WORKCOVER CORPORATION: MEMBER FOR NORWOOD

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:43): I move:

That this house condemns the member for Norwood 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.

This year we celebrate the 20^th anniversary of WorkCover in this state, introduced with great expectation that it would provide for a new no-fault scheme for the protection of workers who may be injured in the workforce, and to revolutionise the approach by not being a punitive or compensatory scheme but a rehabilitation scheme.

The member for Norwood, indeed, came into parliament in 1997. She has been here for 11 years and, of that time, I have been here for six years. Since I have been here I have not heard her speak on WorkCover, workers' entitlements, the unfunded liability blow-out or reform in that area. There has been absolute stunning silence. It reminds me of the Simon and Garfunkel song, The Sounds of Silence: 'Hello darkness, my old friend; I've come to talk with you again.' The sounds of silence! When she came into the house, the member for Norwood spoke eloquently about immigration in South Australia and its importance—

Mrs GERAGHTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise a point that you may like to take into consideration—and I thank the member for Bragg for bringing this to my attention. It is the wording of the motion: condemning for 'not taking any interest' and 'not informing the public'. How do any of the movers of these motions know that, and can they substantiate it?

An honourable member interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: They are making an assumption, and I would like to know whether that is appropriate, when that may not be the truth and they may be misleading the house.

Ms CHAPMAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a complete nonsense. Either dismiss the point of order forthwith—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the deputy leader! There is no point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—a wise decision. So, in those six years—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Was I hearing a challenge to your decision, Madam Deputy Speaker?

The Hon. S.W. Key: No, it's 'the sounds of silence'.

Ms CHAPMAN: Excellent. Sometimes it is mercifully silent. In the last six years, in the time that I have been here, the member for Norwood has been absolutely silent in this house about this incredible figure of $54 million or $56 million as at 30 June 2002, with respect to the unfunded liability of the WorkCover Corporation. It is some mysterious amount now—we do not know what the real amount is—but it was $844 million as at 30 June 2007. Of course, we are another nine months down the track, but I will leave that for another debate. In that time, there has been absolute silence.

The member for Norwood (as do we all) represents in her electorate about 22,000 or 23,000 people in this state. Those people make up a number of the 500,000 employees who are covered and protected by WorkCover. Clearly, they are some of the 65,000 registered employers who pay the levy as part of WorkCover. These people live in her electorate. I do not doubt for one moment that there are self-insured employers and employees and many state government employees who are all affected by WorkCover legislation but, in particular, the WorkCover benefits and legacies that we have been left with over the last six years. These people live in her electorate; her electorate is not immune from these people. These people with their protections, obligations and responsibilities under WorkCover are in her electorate, just like they are in all members' electorates. However, we have had absolute silence from her in relation to Norwood.

The Britannia roundabout was a government project, which probably would have involved the need for some protection. In that case, if it was not tendered out, it would be in-house and would be covered by the Department of Transport. However, if it had been tendered out, even those people would have been covered by WorkCover. We had absolute silence from the member for Norwood, whose constituents are affected every day when travelling through that roundabout because of the transport problems. It was absolutely 'the sounds of silence' from the member for Norwood then.

Former minister White approved a program to deal with this problem that would have involved people who needed to be covered by WorkCover. She launched a magnificent project, on which I complimented her, for a twin light system to remedy the problem. But where was the member for Norwood? She was silent about that, even though her constituents were affected. Then the new Minister for Transport (minister Conlon) was appointed and he cancelled it. What did we hear from the member for Norwood? The sounds of silence again.

She certainly has form in not actually coming into this house and demonstrating her commitment to the people of Norwood. As I said, before I was interrupted—unfairly, of course, as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have dealt with the interjector and dismissed her summary and irrelevant objection—she, of course, came into this parliament awash with commitment to local government. She, of course, had served as the mayor of Norwood and had a commitment to that level of government. The WorkCover legislation has its own scheme through the Local Government Association, so perhaps the member for Norwood was a little immune to all the difficulties existing out there in the real world at that point, because the LGA looked after it for her—I do not know.

What I do know is that she clearly has these issues in her electorate. She told the house in her maiden speech in 1998 of the importance of the issues in her electorate. She referred to many of the migrants who had come to live in Norwood, the seat of the famous Don Dunstan—or infamous, depending on whichever way you want to look at it.

She had taken over the seat but, of course, there had been a few people in between, for instance, Frank Webster, Greg Crafter and John Cummins. Nevertheless, this was the home of Don Dunstan and it was his government who initiated the original inquiries into rehabilitation programs for injured workers. It ultimately went into a committee in the 1980s under the Bannon administration and, of course, was then introduced and debated in the late 1980s.

The father, in the sense of the history of her seat, the Hon. Don Dunstan, would have turned in his grave, I am sure, if he had seen her performance, particularly over the last six years. We can say, 'Well, perhaps she didn't need to be worried about it from about 1988 to 2002 because during a large portion of that time we had the privilege in South Australia of being under a Liberal government. It managed this very well and ensured that the unfunded liability did not blow out.'

I can forgive her for that; what is impossible to believe is that, in the last six years, we have not heard a squeak from across the road—from the member for Norwood—about this issue. These people are in her electorate whether as employers or employees, whether they are self-funded, whether they are in the government or the WorkCover scheme. At the end of the day, all of us have to pay. Whatever method of clean-up or mode of operation is needed to remedy this mess, we are all going to pay for it. There is no question about that, and the people in Norwood will not escape.

I will make one other observation in relation to the inactivity of the member for Norwood, and that is the failure to address this issue even publicly—that is, outside the parliament—either prior to the March 2006 election, when already hundreds of millions of dollars of unfunded liability had been exposed, or in late 2007, prior to the federal election.

Let us assume that she had been occupied with other important issues pre-March 2006: that it had not been on her radar that at that stage there was over $300 million in unfunded liability and that questions had been asked in the parliament. Perhaps she was busy with other duties—public works or other local issues. Let us give her the benefit of the doubt, but how is she able to sit there ignorant of the Workers Compensation Board—

Mr O'BRIEN: I take a point of order under standing order 127. I think the member is straying into the area of personal reflection at this point.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I have indicated earlier, members on my left have a very difficult job in speaking to these motions. I will listen carefully for the next few minutes and ask the Deputy Leader to think carefully about her words.

Ms CHAPMAN: So how can the member for Norwood sit in ignorance since 2006 (after the state election), when in that time we received written advice from the WorkCover Board itself by way of a report and recommendations? We have received from Business SA a full report, and all its recommendations, on an inquiry that was conducted apparently by some independent person. How can she have sat in ignorance of the report given by various ministers responsible in this government, together with their explanation of the inquiries they were undertaking, and finally say nothing about this prior to late 2007?

What is so unacceptable is that they will not say anything. Obviously, the logical question is: why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they, with such a damning financial burden which we are about to inherit, to the cost of taxpayers, and which will have direct cost implications on both employers and employees in the workforce? Why would she do that? The only possible logical explanation is in order to render some protection by silence to the incompetent management by the government of this WorkCover Corporation.

The corporation is accountable to the parliament and, essentially, is underwritten by the taxpayers of South Australia. How could the member for Norwood have sat there in silence, other than in order to protect a level of incompetence—and not just that of the minister? Every time he was questioned in this parliament, he must have taken those issues back to the cabinet and asked, 'What do you want me to do about this? Obviously, I am getting questions in the parliament. I am getting belted by the opposition with these questions.' They were all sitting there and heard these questions when they were asked and heard the concerns that were raised—yet she sat in silence.

Throughout these debates and question times, the member for Norwood must have known, when it went back to the cabinet and when the Premier and others sat mute in dealing with this issue, other than saying, 'We will have another inquiry, it will come out with its deliberations and we will deal with it after the federal election.' That is exactly what they did: they said that they would have another inquiry. They have piles of reports, and the member for Norwood has seen them and knows what is in them. We all know what is in them. She allowed this government to do nothing other than announce that it would have another inquiry, produce another report and do nothing about it.

I hope that, when she goes back to her electorate and explains, when she is asked, 'How are we going to pay for all this, Ms Ciccarello? How are we going to pay for this, local member?' she has the honesty to tell her constituents the truth—that is, 'I sat in silence while Rome was burning.'

Mrs GERAGHTY: On a point of order, did I hear correctly that the member for Bragg accused the member for Norwood of being dishonest? I think that is a reflection.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The deputy leader.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have finished. Rome is burning.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The deputy leader has completed her contribution.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]