WORKCOVER CORPORATION: MEMBER FOR REYNELL

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:12): I move:

That this house condemns the member for Reynell for supporting the state government in cutting WorkCover entitlements, and for—

(a) not taking any interest in the blow-out in WorkCover's unfunded liability since taking office;

(b) not taking any interest in WorkCover's poor return to work results;

(c) not informing the public until after the federal election that WorkCover entitlements to injured workers would be cut; and

(d) not examining alternatives to cutting workers' benefits as part of WorkCover reform.

There is a series of these motions coming to the house this morning specifically aimed at Labor members, and they tend to be aimed at those Labor members who talk the talk as champions of workers but who do not walk the walk. They have got to where they are in the Labor movement claiming to be the champions of the workers, and yet at the very first opportunity for political advantage, they shaft those people. It is not just those who have been successful in the parliamentary arena. There are other members who have climbed the union/Amway ladder to the top and are benefiting from the membership fees that the hardworking union members fork out every week to be in that organisation.

Despite her previous desire to continue collecting payment as a member of the WorkCover Board until the very last minute before recently resigning, SA Unions secretary Janet Giles has been forced to condemn the state government on behalf of its members who for such a long time have been both the foot soldiers and the paymasters of the ALP. Janet Giles knew about these plans 18 months ago but continued to sit on the board of WorkCover collecting a salary of, I believe, about $30,000 a year on top of what she gets from the pay packets of South Australian workers for their union membership.

At the very last minute she decides, on a matter of principle, that she will resign. Well, she could have resigned about $45,000 ago if she really wanted to make a point. I know that the extra cash always comes in handy; however, it really is a matter of principle. Janet Giles has some principles; I understand that. She encouraged people on radio to contact their MPs and the Premier to let them know that they do not want injured workers to have their pay cut if they are injured and have to be kicked in the guts at a time when they are trying to recover.

Strangely, she did not apply the same sentiment which she chose to kick the Cancer Council's good name over its use of AWAs with a school-age picket line; but that is a different story again. We all remember when she picketed the Cancer Council. They really are strange people that they breed in the Labor Movement at times.

If you go to the member for Reynell's website, it tells you a bit about her principles. From the personal background information, which is proudly outlined on her ALP website, the member for Reynell would be the last person who you would expect to line up to give injured workers a kick in the guts. It states:

Gay’s commitment to politics was shaped by her childhood experiences as the eldest of seven children in a family where there was unemployment, ill health and never enough money to meet household needs.

To help out, she started part time work at fourteen and worked full time by sixteen.

Gay studied part time to finish her schooling and go to university. She has worked as a union official and in many roles advocating for fair treatment of disadvantaged people.

Very high morals. She has been solid in her commitment as an ex union official advocating for the fair treatment of disadvantaged people since her election in 1997 by doing nothing about the obvious and spiralling problems of WorkCover, except to take an easy option and support a reduction in injured workers' benefits now that the situation is at crisis point.

That is the whole point of this motion. Labor members have been sitting here, advocates of the trade union movement, advocates of their members sitting here in this chamber for years watching a deteriorating system that is creating a millstone around the necks of the public of South Australia. The only solution they put up to solve it is to kick their own members in the guts when they are down, when they are injured in the workplace—

Mr O'BRIEN: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: standing order 184 states:

Business not to be anticipated

A motion may not attempt to anticipate debate on any matter which appears on the Notice Paper.

The member is straying into the area of anticipating debate on the WorkCover legislation currently before the house. I point out to him and all subsequent speakers that you are actually constrained very narrowly in the range of debate into which you can enter into. I ask the Deputy Speaker if she could—

Mr PISONI: On a point of order: the member has to address the chair, not members.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Napier raises a very accurate but delicate point of order. While the motion is in order, it does offer a challenge in terms of what matters can be canvassed in speaking to it. The speaker may not canvass matters that are the subject of debate on a question currently before the house.

Mr VENNING: On a further point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, under standing order 184: these motions are listed on the Notice Paper this morning and are quite clear in what they outline, and they were listed before the bill was reintroduced into the parliament. I know it is very difficult for you to govern as regards what rule 184 does mean. However, on reading these motions, how can you address them and not discuss WorkCover? It is on the motion; it is on the Notice Paper. So, madam, I do not know how you are going to be able to rule.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I agree it is a difficult exercise; however, I will endeavour to do my best.

Mr PISONI: One thing that the member for Napier is wrong about is there has been no debate about this in the Labor Party. They have just done what their masters have told them: Mr Rann, Mr Foley, Mr Farrell. They have just done what their masters have told them, that is all. There has been no debate whatsoever. So I am not debating the WorkCover legislation. What I am talking about here is: what do Labor members really stand for? They tell their constituents one thing, but when given the choice they do the opposite, they take the easy option.

The member for Reynell also provided the National Forum website with an interesting insight into her reasons for standing at the 2006 election, given the current debate. 'I am concerned about a fair go for workers.' That is what she said, that she was 'concerned about a fair go for workers'. So, again, one thing for the audience that wants to hear it, but when it comes time to actually deliver on that, go to water.

I have not heard a thing from the member for Reynell defending workers' rights during this whole WorkCover public discussion. Not even outside of the parliament have I heard her mention her concern about cuts for workers. She was certainly not standing shoulder to shoulder with workers outside parliament on Tuesday—although I believe two Labor MLCs were out there.

This member was not shy about complaining about cuts to workers' rights in 2006 as a witness for the Labor Parliamentary Taskforce on Industrial Relations, which was looking into 'the adverse effects of the government's extreme industrial relations changes'. Remember, this was a public perception campaign. This was a perception of what the federal government was doing at the time. Workers' cuts are a reality, not a perception. So, 100 per cent/80 per cent; that is the reality, there is no perception there whatsoever.

There is no political debate. You cannot argue left or right on that one, or Labor or Liberal on that one. A cut is a cut is a cut, regardless of what your politics are. Yes, that was a political stunt and a Liberal government being targeted. So, standing up for workers in the federal electorate of Kingston alongside union reps from the AEU, the AMWU and, surprise, surprise, the SDA was all okay, but that was against a Liberal government. That did not affect her career prospects. As a matter of fact, that was quite handy for career prospects, I would imagine, attacking your political opponent. I wonder if the member is returning their calls this week when they ring expressing their concerns about WorkCover?

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr PISONI: The member for Reynell can respond. She has the same right as anybody else in the chamber to respond and refute what I am claiming in my speech here. The crowds of ALP politicians attending rallies about workers' rights have certainly thinned since the federal election. There is no doubt about that. I think they were outnumbered a thousand to one out there on Tuesday. The member for Reynell, along with other members of the Rann government, has sat idly by while, under their watch, WorkCover's unfunded liability has increased from a very manageable $56 million, under the Liberals, up to $850 million on the last reports. On top of that we have the government's own WorkCover scheme—another $300 million to $400 million. Did the member for Reynell not notice or did she not care? Maybe there is a difference. Maybe she just did not care about the unfunded liability. Maybe that is why we have not heard from her. Maybe she did not think it was a problem. The member for Reynell and minister Wright—

Mr O'BRIEN: I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer to standing order 127, 'Digression; personal reflections on members', which states that a member may not make personal reflections on other members. The honourable member is continually straying into the area of making reflections on the member for Reynell.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I have indicated to the honourable member earlier, the member for Unley needs to be very careful about the ground he treads. I accept that this is a motion of condemnation, so therefore some comments about the person who is the subject of the motion are appropriate. However, there is also an obligation on the honourable member not to impute improper motives to any honourable member of the house. The member for Unley may resume his comments, carefully.

Mr PISONI: This is a very sensitive issue for the Labor Party. The champion of the workers, the member for Springfield over there, jumps up every couple of minutes. Gee, I tell you what—

Mr O'Brien interjecting:

Mr PISONI: Say it outside.

Mr O'Brien interjecting:

Mr PISONI: Say it outside on the steps. You say it outside on the steps.

Mr O'Brien interjecting:

Mr PISONI: Go on, say it outside on the steps. Now, where was I before I was rudely interrupted? Here we go. In fact, the Workplace Relations Ministers Council's Comparative Performance Monitoring Report found that South Australia was the only state that did not record a return to work improvement in 2005-06. Let us not forget that levy rate payments by employers also remain the highest in Australia. Of course, this acts as a disincentive to employ and is another reason, along with high rates of state-based taxes and low payroll tax thresholds, for business to set up elsewhere. The member for Reynell—

Mr O'BRIEN: I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer again to standing order 184, 'Business not to be anticipated'.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was not myself confident of where the member for Unley was going. However, he has a very difficult task, and I ask him to uphold the integrity of the parliament.

Mr PISONI: I ask for some more time on the clock with all the interruptions I have had with my speech. You have done it for Labor members.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No frivolous points of order have been raised. The member for Unley may continue.

Mr PISONI: Labor's handling of the WorkCover issue since coming to power in this state has been a conspiracy of ineptitude, disinterest and cynicism. Perhaps if the member for Reynell and other members opposite had applied more pressure and sooner to minister Wright, Treasurer Foley and Mike Rann to address the WorkCover issue the reductions in benefits now to be suffered by injured workers may well have been minimised.

The closest I could find to a parliamentary contribution by the member for Reynell on workplace safety was a Dorothy Dixer to minister Wright in 2003 on the government's enforcing the rights of South Australian employees to work in a safe and healthy workplace. The minister was able to reassure her that enforcement was a top priority, with 30 new occupational health and safety inspectors about to come on line—undoubtedly all ex-union officials.

Time expired.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.