House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Crane Services Crane Services The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS House of Assembly Black Leader of the Opposition Crane Services The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): My question is to the Premier. Apart from arguing for some elements— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The exchange between the Treasurer and the member for Schubert is preventing the leader from asking his question. The member for Schubert is called to order. The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS House of Assembly Black Leader of the Opposition The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: My question is for the Premier. Apart from arguing for some elements of the federal Labor government's workplace relations bill, is the Premier doing anything to assist Crane Services through this dispute? With your leave, and that of the house, I will explain. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS House of Assembly Black Leader of the Opposition The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I just realised there was some more to add to give the question even more value. Leave granted. The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS House of Assembly Black Leader of the Opposition The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The federal construction watchdog was dismantled by the federal Labor government two weeks ago. Today, it was reported that John Setka's CFMEU has rejected a 16 per cent pay increase for workers at local business Crane Services and, instead, is launching industrial action, with members refusing to work and protesting outside the gates. The Master Builders Association chief, Will Frogley, has described this behaviour as a 'militant approach.' The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS House of Assembly Croydon Premier The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:08): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. As I just mentioned, I have spoken to the owner of Crane Services, Mr John Nicholls. He has been keeping me informed about that dispute from his perspective, and that's something that I welcome. As I mentioned earlier, I had the opportunity to speak to Mr Nicholls earlier today and he explained to me the circumstances from his perspective. I haven't spoken to the CFMEU or any of their representatives, so I have not heard their side of the story—and history tells us that there are normally two. Nonetheless, again I simply reiterate that I think that this is a demonstration of why there is value in having an independent arbiter who can compulsorily compel parties to participate in arbitration in this instance. Because on face value—and again I qualify the remarks I am about to make by saying that I have not heard the other side of the story—when you hear reports of a 16 per cent pay rise, I think that sounds as though it's a pretty healthy offer on behalf of the employer, notwithstanding the fact that we don't understand the full context of what base that is coming off or what has been happening in terms of real wages in that sector for some time. Notwithstanding that, if there was the capacity to arbitrate, then that would have been a viable option to the employer in this instance that I hope can be realised. In answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question, I absolutely and unapologetically advocate for those sorts of outcomes. If the state parliament or the state government had the means to intervene in an industrial relations dispute in South Australia, then we would consider it, but that is not available to us and it hasn't been available to any state legislature around the country since WorkChoices in 2007, since the referral of those powers to the commonwealth following the WorkChoices legislation. Nonetheless, as the Premier of the state I make my position known. I am more than happy to advocate accordingly and will continue to do so at any opportunity that is granted. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The leader on a supplementary.