WORKCOVER CORPORATION: MEMBER FOR BRIGHT

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:53): I move:

That this house condemns the member for Bright 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.

I am somewhat stupefied, to say the least, that the introduction of the WorkCover bill and—

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Stupefied, member for Mount Gambier—stupefied that, with respect to the WorkCover bill which came into parliament just recently and on which members on this side spoke at some length, there was not one single contribution from the member for Bright, bearing in mind that her electorate covers an area where there are significant numbers of Mitsubishi workers and significant numbers of people working in other manufacturing areas, all of whom rely on the WorkCover system to carry them through.

I would suggest that those people down in the electorate of Bright would not be impressed by the fact that this has occurred and that the member for Bright made no effort in this parliament on their behalf regarding the WorkCover bill. I suppose that what really threw me on this was that on Monday I received a phone call from a constituent in the electorate of Bright who three times had tried to make an appointment to see the member for Bright and had been turned down. This person wanted to speak to the member for Bright.

Ms Fox interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: 'Who?' the member for Bright asks. I will tell you who the constituent is: the constituent is a former Labor Party member who was a former Labor candidate for a lower house seat, and three times this person had been to that office and three times was—

Members interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: All right. It was a Mr Christopher Battams, who some years ago was a Labor candidate for the seat of Davenport. Three times he attempted to go in to talk about his issues with WorkCover and he was refused the opportunity to talk to his local member. So, if you think this is coming from hot air, it is not. I have got it all down in writing and I would be happy to show your colleagues the correspondence on the issue.

If you are going to come into this place, there are things that you are going to like, things that you are not going to like and things on which you might want to duck for cover on. Well, you cannot duck for cover all the time in this place. You have got to stand up and be counted. Quite clearly, on this WorkCover issue, the member for Bright and various other members opposite have refused to be seen.

So, what do we have today? I have just been in the other place and as I walked out I saw another collection of unionists up there sitting around waiting for the WorkCover legislation to be discussed in that chamber some time today. We had this curious issue on the radio this morning where the government, through the leader of the upper house, was trying to convince the public of South Australia that the parliament, and more particularly the Legislative Council, was trying to impede the progress of this bill. What a lot of nonsense!

Let me tell you that this issue is well and truly alive out there in voter land. I only have to put up Mr Christopher Battams' name. Three times he wanted to see his local member and he was turned down three times. He has documented that and has come to see us. As I have said, he is a former ALP candidate. So, I put that issue forward in the parliament for it to be digested by members.

The other matter involved in my motion is the fact that the member for Bright does not appear to be taking any interest in WorkCover's poor return to work results. The member for Bright had every opportunity to stand up in this chamber and make considered—indeed, profound—utterances on the WorkCover bill, but she did not do so and, quite frankly, she was found wanting on that matter.

We on this side of the house know how members on the other side get here. If you are not put up by a union you are done and dusted. You cannot get in unless you are here courtesy of one of the unions. We all know that, and that is the way the Labor Party works. We are actually a bit more democratic than that. Let us face it, we all have fights, and good fights, to get preselection. However, the fact of the matter is that on the other side of the house you have to come through the union movement. That is the way things are and we accept that, but there are a lot of unions asking questions about a lot of members who are sitting in this place with an ALP jacket on their back.

I reckon there is a lot of unrest out there. Just from the utterances and rumours circulating around this building, particularly during the two weeks that we discussed the WorkCover legislation, we know that this matter is alive and well and will go on for some time. You have the opportunity to stand up here and speak. The member for Bright should have risen from her seat and spoken on a number of these issues and made her feelings known. However, she did not, and so her electorate will take issue with her on it.

The third point I would make is on the federal election held last year. We knew it was going to happen, we knew roughly when it was going to happen, and everybody on the other side stayed very quiet. They did not want to stir up any trouble whatsoever. You could not buy a fight with them in the lead-up to the federal election. They sat over there like a mob of stunned mullets. They were not going to say boo. They were not going to jeopardise Kevin's chances in any way, shape or form, and that took its course.

However, the fact is that the member for Bright and many of her colleagues did not make public until after the federal election the fact that there were going to be cuts to workers' entitlements. I think they should stand condemned for that and the member for Bright has to take her place in standing condemned along with the rest of her colleagues. It is most unfair. You put your hand up, you stand up and if you are going to an election you should tell people what you are about. This is the crowd that did not want the GST, let us not forget. They railed against the GST: now they absolutely love it.

They think it is wonderful. They did not want this, and they did not want that. I reckon we could see anything happen with this outfit. You have seen this nonsense happen this week with the Victoria Park grandstand and the way that the Treasurer was dudded. Perhaps the Treasurer went out and said what he thought and has been dudded by his own party, but I say that the member for Bright should have told her constituents and the people of South Australia that there were going to be cuts to workers' entitlements.

She should have told them. She is in government, and she knew what was going to happen. You cannot tell me that members opposite do not know what is going to occur in this parliament. The simple fact of the matter is that the member for Bright failed dismally to alert her constituents to the fact that WorkCover was going to be changed substantially and workers' entitlements were going to be cut.

Once again, I think the member for Bright stands condemned on that and time will tell. March 20, 2010 is not very far away at all. Bring it on, I say; I can't wait for it. It is only 600-odd days away, and I am really looking forward to it. The member for Ashford will probably still be here afterwards, but I reckon there will be a few vacancies on the other side. We will fill them up. We will put all our people over there and I reckon we might take Bright with us as well. In fact, I look forward to it. We would like to have Bright back and a few others, and we are working pretty hard on that.

Why has not the member for Bright examined alternatives to cutting workers' benefits and brought them to the house and stood up in this chamber and told us her views on how we could do it differently? This is the place where you can do that. You can do it perfectly safely. You might earn the ire of your colleagues and you might have the 'gang of three' in the front come and slap you around the ears afterwards but at least you should have the courage of your convictions and stand up here and do it.

There are a couple of members opposite, who will remain nameless (but everyone knows who they are) who actually stood up here and asked a few questions and put a few things together on what they thought. Brave souls! I reckon the 'gang of three and a half'—perhaps four, but I reckon he is only a half!—would have taken them out and slotted them afterwards, quite frankly. I reckon they would have got the greatest flogging of all time because they have gone against what the Almighty said had to happen.

How many people run this government? Three and a half, four. That is how it appears to us on this side. You have the ridiculous situation yesterday where you have the member for Light asking a question and the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Infrastructure laughing and carrying on and making noises while one of their own members was asking a question. I just could not believe it. I found it a gross discourtesy and a reflection of the arrogance and disgust that the general South Australian public is starting to feel with this outfit.

They do not like it. You only have to get around the paddock outside, walk around and go to functions, and you will find out what people are thinking. They are not happy; they have had an absolute bellyful of this lot. The momentum is growing and it will continue to grow and we will do all we can to encourage it—trust me!—which includes speaking in this place on motions such as this.

It may seem to the member to be a slap in the face with a wet lettuce leaf, but I can assure you that we are quite serious about this and my good friend the member for Kavel is going to make his thoughts known on another member shortly, but my efforts are around the fact that the member for Bright has significantly failed to serve her constituents on the WorkCover issue. She has failed to tell them what was going to happen, and she has failed to meet with at least one that I know of who rang me.

I just found it absolutely extraordinary to have a phone call from a former Labor candidate because he could not get an appointment with a member on his own side. It is just remarkable. Members opposite can scoff and laugh and giggle and carry on—they can do what they like—but let me tell the house that people are not happy, and when they are not happy they need to be able to go to their local member.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Harvey Norman: four years, no interest. I rest my case. They are not happy and they should be able to go to their local member and talk to their local member and raise issues, if they do not like something on the WorkCover legislation. I will guarantee that when we are in government, there are plenty of people on our side who do not like things that the Liberal government has done over the years—probably myself included from time to time, but that is something else; now we are here we will fix it all up. But the reality is that you should be able to go and talk to your member and discuss and raise these issues.

I condemn the member for Bright for her inaction. She should have taken more interest in this blow-out that was some $60 million in 2002 and is now over $900 million, not taking into account the $400 million for the Public Service unfunded liability. Shades of State Bank! Rob Lucas and Stephen Baker fixed up an almighty mess after 1993, and here we go again. Our mate Kevvy is going to blow it. He can't count.

We have the absolutely ridiculous situation where the minister sits there and blames everybody except himself. He takes no responsibility whatsoever for this: he blames the board, blames the Public Service, blames this, blames somewhere else, and all the time he has done nothing about it. It is ludicrous.

How can the government possibly have a minister sitting there who has blown around a billion dollars and done nothing about it and accepts no responsibility. Blind Freddy knows that you do not do that. Had it been someone on our side who had done anything like that, they would have been out the door years ago and sitting back here somewhere, or back on that side somewhere—sitting up next to the member for Enfield, probably.

It is my belief that the member for Bright has failed her constituency and stands condemned on her inaction and lack of contribution and a whole lot of things to do with the WorkCover bill.

Ms FOX (Bright) (12:07): I acknowledge the remarks of the member for Finniss. I acknowledge the shallow posturing and personal slurs. I also acknowledge the fact that in this place the member for Finniss has claimed that a person has attempted to contact me three times. I have spoken with both my personal assistants, neither of whom have any record of any desire by this individual to meet with me personally. Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker (because I am fairly new in this place), but that does seem to be a wild untruth and I am not very happy about it.

I point out that the member for Finniss in his two years in this place has to my knowledge never asked a question about WorkCover until after he gave notice of this motion. Member for Finniss, you voted exactly the way I did. There is nothing that you accuse me of that you yourself have not done in this place. So I hope you feel a little bit uncomfortable. Once again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask for your guidance in this matter, but I feel this is a little hypocritical, if I may say so.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:09): The difference between the member for Bright and the member for Finniss is that the member for Finniss speaks up for his constituency (the farmers, the retirees and the young people), the residents of Finniss and, of course, those who support the Liberal Party. The member for Bright in her maiden speech in this place said:

Without the encouragement of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the Australian Labor Party would not have won as convincingly as it did in Bright. Thanks particularly to Don and Nimfa Farrell and their family. I am proud to have been supported in my campaign by a union which is now fighting harder than ever before to defend the rapidly eroding rights of many working Australians.

That is what the member for Bright said in her maiden speech, yet at the first opportunity she does the dirty on them: 'Thank you union members. Your contributions have helped to push me up the union pyramid and got me into parliament. I know there is a huge problem with WorkCover, but I have no idea how to deal with it. Someone has suggested that we cut workers' benefits. Oh, that will do. I will do that. I do not care that I got into this place crawling over the backs of working South Australians, taking their union membership to fund my campaign. I do not care that I did all that to get to where I am today. This is an easy option. Let us cut workers' benefits. Let us run a campaign, defending workers in an election environment, but at the first opportunity we get to shaft them we will.'

That is the easy option. It is much easier than managing WorkCover in a better, sustainable manner, like the Liberal Party did when it was in government, with a small unfunded liability—which has continued to grow under the management of Michael Wright.

I think it is important that union members and the constituents of the electorate of Bright understand that Chloe Fox, their local member, would do and say anything to get elected but will not deliver when she gets here. She has had every opportunity to do that and to, in her own words, 'fight harder than ever before to defend the rapidly eroding rights of working Australians'. But what did she do? She voted to cut their entitlements under WorkCover, and not once has she raised her concern about the bad management of WorkCover and the way in which it has been run by minister Wright and the board and CEO he appointed, and the changes he made to the way in which claims and legal affairs are managed in WorkCover. Not once has she done that.

Instead, we hear speeches about railway sleepers and peak oil. That is all we hear from the member for Bright. These are real issues for the trade union movement. The member for Bright has chosen not to raise them in this parliament but, rather, chosen to cut the entitlements of South Australian workers.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (12:12): I am coming to look forward to Thursday mornings because we have several more of these motions. We have had the pinch hitters out for the last couple of weeks. We have been warned that the member for Kavel is next and we are sitting here ready. Today was yet another in a series of extraordinary contributions from members of the opposition on the subject of the WorkCover bill.

Now, I will say something that I would not normally reveal openly in parliament. I did ask the whip whether it would be in order for me to amend the member for Finniss's motion to substitute the word 'Finniss' for the word 'Bright', but I was told that because I had not discussed it with my colleagues I should just get on with it—which is what I am doing.

The point is well made because there is nothing, as the member for Bright said, that the member for Bright did that the member for Finniss did not do. It would seem to me that if, as is stated in the surprisingly similarly worded motion from the member, I might say, that the member for Bright is guilty of all these dreadful things, then I assume he himself is admitting guilt for all those things—which, I guess, is a very noble thing to do.

As I understand it, what he is saying, by reference to the way in which he voted in the parliament, is that he does not take any interest in the blow-out in WorkCover's unfunded liability, that he does not take any interest in the poor return-to-work results, and that he has not examined alternatives.

I have listened to the debates that have taken place in here, and I remember very well that the member for Mitchell put up a great many proposals to amend that bill. I have to say that I thought a number of those proposals could have borne considerable extra debate and extra time because a lot of thought went into what he did.

I did not agree with all of those things, obviously, but did I hear any amendments coming from members of the opposition? No. I have to say that the member for Stuart and (it surprised me actually) the member for MacKillop, in an act of unspeakable heroism, walked across the floor to join the member for Mitchell in asking that all employers let trade union officials come into their property any time of the day, any day of the week, any week of the year to inspect the place to ensure it was satisfactory on an occupational, health and safety basis.

I am still waiting for a copy of TheWorker to see the member for MacKillop on the front page. It is May Day, for God's sake; why isn't he out in the parade—why isn't he leading the parade? It is as though one of those epiphanies struck him. Here we are late one evening debating WorkCover and the member for MacKillop is overcome by this epiphany. Finally he has got it. Good on the workers, but—

The Hon. S.W. Key: He will be there Saturday morning.

Mr RAU: He will be there Saturday morning, I understand. But as much as I admire him, the member for Finniss did not join him. Why is that? Let's judge them not by what they say because, with the greatest respect to the member for Finniss and those who have preceded him and no doubt those who will follow him, the basic law of physics applies to their contributions: air rushes in to fill a vacuum and, as the air rushes in, what comes out is waffle. It has no relevance whatsoever to the debate. It is simply an opportunity just to say a few words, a stream of consciousness that goes on for a few minutes and then it is all over. But let us look at what they have done. They voted for the government bill—every single provision—except, as I said, the member for MacKillop and the member for Stuart (two people of principle on the other side), but everybody else just toed the line. Why did they toe the line? I have been lying down for the last couple of weeks thinking about this and a couple of weeks—

Members interjecting:

Mr RAU: No, I can't think of anything else. I have not been able to eat; I have not been able to do anything. I have been worried sick about this, and eventually I was sitting down the other night watching a show called Medium on TV. I do not know if anyone has seen this show, but Medium is a show where there is a lady—

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr RAU: —who goes to sleep and, when she goes to sleep, she has all these vivid dreams which recount things that are either happening or have happened, or things that will happen. It must have been the influence of that, because I had this dream.

I had a dream (not like Martin Luther King; it was different), and in my dream the Leader of the Opposition is sitting in a room and he is surrounded by people from the business community of South Australia—Mr Vaughan and various other heavy hitters from the business community. There are people with big bags of money dropping or dangling them luringly over the campaign coffers of the party opposite, and the leader is sitting in the corner and they are saying to him, 'Marty, what's wrong you with, mate? Why don't you just support it? What are you characters doing in there? We want this. Why are you delaying it?' And Marty's going, 'I don't know, I don't know, but it's the only thing I could think to do.'

This dream keeps coming back to me, so I think I have actually been channelled into a very private session of the Liberal Party somewhere where their supporters are actually telling them, 'Please stop doing what you're doing. Please, member for Finniss, member for Kavel, member for Hammond, stop making yourself look stupid in the parliament by criticising other people for doing what you do, and just let the thing pass, because we all want it.' And the fact that you voted for it is because they all told you they want it. If you had either some backbone or a genuine difference of opinion, you would have got up and moved amendments, like the member for Mitchell did. You would have at least voted with him. Only two of you had the spine to do that—the member for MacKillop, who does care about unionists getting into workplaces, and the member for Stuart who, as some people would say, is unique (he does have his own views, and he is the champion of the small person).

The other thing I say is that either you are going to fix it or you are not. You are either happy with the unfunded liability, in which case you can go on and say how dreadful it is that any of these amendments are being made, or you are not and you are going to fix it, and you voted to fix it and that is to your great credit, although, why you are not taking credit for it I still fail to understand.

Ultimately I put the question back to the member for Unley. He said, 'Oh, you're not looking after your mates.' That seems to be the big point of the member for Unley: 'You're not looking after your mates.' The member for Finniss: 'You're not looking after your mates.' No doubt we will hear that from the member for Kavel shortly. But I ask you: if you want to be a government one day, what is the responsible thing to do? Is it to look after your mates, or look after the state's finances? If your answer is the responsible thing is to look after your mates, I sincerely hope you stay over there for a very long time, because you do not deserve to be anywhere else.

If you say, 'No, the responsible thing to do as a government and as a parliament is to look after the state's fiscal position,' then you would support the government. What you are trying to do is have it both ways. You are trying to support the government and get the credit for being fiscally responsible and then abuse government members for doing exactly what you are doing. It is a real test of responsibility and I am afraid that, to be throwing up questions like, 'Are you looking after your mates or not?' is a very disturbing aspect of what is being put in this chamber. You are not here to look after your mates: you are here to do the right thing. And if you do have the encourage to do the right thing, or if it is just because your business mates have bludgeoned you into it, for God's sake just do it in good humour. Get on with it, vote for it and let us move on, and encourage your colleagues up there to do it.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN (Mount Gambier—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests) (12:22): The business community is just shaking their heads in disbelief at this particular political strategy. I understand what they have now said to the leadership team in the Liberal Party is, 'For God sakes, put your stupidity in the lower house behind you and now move with courage and a degree of urgency to allow the bill to pass through the upper house.' The business community is concerned that, every day the opposition says one thing and does another, they provide more ammunition to be used against every Liberal candidate in the next election.

The business community has every right to be concerned in that regard. This strategy, quite frankly—and I know many opposite personally agree with this—makes absolutely no sense. This strategy makes absolutely no sense, other than to give ammunition to other parties to simply point to the fact that the Liberal Party says one thing and votes another way—and the record is here, on and on. They support what is being done, but for some reason they want to turn this into some short-term political stunt to their long-term political damage. I am telling you what the business community is telling me about the present leadership of the Liberal Party and their total and utter lack of understanding of what the strategy is.

I watched the member for Unley this morning. I watched his body language when he was saying, 'What the hell is the political strategy?' in terms of bringing on that bill. Many opposite, I am aware, cannot believe the position that the shadow minister took in relation to the GM bill. On so many fronts, people in the business community are saying to me, 'What is this mob really on about?' But today and these motions are the best possible example. This is allowing the Liberal opposition continually to reinforce the fact that they do not come in here to do what they believe is right: they come in here to play games. So why don't they simply drop this crazy strategy and say to themselves, 'It was done from the outset. We have exposed ourselves because we did not even have a single amendment to the bill. The bill was so good it stood in its own right without amendment. This is so good for the state. On balance, a difficult position has been struck between the needs of competing parties.'

That is what politics is about: it is about finding an acceptable compromise in a difficult set of circumstances. If they had just simply said that and left it, they would have been given credit. The problem they now have is that every day they reinforce the fact that they say one thing and mean another. Do you know that, at the end of the day, you need to be judged not on what you say but on how you vote on this issue and every other issue from now on—

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: The member for Schubert knows this. The member for Schubert knows very well how embarrassed he is about this.

Mr Venning: Me?

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: The member for Schubert—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: I am looking forward, I might say, to a question on GM because I do think it is important that, at some stage, we put on the record the fact that views opposite are broad on this and that what the shadow minister said publicly is not well supported on that side of the house. That is not the point for this debate. The point for this debate is to say that it is extremely damaging and not a smart political stunt for any party to continue to say one thing and act differently. Every day you move another one of these motions, you reinforce the fact—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: You are going to in a minute—that you do not believe what you say, because, when you have a chance to vote, you do not vote that way. If you think people out there do not understand the silly stunt that you have been trapped into and the fact that it is not reflecting on you individually but it is reflecting on you collectively in terms of your leadership, then sooner or later you will get the message, because they are telling me, and I know they are telling some of you. The smart thing to do is to acknowledge it has backfired; it was damn dumb. You moved not one single amendment; you supported the bill in its entirety; and how you voted is on the record. I suggest to you that this is a silly stunt, it has backfired; and every time you move another one of these motions, you will continue to make it worse, and I know that the business community is telling you what they are telling me.

Motion negatived.