Enterprise Bargaining

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (14:32): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Treasurer regarding enterprise bargaining.

Leave granted.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: In an article in InDaily dated 5 November 2019, Nursing and Midwifery Federation state secretary Elizabeth Dabars described the government's decision to refuse to provide back pay once an enterprise agreement has settled as draconian. In the same article, Australian Education Union then branch vice-president, Ms Lara Golding, likened the policy change to wage theft. My question to the Treasurer is: does the Treasurer agree that this decision, this draconian decision likened to wage theft, absolutely provides no incentive to government agencies to finalise enterprise agreements, and does he accept that these draconian, wage theft-like policy provisions will actually hurt the government in trying to finalise agreements with industrial organisations and their workers?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:33): No, I don't believe they are draconian or akin to wage theft at all. It is the government's intention, the government through me as minister, to drive enterprise bargaining negotiations. Final decisions are not left to agencies. So it's not really what drives individual agencies in terms of settling enterprise bargaining agreements; it is what drives me and the government in terms of settling enterprise bargaining agreements. I can indicate quite clearly that it's in the government's interest to have a happy, harmonious, productive workforce.

We acknowledge the hard work of our public servants right across the board, whether they be in the teaching workforce, the nursing workforce or indeed in the broader public sector. You will never see from me, or from any member of the government, comprehensive criticism of the whole public sector. We acknowledge the hard work, but nevertheless the government has acknowledged—and the Auditor-General has warned of—the importance of having sensible and reasonable wage settlement guidelines. He didn't use exactly those words, but they were the words that can be inferred from his commentary on state finances, that is, that it is a challenge. The government has set itself a challenge in terms of enterprise bargaining negotiations, and it is important that the government adheres to those particular assumptions.

Those principles do include a provision that says that we are not interested in interim payments, because that gives no incentive to the union bosses to actually get on with the business of settling an agreement. The teachers union asks for a 3.5 per cent interim payment, if that was happily settled then they could just drag out the negotiations for ever and a day. It is in everybody's interest for a sensible, reasonable settlement in terms of wage and salary negotiations.

The government has offered 2.35 per cent to teachers and 3.35 per cent to principals and preschool directors. Inflation has been in and around 1.5 per cent—it has slightly edged upwards in the most recent figures, but nevertheless the government's offer is significantly above the inflation rate in South Australia. It is a sensible and reasonable offer we have made that the taxpayers can afford.

In addition, in relation to teachers, we have offered significant improvements in terms of complexity allowances, which is additional assistance for teachers within the classroom to help them with the challenges that they confront on a daily basis. So, no, we do not accept that it is draconian or akin to wage theft. We are interested in an early settlement, and as minister I place that on the record as the government's position. But it does take two to tango, and the union bosses in relation to these unions are going to have to come to a realisation that taxpayers can only afford sensible and reasonable wage increases.