WORKCOVER CORPORATION: MEMBER FOR NEWLAND

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:28): I move:

That this house condemns the member for Newland 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 the 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 preface my comments in relation to the member for Newland's stance on this particular legislation by making a couple of brief comments about some contributions we have just heard: one from the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and the other from the member for Enfield.

I have a reasonable regard for the member for Enfield. I think he is a good man, and he brings matters of relative importance to the attention of the house from time to time. He has been pilloried by his own colleagues in doing that, for having the courage and conviction to bring issues to the house that he thinks are important; for example, the position he took in relation to the review and investigatory report into the performance of local government that he made public, and also the matters he raised regarding the real estate industry, in particular, the manner in which auctions are held for the sale and purchase of residential real estate.

The member for Enfield is a courageous man, and he has been pilloried by his own colleagues Unfortunately, I do not think he will make it to the frontbench in the foreseeable future, even though he is deserving of it. I think that when he comes into this place he is a better lawyer—that is, he is better able to argue a point—than he is at supporting what he is saying. He is a good bloke, but he is a better lawyer.

The key point he has obviously neglected is the position government members took on this issue, such as the position the member for Newland took on this legislation. We all know exactly what has taken place here: it was a fight between the left and the right of the Labor Party. Do you know what it came down to? Who had the most money within the Labor Party/union structure—and we know that as an absolute fact—and it comes down to one person who has just been elected to the Senate, that is, the benefactor of the right wing of the Labor Party—we like to call him dear old Uncle Don Farrell. It has come down to that specific point: that the strongest union, the union that had the largest financial backing, won the day, and all the Labor Party members fell in behind.

The only person—and she is protesting now, I can see—who had any courage of their convictions was the member for Ashford. She was prepared to question the minister, as well as the shadow minister for industrial relations, the leader and a whole host of opposition members, and the member for Mitchell. The member for Ashford was the only person; we did not hear a peep from the member for Newland. No; Tom, a good bloke, just sits quiet as a mouse up there on the back bench. We hardly hear him make any contribution, really, in the house, apart from the occasional grieve on something, but, unfortunately, not many people take a lot of notice.

To get back to my point, the only person who had the courage to question the minister on aspects of the legislation was the member for Ashford. She was a great minister and she is a tremendous person in her own right, but I have a pretty good idea that the position she took during her term as a minister led to the movement within the Labor Party ranks to see her relegated to the back bench, because she has had the courage to stand up for what she believes in—not the member for Newland.

You know, Tom, I will give you a lesson. I know you have been around politics for a fair while, mate, but you really do not have a handle on what your job in here is, mate: it is actually to represent your constituents.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Don't you worry, Minister for Agriculture, if I get time, I'll come on to you, too, mate. Don't you worry about it, you'll get your turn in a minute, so I wouldn't pipe up too much.

Mr PEDERICK: I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Agriculture is interjecting and is not in his seat.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I think the point of order stands, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: All those things are correct; however, the volume coming from the members on my left has been entirely unacceptable, and it has been ignored. So, I ask everyone to behave, including the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. What do we see from the member for Newland? One of his primary responsibilities is to represent concerns and issues that are important in his electorate. Obviously, the concerns in his electorate relate specifically to the WorkCover legislation. What do we hear from the member for Newland in relation to the WorkCover legislation? Nothing; not a peep, not an absolute sound. Why? Because he is a member of the right faction and he is beholden to Don Farrell and the money from the SDA, or whatever it is. I am not really interested in unionism, particularly when it influences the outcomes on the Labor government side. He is beholden to the SDA and the funds that are channelled in to his election campaign. He is beholden to Don Farrell and the cash. It comes down to the cash, doesn't it, Tom?

Do you know what we do on this side of the house? We have to go out and raise our own money. We have to raise our own funds. We do not have the luxury of a union boss shovelling tens of thousands of dollars into our election campaign funds. We do not have that luxury. We have to go out and work solidly for a four-year period to get a bit of money in our party accounts to run our campaigns, and they are very successful campaigns, I can tell you, particularly in my electorate. If you want a lesson in campaigning, come up to the library and I will have a one-to-one chat with you.

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes; come up. You only live down the road in Bridgwater. The member for Newland actually has to drive past my electorate office to get to his electorate. He has to drive through Lobethal, past my electorate office, to actually travel down—we do not want to talk about it too much, because I know it is a sensitive issue for the majority of Labor Party members—

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, I do; but they are circumstances beyond my control. We will come to that, too, if we have time. We will come to the influence that I will have in relation to your election campaign, mate, because half of your newly-defined electorate will be coming up into the Hills—good, solid Liberal areas, Tom. You are sitting on only 5.5 per cent and, the way the swing is going, it has been nice knowing you. It has been nice knowing the member for Mawson; I sit on a committee with him. It would be good to see if we can get a second term out of him, but I do not think we will get a second term out of him, or the member for Light.

I have a piece of interesting information concerning the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation inquiry relating to workplace injuries and deaths. Madam, do you know who the chairman of that committee was? None other than the distinguished member for Newland. He was the chairman of the committee when it looked at WorkCover related issues and OH&S related issues. He was the supposed champion of this committee. What have we seen him do? What contribution have we heard from him during the WorkCover debate? As I said, nothing, not a peep. He has been as quiet as a mouse on it, because uncle Don says, 'Tom, you're not allowed to say anything because, if you do, we won't give you any money for your campaign.'

I can tell the member for Newland that he will need three times as much money than he did last time to try to hang on to that seat. He will need three times as much—if not more—cash shovelled into his Labor Party electorate accounts to try to hang on to that seat, because, as I said, the members for Newland, Mawson and Light, and a whole host of others, will be one-termers. It has been nice knowing you.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Like fun it will. What did we see here the other week in relation to union influence during the debate? We saw some union heavies in the speaker's gallery, obviously not from the right side of the union movement, because they were supporting it. We know that Steph Key, the member for Ashford, is from the left. She was the only one who had the courage to stick up for it. I think the member for Mawson is a member of the left faction. Why wasn't the member for Mawson sticking up for his lefty union mates who were here in the gallery? Actually, they got booted out because of their untoward conduct. That is how well they know how to behave in a place where laws are made. They got booted out. I understand that some of those people were from the CFMEU.

Talking to some senior cabinet ministers—and I will not identify them—one particular person said that that union is on the way out. In five years' time, the CFMEU will be in an even weaker position that it is now. The left faction of the Labor Party was discounted in this whole process. The left unions were ignored, the CFMEU was ignored. That is why they were in here, perhaps, protesting so much. They got booted out for their misconduct in the house.

Liberal Party members also witnessed the pressure that was brought upon government members. We had retired Labor MPs in here—retired Bannon government ministers—trying to lobby Labor Party MPs into changing their position on the legislation. The whole left movement of the ALP was brought out in force. They even wheeled out the relics from the disgraced Bannon government years. Goodness, what a strategy! Talking about strategy, what a strategy to bring out those disgraced former Bannon government ministers who presided over the State Bank debacle. You wheeled out those relics of the past to try to influence an outcome. Well, it obviously did not work.

I can tell the member for Newland that, come election time, Tom, you have not stuck up for your constituency, you have not protected those working men and women who would have voted for you. You have shunned them.

Time expired.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (12:43): Yet again the member for Kavel is condemning the member for Newland for a bill he voted for. He then goes on in his remarks to say, 'You're abandoning people in your electorate'. To take that argument to its final destination, the member for Kavel is condemning himself as well; indeed, he is condemning every member of parliament who voted for the WorkCover changes.

Mr Rau: Except for the member for MacKillop; he had some courage.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The member for MacKillop is the only one who has any dignity in this debate because he voted for the right of unions to enter workplaces. I have to say that the member for Kavel's hypocrisy today in moving this motion shows 1. how ridiculous the Liberal Party is, and 2. that they are irresponsible financial managers of this state, because they are delaying the passage of the WorkCover legislation in the upper house, they are filibustering the WorkCover legislation in the upper house, and they are deliberately trying to delay the WorkCover legislation in the upper house. Why? Political opportunism. The Premier's mantra at the last state election was state before party. The Liberal Party's mantra, privately behind closed doors, is party first, state second.

For the member for Kavel to get up and condemn the member for Newland for voting for the same thing that he voted for is what it looks like, sounds like and smells like—hypocrisy. How can you do it with a straight face?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the use of the term 'hypocrisy' in the house is out of order.

The SPEAKER: No, the word 'hypocrisy' is not unparliamentary. It is unparliamentary to refer to another member as a hypocrite or members as hypocrites, but 'hypocrisy' is not an unparliamentary word. The member for West Torrens.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The hypocrisy shown by members—

Mr Bignell: What did they show?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Pure hypocrisy. If I were to say the member for Kavel is a hypocrite that would be unparliamentary, and I would not do that because I rise above the level of members opposite. I am on the side of the angels—always have been, always will be. I will tell members one thing that I will not do: I will not get up and condemn a member of parliament for voting for the same thing that I did.

I had every right to condemn members opposite when they privatised ETSA after promising that they would not, because I promised that we would not privatise ETSA and I voted accordingly. I did not go out and say that I would never privatise ETSA to come in here in the dead of the night and sell off Tom Playford's legacy. I did not do that; I supported his legacy.

I did not come in here and say every day for six months, 'The WorkCover liability is out of control, something has to be done,' and then, when we act, vote for it and then condemn members opposite for doing exactly what members asked us to do. You have got to say to yourself, 'Why are they here?' Is it, as the member for Unley says: not his problem; not his concern; none of his business? Or is it, as the member for Newland said, that all members in this place who voted out of good conscience to do something about the unfunded liability were doing their job?

Those who voted against it voted with their conscience, and I congratulate the member for MacKillop and the member for Mitchell because they voted with their conscience. Good enough, fair enough, that is what they are here for.

Mr Rau: It was particularly hard for the member for MacKillop.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The member for MacKillop showed rare courage and bravado in allowing the unions the right to enter workplaces as they please, when they please. I understand that they have taken down the picture of 'Red Ted' Theodore at the UTLC and put up the member for MacKillop's photograph. I understanding that in Cuba they are changing Che Guevara Day to the Mitch Williams Commemorative Day.

An honourable member: A public holiday?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, a public holiday for the member for MacKillop, because comrade Williams is revered in leftist countries for his convictions: to vote, to allow unions to enter workplaces at any time—unfettered access to workplaces—to make sure that, whether or not they are members of a union, workers can access workers' advocates—and I think he should be congratulated for that.

Personally, I did not agree with that amendment. I voted accordingly, but I understand that comrade Williams has a stronger feeling for that matter. I understand that the UTLC will be writing to people in the electorate of MacKillop—especially those small business owners who are donors of his—letting them know about comrade Williams' conviction in that matter.

These motions that the think tank on the second floor came up with to condemn members of parliament for voting the same way as those who move the motions speaks for itself. We will see more later. We will see the member for Hammond move a motion condemning the member for Hartley for voting the same way he voted, then the member for Finniss—

Mr Rau: He's already done his.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: He's already done his. He has already condemned someone for voting the same way he voted. The member for Unley spoke at length about condemning a member of the government for voting the same way he voted. So, let us get it straight. The Liberal Party wants us to act on all these issues, and when we act in the way they want us to act they condemn us, and when we do not act in the way they want us to act they condemn us. So, we are damned if we do and we are damned in we don't.

My advice to the opposition is that, if you are not going to offer any constructive, alternative advice, just get out of the way. Do as the member for Unley says: it is not his problem. Stand aside. Resign. Cause a by-election and say, 'Too hard for me. I'm not interested. Let someone else do the job.'

However, if members opposite are serious, the first thing they should do is to tell their colleagues in the upper house to stop supporting adjournments of the WorkCover debate and get on with it, because every day we delay—in the words of the Leader of the Opposition and in the words of the members for MacKillop and Bragg—the liability goes up.

So, why are they adjourning? Why are they delaying? Why? Because they are putting party ahead of state. They are hoping that the Labor Party will split. They are hoping that something will happen and that the party will have to withdraw the bill. They are hoping that the unions may convince us to do something other than what we want. I can tell members opposite that the Premier and the government will stand firm. We want this legislation passed. We want WorkCover changes to go through. We want to lower the liability. If you want to follow the member for Unley, because it is not your problem, fine; do not turn up, but do not delay us in getting on with the business of the state.

Think of this: Business SA—no friends of ours; the Liberal Party hold preselections in that organisation's building, Enterprise House—has put full page ads in the paper saying to the Liberal Party (their friends) 'Get on with it'. What do they do? They adjourn; they delay, speaking for hours; they filibuster. Why the delay? Do you need more time—is that what it is? You do not understand the legislation? You do not understand the liability? Do you want more briefings? Then ask for them. Otherwise there is no reason whatsoever.

I understand that the Greens and others wish to have their say, and that is fine. Let the debate happen, but instead the Liberal Party spent most of yesterday debating private members' business. What is more important: private members' business or an unfunded liability that is growing out of control? What is more important? The Liberal Party says that private members' business is more important.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: If the member for Goyder says that it is mismanagement, then support our legislation. Support the legislation that you voted for in this house. Convince your colleagues. Or could it be that the colonel does not control his troops? I have had phone calls from people who have told me that the Leader of the Opposition has said that he does not control the Hon. Rob Lucas, that he is a loose cannon.

If you do not control your colleagues in the upper house then say so, but do not come in here and waste the taxpayers' time by condemning us on motions seeking the same thing you voted for. It is pure hypocrisy and you know it. It is a stupid tactical move and you know it, but you have stuck to it because you have been told to. For some reason, you encourage us to do it down here and upstairs you filibuster. Why? Because you are morally bankrupt.

Time expired.

Mr KENYON (Newland) (12:53): I can tell the house that the Special Air Service has a motto, and it is, 'Know the enemy better than you know yourself'. It is quite obvious to me that the member for Kavel has not taken that motto to heart. All we saw was conspiracy theories. I think there are magazines that you can send these conspiracy theories to and they will print them for you, but I do not think Hansard is the place for them. So, bringing them into parliament was probably the second error, after moving the motion.

When I saw this motion on the Notice Paper I thought maybe the member for Kavel had been a speaker on this matter. I cannot recall it, but he has been here a little bit longer than I, so I went back through the record to have a look. I looked for speeches that the member for Kavel might have made in the grievance debates about WorkCover. Were there any? No, not one. I thought maybe he had asked a question of the minister during question time. Were there any questions? Nada. Nicht. Zip. Not one.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr KENYON: That is correct. As the member for MacKillop would say, 'Nyet, comrade.' Did he ask questions on notice? Not a one. There are so many avenues open to the member for Kavel to have raised this issue in the house in the six years that he has been here (four years longer than I have). As I said, he was trying to lecture me. He must be vastly more experienced than I am in proceedings of the house. Was there anything? Not even a full stop. Not a thing! His sole contribution occurred after he had moved this motion.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: And voted for the bill.

Mr KENYON: And voted for the bill, and I know he voted for the bill because he sat right next to me. We sat next to each other down there on the cross-benches literally shoulder to shoulder—because I made sure I pushed him right up against the end of the bench—and voted for the WorkCover bill. There is a word for that sort of behaviour.

Honourable members: Hypocrisy!

Mr KENYON: That is exactly right. As members on this side of the house rightly point out, it is hypocrisy.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr KENYON: And maybe it is a pity that the member for MacKillop is not here to inform us of the Russian word—or even Spanish (as Cuba, I think, is Spanish); he could have told us the Spanish word for hypocrisy if he did not want to use the Russian word. However, we have not seen that happen. All we have seen is delay, prevarication, hypocrisy and hold-ups all in the name of party politics and of trying to get some sort of political advantage as opposed to doing the right thing by the state. Even oppositions, with all their freedom of action, sometimes have to do the right thing by the state, but we have seen failure after failure from the other side on that particular issue of doing the right thing by the state.

I am opening up the paper and we are seeing full-page ads by the business community, day after day, each one costing $20,000. The member for Kavel came in here and suggested that I might like to raise some money. I can tell members opposite that every $20,000 that goes into that newspaper is $20,000 that is not going into the coffers of the Liberal Party for the next election.

Not only are you doing the state a disservice, you are probably doing your party a disservice at the same time—not that I mind that, I must say. There are only two people on the other side of the house with any credibility on this issue and only one of them is in parliament, because the Hon. Angus Redford was unfortunately (in some ways) dispatched from this parliament, but mostly by his own decision-making.

Mr Rau interjecting:

Mr KENYON: That is right. The other one is the member for MacKillop. I think he was shabbily treated by his party because they got him to sit on the other side and vote against things that he had raised and he agreed with. I have a great deal of respect for the member for MacKillop, Comrade Williams. I think he has been badly treated by his party, having been hung out to dry when he is the only person on the entire other side of the house with any credibility in this matter.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr KENYON: And the member for Stuart; I apologise to him. When I was sitting up there in the Speaker's gallery as an adviser, the only person I saw raising this issue was the member for MacKillop. I did not see the member for Kavel raising the issue. I did not hear him saying anything about it. In his defence, the member for Kavel did have the good grace to look a bit embarrassed as he sat there talking today.

The SPEAKER: The person in the gallery is not allowed to take photographs. The member for Newland.

Mr KENYON: I have almost completed my remarks, but I will just say that the member for Kavel at least had the decency to look embarrassed as he moved this motion.

The SPEAKER: If the member for Kavel speaks, he closes the debate.

An honourable member: He is not in the chamber.

Motion negatived.

[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]