HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANISATION COMMUNITY SECTOR

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.A. Franks:

1. That this council notes—

(a) that the South Australian non-government organisation community sector relies heavily on state government funding for delivery of services and payments of wages to workers in the industry and that this emotionally taxing labour which is most often performed by women workers is critical to the fabric of our community and to a broader goal of women's pay equity in Australia;

(b) that the significant value of this labour is not always reflected in the pay those in the community sector receive and that consequently community sector workers' unions lodged an equal remuneration order with the regulator in March this year and that Fair Work Australia will hold hearings into that pay claim later this year;

(c) that a similar pay equity case conducted in Queensland in 2008 resulted in pay increases of up to 37 per cent for workers in this same sector; and

(d) that as of 18 June 2010 the Victorian government has agreed to back higher rates of pay for community sector workers in a deal where that government would underwrite salary parity for the community sector.

2. That this council calls on the Treasurer and the Minister for Families and Communities to fund the community services sector sufficiently to address this pay inequity still endured by South Australian community sector employees regardless of the outcome of the Fair Work Australia case so that South Australia can join Queensland and Victoria in fully recognising the valuable work of the non-government organisation community sector.

(Continued from 23 June 2010.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (20:16): I rise to speak to the motion. I am sure all members in this chamber would agree with the principle of fairness and equity in pay decisions. The Hon. Tammy Franks, in her explanation to her motion, pointed to the example in Queensland where a similar pay equity case led to wage increases between 18 and 37 per cent for workers employed under the community services crisis and supported housing state award.

I am sure those employees in Queensland who received pay rises of up to 37 per cent—as with any workers or employees who might get a pay rise of 37 per cent—were delighted at the pay equity case outcome which resulted, as I said, in that particular significant pay increase. The Hon. Tammy Franks pointed out there was currently a pay equity case being heard by Fair Work Australia and this motion calls on the current government to increase funding to address the pay inequity irrespective of the decision of Fair Work Australia.

While at the outset I am sure members would agree with the notion that we support fairness and equity, we actually do have an industrial relations system. We do have an industrial umpire. We do have a situation where that industrial umpire has been asked to make a decision in this particular case and, clearly not being an expert in the area, I do not know what the chances are of the claim being successful or not. Ultimately that will be a decision for Fair Work Australia, as I understand it.

In essence, the dilemma for those of us in this chamber is our being asked to sign off on a blank cheque; that is, we do not know what the decision is and we are being asked that, irrespective of whatever that decision is, the Rann government should be asked to increase funding to address pay inequity. I am never shy about attacking the Rann government, as members would be aware, but in relation to this I think it is difficult to sign up to the blank cheque at this stage not knowing exactly what we are being asked to sign off on. That is, what would be the impact on the state budget? Given the widespread cuts that are being implemented already by this government to fund its current programs—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: That work is going to be picked up by the NGO sector.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Tammy Franks says that that work will be picked up by the NGO sector. She argues that is the case, and that might be the case, but I suspect knowing the NGO sector that in some cases that will be impossible. Some of the work might be able to be picked up by the NGO sector, but I think this government is taking the view that it is cutting the services, and some of those services will not be delivered. I do not think we can assume that those current services will continue to be delivered, but that it will seamlessly transition to a harder worked NGO sector.

I think the reality of some of the Rann government cuts is that those services will disappear, they just will not be delivered. Whilst one cannot speak for all NGOs, by and large I am sure that most of us believe that they work enormously hard, they work efficiently, and I think it is impossible to ask them to do much more than they are already doing without increasing funding, or in some cases actually reducing funding to them—and we are going to see reductions in funding to NGOs coming from some government departments and agencies over the coming two years or so because not all of the decisions have been advised to NGOs yet.

I do not think we are going to see a situation where these services will continue to be delivered by NGOs. I think we will see significant cuts in services as a result of the state government's decisions. What we are left with then is the situation of how much it is going to cost and, if it does become a cost to government, what further cuts this government will implement over and above the existing ones to fund this particular case.

In the end, if the industrial umpire says that there is to be a significant wage increase then the government sector and the NGOs will have to meet that. That is the reality; that is our system. If the umpire says that this is pay equity and this is what has to occur, then that is what will have to occur, and the government of the day and the NGOs will, obviously, have to respond to that, but at this stage it is impossible for us to do.

The Greens obviously have more flexibility than the government or the alternative government because they will not be in government in the foreseeable—

The Hon. M. Parnell: Flexibility or morality?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, no, not flexible morality. The Greens do not have to have the challenge in three years of actually having to produce the overall budget. It is an important role that they have, in that they have an important flexibility that the government and the alternative government do not have; that is, they can advocate for all groups across the board and they do not ultimately have to sign off on a budget that, in the end, is balanced in one form or another.

From the opposition's viewpoint, or the alternative government's viewpoint, we, at this stage, cannot support the motion on two bases; one is that we do not know what the implications of the costs would be—that is, exactly how much it would cost—and, secondly, as I said at the outset, we do have an industrial system in Australia, and in South Australia, we do have, supposedly, an independent industrial umpire. The independent industrial umpire is to adjudicate on the case and we will obviously follow it with interest as well.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.

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