instead.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>