WORKCOVER CORPORATION: MEMBER FOR LIGHT

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:42): I move:

That this house condemns the member for Light 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 motion condemns the member for Light for supporting the state government in cutting injured workers' entitlements and for not taking any interest in the worsening financial performance of the scheme, as WorkCover's unfunded liability continues to spiral out of control. It is a pity that the member is not currently present in the chamber to hear this. The member for Light has been an elected member for over two years now, having previously been mayor of Gawler.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Schubert will take his seat. The member for Giles will withdraw the word 'hypocrite'.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The SPEAKER: It was the member for Torrens, was it? I thank the member for Torrens for her honesty; she will withdraw the word 'hypocrite'.

Mrs GERAGHTY: On your instructions, sir, I will.

The SPEAKER: The member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am not offended by that word, but I do remember that the only time I was ever kicked out of the house was for using that word.

The member for Light has been an elected member for over two years now. He was previously the mayor of Gawler and always had plenty to say, especially in the local media. Since he has been here we have not heard much from him. In fact, as he often sits alone, I wonder whether the factions ignore him. Is he in a faction? Was he ever in one? I ask these questions because the member for Light has not risen to great heights and the government has not used his skills. What is the reason behind a very public person coming in here and then immediately becoming silent? It is because Labor does not allow their members individually to speak out. I believe I heard correctly the member for Schubert say that the member for Light has been silent in this place. That is clearly misleading the house and is untrue.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. If the member for Torrens has a point to make she is welcome to do so in the course of debate. The member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Members would know that I am not deliberately unkind to anyone, but there has been no debate from within the Labor Party or from the member for Light. What do they really stand for? Why hasn't the member for Light made any comment about the WorkCover scheme, either here or outside in his local media, or during the debate? There has been nothing, and there has been nothing in The Bunyip. He is in here and everywhere else.

Mrs Redmond: Sorry, what's The Bunyip?

Mr VENNING: The Bunyip is the local paper at Gawler. It is a good local paper, and it gives a very good opinion.

During the last federal election the member for Light was involved in the defeat of an excellent member of parliament (Hon. David Fawcett). One of the main areas in which he was continually attacked by the member for Light was the issue of WorkChoices. That is hypocritical, because he knew—all the government members knew and, if they did not know, that is worse—that they had a hip pocket policy to reduce all injured workers' entitlements. The successful candidate, Mr Nick Champion, now the member for Wakefield, got elected, and I wonder what he has to say about this. It is interesting, when looking back through Hansard, to see the comments made by the member for Light regarding WorkChoices. It is very ironic, really, given the government's current bill regarding WorkCover that passed here last night. On 29 June 2006, the member for Light said in this house:

I rise today to speak in support of the working men and women of South Australia who have seen their rights to earn a fair wage and associated conditions and to work in a safe environment stripped away by the Howard government through its WorkChoices legislation.

The member for Light continued:

At the outset, I state my opposition to the Howard government's industrial relations laws, as they do the very opposite of what they claim. They are draconian and reduce the rights of both workers and employers to negotiate on a level playing field.

Well, now it is his party and the government of which he is a member that is stripping away the rights and benefits of injured workers through Rann's WorkCover reforms. I find the member for Light's comments that WorkChoices laws do the very opposite of what they claim quite extraordinary. All I can say is: how hypocritical can you get? Here we have a state government that pretends it is here for the rights of workers and its members have a chance to stand up for workers—not just any workers but injured workers (some of society's most vulnerable people)—and what do they do? That is right, exactly the same as the member for Light put it, 'the very opposite of what they claim'. How can the member for Light just sit silent and let the bill go through, which he did—and he is not here—when he is supposedly in support of the working men and women of South Australia?

My motion today also condemns the member for Light for ignoring the issue of WorkCover's poor return-to-work rates.

Mrs GERAGHTY: I rise on a point of order, sir, and seek your ruling. The member opposite indicated that the member for Light is not here. That is not correct, of course, but is the member able to make statements such as that?

The SPEAKER: It is not strictly disorderly. It has, however, long been considered a grave discourtesy to point out the absence of members from the chamber.

Mr VENNING: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will accept that ruling and withdraw. I do not wish any malice to the member by saying that. It appears that the member for Light did listen, somewhat, to the Liberal Party's concern regarding WorkCover's unfunded liability growing due to poor return-to-work rates because, in an estimates committee in 2006, he asked the minister:

Can the minister advise the committee about the details of the WorkCover return-to-work awareness campaign and its impact to date?

So, one can say he showed some form of interest. Part of the answer given by minister Hill is as follows:

Indeed, when one considers the current position of the WorkCover scheme, the key driver of increasing liability estimates is more people staying on the scheme for longer—

What did the member for Light do with this answer? Nothing. After asking the question and getting an answer which was less than favourable, the member did nothing, so he failed in his public duty to stand up for workers' rights.

Why did the member for Light, upon hearing the minister's response, not suggest that the government implement reforms in respect of the rehabilitation given to injured workers? This would improve the return-to-work rate and be a preferred course of action compared to cutting workers' benefits as part of WorkCover reform. They should have done this two years ago. It would take pressure off the scheme by returning workers to work earlier and decreasing their need for financial supplements. Surely, rehabilitation should be the first emphasis.

As a new member of the house, the member for Light has been given a great opportunity to stand up for injured workers, and he has failed to do so. I condemn the member for Light for his failure to act responsibly on behalf of his electors in relation to WorkCover. He has failed, since he was elected in 2006, to show any interest in the enormous and continually growing unfunded liability of WorkCover.

Heavens above! In the past two years, since he has been here, the growing cancer of the unfunded liability has been in the news regularly. He has chosen to say nothing, either here or in the local media, yet he has been very vocal on everything else. He has failed in his responsibility to show an interest in improving the state's poor return-to-work rate.

The member for Light has been deceptive to the public by not revealing prior to the 2007 federal election the government's plan to cut injured workers' entitlements. Also, he has been completely negligent in his duty as a member by failing to examine other alternatives for reform of the WorkCover scheme which would be preferable to cutting benefits to which injured workers are entitled.

I make no personal criticism of the member, but I have a responsibility as a member of the opposition to keep government members accountable. I do not wish Mr Piccolo's family hurt or pain, and I wish him all the best with his son's illness. I hope his son has a speedy and full recovery.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:51): I stand to support this motion. Labor members claim to represent workers. They arrived in this house on the backs of workers who paid union fees. Workers funded these unions—these Amway pyramids. One has to understand how they work. All the union members are working away and paying taxes, mortgages and union fees. Where does that money go? Some of it is syphoned off for Labor Party campaigns and the rest of it goes into the mixing barrel for the selected few who end up as political candidates.

It has not escaped me that two of the most prominent union members—Don Farrell and Mark Butler—prior to the last election have been silent on the WorkCover issue. Of course, Mark Butler said, 'I can't comment on WorkCover; I am no longer a union official.' The unions have done their job. They got him elected: 'They have done their job. I am no longer answerable to the trade union movement. No longer do I need to pretend to be there for the interests of the workers. I have got what I wanted out of the trade union movement. I have my seat in parliament. That is what I have been working for over the past 20 years.' That is the end result.

There is a complete lack of interest by members opposite who have got here on the backs of working South Australians through their union fees. They have had a perfect opportunity to stand up for them, but we have not heard a single word from them. The WorkCover situation has been getting worse under this government, under minister Wright in particular. There has not been a word from the member for Light about his concerns in relation to the unfunded liability and what impact it might have on South Australian workers, and what drastic legislation the government might need to introduce to deal with this out-of-control situation. A drastic decision has been made by the government because of the fact that it cannot manage the scheme, yet I have not heard a single word from the member for Light.

Members of the government are saying we are hypocrites on this side. Well, I say, 'Move a motion against the member for Unley.' They should condemn me as I have condemned them.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr PISONI: I would love to hear what you have to say, Robyn; that is the beauty of private members' time.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr PISONI: You could move a motion and speak to it.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr PISONI: I would love to hear you do it, Robyn. Instead of just interjecting and turning away, let us have a proper debate. You could move a motion against any member of the Liberal Party; move a motion condemning us for our stance on WorkCover. The fact is that we will bring our own legislation to the next election and put it against your legislation. We have been speaking out for years against the mismanagement of WorkCover by this government. As a matter of fact, not a month goes by without a member of the Liberal Party raising concerns about WorkCover. I speak about it at every meeting, I speak about it in the parliament; and the members for Finniss, Schubert and Goyder speak about it. We have all raised concerns about it.

The only thing that Labor members (such as the member for Light) do is say, 'Okay, we will cut workers' benefits; that will fix it. I haven't been that interested. I have had an opportunity, through the grievance debate and private members' motions, to raise this in the parliament, I have had an opportunity to talk to the Premier and the Treasurer, but, of course, I haven't used any of those opportunities.'

At the first opportunity to cut workers' benefits they say, 'Yes, I'll take that. That will fix it. I've got where I want to be in state politics; I've got myself a seat here in the parliament; the trade unions have done their job for me.' It is about time that the member for Light did his job for the trade unions: that is what I say to the member for Light. I support the motion of the member for Schubert, I support the workers of South Australia and I support this motion.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (11:56): To use the words of the member for Schubert: what a very hypocritical contribution from the member for Unley and the member for Schubert.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN (Mount Gambier—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests) (11:56): Last week, I had the opportunity to speak briefly on South East Radio about the goings on in this house, and I made the point that we must not judge people by what they say but by how they vote. At the end of the day, we come in here to vote. It is how we vote; that is what we stand by.

So, all this rubbish is simply self-inflicted pain on people who choose to say one thing and vote another way. We have listened to the contributions of members for days and days, and how they voted is now on the record, in Hansard. We now need to take to the people of Unley, for example, not what the member said, but how he voted—and that stands for all of them.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:57): I thank those who contributed to the debate. Certainly, the minister's comments are very interesting, and I thoroughly agree. One has to stand on one's record here. This problem—

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Sir, I rise on a point of order. The member for Mount Gambier just called the member for Schubert a hypocrite.

The SPEAKER: Yes, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries must withdraw.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: As the previous speaker on this side, I should have been speaking in the broad. It is hypocritical to say one thing and vote another way—

The SPEAKER: I just ask the minister to withdraw.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: Yes, I withdraw it, in terms of the member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING: This whole thing is rather ironical, because I have only been thrown out of this house once in my 18-year career and it was for using that word—and you, sir, were the executioner at that time. So, I am very aware of the use of that word—and the alternative, using the words 'holy whited sepulchres', apparently has the same meaning.

I note that the member for Light is here. As I said, I wish him no personal malice in relation to this matter, and good wishes to his family. However, we have professional jobs to do and, as a member of the opposition, I am very critical of the member for Light. He would be the first to admit that he has been a very strong public person in relation to comment in his local media, but I have never heard him make any public comment at all in relation to this two-year problem that we have had of the burgeoning debt to the state as we near the $1 billion mark in relation to the unfunded liability. It is really another State Bank in the making. The member has been very silent on the matter.

I thank those who have contributed to the debate this morning. I think that all members of parliament put the people in their electorate first. I believe that the member for Light could have made comment in his own media—because I read everything that he says in the Gawler Bunyip.

I think the Labor Party rules even allow him to make public comment. I know that, as regards voting in this place, he is locked in, but I have heard other members of parliament (particularly the member for Ashford) comment on this matter, and I think members can do that, are able to. When it comes to a vote, I know that is a different matter. On this side we do allow that freedom, and that is where I think it is quite wrong—

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: For the record, I can declare my rights and vote individually, but members on the other side cannot do that side—and that is quite wrong. Some would say that we on this side of the house do battle with our hands behind our back.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: That is right. There has been every opportunity for members opposite to say their piece. Even during the debate they could have spoken but, no; not a sound from the member for Light. Again, I say that he needs to be condemned for not standing up for his workers.

Motion negatived.