Disability Services

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (14:35): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Human Services regarding disability services.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said before, the 1,400 public sector disability workers employed in group homes, who provide care to some of our most vulnerable people, were due to have their employment transferred to a new public corporation set up to cater for changes under the NDIS. What this would have meant is that these workers would continue to retain the same pay and the same conditions and, importantly, to have jobs they could count on rather than be forced into insecure work.

Pursuant to part 4 of appendix 1 of the South Australian Public Sector Wages Parity Enterprise Agreement: Weekly Paid 2017, any employee who is made redundant has a right to remain in the public sector, maintaining the same pay and conditions. My questions to the minister are:

1. What do you say to these workers, many of whom are here today, about your plan that they should consider working for possibly less pay and worse conditions and with less job security in the private sector, as opposed to working in the public corporation that was set up under the Labor government to ensure continuity of conditions, pay and job security?

2. Given that these 1,400 workers have the right to maintain their public sector employment, should they not wish to be transferred to the private sector, can you give examples of some of the positions within the public sector that some of these workers who don't wish to be forced into the private sector might go into?

3. What guarantees are there that these dedicated workers won't be any worse off under your privatisation plan?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (14:37): I reject many aspects of the premise of the Leader of the Opposition's question—firstly that it's privatisation. If it is privatisation, then the former government was very much involved in the privatisation of all the other disability services—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Setting up a public corporation.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The public corporation was designed to reduce costs, so I'm not quite sure what the honourable member is getting at.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Indeed, the public corporation. The purpose of the public corporation was a range of workplace reform, which was to reduce costs, so the honourable Leader of the Opposition may well reflect on what that meant for workers. So I reject this assertion that the public corporation was some Nirvana that was going to serve all ills. In fact, I understand that at least one of the unions was very, very uncomfortable with the concept of a public corporation when it was first established.

The public corporation had not been activated in the sense that the employees had transferred across in any way. They still are employees of the Department of Human Services, so it's a bit of a red herring to raise as a significant issue. As I have just said, I am no expert, but my understanding of industrial matters is that the pay and conditions of the employees is governed by an enterprise agreement, so those areas are taken care of.

For those people who were concerned about whether they were to transition to a non-government provider, there is a range of positions that I understand probably offer more favourable conditions, in that the non-government sector is able to salary sacrifice. There are people who work in equivalent positions in the non-government sector who have permanent jobs, and there are many who work full-time, and I understand that there is a range of employees within the government community accommodation sector who would probably like opportunities to work a greater number of hours. So there are opportunities in this space for employees. In fact, the NDIS has opened up a huge range of opportunities for employees. They are in very high demand, and they have nothing to fear from this process.