HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-06-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Construction Industry

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:05): I refer the Speaker to the Premier's answers in last question time. My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier provide an update on what actions are being taken to protect our local construction industry from the CFMEU takeover of the BIRST worker redundancy fund? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order from the Leader of Government Business which I will hear under 134.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, standing order 97: questions should not involve argument. The deputy leader has involved in his entire question a whole series of arguments and purported facts. I ask him to either rephrase or learn how to do it properly.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I am going to turn to the deputy leader and give him an opportunity to recast the question.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Thank you, sir. My question is to the Premier. Has the Premier taken any actions to prevent the BIRST worker redundancy fund being replaced by Incolink? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: On 1 June, The Advertiser reported, and I quote:

Premier Peter Malinauskas is moving to block a takeover in South Australia of construction workers' entitlements by a fund backed by controversial union leader John Setka.

Vowing the state was willing to deploy powers to throttle the move, Mr Malinauskas highlighted the higher cost to workers and a lack of complaints about the existing scheme.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:06): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his question. As I have enunciated in this place previously, we are as a government assessing our options about how to respond to this, but we have also asked a series of questions that I think are pertinent in respect of what is actually occurring within the system.

We are aware of the basics around what Incolink does interstate and what BIRST does locally. To the extent that the government has an interest—and I am not talking about interest in a regulatory sense or in a legislative sense; I am talking about having an interest as a matter of public affairs—it is simply making sure that workers in South Australia who operate in the industry and who are beneficiaries of such a redundancy scheme are best protected and afforded the best entitlements that can reasonably be accommodated through the industry.

BIRST has seemingly done that with effect in the past in an arrangement that has been governed jointly between the Master Builders Association of South Australia and also the unions in South Australia, including the CFMEU but also others as well—the CEPU representing electricians and plumbers, for instance. We see that arrangement having operated with a degree of effect in the past in a way that I think has been largely non-controversial and an example of where unions and industry can work together to achieve outcomes for employees within the sector.

That is largely what happens with Incolink, and the question that we have is whether or not there is a need for a change, or if there is a differential in the arrangement between Incolink and BIRST that might provide a benefit to workers or might have an unreasonable expense to industry. These are live questions that the government is turning its mind to by making inquiries, but we will garner all the information that is required and assess our options.

What we have made clear, and what I said in a statement to the house previously and that I maintain, is that if we see a deleterious impact on workers or the industry, but particularly the workers because that's for whom the scheme is designed, as a result of a takeover, then we stand ready to take whatever actions we reasonably can.

As I explained in an answer to the house previously, when questions were asked I think by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition then, most of the regulatory powers and functions that the state has have since been lost to the commonwealth on the back of the WorkChoices referral of powers that happened back then, particularly around the High Court decision around WorkChoices. That is the constitutional framework we operate within. That is not for negotiation or interpretation, but there are potentially options that the state government can turn its mind to, and that is what we are assessing, provided of course that there is a need to do so.

More recently again, I spoke to the Master Builders Association. I will be speaking to unions regarding the matter to understand the issue as fully as we can. I have been in receipt of correspondence from the secretary of the CEPU locally here in South Australia, Mr John Adley. That was correspondence I had in my weekend bag. As far as I can tell from the advocacy I have received from organisations in South Australia, either industry organisations or union organisations, I think the consistent theme that I have picked up in the correspondence and the conversations I have had is that there is a collective desire to ensure that workers are better off as a result of any changes that are made.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT