WORKCOVER CORPORATION: MEMBER FOR HARTLEY

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:30): I move:

That this house condemns the member for Hartley 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.

Like so many of her government colleagues the member for Hartley is guilty of sitting silently in the back seat of the WorkCover bus, while the Minister for Industrial Relations, mutely supported by his fellow cabinet members, including the Premier, steered it blindly off the road and into a forest of unfunded liabilities, falling return to work rates and rising premiums.

In doing so, the member for Hartley is complicit in this disastrous situation and should be roundly condemned for abandoning her parliamentary responsibilities in not carefully protecting the interests of her constituents.

The unfunded liability in 2002 was $67 million. As things stand, that figure could exceed the magical $1.5 billion mark within 12 months. No doubt members opposite will want to dispute those figures and what they mean, but what they cannot argue with is that South Australia has the highest unfunded liability and the highest levy rates in what a former WorkCover CEO described as the worst WorkCover scheme in Australia.

This did not happen overnight. It has been looming for six years, growing steadily all that time, and since taking up her back seat in this parliament in 2006 the member for Hartley, and many of her parliamentary colleagues, sat idly, gazing out of the side window, not wanting to look ahead for fear of seeing the obvious catastrophic collision that was about to happen, and face this fact that, in remaining silent, she was also responsible for it.

Over the past six years the opposition has asked hundreds of questions in the parliament, and the matter has been reported widely. Yet in her two years in this place the member for Hartley did nothing. She did not, or would not, hear the alarm bells ringing as the unfunded figures climbed steeply and steadily—$100 million, $200 million, $300 million, $400 million, half a billion, etc., etc.

While the bus driver, the Minister for Industrial Relations, was reassuring unions that there would be no cut to benefits and, at the same time, promising industry that there would be changes, the member for Hartley sat mutely in the back seat. Still no alarm bells, still no concern for her constituents, or indeed any of the state's workers and business owners. There they all were, the government's back seat passengers, content to be in a bus with a big majority.

But the member for Hartley does not have a big majority. The next time that bus pulls up at the terminal and the conductor yells, 'All change,' the member for Hartley may well discover there is no longer a seat for her. With any luck we will get a new driver too, assuming this one has not already been sacked and replaced.

Within the last few weeks we have seen one of the government's staunchest supporters, SA Unions Secretary Janet Giles, perhaps herself an aspiring Labor parliamentarian, resign from the WorkCover Board, pleading a moral conflict of interest and stating, 'It's my job to defend workers.' What a tantalising proposition this presents, a Labor politician with a moral and social conscience. She might well run for the seat of Hartley, although she would have trouble getting Labor preselection.

The Premier has often proclaimed in this place that he has absolute confidence in his ministers. Does he mean he has great confidence in their ability to perform their roles, or does he mean he has great confidence that they will not cross him in the party room? Given the obvious conflicts of this, and numerous other contentious issues of late, I confidently suggest it is the latter.

Does the member for Hartley have the same absolute confidence in the minister? How could she, when the situation was so clearly deteriorating. And let us not confuse informed confidence with blind faith. What was the member for Hartley doing for the five months between the time the report was handed down last November and the recent announcement? Did she query the figures? Did she request the policy? Did she doubt the minister? Did she even see the train coming?

And there are other questions. Did she not know that the Liberals had reduced the unfunded liability from $267 million in 1994-95 to $67 million by 2002? Does she remember that my colleague the member for MacKillop pointed out in this place 12 months ago that the last Liberal government had reduced the injury rate by 20 per cent, in the face of a 10 per cent increase in workforce growth? Did she ask any questions at all of her own party about this alarming situation and, if she did, what were the sugar coated answers that convinced her everything's fine, our driver knows where he is going? I suspect not, and, if I am right, the member for Hartley is to be condemned for gross inattention to task. It is fine to be a back seat passenger in a big bus, but you should still take an interest in what is going on and how it is going to get there.

Conversely, the Liberal Party's Industrial Relations Portfolio Committee is working toward the following objectives: providing workers with fair entitlements and rehabilitation; reducing the levies on business; and fully funding the scheme. I would add that we are doing it in discussion and consultation with unions and business, a technique apparently foreign to this government.

Is the member for Hartley still reassured by the minister's claim in December 2006 that the claims liability would be cut by $100 million within two years, namely, July 2008? Is she aware that WorkCover Chairman, Bruce Carter, recently told the Statutory Authorities Review Committee that he believes the government-appointed claims management agent will 'struggle to get there'? Has this rung any alarm bells for the member for Hartley or was she dozing when the bus rattled over that level crossing?

The electorate of Hartley covers the eastern suburbs of Campbelltown, Hectorville and Kensington Gardens, in which there is a broad cross-section of voters including hardworking employees and committed and entrepreneurial small business people. One wonders who will vote for the member for Hartley in 2010—assuming she gets back on the bus. Will it be the workers—Labor's long-time voter base—who stand to lose money and benefits by this bill or will it be the business owners who may find themselves saddled with a WorkCover levy rate that has doubled to 15 per cent or even, possibly, 22.5 per cent? How many employees will the employer have to lay off to cover the increased premium, simply to stay afloat? One should bear in mind that for the employer this is not an investment in improving his or her business but, rather, another addition to the cost of doing business.

Is the member for Hartley concerned about the potentially negative impact that the requirement for employers to appoint a rehabilitation and return-to-work coordinator within the workplace could have on staff cohesion and morale? Is the member for Hartley concerned that the Minister for Industrial Relations has appointed as actuary the same person that he and the Treasurer have castigated in recent years? They have accused him of giving 'very, very poor actuarial advice' and said that he 'significantly understated the true level of liabilities'. Is the member for Hartley satisfied with the reappointment by the government of an officer who, according to cabinet members, was sacked for a good reason?

No doubt the member for Hartley will endeavour to excuse her lack of interest and involvement in her government's mishandling of this matter by suggesting that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black; that is, I have never taken any interest in the matter. Even if that were true it would not be a defence for her disinterest and lack of care. She cannot absolve herself of blame by endeavouring to cast the spotlight on others. At best, all she will do is draw others under the same light.

As it happens, and as one would hope, the member for Hartley has already discovered that I will not share the spotlight with her on this. In fact, I have referred several times in this place to workers compensation issues. The most specific reference was on 28 March last year—over 12 months ago—when in my Supply Bill contribution I said:

The WorkCover unfunded liability is, I believe, heading towards $1 billion. The latest figure we have is $694 million, but who knows where it is exactly at the minute. Unless some reform is done in the WorkCover sector—and we are told that deals are done with unions not to cut benefits—I cannot see that happening. The worrying factor is that the figure of $694 million comes from June 2006. As that figure we are referring to is nine months old, it would be interesting to see where it is at the moment.

I remind the member for Hartley that she is a member of the government—the government that is overseeing this massive and unavoidably obvious blow-out in the unfunded liability. It is to be assumed that as a member of the government she is more privy to the discussions and decisions that go to make up the policies of her ministers than am I. She ought to have been far better aware of what was happening than I.

As the member for Hartley and her colleagues will find after the next election—if she makes it back into this place—there is only so much you can do in opposition. Given the worker roots inherent in her family history, the high ideals she held at university (that she so eloquently described in her maiden speech) and the demographics of her electorate—and the marginal state of that electorate—it would be reasonable to think that she might at least have taken an interest in the matter, let alone contribute something in the government debate in the interests of her electors and, for that matter, all South Australian electors. I remind the house of the member's own words to her supporters. In her maiden speech she said:

To Mark Butler, Andy Dennard, Don Farrell, Robyn, Andrew, Craig, Katrine, Ian and Charles, I thank you and all the fine people I have had the pleasure of meeting in the union movement. The Labor movement will always have a friend in me.

One can only wonder how these fine people are feeling now about their choice of someone to represent them in this house. I contend that the member for Hartley has taken no interest in the blow-out in WorkCover's unfunded liability, taken no interest in WorkCover's poor return-to-work results, failed to inform the public until after the federal election that WorkCover entitlements to injured workers would be cut, failed to examine alternatives to cutting workers' benefits as part of the WorkCover reform and sat silently in the back of the bus taking the easy ride while her Minister for Industrial Relations and his cabinet colleagues cannoned like an unguided missile through a forest of problems. For all this the member for Hartley is to be roundly condemned. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:44): Graham Richardson said in 1993 that not only were the Liberals stupid but they were stupid often. I have to say that today they are being stupid—and they are being stupid often. Here they are again condemning the member for Hartley for voting on a bill which they supported. The member for Hammond waxes lyrical about being on a bus, but on that bus, apparently, he is a passenger. He is on the same bus of WorkCover. But there is another problem here.

They cry crocodile tears. They speak with forked tongues. In this house they demand that we pass the bikie legislation and the WorkCover legislation. They say it is imperative we do something, yet in the upper house they have lost control. They have entered the heart of darkness because what has happened is they have a Colonel Kurtz in the upper house, the Hon. Rob Lucas, out of control. I will quote from the movie in a moment, but he is up there controlling the natives, the indigenous tribes.

An honourable member: The Mung.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The Mung. He is up there filibustering, not listening to his commander-in-chief, not taking orders. So I say it is time for a new Willard. The member for Hammond is to be the new Willard. I want to quote from the movie. In Saigon, he says:

Kurtz had ordered executions of some Vietnamese intelligence agents. Men he believed were double agents. So he took the matter into his own hands.

Corman: Well, you see Willard—

that is you, member for Hammond—

in this war, things get confused out there, power, ideals, the old morality, and practical military necessity. Out there with these natives it must be a temptation to be God.

That is the Hon. Rob Lucas, 'the temptation to be God':

Because there's a conflict in every human heart between the rational and the irrational, between good and evil. The good does not always triumph. Sometimes the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. Every man has got a breaking point—

Mr VENNING: I rise on a point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I heard no point of order. Member for West Torrens.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: It continues:

Because there's a conflict in every human heart between the rational and the irrational, between good and evil. The good does not always triumph. Sometimes the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. Every man has got a breaking point. You and I have.

Mr VENNING: Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask you to rule again. This is all about the motion, not some philosophical desire of the member for West Torrens.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Member for West Torrens.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Continuing:

The good does not always triumph. Sometimes the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. Every man has got a breaking point. You and I have. Walter Kurtz has—

that is Rob Lucas—

reached his. And very obviously, he has gone insane.

This is where the member for Hammond says:

Yes sir, very much so sir. Obviously insane...

Your mission is to proceed up to Nung river in a Navy patrol boat. Pick up Colonel Kurtz' path at Nu Mung Ba, follow it, learn what you can along the way. When you find the colonel infiltrate his team by whatever means available and terminate the colonel's command.

This is what the member for Hammond says:

Terminate? The colonel?...

He's out there operating without any decent restraint. Totally beyond the—

Mr PEDERICK: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw it back to relevance. The member is making reflection on me and what I say. I think I can speak for myself.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for West Torrens, wait a minute.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I am nearly finished.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand that currently the argument is a little distant from the subject, and I ask the member for West Torrens to draw the argument together.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: It is all going to come together at the end, you will see:

Your mission...When you find the colonel infiltrate his team by whatever means available and terminate the colonel's command...

Terminate? The colonel?...

He's out there operating without any decent restraint. Totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field commanding his troops...

Terminate with extreme prejudice.

That is your mission, member for Hammond, to terminate with extreme prejudice. Go to your comrades in the upper house, use the spirit of the motion you just moved. Condemn them for filibustering, condemn them for not passing WorkCover legislation. David Ridgway, the Leader of the Liberal Party in the upper house, today said on radio they are not passing WorkCover until after June. After June. What are we paying them for? What are they doing up there?

Member for Unley, it is not your problem, remember; you just work here. It is not your problem. Member for Hammond, you have a mission. Terminate the colonel with extreme prejudice. Rob Lucas still controls the upper house, like Kurtz. The horror, controlling his troops, they are lost, out of control, no ammunition, just working his magic, infiltrating the troops. Out of control, and what happens every day he is still in command? The liability goes up, every single day. This government has acted and acted decisively. We have taken on our friends, which is something the Liberal Party has never done. We have taken on our friends and have said to them, 'We have to act in the interests of South Australia.' The Premier made this pledge at the last election, 'State first, party second.'

I call on the Liberals to do the same thing, to put their state first. Stop filibustering. No internal workings of the party are going to overturn this, so you can forget it. Every time you delay, the liability goes up, and it is your fault.

I know the member for Hammond is a passionate man. Take up your command, take up your mission; go tell Rob Lucas it is time to come out of the jungle. It is over. It is like one of those Japanese soldiers in the jungle who has not heard the emperor's call to surrender. Still out there polishing his gun, sitting in the cave, waiting for the Americans to land. It is over. The WorkCover legislation has to be passed and the Liberals come in here condemning us for voting for a bill they supported. The member for Unley sits there all confused because it is not his problem. He just works here: 'It's nothing to do with me. I'm just a member of parliament.'

I ask all members of parliament to think very carefully about these motions. I cannot believe you are still going on with it, like I said, being stupid often. But the truth is that the member for Hammond was serious about the liability, he was really concerned about it and it kept him up at night. He should speak to David Ridgway and speak to Colonel Kurtz in the upper house. He should speak to him and say, 'Time to put the games behind us. Stop supporting private members' business in the upper house. Stop adjourning the house. Stop going home at 6 o'clock at night.' How about they do some work?

Rob Lucas has had two jobs in his life: working for the Liberal Party and in the upper house. How about he does his job here and passes the WorkCover bill? Do not come in here and lecture us about WorkCover.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Hammond says that he is not leader any more. That is the whole point: he is still in command. He is lost up the river—

Mr Rau: He's up the Mong River.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: He's up the Mong River, still in command, not taking orders from anyone. The colonel is giving out the orders, but Colonel Kurtz is not listening; he is out of control. If you were serious about WorkCover you would pass it in the upper house. But your leader in the upper house said today that they are not passing it until June. Are we to take it now that, one, you are not ready, and, two, you do not care that liability goes up? Not interested? If that is true why are you moving these motions?

I will tell you why you are moving them: pure political expediency, that is all it is. Why are you delaying it? You are hoping beyond hope that somehow we will pull the bill, or there will be some internal split within the party, or something will go wrong. That is what you are hoping. You do not actually want to fix WorkCover: you want it to be there at the next election as an issue. That is what you want, but you do not have the courage to say that, because you hide behind Colonel Kurtz. You are hiding behind there like Dennis Hopper—

Mr Rau: The journo.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: —the journo. He's a great man—

Mr Rau: A kind man.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: He's a kind man. Rob Lucas is still in control of the show. He has been fired, but he is still in charge. He is filibustering, and you are letting him do it. Yet, you come in here and tell us that it is really about WorkCover. Well, tell your colleagues in the upper house that we are ready to go; we will debate it right now. Stop everything else; we will do WorkCover. But you will not. Do you know why you will not? Because Colonel Kurtz is still in charge. Member for Hammond, terminate his command.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:54): I congratulate the member for Hammond for bringing this matter to the attention of the house, as have a number of his colleagues over recent weeks. I find it interesting that members opposite are at last standing up and talking about WorkCover. When we had the opportunity to debate the bill in the house there was stunned silence from members opposite.

I remember making my second reading contribution. I encouraged people like the member for Taylor, who is always very vocal in the house, to stand up and explain to her constituents why she was supporting the bill promoted by the front bench of the Labor Party. I called on a number of other members to explain to their constituents why, after a lifetime of fighting for the cause of working men and women, they had turned their backs on them.

It was interesting that a couple of weeks ago the member for Enfield in this place made the point that I crossed the floor on a number of occasions to support the member for Mitchell. I am sure that the member for Enfield is smart enough to understand that, if the member for Mitchell proposed an amendment and called for a division, if he was left on his own we would not have recorded in the Hansard forever that every member of the government voted against the amendments that the member for Mitchell put forward.

That is in essence why I voted on that side of the house at the time. It is interesting that the member for Enfield stated: 'I have often thought that trade union officials should have access to the workplace.' Yet, he voted against it. He is assuming that that is something that I would not normally vote for and denigrates me for the fact that, on that occasion, I did vote for it. What I did vote for is to make sure that every member of the Rann Labor government is recorded in the Hansard for posterity. Your names will be recorded forever for turning your backs on working men and women. Not one of you stood up during the second reading debate—

Mr Rau interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: You haven't heard the end of what I was going to say, John. Not one of you stood up and made a sound justification for why at this point you turned your back on the working men and women of South Australia. Not even you did that, John. Not even you have told the working men and women of Enfield why in their hour of need you are happy to turn your back on them; why you believe that an injured worker, who loses an arm in a machine in a workshop, after so many weeks gets a 20 per cent reduction in their income maintenance. I did not hear you explain to the working men and women why you thought that, after losing an arm or leg, or whatever, in a machine, they and their families, all of a sudden, after a certain preset number of weeks, could survive on 80 per cent of their salary.

I did not hear you explain that. Not one of you got up and explained that. Not one of you explained why 30 per cent of the employed people in South Australia, who are covered by self-insurers, about half of whom are private enterprise employers, and the other half is the government of South Australia, have seen no movement from those businesses to have the legislation changed because it had become financially burdensome on them to manage. Not one of you.

A few months ago I met with some lawyers who work in the workers compensation field, and they told me of one example of a business that moved out of the WorkCover system to become a self-insured employer. The cost to that business was reduced from $3 million a year—that is what their WorkCover levy had been when it was managing their injured workers' welfare—to $300,000 a year. That is why the Self-Insured South Australia (SISA) has never lobbied this government to change the act. SISA was quite happy with the act, because it managed it properly.

The opposition has been raising these issues for five years. For five years the opposition has been telling you and warning you that the minister responsible, the Minister for Industrial Relations, is incompetent. We have been telling you that for five years. We started to raise this issue in mid-2003, when we recognised that the WorkCover unfunded liability would go through the roof. That was five years ago, but the Treasurer stood in here in question time yesterday and said that, if we do not pass this legislation in five minutes, we will be saddled with $1.5 billion worth of debt.

Well, there are plenty of questions in Hansard that I have put to the Minister for Industrial Relations and the Treasurer about the unfunded liability, but do members know what the answer has been? Over five years their answer has been, 'This is not a debt, it is just a paper figure. It is not a debt.' Yet yesterday the Treasurer would have us believe that $1.5 billion worth of debt is going to appear on his bottom line in five minutes.

As the Treasurer knows, the reality is that if something is not done quickly the AAA credit rating is out the window. The Treasurer knows that, it is what he has been advised and it is why he has driven this—and that is why all the members sitting at the back over there have to wear this. The Treasurer will lose his AAA credit rating if nothing is done. They all know that, every one of them, but, just as the Treasurer and the Minister for Industrial Relations have been in denial for the last five years, those members are all in denial now.

The WorkCover legislation has been working for the self-insured all this time. They were not complaining (and I met with them regularly); they were managing it. I never had any member of the government come to me and say that the self-insured employers were doing the wrong thing by their workers because all these injured workers were coming to them complaining. When I was shadow minister for industrial relations, the only complaints I ever had about injured employees and the way they were being treated were with regard to WorkCover. I never had one complainant who worked for a self-insured employer, not one. The reality is that the mess is within WorkCover, and the mess is at the very feet of the minister. Members opposite have been in denial and are now wearing it.

We point out to them, and to every South Australian, that this is being driven by the Deputy Premier because of his AAA credit rating. The reason he had to do this is because they appoint people to their front bench, they appoint ministers because of who they are and what support they have from the union movement, not on their ability. This measure has not been argued at their party's executive, and why not? Because they had a defection, someone from the left decided they would move to the right.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Preselection? They have a fat government job down at the Industrial Relations Tribunal, that is what they have. We had three members dropped off the Industrial Relations Tribunal 18 months ago because the workload had dropped so much because of things happening with shifts of responsibility and functions in the federal arena, but suddenly we have a new one appointed! It happened to be part of a deal with someone moved from the left to the right to shore up the numbers on the right to save that minister, that incompetent minister who is the problem. And all of them are sitting there wearing it.

I see the member for Enfield making notes. I hope he can provide answers to all the propositions I am putting. I look forward to hearing it, because I would hate to be sitting on the back bench over there, understanding how I had been shafted by the leaders of my party. That is what has happened to them; they have all been shafted.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (12:04): As always it is such a pleasure to be here on Thursday. I really do enjoy this, and it is particularly good to be able to follow the members for Hammond and MacKillop; that really is a privilege.

First, in relation to the member for Hammond, I enjoyed his contribution. He obviously did a bit of research into the material he put forward, but my children sing a song that goes something like 'The wheels on the bus go round and round'. Well, the wheels on his bus were going round and round, but he was not going anywhere. I think we got the public transport analogy going a little too far; the whole story suffered a little from the fairly rigorous structure in which he set it.

Nevertheless, it was not a bad contribution, and he was obviously getting out there and doing the right thing by his team because they said (much as the member for West Torrens implied), 'Look, here is a mission, and it is a hopeless mission. When the whistle goes you have to go up over the trench and there will be a bunch of blokes there with machineguns. But don't worry, because afterwards you'll get a medal and your mum and dad will get a nice letter.' Basically that is the task they gave him. The member for Kavel had to do this dreadful thing, as well as the member for Finniss; they all had to do it. I genuinely think that what they are being made to do is unfair, because they know it is absolute rubbish; yet they have come in here bravely, with a straight face (mostly), and have done what they had to do.

However, I want to come back to the member for MacKillop, because he said that this is all about the AAA credit rating. Okay, let us assume, for the purpose of the argument, that it is about the AAA credit rating. Do members of the opposition want to have a AAA credit rating for South Australia or not? There is a simple answer to that: it is yes or no. If members opposite want a AAA credit rating they would vote for the legislation; if they do not want one they would not vote for it. What did they do? Goodness me, every one of them voted for it—including these poor privates who have been sent over when the whistle blew. The Colonel Blimp-type sitting in the bunker with a big moustache eating cucumber sandwiches said, 'Come on, blow the whistle,' and the poor devils have been sent over. Goodness me.

That is the first thing, the AAA credit rating: do you want it or do you not? If the answer is yes you vote accordingly—and they have. So why do the characters in the other place not do exactly the same thing?

The second thing that I think is really interesting is that the member for MacKillop is actually a very clever person, because I have been listening to what he has been saying in here for six years now and I believe that the member for MacKillop is a secret operative for a very left wing outfit. I do not know what it is; I do not know if it is the Workers' Student Alliance or whether it is the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, but he is like an underground operative.

What he does is he masquerades under this thing. He is like the bloke who dresses up as the Gestapo officer, but he is actually letting people escape through some tunnel. So, what he has done is he has clothed himself in this rhetoric about, 'I'm a country person and I'm very conservative', and all of these things, but actually somewhere, probably in Pyongyang (I am not sure—these types of countries that have the big rooms in which they pay tribute to the pantheon of great political leaders) there is a room with a big oil painting of Marx, Engels and Williams—the big three! There they are, they are up there. Why are they up there? Because one night when he was feeling relaxed and comfortable in here—

Mr VENNING: I rise on a point of order as to relevance.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr RAU: One night when he was feeling comfortable in here, when that serene look of happiness had overtaken him, he came and sat over here and voted with the member for Mitchell to allow unrestricted access to all workplaces anywhere in the state—

Members interjecting:

Mr RAU: To cheers! I went over to him and I said to the honourable member, 'Comrade, do you know what you are doing, Tovaritch?' He said, 'I know what I'm doing,' and of course he did know what he was doing at that moment, but did he realise that by doing what he did at that moment he risked exposing his whole operation? This is a very serious matter. Okay, he demonstrated courage, he demonstrated integrity and he demonstrated that he was a man of steel. Where does that saying 'man of steel' come from? Stalin. Stalin: man of steel.

For members opposite I would quote from that great film, A Few Good Men. Jack Nicholson, when pushed and pushed and pushed in the witness-box said, 'You can't handle the truth.' That is your problem: you can't handle the truth. He is a secret agent. You have people up there in the other place completely out of control, and they are actually going to ruin what members opposite have voted for. I cannot believe it. It is nuts!

But back to the main game. I decided I was going to do some research on comrade Williams. I thought that I would find out a little bit more about him. So, I went onto Google and looked around and there is nothing in there about Mitch Williams and socialism.

Mr Kenyon: What about Tovaritch?

Mr RAU: Nothing; he is very careful—good question. But I did find that there is a book called Perestroika Nyet, written by Tovaritch Mikhail Richardovich Williams. He has obviously got a nom de plume that he is using to write his poisonous material—I have not read the book so it might actually be very good. I withdraw that; it may not be poisonous. The other thing I found was a book entitled No Passaran, published in Cuba by a fellow called Michaelo (Ernesto) Williams, and it is subtitled Companeros de Armis (Companions in Arms).

So, here we are; he has blown his cover. It is all out there. It is now in the public domain. He is going to have to try to put it all back in the box but, my goodness, after what he has done it is going to be so hard. He is already about to go into print around the world, and in North Korea they are about to have a special edition of the Pyongyang Times with Ernesto on the front page. Tovaritch—

Mr Kenyon: So many aliases!

Mr RAU: Yes; so many aliases. He is like Jason Bourne: he has passports, he has names, he has identities.

Mr Kenyon: The Williams identity.

Mr RAU: The Williams identity; exactly. What is his real identity? We know what his identity was: the man of principle, alone amongst you. He crossed the floor; that brave, lonely walk.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr RAU: That is exactly right. Another clue! Why did the beard come off? Marx, Engels, even Lenin. And what about Ernesto, magnificent beard—no, Che Guevara. The evidence is overwhelming and it is compelling. The fact that he is able to get up here and attack us for voting the same way as he voted, when in a moment of weakness he crosses the floor and reveals his allegiances, it is, as I said, Stalin-like—the man of steel. When the submarine pulls up in a few weeks' time down at Millicent with some information for him, I hope there are people there to watch him go and collect it.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:13): I want to bring the subject back to relevance and I commend the member for Hammond. I have been here for 18 years and I think this morning I have seen the most ridiculous flouting of the standing orders that I have ever seen, because we are supposed to speak on the subject.

I want to commend the member for Hammond for bringing the motion to the house. I also note the speech by the member for Enfield, but I will get to him. We do miss members as they leave this place, and when I heard this speech this morning I had a strong vision of one member, the previous member for Hammond, the Hon. Peter Lewis. What an absolute diatribe that was—totally irrelevant to the subject. I also note the speech of the member for West Torrens. It was more of a rave, I believe, than a speech, particularly when he mentioned the words 'being stupid' often.

It is all about the eye of the beholder, and it is all about mirrors. If you are going to live in a glasshouse, you do not throw stones. We have had many members over the years who have gone very close to the edge with some of their speeches, but if you are going to make comments like that, you want to be very careful about your own record.

It is all about a smokescreen. They are putting up these futile, spurious arguments from the other side, but the facts are there for us all to know about. It is a diatribe of verbosity trying to cover up the uncoverable, speaking about anything but the subject. The member for Enfield went on with a lot of absolute irrelevant rubbish. I know the man. He went on to talk about South Australia's AAA rating.

Do you know how we came to have this AAA rating? You got into government and five minutes after you got there you got the AAA rating, so we will claim the credit for that just as you are going to claim the credit for losing it. You lost it before, and you will lose it again. Why? For issues just like this. History will prove what has happened here. You add this $1 billion debt to your previous State Bank debt and see what the total cost South Australia is.

I bring us back to the subject. This is a massive blow-out in the WorkCover unfunded liability and it has nothing to do with the member for MacKillop being in a left-wing faction or whatever. That is purely a smokescreen—nothing to do with it. It is all about the WorkCover unfunded liability.

Yes, we do agree with the bill; we have from the outset. We agree with it, but we are the opposition; we have to remind the people of South Australia and the house how we got to this terrible situation. What was the member for Hartley doing? She has been here for two years and two months. What has she said? She has never ever mentioned this in the house. I bet she has never mentioned it in caucus. I bet she has never mentioned it in her electorate.

You sit over there and you totally ignore it, and now you are carrying on about us delaying it. You have had at least 18 months to deal with this, but you did not because of the federal election. I note that the member for Hartley has graced us with her presence.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Will both sides just tone it down a little, please? The member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING: One billion dollars; and you have known about this for two or three years.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: Why didn't you fix it?

Mr VENNING: The minister, the member for Mount Gambier, says, 'Why didn't we fix it?' When we were in government, this guy always gave us gratuitous advice. Now he is saying, 'Why didn't we fix it?' We are not in government. It is on the record. Pick up the Hansard and have a look. We have been hammering you and the government about this problem for five years and what have you done about it? Nothing!

It goes up every single day. As we discuss it here it is ticking away, thousands of dollars a second. Why didn't the member for Hartley speak up 18 months ago? She was here. She is not short of a word or two. She knows how to speak the language. She was a previous journalist—she knows how to write articles—but not a sound in the print media or anything. We are not delaying this.

Ms PORTOLESI: I rise on a point of order. I am not a previous journalist. I ask the member for Schubert to withdraw that statement.

Mr VENNING: I am sorry, I withdraw that, but many years ago before I was an MP I did a journalist training course and you were actually one of the tutors—remember that? Anyway, I will withdraw that, just to make sure there is no problem. It is not important.

We are not delaying this matter in the other place. That is another red herring put up by the government. All members are entitled to support their constituency, the workers. This hurts the workers, and the genuinely injured worker will be very much disadvantaged by this. That is where the scheme has let us down. We have all known for three or four years that we have a problem. As an employer I have had injured workers with fingers jammed in doors, machines, etc., and when you go to the doctor, the first thing they ask you is, 'Is this WorkCover?' Well, you know damn well that as soon as you say yes, boom! There is the fee. If it was done at home, it is done at another level.

We all knew in our personal lives that this was being rorted. It was out of control. We chose to do nothing about it. It is like the water problem here. The government has not done anything. You cannot make a decision on water; you cannot bite the bullet; you just avoid making a decision at all and hope it will rain to fix the water problem. Well, after three years, it has not rained. And where are we now? We are in serious situation.

It is the same with the WorkCover. You hoped that WorkCover would go away. You had neither the political will nor the expertise nor the courage to do anything about it, and this is two years ago. The member for Hartley has been here two years and two months and she has never mentioned this in this house. She never talks about the problem. She did not partake in the debate; she did not even make a speech during the second reading debate.

I have not read anything in her local media, and she gets out there often. Not a thing! Does she belong to any union? I presume she does. I do not know. Does she belong to a faction? I presume she does. Not a thing! Not a sound! I urge people like the member for Hartley to speak up—she can; she is capable—here in this house, in her caucus and in her electorate but she can't, can she? This really does highlight a problem. There are two or three people over there who have made some comment, who have had the courage to stand up and say that they do not like this. Labor has a very strategic problem in relation to this.

I commend the member for Hammond for moving this motion and all I can say to members opposite, particularly the new ones over there, is that I do not believe the system is working when a member who knows that there is a problem cannot speak out in this house about the problem because they are locked in by two or three of the heavies on the front bench who lock them all in.

Well, all I can say to you is that in March 2010, seven or eight of you are going to pay the price. You will lose your seats—it will not be these down here—and the member for Hartley will be one of them. On this side of the house, my party allows me to speak for myself and my electorate; on that side of the house, you are forbidden. You cannot speak out, à la Normie Foster. The system is not working. This should have been addressed two years ago by the back bench, knowing you had a problem and raising it. But, no, you are probably not even invited to make comment in your caucus. You are probably not even told. It is probably a snow job by the Treasurer and the Premier, and the Minister for Infrastructure probably does a lot, and you just get told, 'This is what we are doing' and you probably have no say at all.

This was a scheme that was put there to assist genuinely injured workers and, because we have let the scheme get totally out of control—just blown the money—injured workers will now have to pay the price. Sir, I object. I honestly believe that injured workers are entitled to be looked after if they are genuinely injured at work. We know that the system has been rorted. We need a better system, but we have not addressed that. We have attacked it at the wrong end.

I want to commend the member for Hammond for his motion. He has done some work on it, and he has presented it very well. I join in the condemnation of the member for Hartley. She has less than two years to enjoy her time here, so I hope she makes the most of it.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN (Mount Gambier—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests) (12:23): What needs to be put on the record again today, as needs to be put on the record each time these motions are moved, is that the Liberal Party is causing itself great embarrassment with its key constituencies for the sake of playing politics. Peter Vaughan, and many others, are going around shaking their heads in disbelief that the party they thought would stand up for them would rather simply play political games.

I have often been asked to explain why Martin Hamilton-Smith and his team would continue not to do the right thing, not only by industry but by the state. Why is that the case? The answer is simple: they do not want to be part of a solution. They do not have a vision for the state; they do not want to—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: I am just repeating—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: The Mr Bean of Backstairs Passage. He cannot help himself; he has to interject. Let me tell Mr Bean of Backstairs Passage that I am only repeating what big industry and big business is saying to me. They are saying to me, 'I can't believe where they're going on this. Who is in charge of the political strategy here? We actually believed they were in this place to look after us and to look after the state but, no, they would rather hold all this up.' They keep on saying that we've got this debt that keeps building up, that it is a ticking time bomb, but what do they do? They keep it ticking. They have no credibility on this issue, and it is damaging them. They know it is damaging them, but they cannot control the strategy within their own party. They know that this is hurting them. They ought to stop moving these silly motions—

An honourable member: It should have been fixed a year ago.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: It should have been fixed a year ago; it should have been fixed five years ago. Let's fix it today. Let's not leave it another day. They keep on saying that it should be fixed and that it should have been fixed years ago, and what are they doing? Delaying it, delaying it, delaying it. So, you cannot believe a word they say. They are either going to help fix it or they are not. They cannot make up their mind.

All they are telling their end of town is, 'We're not capable of representing you in this place; we're not capable of standing up for what we believe in; we're not capable of standing up to the constituency. We would rather play games because we would rather stay over there.' We heard the member for Unley say that: 'It's not our fault; it's not our problem. We're not here to fix things; we're not part of the state. We want to sit over there; we want to do nothing. We're not capable of showing any leadership.' That is fine; industry knows that, and you keep telling it. Every minute of every day you admit there is a problem. You are not part of fixing it: you are part of the problem. You are no more than that: you are part of the problem. Wake up to yourselves for once, stop the silly games, get your mates up there to fix it, and stop talking absolute rubbish and making hypocrites of yourselves. For your sake I say: wake up to yourselves and fix it!

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:27): I am just wiping the water off the wet lettuce leaf from the minister. The minister's only defence is to fabricate what other members say. That is the minister's only defence of his colleagues on the government side.

We heard a speech last week from the member for Enfield about the big brothers coming in to clean up the mess of the little brothers. That is what we saw again this morning. We saw two completely different styles. We saw the member for West Torrens loaded up, flies in, drops a lug and flies out again. The member for West Torrens gets his instructions from Don Farrell. He comes in, loads up—bang, drops a load and out he goes again.

The member for Enfield has a much more conciliatory approach. He sits here through all the debate and writes his material for his stand-up. I can see that the member for Enfield is going to have a great career. I would pay $50 or $60 to see the member for Enfield at the Festival Centre. That was a very entertaining and well-researched bit of stand-up. As a matter of fact, I say forget about Seinfeld, what about a sitcom called 'Rau'. That is something that I would pay to see.

We saw an academy award performance from the Treasurer the other day when he said that he was wrong and Jane was right about the grandstand in Victoria Park. That was an academy award winning act if ever I have seen one. Then, of course, we have the member for West Torrens dedicating almost entirely all his speech to lines from Hollywood movies.

We can see how important the rehabilitation of injured workers is to members opposite. The government is more interested in using the opportunity to have a joke, have a go—anything other than actually talk about the problems of rehabilitation in the WorkCover system.

I think that the member for Hammond's motion is relevant. It is strange that members opposite do not seem to be reading the whole motion. They are stuck on the first couple of lines. Further on, the motion states that the member for Hartley has not taken any interest in the blow-out of WorkCover's unfunded liability since or before taking office.

I remember when the Hon. Rob Kerin, when leader of the Liberal Party in the lead-up to the last election, raised the WorkCover issue on ABC Radio, to which Matthew Abraham said that no-one had raised it with him. I would have thought that, with the contacts the member for Hartley has in the media, and if she were really concerned about WorkCover, she would have used every contact she had to raise those concerns in the public arena. If you have contacts in the media, use them to raise these important issues. Don't sit on your hands and do nothing about it. At the very first opportunity, the member voted to cut workers' entitlements. That was the only option—not putting anything else forward. Also, they did not inform the public until after the federal election.

We hear other members in here telling us not to delay legislation. The fact is that this government has delayed its own legislation for political purposes. This government was made aware (and finally conceded it back in February last year) of the dire straits WorkCover was in but, because of the federal election and the Labor Party's strategy run by Mike Rann, who was a senior vice-president of the ALP, now President, they decided that it was worth racking up the extra million dollars a day to hold off this legislation to cut workers' entitlements until after the federal election. Their attitude was effectively, 'We are going to crush the Liberals at the federal election by running an anti-WorkChoices campaign,' and they claimed in that campaign that WorkChoices was disadvantaging workers by cutting their entitlements when, all the while, they themselves were planning to cut workers' entitlements after the election here in South Australia. They knew that.

Mr Venning: It was dishonest.

Mr PISONI: It was a dishonest campaign by this government and every dollar that racks up because of this legislation still in the upper house is the fault of this government and nobody else. As a matter of fact, the Attorney-General could not help himself. When we encountered an unfortunate situation on the weekend, he stepped in and said that we have to pass the bikie bill immediately, but he did not tell his upper house colleague the Hon. Paul Holloway that that is what he wanted. So, we took the advice of the Attorney-General and made sure that the bill was debated immediately. That has now been passed, so South Australia is a safer place because of that legislation.

This government was more interested in cutting workers' entitlements than making South Australia a safer place. That is the formula for this government. Don't blame us for the state of your crisis management. You have had 18 months to deal with this legislation, and now you are in crisis because you have delayed legislation for political purposes and you are trying to push the blame onto other people. The member for Hartley has remained silent on this whole WorkCover issue—not contributing to a single debate in this parliament nor a single media release regarding her concerns about WorkCover—and she should be condemned for this.

I challenge the member for Hartley. Get up here today in your defence and say that you support cuts to workers' benefits. Get up here and say it, because that is what you voted for. Despite the fact that you said in your maiden speech—

Mr KENYON: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I believe that the member's remarks should be addressed through the chair.

The SPEAKER: Yes, the member for Unley must direct his remarks through the chair.

Mr PISONI: Thank you, sir. The member for Hartley should get up in this house today and say that she supports the cuts to workers' benefits, because that is what she voted for.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: What do you support?

Mr PISONI: I did not stand up and say in my maiden speech that I am a friend of the union movement. I did not make the claim that the member for Hartley made in this house back on 4 May. This member made the claim that she is a friend of the unions. Hansard states:

The Labor movement will always have a friend in me.

She has got to where she is by climbing on the backs of union members who continually pay their dues to the union movement. She has got here and now she has shafted them. She is not interested in them any more. She went on to say:

To my corporate friends in the corporate sector—and there are significantly fewer of those...

Obviously, she is keen to have more of those friends at the expense of her union mates. That is her choice. She can do that. She can ignore the base that supported her. Those members who live in Hartley should be very wary of the member for Hartley. She will do and say whatever she needs to do and say to get to where she wants to be and then she will change her mind and do what suits her at the time. That is what is most concerning about the actions of the member for Hartley.

Mr KENYON (Newland) (12:35): It is quite a long time since we have seen such militant hypocrisy. It is not just hypocrisy but, rather, militant hypocrisy. Members opposite are moving motion after motion, all exactly the same. Time after time, member after member is saying the same thing. They are often hypocritical. It is the same problem, as with the previous motions. Not one member opposite in the chamber at present has ever asked a question about WorkCover or spoken about WorkCover prior to this motion being moved.

Mr VENNING: I have a point of order, sir. The honourable member is deliberately misleading the house. He only needs to read Hansard.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Schubert knows very well that allegations of misleading must be done by way of substantive motion. If the member for Schubert feels that the member for Newland has said something that is incorrect, then he can correct the record by way of personal explanation at the appropriate time. He is not to get up by way of point of order and accuse a member of misleading the house.

Mr KENYON: I can say that the member for Hammond has never asked a question about WorkCover since he has been here. Before the bill was introduced, he had never made a grievance about WorkCover. I would be surprised if he raised the issue in his own party room. We know that the Liberal Party as a whole has never examined alternatives or, if they did, they did not find any because they have not brought them in here.

If at any point they wanted to make changes to WorkCover, they could have introduced a private member's bill. They could have moved amendments to the government's bill. Did they do that? The answer is no. This sort of militant hypocrisy that we are seeing time after time further exposes members opposite for their complete lack of ability and any sort of plan for the future for the state.

The member for Unley—and I think the member for Finniss; and I apologise if it was not—in the weeks when we have been debating these militant hypocritical motions has been saying that they will fix it when they get elected to government. That brings me to another point. What will they do to WorkCover should they happen to win the next election? What will they do? How will they further cut workers' entitlements.

The come in here to criticise us, but they are setting themselves up for further hypocrisy in the future. I want to know whether they will reveal their plans in detail before the next election. Will they take plans to cut workers' entitlements to the next election? Will they do that? We have not seen their plans, and I suspect that we will not see their plans. They will try to dump them on us afterwards, should they happen to win the next election.

They come in here to criticise us about elections, and so on, but never once during this debate have they revealed any plans whatsoever for WorkCover. People are entitled to be afraid of what they might do. I am reminded of Colonel Kirk in Apocalypse Now—and I hope the writers of that movie will forgive me for my paraphrasing—'The hypocrisy, the hypocrisy.'

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:39): It has been an entertaining hour or so this morning listening to the contributions that have been made by various members in this place, and I have found it to be quite a bizarre experience. I seriously question why, indeed, these members on the other side cannot defend themselves and they have to bring in the light artillery in the form of the member for Enfield and the member for West Torrens. They are hardly heavy artillery, but I suppose that, given that the member for West Torrens and the member for Enfield cannot get any closer to the frontbench, they at least have to come in here on Thursdays and try to support their poor old colleagues.

At least it gives them an opportunity to speak, because they are articulate in their own way. One of them is particularly articulate and has quite a good turn of phrase in endeavouring to support the member for Hartley. However, I could not understand most of what the other one said; it seemed to be mostly gobbledegook, to be perfectly honest. But never mind; the members for Enfield and West Torrens at least had a chance to stand up and say, 'We're still here, Mike. We'd like to come down, but we're not allowed to. We can't come down because they won't put us down there. We're still back up here.' As I think our leader pointed out the other day to the member for West Torrens, they arrived in this place on the same day; the member for West Torrens is still where he was and our leader is where he is, so you have to ask the question: where are the members for Enfield and West Torrens going?

I think it is a bit of a sad indictment that these two particular members have had to come to the defence of the member for Hartley in this way this morning, but it does give them a little bit of air play, and I think that is important. Returning the motion before the house, I believe that the people of Hartley would have to ask their current member why, indeed, she did not make these changes to WorkCover, or bring this matter to their attention prior to the federal election.

It is an absolute cover-up—and this is the point of the motion: these members on the other side are all there through their union connections and whatever else takes place in the Labor Party (affiliations and heaven knows what else they have done to get there). They should really be telling their constituents what is coming. There is no doubt at all that Mr Rudd was giving his orders via Mr Rann prior to the election and then Mr Rann issued his instructions to his party members, 'Don't breathe a word of this. Don't let them know. You can't tell them the truth. We're going to dud them after the election.'

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens has a point of order.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: It is tedious repetition.

The SPEAKER: I think that, if I were to uphold that, we could lose a lot of chaps. The member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your protection on that matter. I must admit that I was not trying to be repetitive. There is a danger in this place that—with motions similar to this that have been taking place for a number of sitting days—things do get a bit repetitive, but after listening to the member for Enfield this morning, who had just flown in from the planet Mars to deliver his speech, they would have to. I do not know where it came from. I saw the member for Enfield in action earlier in the day, and at that stage he was truly magnificent. He makes a fantastic chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and, indeed, he is in his element. I would love to have the ability to do what he was doing this morning, but at some stage between half past 10 when he left there and when he came in here and spoke at about 11 o'clock, the wheels fell off. Things went haywire.

I have a feeling he got stuck into someone's medication. I do not know what happened, but certainly his cup of tea or coffee, or his piece of toast, did not agree with him; he came in here, and I really would have to say that, whatever he had, it certainly did not help him when he made his speech defending the member for Hartley.

Getting back to the member for Hartley, I was hopeful that she would have got up and spoken during the WorkCover debate, and that she would have thrown up some alternatives and had a lot of input. We know she is looking over the shoulder of the front bench members; she wants to get down there. I reckon she will beat the members for West Torrens and Enfield. She will be down there, and you will still be sitting there, Tom, I reckon. I will be sitting here, too, I might tell you, but, never mind; that is another story.

I strongly support the member for Hammond's motion. I thought the member made a profound contribution in this place. Clearly, his speech was well researched; it had relevance to the motion, and it was not repetitive in any way, shape or form. The member for Hammond deserves to be congratulated for his effort this morning.

With those few words, I support the motion and, indeed, I hope that members on the other side will join us in backing to the hilt this motion and passing it.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:47): I appreciate the contributions made here today, but it did feel like we were back in the war-torn battlefields of Vietnam for a while. With the member for Enfield's contribution, I was not sure where we were. I acknowledge the contributions form this side of the house and the support in condemning the member for Hartley for not speaking up about the WorkCover issue in the two years and two months that she has been in this place. I commend the motion to the house.

The house divided on the motion:

AYES (12)

NOES (27)

PAIRS (4)

Majority of 14 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! It is all right; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition came into the chamber after the doors were locked. Her vote was not counted.

Mr VENNING: Mr Speaker, I question that ruling. Admittedly the member was not on the right side but—

The SPEAKER: Order! I am absolutely certain that the deputy leader came in after the doors were locked, and the deputy leader agrees with me.