House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Public Sector Employment PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT Mrs REDMOND House of Assembly Heysen Leader of the Opposition PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is again to the Premier: does the Premier agree with the leader of the ACTU who was outside this parliament at lunchtime saying that the Premier has no principles and has abandoned Labor's values? The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly Ramsay Premier Minister for Economic Development Minister for Social Inclusion Minister for the Arts Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (14:40): No. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: I was given early warning and I appreciate the opposition for telling me what the question would be. What the Leader of the Opposition needs to understand is that putting together this budget— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: —required careful consideration of how a $1.4 billion drop in anticipated revenue would impact on South Australians. We rejected a whole host of measures recommended by the Sustainable Budget Commission. The commission recommended cuts— Mr Marshall interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Norwood! Keep your voice down. In fact, keep it quiet. The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: We have all heard about the Marshall plan. The commission recommended cuts to core services such as hospitals and schools, cuts to policing, and it recommended raising taxes and charges but, while the commission knows the cost of services (and that is what they were asked to do), the government knows the value. The budget strategy involved tough decisions, hard savings measures, and that is because we were determined to meet all of our election funding commitments. We wanted to ensure that our budget remains sustainable in future years, and that is the difference. Mr Marshall interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Norwood. The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: You promise everything to everyone, which is why you are on that side of the parliament, because the people of this state want governments that make tough decisions, that have the courage to take the tough decisions— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: —for the long term, not just for tomorrow's headline. We also wanted to protect core services and maintain our ongoing investment in infrastructure. Just remember, compare the difference of the jobs growth in this state under Labor compared to the former eight years under the Liberals—it could not be separated by a more massive amount. Jobs growth—and infrastructure funding, five times more than it was under the Liberals, because we want to rebuild this state and that is what we have been doing. We have had the guts to make the hard decisions to keep jobs growth going: 120,000 extra people in work compared to when you were in office, because you did not have the guts to make hard decisions. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Mr Marshall interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Norwood, you have been warned once. I warn you for the second time. The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: The opposition should make it quite clear where they stand on this issue and how they would decide. Would they close the Repat hospital? Would they close Modbury Hospital? Would they close country hospitals? Would they reduce police numbers like they did when they were in power? Would they close schools and cut teacher numbers? Would they close schools like they did when they were in power? Would they raise taxes and charges? Would they double the emergency services levy, which they introduced, or the River Murray levy? The fact is that the cabinet has rejected these options. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: They are all competing. Mr Pisoni interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order, member for Unley! The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: The fact is that the cabinet rejected those decisions. Only this morning, because I listened on the radio system, we heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about her aspirations for—wait for it—a smaller Public Service. How many Public Service jobs did she want to get rid of? The fact is that this government has committed to additional expenditure that will see increases in public sector jobs in priority areas of health, community welfare, policing—and we have announced more than 300 extra police in this term—and education; a massive increase in the number of doctors, a massive increase in the number of nurses, a massive increase in the number of police and a record number of people in jobs. This government, as a responsible government, had to return the budget to a sustainable position, so there were recommendations from the Sustainable Budget Commission that we accepted. We accepted changes to leave arrangements for some, but not all, public sector employees. Those changes to leave entitlements bring Public Service conditions more into line with the general community standards, that is, conditions under which most people out there in the private sector are employed; but they, of course, do not have security of tenure. The payment of leave loading will continue unchanged for employees who are employed as shift workers, or seven day a week workers; and, similarly, those who come within the exclusions, for example, police, doctors, nurses and other health practitioners, health ancillary employees, teachers, school support officers and others detailed in the bill. We have exempted those employees. Employees who will cease to receive a payment of leave loading will instead be compensated by two extra days of recreation leave. In relation to long service leave entitlements, employees will continue to accrue long service leave in accordance with the community standard of nine calendar days' leave per year after the qualifying period of seven years. The current arrangements where 15 calendar days per year are accrued for employees with more than 15 years' service will be discontinued. Instead, from 1 July next year they will accrue nine calendar days per year after 15 years of service. Importantly, all accrued entitlements will be preserved. I repeat: all accrued entitlements will be preserved. This is not a retrospective measure. If changes to leave loading and long service leave arrangements for some public sector workers were not adopted, it would have meant about 500 more public sector jobs would go in order to deliver the equivalent savings. Again, these are hard decisions from a responsible government. I can confirm today, however, that the government has not changed the policy of no forced redundancies for tenured employees. Let me repeat that: I can confirm today that the government has not changed the policy of no forced redundancies for tenured employees. Government employees who become excess as a consequence of budget-saving measures will have the opportunity for training and skills development to assist them to find any alternative employment duties that arise from natural attrition and higher priority expenditure initiatives in the public sector. Employees who become excess and are not assigned to other duties will also have available the most generous voluntary separation packages. Following the introduction of separation packages (and there will be a gold standard that will then go to silver), if the required reduction in the number of employees is not achieved in 12 months through redeployment and voluntary separation packages, the government will reconsider its no forced redundancy policy. We do not expect to have to do that. That reconsideration will only occur if the required reduction in employee numbers is not achieved. Voluntary separation packages have successfully been made available from time to time in the past and, as I publicly stated, I remain optimistic that the generous voluntary separation packages and, indeed, redeployment opportunities that will be available to employees who are declared as excess, plus the attrition rate, will achieve the required reduction. Thank you for the prior notice of that question. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Have you finished? We have got 43 minutes left of question time and, if we run out of time, you will not be able to ask all your questions; but I am going to sit here until you are quiet. The member for Mount Gambier.