Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Public Sector Management PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:16): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government a question on the subject of the Public Service. Leave granted. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In a passionate contribution in this chamber, recorded in Hansard on 2 May 2007, minister Holloway said: The Australian Labor Party was founded in the 1890s...to protect the conditions of Australian workers, and to give them a fair go...What has not changed is that the Australian Labor Party believes in a fair go for Australian workers and their families—and that will continue. My two questions to the minister are: 1.	Given the fact that the minister and the Rann government have now established the precedent of removing, by legislative changes, conditions of SA workers in the public sector in the middle of enterprise bargaining negotiations, is this an indication of how he and the Rann government will conduct all future enterprise bargaining negotiations with South Australian workers in the public sector? 2.	Given the minister's statement in parliament, how does he defend his decision and the Rann government's decision to remove conditions of SA workers in the public sector, and does he accept that he has been exposed, as one observer noted to me this morning, as a 100 per cent rolled gold hypocrite? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development Minister for Urban Development and Planning Minister for Industrial Relations Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (15:18): The answer to the first question is no. Clearly, it does not set a precedent. There are particular situations that, obviously, relate to long service leave and leave loading, and they are set out within the Public Sector Act. The only way there could be a change would be as the result of a change to the act. I think it needs to be pointed out to the council that in relation to leave loading the government will not be taking those steps in relation to those workers who do shift work. I can well recall when Clyde Cameron introduced the leave loading principle back in the 1970s. It was a very simple principle. It was common in those days that tradespeople would receive above award wages but when they went on holidays they would not get those above award wages and would, therefore, be disadvantaged, and that was a discouragement to take leave. That was clearly the thinking at the time to introduce leave loading, and it was later extended to other workers. Later on I think that Clyde Cameron invented the word 'fat cats' in relation to those who were getting it, because he felt that that was not really the intention of that reform. Regardless of the origins of this particular measure, as part of the legislation the government will provide (if it is passed) two additional days' leave in relation to the leave-loading offset. So there are special conditions that obviously apply. Rather than saving the $30 million a year (as it will be in the out year) in relation to the long service leave measure and a similar amount, I believe, or something of that order in relation to the other measure, the government could have had a higher target for reducing public sector numbers, but the government believes, and I stick by what I said in relation to principles, that we have to take tough decisions. I said in answer to an earlier question that the government does have to realign the public sector. There will be approximately 4,000 administrative positions vacated every year. So, over the next four years, approximately 16,000 clerical and administrative workers will leave the public sector. We need to reduce the numbers in those areas by about 4,000. So there is the opportunity, with 16,000 people going, through the generous separation packages and also retraining, to absorb many of those numbers. I would hope all of them can be accommodated (that would be our aim) through the generous TVSPs or other positions that will become available due to attrition, because the workforce is ageing. What we have to do is realign the public sector. The options would be to make further harsher savings that will impact on services and reduce the number of public servants further, or we can take these measures. Ultimately, it will be up to this parliament to determine whether those measures are allowed through or not. I would suggest that it is a better alternative to reduce some of those conditions, which are not only out of line with the private sector but also out of line with other public sectors in this country. We are not the wealthiest state, but we do offer conditions that are very favourable, and they will remain so even with these changes. Is it not a better alternative that we take the steps proposed by the government in its budget rather than reducing another 600, 700 or 800 or however many extra public servants it would be to make these sort of savings? We need to make these savings, as I say, to realign our budget to meet continuing needs as demands for health, disabilities and other areas such as families and communities grow. The only way we can possibly have any chance of meeting that is by realigning the budget.