WORKCOVER CORPORATION: MEMBER FOR MAWSON

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (12:01): I move:

That this house condemns the member for Mawson 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.

The member for Mawson, I know, cannot be held totally accountable for all that has gone wrong with WorkCover because, after all, the problem has been some years in the making. When this government came to office in 2002, the WorkCover unfunded liability was, I believe, something in the order of $67 million. Since that time, this side of the house has consistently asked questions as that figure continued to blow out, to the point where yesterday the minister, in closing the debate, indicated that, as at 31 December 2007, the unfunded liability was $911 million. So, as the member for Schubert said, it is close to $1 billion. Of course, it has only blown out further since that time.

The member for Mawson was elected only in 2006 and, as I said, he cannot be held entirely accountable. However, he represents an area generally encompassed by Woodcroft, McLaren Vale and Noarlunga Downs, areas which are outer suburban to peri-urban—certainly part of the mortgage belt and certainly with many working-class people. In the two years that he has been in here, I have not heard the member for Mawson make any contributions about the WorkCover issue.

I remember the Minister for Industrial Relations, for instance, getting up frequently and complaining about WorkChoices but ignoring the questions that we were consistently raising about WorkCover and, all the time, WorkCover was under his watch. The member for Mawson, as has any other member, I believe has an obligation to speak out on some of these issues.

There is always a lot of pooh-poohing from the other side of the house when we indicate that on this side we do have the freedom to disagree with the party room. I am astonished at that, because it must be clear to anyone who has observed me over the period that I have been in here that I have regularly, on a number of issues, been in a situation where I have said to the party room, 'I reserve my right.' Our constitution says that you need to inform your party room, and that is fine. Every week in our party room there will be people saying, 'I reserve my right.' That means 'I reserve my right guaranteed under the constitution to disagree with this decision and follow my conscience.'

On a number of occasions I have done that, and it certainly does not seem to have held me back (although I sometimes think that it might be the reason I get punished in terms of getting so much work in the place). Certainly, it is absolute—

Members interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: I find it extraordinary that people on the other side are able to be in a party where they are bound, as part of their membership of that party and as a member of parliament, to stick absolutely to whatever the caucus decides.

I congratulate the member for Ashford who, at least, participated comprehensively in the debate and who asked some telling questions during the committee stage, in particular. I also congratulate the members for Giles and Florey, both of whom spoke last night on the third reading. Clearly, they have an interest in trying to persuade the unions. They have turned their back on the unions in this debate but, notwithstanding that, they are now hoping to persuade the unions that they should still be supported at the next election. I suggest to the member for Ashford—who, according to media reports at least, actually led the dissension within the ranks; although that has not broken out, they still supported the bill all the way through—that if a situation arises where she has a problem with preselection she need only look at the example of the member for Mitchell. I am confident that the member for Ashford is such a good member that, if she did have a problem with preselection, all she would have to do is stand as an Independent, and the workers in the Ashford electorate would put her back in.

It seems to me that there is a lot to be said in favour of those few people who have spoken out—albeit in a tiny way. The member for Mawson was, of course, not one of them; he said nothing. There was an article by Brad Crouch in the Sunday Mail of 2 March (it actually included a photo of the member for Mawson), the headline of which read 'Unions aim at Labor MP'. So I think the member for Mawson, with his 2.3 per cent margin, should be very worried. A lot of people down there in the areas of Woodcroft, Noarlunga Downs and so on could be adversely affected by the Mitsubishi closure, for instance, so I would have thought that now was the time to speak out about WorkCover.

The reality of this legislation is that it does not really address the key issue. Everyone has agreed that there is an unfunded liability that we cannot maintain. If Labor continues the way it has been going with this we will end up with another State Bank; we all know how brilliant Labor is at getting us into financial difficulty. Clearly, the unfunded liability needs to be addressed.

This unfunded liability has come about because of people who are on WorkCover payments long term. WorkCover payments become long term when people do not return to work. There are people who sustain injuries in the workplace that are so severe that it is evident quite early on that they will struggle to ever return to work or, if they can return to work, that their ability to work will be limited or that they will need to retrain in another field in order to return to work. So, it is pretty clear that we need to address the issue of how we rehabilitate people and how we get them back to work.

My proposition is that the legislation that passed through this chamber last night—a bit before midnight—will not achieve the outcomes the government thinks it will because it does not really address the issue of returning to work. I have long said that the occupation of rehabilitation provider became the goose that laid the golden egg. Virtually from the time this legislation was introduced we had people setting themselves up, putting up a little sign saying, 'We are rehabilitation providers,' but they did not really achieve anything. I dealt with hundreds of people who were on WorkCover, and my experience was always that those who wanted to be rehabilitated actually rehabilitated themselves to their maximum capacity and returned to work as promptly as they could. Those who did not want to be rehabilitated just found other ways to avoid going back to work, and no amount of rehabilitation by rehabilitation providers, who were paid a lot of money by WorkCover, would assist in getting them back to work.

My experience was that people with WorkCover injuries who had a genuine injury and a genuine desire to get back to work did not find the system too bad, until we got to the point where this government took over. The management of WorkCover has been, quite frankly, chaotic since it took over. The minister appointed the new board, they put in—

Ms BREUER: I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that the member opposite is debating the bill again. I do not see the relevance to this particular motion. We have been all through this this week; do we need to go through it again this morning?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Simmons): I would ask that the member for Heysen confine her remarks to the motion.

Mrs REDMOND: Certainly. I was merely discussing the issue of the unfunded liability, because the first part of my motion is that we condemn the member for Mawson for not taking any interest in the blow-out in WorkCover's unfunded liability since taking office. I had covered the fact that he took office only in 2006 and, therefore, cannot be held fully accountable for what happened previously under this government. It seems to me directly relevant to then explain how the unfunded liability comes about, because if you do not understand that then how can we deal with how the member for Mawson has failed to take any action on it?

Paragraph (b) of my motion condemns the member for Mawson for not taking any interest in WorkCover's poor return-to-work results. I had got to the point of talking about these return-to-work results in a generic sense, which I think is directly relevant to the proposition that I am putting to the house this morning.

The ACTING SPEAKER: As long as you don't go into the bill that was passed last night. I think that is what is important, member for Heysen.

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you for your guidance, Madam Acting Speaker. These return-to-work results have been increasingly poor over a period of years. As I was saying, in my experience in dealing with workers, the vast majority of them do want to get back to work and they do rehabilitate themselves. The problem with this is that the member for Mawson has failed to direct his mind to how best to address the issue.

What he has done is simply go along with the government's proposal and the government's package of changes to the WorkCover legislation, and those things do not really address the issue of how best to improve the return-to-work ratio. The return-to-work ratio is directly proportional to the unfunded liability, or should that be inversely proportional? The worse the return-to-work ratio, the lower the ratio, then the higher the unfunded liability will be.

The member for Mawson has failed to speak, on any occasion that I can find on the Hansard, in this place about these issues, in spite of the fact that this side regularly raised with this government the fact that the unfunded liability was going further and further into the red.

Interestingly, subparagraph (c) of my motion concerns not informing the public until after the federal election that WorkCover entitlements to injured workers will be cut. We would all remember that the Labor government in this place consistently—and in particular the Minister for Industrial Relations—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The member for Heysen has the call.

Mrs REDMOND: —spent a lot of the time and energy of this house, which should more properly have been directed by him to fixing up the problems with WorkCover but, instead of that, time and time again he got up and criticised the WorkChoices legislation for purely political motives. I am the first to concede that they were very adept at creating a great deal of fear and mistrust in the community about the WorkChoices legislation and that that had a dramatic impact on the federal election.

What I say, however, is that, instead of acquiescing in all of that, the member for Mawson should have been listening to what the opposition was raising time and again about what was happening to WorkCover, where the unfunded liability was headed and the disastrous financial implications that that liability would have for this state. He should have been speaking up. Even if he did not speak up here, he should have been speaking up in his caucus. Clearly, he has been a very quiet member in this place, and he has failed in his obligation—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon P.L. White): Order!

Mrs REDMOND: He has failed the people of his electorate because he failed to listen to what this side of the house was raising consistently, pointing out that, over a period of years, this unfunded liability stretching into the future was becoming increasingly problematic to the point where it was going to head us into another State Bank.

So, what does the state government do but introduce legislation that the government says is aimed at fixing it, but we have heard nothing from the member for Mawson about how it might be fixed or how the workers' rights could have been protected. But they were not because he remained silent. For that reason, I believe that the motion should be supported. I have grave doubts about whether it will be supported by anyone on the other side. Nevertheless, I commend the motion to the house.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (12:16): I always find it amazing when members of the Liberal Party get up and attack us for voting the same way as them. This is a unique position. 'How dare you support us; how dare you vote the same way that we voted; how dare you fix WorkCover after we have been complaining about it.'

An honourable member: It's your problem.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: It's our problem. We are all in this together, the last time I checked. We are all in the same parliament. I do not know how you get a 'get out of gaol free' card because you are in opposition. But perhaps the luxury of being in opposition is not having to worry or think for yourself.

Of course, there is this great notion that Liberal Party members have a free vote on all these matters. The luxury of being in opposition; how nice it is. But don't worry; we will never burden you with government. You will never have that burden. As I look across the chamber, I see that you are all getting on a bit. You are all getting a bit older with every year that goes by. So, I doubt that any of you will have to worry about the huge burdens of government.

But to get up in this place today and say, 'I condemn the member for Mawson for voting the same way as me.' Am I missing something here? Am I confused? 'How dare you vote the same principled way I did.'

An honourable member: We agree with you.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: We agree with you; you agree with us. The member for Heysen, in her remarks, said that the member for Mawson was silent during the committee stage. Well, I did not exactly see the member for Heysen—who has now left the building because she is so interested in this debate—making any great contributions. Where is her third reading speech? She condemned the member for Mawson for not making a third reading speech when she did not make one herself. The member for Unley got up in this place and said the same thing, and he did not make a contribution in the committee stage or to the third reading.

Mr PISONI: On a point of order, Madam Acting Speaker, the member for West Torrens is misleading the house: I did make several contributions during the committee stage—and, if he had been in this chamber, he would know that.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I withdraw. The member for Unley made a contribution. Blockhead walks in, pulls something out and walks out again: that is his contribution. But he still has to move a motion; he still has to vote for a motion condemning someone for voting the same way as him.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: No, it doesn't. The other aspect of all this is that members opposite always attack us for being in the pocket of the unions. They always say, 'You do whatever your union mates want. You listen to your union mates. You are controlled by Trades Hall; you are controlled by the ACTU; you are controlled by the SA Unions; you are controlled by the STA, or the LMHU, or the AWU.' But when we came in here and exercised what the Premier has always said we should—that is, state before party—we are condemned for not doing what our union mates want.

So, I am not quite sure what they want us to do. On the one hand it is: 'Don't listen to your union mates; govern in the best interests of South Australia.' If we do that, we are condemned; if we are sympathetic to the union movement and do the right thing by workers, we are in the pocket of thugs. They cannot have it both ways, but then again, I would not expect anything less from the Liberal Party. It is party bereft of any ideas, tearing itself apart factionally—the moderates versus the dries; bringing forward preselections; tearing themselves to pieces, and attacking long-serving members like the member for Schubert by trying to take away his preselection but, in the end, not having the guts to do it. That is what we are dealing with. This motion says, 'for not taking an interest in the blow-out in WorkCover'. We dealt with that just last night. We voted on it just last night.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The member interjects that cutting workers' entitlements was a bad thing. He did the same thing!

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: That's right, and the member for Unley's excuse is, 'I don't care about workers; I'm not interested.'

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Finniss is going to move exactly the same motion. He has no independent thought process, so he copies someone else. He cannot even change a sentence or a comma on the motion; he just copies someone else's motion. He is acting in the same hypocritical manner as everyone else.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I know what you are going to say; you are a clone. The party of great individuals will get up and clone each other, and say exactly the same thing as everyone else. We are all individuals over here. If it looks like it, quacks like it and walks like it—call it what it is—

An honourable member: It's a duck.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: It's a duck. Members opposite attack us for voting the same way as them. I could see the value in the stunt if they were to vote differently or if they were to move amendments that we did not agree with, but they did not move an amendment—not one. They did not say a thing. Now they condemn us for doing the very same things they did. This is just a blatant political act, wasting taxpayers' money, I might add. They are wasting the time of the parliament of South Australia on this political stunt, the same way they wasted it last night when one of their members walked across the chamber deliberately to vote with the member for Mitchell. It was just to delay the proceedings of the house.

Mr Rau: They did it so that union officials could go into workplaces.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes; the great conviction of the member for MacKillop to allow union right of entry into workplaces—the great worker conviction. Members opposite are wasting our time and they are wasting the people of South Australia's time, and their money, by making us debate these foolish political motions.

Mr Goldsworthy: Well, sit down.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Well, someone has to bring it to light, because you won't. You are a clone, just like your other mates. You are going to move exactly the same motion as everybody else, say the same things and condemn us for voting the same way as you—and you are nodding. He is nodding; he agrees.

Members interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes; that's right, we are all in this together. This is a political stunt. Members opposite are wasting everyone's time. They are bereft of any policy. If they had any policy on WorkCover or if they had any idea how to fix WorkCover and its ills, rather than raising questions they would have moved amendments, but they did not. They did not move one amendment. That is a massive vote of confidence in the government. It is a huge vote of confidence in the government.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: On that point, we are all South Australians. Any member of parliament who says, 'It's your mess, not mine,' I think is abdicating their duty as a member of parliament. I think the people of Unley have a right to know that their member of parliament thinks: 'That's not my problem, that's someone else's problem. WorkCover is not my issue; it's someone else's.' If that is his view he should resign and let someone else in here who will do their job, take it seriously and think that it is their problem. Even though I did not agree with him, the member for Mitchell thinks it is his problem and is trying to fix it.

The members for Stuart, MacKillop and Fisher think that it is their problem. We in the government think that it is our problem, and we are trying to fix it. The only person in this chamber who thinks that it is not their problem is the member for Unley. Member for Schubert, have you ever seen a member of parliament get up in this house and say that something being deliberated in the house is not their problem? In all your time in this house, have you ever heard a member of parliament abdicate their duty and say that it is not their problem? Only one: the member for Unley. You are a genius. Get out there and say it again: 'Not my problem; I just work here. I just get the car. No; not me; I just work here. I don't want to take on the responsibility for what I vote for it; it's someone else's problem.'

That is what we are dealing with. How can you take someone seriously when they say, 'It's not my problem'? Why are you here? Why be a member of parliament if it is not your problem? When I was in opposition, it was my problem. I did what I could. I voted against privatising ETSA, because I believed that was the right thing to do. I did not see any member of the Liberal Party exercising their 'individual' freedoms or reserve their rights—and I can see the member for Schubert grinning.

Do not come in here and lecture us, because this is pure hypocrisy. If you were worried about the workers, why vote for the bill? Move an amendment? Not one. Silence. To sin by silence is to be condemned.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:26): I just cannot allow a speech like that to go unchallenged. It is very difficult in this place—and I have been here quite some years—to differentiate between what is said in the corridors and what is said in the house. I am not going to breach that, but some members opposite get pretty close to crossing over that line. We are in here to do a job. I take a dim view of the member for Unley being criticised, because we are in here to represent the people.

When this government came into power the previous government had the situation pretty well under control. WorkCover's unfunded liability was $65 million at the time, and it was rising and falling constantly. It was always a concern, always a matter that the government of the day watched very carefully. It was not very long at all—only a few months after this government came to power—when we saw it rapidly escalate.

Mr Kenyon: After you dropped the levy.

Mr VENNING: Whatever matter you want to discuss here, whatever was done, you have the right to instantly put the levy back on. You knew. I think it was first raised in this house when the unfunded liability was $150 million—that was the first time it was raised in here—about 12 months after you came into office, and look where it has gone now. For the member to say that we voted the same way on this matter, well, we could have come in here and spent a lot more time, but the most important thing we do right now is to get the unfunded liability reversed and the trend going the other way.

You can be assured that in the next two years we will be doing a lot of work outside of parliament, so that we have a policy at the next election which will solve the problem, and it will be quite different. It will solve the problem in relation to this situation. It is not our mess. When we were in government we were doing the right thing. You have been in government now for nearly six years, and look at what has happened. It is your fault. Don't look at us! We have been saying to you ad nauseam, 'Look at the speeches; look at Hansard.' As the unfunded liability climbed and climbed—and the member is leaving the house; I am disappointed that he cannot face the music—

Mr Koutsantonis: I am getting a glass of water.

Mr VENNING: He is having a glass of water. I will be very careful about what I say here, because corridor talk remains in the corridors, but members on the other side have raised their concerns with me. There is an inability for the front bench to hear. I have friends on the other side, and I do feel for people. Last night in the house, the member for Ashford and the member for Giles courageously said their bit. Well, good on them, is all I can say. It takes guts to do that. I know they are locked in and that the situation is difficult for them. All I can say is: all power to those on our side of the house. As the member for Heysen said, I am the whip, and members regularly come to me on this side of the house and reserve their right to differ from the position of our party. And they do that regularly. I write it in the minutes. The member for Heysen does it regularly, and some would say at a cost.

If we had 47 members like the member for Heysen, it would be a very interesting place. If they all worked like she does and if they all brought the capacity that she brings to the house, I am sure the house would be much, much wiser for it. Likewise, all my colleagues on this side are a mixed bunch, and we all bring to the house different capacities. For the member for West Torrens to say that all our speeches are the same, I take that as an affront. Me, of all people—

Mr Koutsantonis: All your motions are the same!

Mr VENNING: A similar theme, yes; but, as the member for Light would know, I mean him no personal criticism at all—in fact, I am a little bit tender right now to be speaking like this, knowing what he is going through personally.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr VENNING: And the member for West Torrens laughs!

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr VENNING: It is business, but I do raise that. I put it on the record. I am aware of the problems the member for Light has with his family and we all wish him well and you well, sir. This has nothing to do with that. We just have to differentiate what is business—what we are doing here—from our own personal lives.

I do take the member for West Torrens to task. He gets up in this place and he staggers and waves his hands around. I just wonder why he has not been called to the front bench, because he is a much better performer than many of the people who sit in front of him. In fact, why are they not here now? Why is the minister not here now?

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: Where's all your front bench?

Mr VENNING: Well, hang on; we don't need to be here. I thought that the minister in relation to WorkCover would be here sitting in this spot protecting his members, because this is on the Notice Paper. He could have seen it coming. Why is the minister not here protecting the members?

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: Why aren't they here?

Mr VENNING: We've got the senior members here; we don't need them at the moment. We are circulating them.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr VENNING: I think that the members in this instance should take a leaf out of some of your senior members' books. Never forget who put you here. Do not forget your grassroots. When it comes to gutsy stuff, you can still say your bit in here. You can still say what you really mean. You do not have to vote that way. Well, you should, but you do not have to. At least have the guts and the courage to stand in your place—two of you have. I have friends on that side, and it is not an accident who they are. These are people with guts, with courage and with a lot of personal integrity. What they did last night was good, and I applaud that.

I know it is a difficult situation for them—very difficult indeed. Again, we have relationships across this chamber, and all I can say is, 'All power to them.' To the members we are criticising, I say that you have had the opportunity to stand in this place any time, and you could have made speeches in the last two or three years. It is on the record. We read the Hansard. You could have come to this problem as the member has—

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I have made several speeches highlighting this problem—

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: We know how you voted!

Mr VENNING: Sir, the minister is being totally out of order. To those new members I say (as the member for West Torrens would well know; he is a very good tactician in relation to this) we call it protecting one's backside by saying things on record that can be trotted out later on to say, 'Well, hang on, if the member for Light had done it or if the member for Bright had done it—' you could have trotted it out now and said, 'Look, I was aware of the problem and I did bring it up.' But it did not happen and that is why you are now earning this criticism which I think is fairly levelled at you. It is tough, but that is how it is. I say to the member for Giles and the member for Ashford, 'Good on you! Let the other members learn from you.' I certainly support the motion.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (12:34): I have been listening to this debate with great interest. I am particularly pleased to be following the member for Schubert because, as he was speaking, I was reminded of an article that appeared in a newspaper some time towards the end of last year where the member for Schubert offered a very novel solution to the water issue that was bedevilling South Australia.

Members may recall that he suggested that getting out in the backyard and doing something good for the lemon tree was a way to assist our water problem, because by doing that we would obviously save pressing the button on a china implement somewhere in the house. The advice I would give to the member for Schubert (which he may not like) and to other members of his party is: those of you who choose to do the activity that the member for Schubert was urging people to do on the lemon tree should make very sure that there is not a fan in front of them when they do it. That is exactly what you have managed to achieve over this.

The fact of the matter is this: these resolutions, which, as the member for West Torrens quite rightly points out, do not appear to have a great deal of originality, raise two very important issues: first, responsibility; and, secondly, leadership. I will give a little anecdote on responsibility. My wife and I spend a lot of time around the house cleaning up. We have three children.

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr RAU: We spend a lot of time cleaning up. In the lounge room, there are certain rules, such as, 'You don't take food in there because it inevitably winds up on the floor. You don't take texta colours in there because they wind up on the carpet. You don't do this, and you don't do that. If you make a mess, you clean it up.' So, one or other of us goes through the process of cleaning up the room until it is all nice and tidy.

We go away for an hour or so and, when we come back into the room, it is littered with paper, pencils, sticky tape and bits of food, and there are new stains on the carpet to add to the existing array of stains already there. We ask, 'Who did this?' Each one of them says, 'Not me; I didn't do it.' If you go to one of them individually and say, 'You go and clean that stuff up in there,' they say, 'I didn't do it. She did it. She can clean it up.'

What they normally do is pick on the youngest, who they know damn well cannot actually defend herself on the topic and who, I suspect, is incapable of cleaning up even if she wanted to. So, the level of responsibility in the lounge room is zero.

If you collectively in the opposition want to put yourselves in the position where your level of responsibility for issues of importance to the state is zero, and all you can do collectively is point your finger at the person with the trash can picking up the mess and say, 'We're not going to help you because we didn't make the mess,' my goodness—what integrity, what sophistication and what leadership!

For six years, I have sat here quietly in my corner and heard various complaints about WorkCover—but not many, I might add. About four years ago, I thought, 'Now, they're a bright mob over there, and there are some clever people, like the member for Schubert and others.' The member for Schubert has demonstrated this because he has actually been proactive on things like drug testing, motor vehicles and so on.

I thought that these people were smart and that what they would try to do was show leadership so that, in the run-up to the 2006 election, the electors of South Australia would say that this mob were on the ball. I thought they would come in here one day with a big reform bill for WorkCover and that would get the member for Schubert, or some other worthy member of the opposition, to whack it on the table in private members' time and say, 'Now, you hopeless government, you have had several years to deal with this. We pointed it out to you, and you've done nothing. Now we have done it: here is the solution. We are going to embarrass you. We are going to humiliate you because you have done nothing about it.'

I have been sitting here waiting, waiting, waiting and tapping my feet. In fact, in the time it has taken to get from where I am talking about to now, I have gone from not needing glasses to needing glasses—that is how many books I have read waiting for it. I have gone from having not all grey hair to completely grey hair. All of these things have happened to me while waiting, with my foot tapping away, rolling the pencil around (I have learnt a few tricks with pencils) and all this time, all these years, I have spent waiting, and what happens? Nothing. Then after the big build-up, the big drum roll, which was like the beginning of Tusk by Fleetwood Mac—'We are going to fix it up. You wait until you hear what we are going to do'—the Leader of the Opposition jumped up and said, 'Here we are, responsible leaders. We are going to do nothing. We are just going to nod. But while we are nodding, not accepting the fact that we have done absolutely nothing and taken no leadership role whatsoever, not even having drafted one single provision, let alone a complete review of the act—'

The Hon. S.W. Key: Or amendment.

Mr RAU: Or amendment—nothing, zip! The leader said, 'In spite of that, we are going to vote for this thing,' except for the member for MacKillop, who demonstrated incredible integrity last night. I just want to say how impressed I was, because I have often thought that trade union officials should have had access to the workplace—it has been a long-running thing—and I know that he is going to be carried around by members of the trade union movement in a sedan chair at next Labor Day. They will have him up there on their shoulders, and he will be sitting up there like some sort of nabob being carted around with people waving big fans, bits of palm trees, at him. Really, it is a shame that Easter has gone.

Mr Piccolo: Greek Easter is here.

Mr RAU: Yes, Greek Easter—there is still time for him. If he gets in the old calendar, he will be okay. I think that members over there need to consider that there is a man with integrity in the member for MacKillop. When he felt his conscience would not allow him to deny trade union officials access to the workplace to go around and speak to whomever they wanted to and look at whatever they wanted to, he voted. At least he tried to do something. I give the member for Stuart his dues. He did not agree with that one and he did not vote for it, although he voted for others. The member for Fisher voted for some, too.

If I can just examine the batting list of the 'Opposition All-stars' that we have on this Notice Paper, we have the member for Heysen (who has left the chamber); we are about to hear from the member for Finniss, and that will be another good one; the member for Kavel is coming up, and we look forward to that; and the member for Hammond is listed. They are all basically going to say the same thing. I did not notice one of those individuals sitting over there with the 'three wise men': the members for Fisher, Stuart and Mitchell. So, when they get up and start giving a spray over to this side of the house, they should look at their own record; at least the member for MacKillop can hold his head up high when he goes back to Naracoorte and tells them the good news. He is going to be really popular in Naracoorte. You can just imagine the chaps in the timber industry saying, 'Welcome home, Mitch,' and the meat workers are going to love him. He is going to be front-page stuff, and so he should be—a bloke who is prepared to do that sort of thing because he believed in something.

A bit of leadership would have gone down really well at any time up until a week or two ago when you completely gave the game away. If I were you, to stop embarrassment, I would just withdraw all of these motions.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:45): After the contribution from the member for Enfield, we are getting a clear idea as to how the Labor Party works. They have the big brothers. We heard that analogy about the big brothers coming in to protect the little brothers. I enjoy that. I can relate to that because I was a big brother when I was growing up. The big brothers are cleaning up the mess of the little brothers. In this whole debate, we have seen none of the little brothers getting up to defend themselves when they have had the opportunity to speak on these motions condemning them. We have had the big brothers come in.

Of course, that is how the Labor Party works: it is run by the big brothers. They are happy for them to be the bovver boys. How long has the member for Enfield been on that seat—six years. The member for West Torrens, 10 years, and he is still not on the front bench. He is the big brother. Bring out the big brothers to protect the little ones.

One of the points that has been missed in this debate by the member for West Torrens and the member for Enfield is that, in a ministerial statement, the Premier told this parliament that this legislation will only work if it is unchanged. This legislation will only work if it is passed in its entirety. Time and again this Premier has said, 'Trust me' to the people of South Australia—'Trust me, trust me.' Now is the test, member for West Torrens. They did trust him and he has betrayed them. That is what this legislation is proving, that the trust—

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr PISONI: The Treasurer calls me a goose and asks why did we support it. Because your boss, the Premier, said that it needs to be passed in its entirety for it to work, that is why. Of course, the member for Enfield knew it was not going to work without amendments. In his contribution to the WorkCover bill he said, 'Please, Liberal opposition make some amendments.' He knew that it was not going to work, yet he voted for it. He was begging us to make amendments. But what we will do at the next election is hold up our legislation against your record and your legislation and we will see which one works, Treasurer.

What members need to understand is how the Premier and this government operate. When it is a good idea, it is his idea: when it is a bad idea, it is everyone's fault. You can imagine that, if we put our name to any of this legislation, the Premier would be saying, 'It is not working because the Liberals mucked around with it.' This is your legislation. The Premier told the house that this will only work in its entirety. However, they have not explained why they brought in all those amendments this week. They have not explained how that happened.

I don't know, maybe he did not read it. Maybe he was hoping that we were going to do that to take the pressure off the backbench and take the pressure off his own party from their own funding base, the trade union movement. Maybe he was hoping that we would do that so that they could blame us for the cuts to workers. But, no, the cuts to workers' entitlements are the responsibility of the Minister for Transport and his colleagues in the Labor Party. They are the architects of this legislation. It is their legislation: it is their ownership.

The point of these motions is to point out to this parliament just what contribution these members have made as backbenchers on the WorkCover debate. What we are discovering is nothing, nothing at all. No contribution whatsoever; no concern. We have even done a search of the media: no concern in the parliament; no concern publicly about the unfunded liability of WorkCover. The financial mess that we have with minister Wright's board, minister Wright's CEO, minister Wright's changes to the management of claims and Mr Wright's changes to the outsourcing of the legal work done by WorkCover—all stamped by minister Wright and the Labor government.

What we are simply pointing out by this series of motions is that the Labor Party and its backbenchers, particularly those holding marginal seats, have been dead silent on this issue, and that is the culture of the Labor Party. We have heard the member for Enfield say, 'The big brothers will sort it out,' and that is what they have done. The big brothers have taken ownership of this and the little brothers have fallen into line, putting their political careers before their support base that got them their preselection and their seats in the parliament.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (12:51): It is so unfortunate—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is not surprising that the opposition is laughing, because it has treated what is a serious issue for South Australia as nothing but a joke from day one.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No; I will come to point that out in a moment, but let us just compare and contrast.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I would be more worried about my job from the bloke near you than be worried about me, Ivan. I would be more worried about that. Let us compare and contrast the Labor Party, faced with a very difficult issue—

Mr Williams: Of its own making.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will deal with you blokes in a moment, especially the member for MacKillop, the great champion of union right of entry and the only Liberal to vote against the WorkCover change in toto; the only Liberal to cross the floor from his party and vote against all the changes in toto. I will deal with him in a moment. Let us compare and contrast. Faced with a difficult issue and faced with an issue of great meaning to members of the Labor Party—unlike those on the other side, who have never given a tinker's cuss about a worker in their lives—the Labor Party took an extraordinarily difficult decision as a group and supported it as a group. That is not to say that everyone liked what had to be done but, you know, one of the differences between being a child and being a grown up is that you learn that you cannot do just what you like: you have to do what is responsible and you have to do your duty.

Now, compare and contrast. The members of the Labor Party were faced with that problem, at significant personal cost to many, and many of them have worked for workers—unlike members opposite who would walk both sides of the road and the middle, and, hopefully, will get run down as a consequence. Now, compare and contrast. What do we have from the Liberal Party? We had about three weeks of dithering about what it would do with a proposal to do something about a very serious issue. And we do know that, in those last few days before the matter came on on the Tuesday, these strategic geniuses were still telling the media on the Friday that they did not have to have a position because the Labor Party was in disarray and would not be proceeding because it would not be able to.

This is what they were telling the media. This is what the media rang up and asked me for a comment on. I said, 'I do not know what planet they are on,' and I have to say that I remain not knowing what planet they are on or where they are from. That was their position up until Friday. Then, finally, compare and contrast the man who calls himself the alternative premier—and I have breaking news for him: he is just head loser; he is just the most senior loser. That is what he is. It is a job that is very temporary, in my experience. The man who would be the alternative premier came in and said, 'This is no good what you are doing, but we'll support it.' Now, compare and contrast the maturity with which the Labor Party in unity takes a difficult decision and the childish immaturity of a man who wants to be premier, saying, 'This is no good, but I'll support it.' That is what he said. He said, 'It's absolutely no good, but I'll support it and I won't change it at all.'

Of course, we had the member for Morphett, saying, 'I will fight for them in the streets. I will fight for them on the beaches. I will fight for them everywhere except the parliament. There won't be any cuts to workers while I'm their champion; no.' What a load of rot and hypocrisy. For members opposite to walk into this place and criticise the Labor Party and its members who at considerable personal cost have had to do something difficult, just shows why they will never be in government, while you have this utterly irresponsible rabble. But one of the other reasons they will never be in government—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yell all you like, and I hope it hurts, because it is going to hurt you in 2010. It is going to hurt you when this blithering fool drags you to the ultimate humiliation in 2010. Because let me tell you what you have done with your idiotic position, just so you all know what this genius has led you to.

On the one hand, he has gone out and told those who oppose the WorkCover legislation, 'I'm going to vote for it, I'm not going to save you.' On the other hand, he has told those who want it, 'I don't like it, I'm not going to do anything to help it get through.' What a bloody genius. The man is an unremitting genius. With alternative premiers like that, we don't need an opposition—we don't need friends.

There have been a few inescapable facts about this. One is that the WorkCover scheme in South Australia, despite the best of intentions, I remember came into operation in 1987. I worked as a WorkCover employee advocate for several months at WorkCover. I have seen this close up. I point out again that, with the utter absence of any credit or creditworthiness, it was suggested by the member for Morphett that I had been a WorkCover lawyer for no more than two weeks. I can assure him I actually had a case that ran a bit longer than that in Mount Gambier and in Adelaide, but it is just the way they approached it. I have seen it from the start and what we do know is we are faced with a scheme that lets workers down and lets employers down.

In my consideration, letting workers down, having so many failing to return to work by comparison to other schemes, the only responsible thing to do was to change it. It was changed as a result of an extensive investigation by people with expertise, that goes far beyond anything that can be offered from the opposition benches. Those changes were difficult; those changes certainly were not pleasant for many to make, but they had to be made. Those changes were the subject of further negotiation, as far as things could be negotiated, while attacking the central issues of the scheme. What that is about is what you do if you are responsible; what you do if you are the government.

We know, because we are told by a number of sources, what the approach of the current opposition is. It has been stated by the leader that what he is going to engage in is mayhem and chaos. That is the approach.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, that's what I'm told. Maybe it is not true, but I am told that he says what he is going to engage in is mayhem and chaos. What we are going to engage in is the government of South Australia, is governing South Australia.

If the opposition believes that what the people of South Australia want in dealing with a scheme that is vital to injured workers, with a scheme that needs improvement, is the shallow, opportunistic engaging in of chaos and mayhem, then they misapprehend the people of South Australia. Can I say that they have profoundly misapprehended the view of what you would have thought was their natural constituency; the business community.

I would like to know, though, in all this absolute rot and nonsense we have in here just what is going to happen now from the Liberal Party. They came in and said, 'It's bad, but we're going to support it,' did not seek to amend it, and then took every opportunity to delay it they could, to the extent that the person who I assume is their third most senior frontbencher voted against a number of provisions. This was despite the fact that his leader said that they would support it, and voted against them in total.

What we would like to know is what will happen with this bill when it goes to the Legislative Council? Are they going to keep their word? Will they pass the bill? Will they support the bill? Will they change their mind? Will it be like the member for Morphett who says one thing and does another? There has been this shallow debate, attacking people who are backbenchers of the Labor Party, who have acted in unison with the party to do, at great pains, what is believed by the party has to be done. Instead of doing that, could you just indicate what really is going to happen?

It would be really good if they could simply indicate what it is they are going to do when it goes to the Legislative Council. Because what we heard from the member for Unley is yet another position—there will be changes. Is that what he said?

Mr Kenyon: The member for Unley, and the member for Schubert.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The member for Unley and the member for Schubert have told us there will be changes. This is an important issue for South Australia. Can we and the people of South Australia simply find out what it is the Liberal Party is going to do?

Debate adjourned.

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