WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION (SCHEME REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 2839.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:31): It is very pleasing to see that historical revisionism is alive and well in the ranks of the Labor Party; I hope the people in my office are now going back through my inbox and looking at the letters the minister sent telling us, for two sitting weeks in a row, that—

The Hon. P. Holloway: It was four weeks ago.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: It might have been four weeks ago when we were ready to debate that damn bikies bill, yet day after day the minister adjourned it. This is outrageous, and I am pleased by the interjections I am hearing from my Liberal colleagues in the opposition. They know the truth of this matter.

However, I will just make a very brief personal explanation myself. I have altered my wardrobe since last we sat. I was previously wearing a badge but I understand that that is not really parliamentary, so I have removed the badge and will not wear it in this session of parliament. The badge is from the—

An honourable member: Table it!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will not table it; it will stick. It is from the Public Service Association—

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I rise on a point of order. It was one thing for the Hon. Mark Parnell to act in ignorance of the standing orders, but to deliberately flout them in the way he is now doing in order to draw attention to it is outrageous. Mr Acting President, I ask that you uphold the standing orders in relation to displays in this place.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. R.P. Wortley): Mr Parnell has recognised the fact that he was wearing a sticker; all he is doing is trying to read out the writing on the sticker. It is all part of his presentation.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Could we please have some order and allow Mr Parnell to speak.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I said it was in the nature of a personal explanation, and I do not wish to flout the traditions of this place so I will not wear the badge. The badge, when I was wearing it, read, 'Nobody asks to be injured at work. Don't cut injured workers' pay Mr Rann.' I think that message really is at the crux of my comments today.

Before we broke for lunch, I drew the council's attention to the contribution made by various members in the area of WorkCover and occupational health safety, and I had started to refer to the contribution of the late Jack Watkins. I want to read a brief passage from his entry in the Movers and Shakers book. It does relate to the passion with which working people and union representatives hold the occ health and safety and the WorkCover debate. I mentioned a number of instances in relation to asbestos. Jack was a great campaigner in relation to asbestos. In his entry it states:

The other incident occurred in Parliament House. The members were debating the issue of asbestos use and Dean Brown (Liberal Party) was on his feet claiming that there were absolutely no safety concerns. This was too much for Jack, who was in the public gallery, so he took a package from his pocket and sent a shower of white powder descending into the chamber below, claiming falsely that it was asbestos. The place was in an uproar, with people scrambling to leave. 'Under police escort and handcuffed, I was brought before the Speaker and charged with contempt of parliament, a hanging offence. The Speaker said that had shown contempt for the Queen's Rod, so I told him what to do with it. I knew I was in serious trouble and I was eventually banned from even the steps of parliament for three years. This incident received a lot of publicity.'

I remind members that Jack Watson became a member of the ALP Executive, president of the South Australian Labor Party, and was twice a preselected Labor candidate for state parliament. No-one can justify that type of behaviour, but I refer to it because it shows the passion with which working people have approached this debate in the past and approach it now.

When we think of WorkCover and people who are 'on compo' for injuries, quite naturally we tend to consider the most seriously injured workers who are in heavy industry, building, construction or manufacturing. However, the contribution in the Movers and Shakers book in relation to Joy Palmer reminds us that workplace injuries go far beyond those types of areas.

Joy Palmer was involved with the Public Service Association, and she became the first full-time official elected in South Australia. She has held the positions of joint national secretary and national president of the Community and Public Sector Union. She says that it was her interest in health and safety and the widespread introduction of computer technology which led her to visit workplaces. She said:

I was horrified to see the most appalling work practices, poor ergonomics, high-speed work rate and lack of appropriate training. It was not unusual to see typists with screens raised precariously on telephone books or, indeed, to be sitting on a phone book because their chairs were 1950s non-adjustable models. Closer investigation revealed thousands of women were suffering from repetitive strain injury. RSI, however, was not just a problem for keyboard operators, but extended to a range of other blue-collar industries and occupations. This led to a major campaign over several years which resulted in extensive redesign of work practices and a massive reduction in the number of injuries.

The message from that is one that is generally agreed in this debate, and that is that reducing workplace injuries and reducing the need for people to claim compensation are by far the best way of reducing the unfunded liability. What we will need to do when we explore the detail of this bill is to look at the question: does this legislation make workplaces safer?

The Hon. Ron Roberts (known to many people in this place, but not to me) also spent a great deal of his working life on issues such as occupational health and safety and WorkCover. Ron was active in the Electrical Trades Union. He was President of the local ETU branch. He became a member of this chamber (the Legislative Council) in 1989. He was a deputy leader and he was a president in this place. We should take a great deal of heed of his reflections. He said:

As an apprentice, I was a member of the Electrical Trades Union and affiliated with the ALP. Many of the people I worked with in that period were returned servicemen who had a great sense of discipline and unity. There was a shared understanding that what was good for one was good for all. Your word was your bond and these fine qualities became the norm.

I think that we need to reflect on those words and assurances, which people in the union movement tell me they have received from government ministers, that injured workers will not be worse off under this regime. The Hon. Ron Roberts said that one outcome of his experience in the trade union movement was that he learned to argue from a position of weakness rather than strength. He stated:

The trade union movement needs to be commended because every conservative government has tried to limit the unions' ability to do their job. I am actually pretty confident about the future of the trade union movement. The worth of the Legislative Council was shown when the Brown Liberal government was trying to cripple the union movement, particularly through an enormous attack on WorkCover. Labor opposition and the Democrats controlled the upper house and, with the support of the trade unions, we were able to maintain a reasonable system. It showed that, with trade union involvement, things could be achieved and that the unity of labour is the hope of the community.

I think that those words must ring very sourly in the ears of trade union officials today. Through all the internal channels (not channels of which I am a part, and I am not invited to those meetings), they have tried to get Labor to listen to them on this issue of WorkCover, but it has fallen on deaf ears.

I had a number of contributions I was going to refer to from the Movers and Shakers book, but I think that honourable members have the idea that generations of working people and their representatives have been fighting these issues from the earliest days. I guess that one of the take-home messages is that you might think you have achieved a result when you win a campaign, such as the one referred to by the Hon. Ron Roberts, only to find that without eternal vigilance you have to fight them again. The union movement is being eternally vigilant. I think that it has fought a very decent and competent campaign, and it is not about to stop. We are playing some small role here in doing justice to the debate that needs to occur and ensuring that this legislation is properly debated.

In pursuing this theme of the Labor Party's accountability to the people who elected it in the lower house, I have gone through its policies, its platforms and its constitution. However, I now want to refer very briefly to the words of one of its new and up-and-coming members. I hope that it is not a pattern that people start with ideals but end up jaded. I found fascinating the comments of Doug Cameron in his address to the Fabian Society in March this year. He reflected on these very questions, such as the responsiveness of the Labor Party to its traditional base in the trade unions, and WorkCover is at the heart of that debate at present.

I will not proceed to introduce Doug Cameron in any great detail, other than to say that most of his life has been spent working in the union movement. He has been an assistant state secretary and an assistant national secretary, and he was a national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and so on. It is a union CV as long as my arm. He will take up his seat in the Senate in Canberra on 1 July 2008.

Doug Cameron's speech to the Fabian Society was in response to a commentator, Mark Aarons, in a book edited by Robert Manne and entitled Dear Mr Rudd. He says that the trade union movement plays a crucial role in ensuring that the ALP is a party of vision and values with an anchor back to working-class Australians, and that is what he sees as its fundamental role. He is not in this state, so I have not discussed this with him, but I imagine that, if I put to him the evidence of what we are seeing the Rann Labor government doing in relation to WorkCover, I would invite him to say how it reflects on the ALP as a party of vision and values. He says:

Trade unions are the biggest non-government organisation in the country, with close to 2 million members. These members volunteer to be part of the union and make a financial commitment to the organisation. The reach and influence of a trade union movement is much wider than its paid up membership. During the Your Rights at Work campaign, trade union activists mobilised and politicised family members, friends and community members. The argument for increased union influence within the party is justified by—

in particular, the movement's historical relationship with the ALP, also the membership base of the ALP and financial contributions to the party. The unions are also instrumental in the campaigning effectiveness of the party and the influence it exerts within the community. Doug Cameron says:

In particular, restoring a proper balance between the influence of big business and government and the needs of society is a major task of the trade union movement and party activists.

I think that is important in the context of the WorkCover debate because, really, what we are hearing from government is this fairly feeble line that, 'We do not like doing what we have to do, but the economy and business demand tough action, and it is tough action that we are taking.' So I think that does bring into question the fundamental principles of this party.

What I think brings those principles into question even more is an issue which I have raised here several times (and I am not going to go into it in detail now because we are on WorkCover) and which is reflected on by Doug Cameron when talking about the New South Wales Labor Party, when he says that the real crisis is the 'power, influence and reprehensible behaviour of local party officials and developers'; and he is particularly talking about Wollongong. He says:

These problems have not been the creation of the trade union movement. The influence of developers in the New South Wales ALP requires strong, decisive and effective leadership from the Premier and the party organisation. If ever there was a Gordian knot that needs to be cut, It is the relationship between the New South Wales ALP and developers.

It is only my commitment to be absolutely relevant to this debate that stops me going on to reflect even further on that relationship. Developers are bigger donors to the Labor Party than the trade union movement; and a consequence of that, I think, is the reaction that Labor now has to the union movement when it asks for something as simple as not cutting injured workers' entitlements.

Doug Cameron in his article does give some great historical context about the role that unions played in the formulation of the ALP, and I do not need to go into that history in any depth. He points out that the foundation of the federal parliamentary Labor Party in May 1901 was the product of several decades of experimentation by the Australian trade unions with various forms of political activity and that they finally settled on the Labor Party as the vehicle. It was the union movement's determination to wrest political power from employers that brought the ALP into existence, and trade union activists made up a majority of caucus in the early years. How the times have changed, and how the tables have been turned!

The formal relationship between the ACTU and the ALP came in 1927, and until about 1951 parliamentary leaders such as Watson, Fisher, Tudor, Charlton, Scullin, Curtin and Chifley moved from the shop floor to actually lead the Labor Party. As an aside, he notes, with some pride in his ancestry, that seven out of the 24 parliamentarians in the first Labor caucus were Scots immigrants.

The ultimate relationship between the ALP and the union movement is complex. Doug Cameron describes it as 'tense, tangled, ultimately strong and unbroken' Well, tense?

The Hon. A. Bressington: Not anymore!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Ann Bressington says, 'Not anymore!' It is still tense. Tangled? Yes, it is, with factional influence. Ultimately strong? We have to put a question mark over that. Unbroken? Well, we have seen it broken in the past couple of weeks and months—the vision of thousands of workers on the streets of Adelaide calling on the Premier to 'can his plan'. I will just conclude with one other sentence from Doug Cameron because we need to move on. He said:

The ALP must also be careful not to be seen solely as the safe, economically conservative managers of the economy. If managing the economy consumes the party to the exclusion of its capacity to build a society based on social justice, equity and real democracy, then the electorate can easily change one set of economic managers for another. This is the real threat to the ALP, not its historic and predominantly productive relationship with the union movement.

I think that he has put his finger on the button here as to why we are getting this WorkChoices legislation, that is, that the Labor Party has decided wrongly and against all the evidence (and we will get to that later) that it needs to be safe, economically conservative managers of the economy. If the only way that it can see to do that is to cut the entitlements of injured workers, the government has well and truly lost the plot.

The other interesting comparison between the Labor Party in New South Wales about which Doug Cameron was talking and the Labor Party here is how it has managed two different disputes that have a great many similarities. In South Australia it is the WorkCover issue (the bill we are debating now), and in New South Wales it is the issue of electricity privatisation. In New South Wales that is the Iemma government's agenda. Just as Premier Rann spoke out against the former Liberal government's privatisation of electricity, as opposition leader, Mr Rann spoke out about the former Liberal government's slashing of workers' rights to compensation if they are injured. We have a very yin and yang situation here, it is just that the names of the parties are being reversed.

Perhaps if there were still electricity assets to sell, we would see the Premier selling those as well. It is just that the other major party, the Liberals, got there first. In this WorkCover bill, even though the Liberals did get there first some years ago and they had their attack on workers' rights, Premier Rann is now having another go, and he is taking the axe to what the Liberals left behind. Premier Rann is selling the rights of workers' families. He is not selling electricity (there is nothing left to sell), but the rights of workers' families are there on the market. Just as Premier Iemma is privatising the electricity system in New South Wales, Premier Rann is privatising the pain, suffering and financial hardship that comes with many work injuries.

He is making it no-one's problem but the injured workers themselves. It is no problem for business anymore—not because the injuries have stopped, but because, under this bill, they will not have to pay the real costs of work injury anymore because this bill abolishes compensation for the real costs of workplace injury, and injured workers lose just that. The Premier is privatising the problem. He is telling injured workers, 'It's your private problem. Even though you were badly injured—perhaps by a grossly negligent employer—it is just your problem now. The employer does not have to pay the real costs of the injury anymore.'

I doubt that the injured workers who lose out will share the Premier's enthusiasm when the government tells them, 'We were the cheapest place for business in Australia, and we have made it even cheaper for business by telling them that they don't have to pay you full compensation anymore.' While there are many similarities between what is happening in New South Wales and the New South Wales government's power privatisation plan, there is one major difference, which I will come to in a second. On the ABC's Lateline program on 5 May, under the heading 'Iemma dangerously defiant over power privatisation', the presenter, Kerry O'Brien, said:

Labor's crisis in New South Wales, following a major rift at its state conference at the weekend which now threatens to split the party and the Iemma government. The unions and the rank and file overwhelmingly rejected Premier Morris Iemma's plan to privatise the state's electricity generators. Late yesterday the Premier defied his own party, announcing his government would push ahead with the sale anyway. For a leader whose popularity is at an all-time low, this unprecedented defiance of ALP policy may yet prove to be political suicide. Even more significantly, it's a clear signal of profound changes in the labour movement and the dwindling influence of unions in the Labor Party.

That is the similarity. The difference is that in New South Wales the Premier has said that he is prepared to sit down and consult with trade unions, but not in South Australia. Mike Rann has not followed that lead. There has been no discussion with the trade union movement over what to do about the Clayton WorkCover report; there has been no consultation on this legislation.

However, the major difference about the way in which the New South Wales government has handled power privatisation and the way this government is handling WorkCover is the absolute fear and panic by the Premier to shut down debate in the community, to avoid any scrutiny and to avoid, in particular, the internal democratic processes of the Australian Labor Party. It is obvious why the government is avoiding an open debate about this bill in Labor's own democratic forums, and that is because the government cannot win a debate on this bill because it is such a complete disaster for working families. The leaders of the Labor government know that, if they went through those democratic Labor Party processes, they would lose.

The other thing that some internal democracy might do, if the government was minded to do the right thing, is to make Labor Party members of parliament stand up and tell delegates what they stand for. Are they on Premier Rann's side or are they with the union movement and working families, all of whom are appalled at this disgraceful bill? The New South Wales government lost the vote on power privatisation by something like 700 to 100. Even though the Premier had ignored the Labor conference, at least in New South Wales there was some proper consultation with respect to the issue of WorkCover, but not here in South Australia. Premier Rann is so certain that his attack on workers' rights would be rejected at an ALP conference that he has gone into panic mode to make sure that there is no conference.

The question to the Premier is very simple: if the Premier claims that he is happy for there to be an ALP conference, why will he not let the people in the ALP who want to have a conference to debate a fundamental issue of workers rights have one? If he supports democracy, why will he not support them and make sure that there is a conference? The answer, of course, is that he will not allow democracy, because he already knows that he is turning his back on the Australian Labor Party with this WorkCover bill. This bill spits in the face of Labor values. It is an attack on the dearly held values and principles of the vast majority of people who participate in ALP forums, and the Premier knows it will be rejected and that he would be jeered and booed off the stage. So, he would rather not put himself in that situation.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As the Hon. Ann Bressington reminds me, some of the language we heard on the steps of Parliament House yesterday cannot be repeated here; it is unparliamentary. That is the ire that the Premier has raised in working South Australians. So, just like the New South Wales government and the New South Wales Labor Party on electricity privatisation, there could not be two more different positions on this bill than between the ALP and the government.

The news media, whether it is online or print, has been full of stories about this internal conflict between the leadership and the rank and file in New South Wales. One commentary (and I will not read much of it) by crikey.com, under the heading 'Caucus torn, conference resolute, Iemma powerless', states:

The weekend conference voted not once but twice to show its explicit rejection of the privatisation of the publicly owned energy industry. According to the ALP's rules, that gives all members—premiers, ministers, MPs and ex-premiers (Barrie Unsworth and Bob Carr included)—the clearest riding instructions. They must have no truck with private ownership of power—it is not an optional issue. Membership of the ALP is voluntary, but it carries the basic requirement that all members are bound by current party policy. Members who break ranks and oppose the platform are in violation of the party's rules and risk being reprimanded, suspended or expelled. Yet, this is the course that Iemma, Costa and a small minority of party members have chosen. Their status has been conflated by editorial writers from the Tory media, the big end of town, and a cheer squad of corporate lobbyists (including Bob Carr, who is now a valet at Macquarie Bank).

Crikey went on to report that the vote of 702 against electricity privatisation and 107 for means that it was not only the union delegates who were opposed to the sell off but that nearly three quarters of the branch delegates joined them. That can be no surprise, because just like the unions here want to protect workers rights so do regular rank and file ALP members, but not this government. I know because the number of people who have come up to me and said, 'I'm a member of the Labor Party, but I cannot stand what I see the Labor Party doing to my colleagues in the workplace, and potentially to me if I am injured'. Another comment on Crikey could just as easily apply in South Australia:

For be under no illusions: Labor in New South Wales is today in the midst of a serious crisis. It is not a matter of evil trade unions standing against a sensible and well-meaning Premier; branch members are just as opposed to electricity privatisation as is the industrial wing of the party. It is a clown of a Premier and his bullyboy Treasurer Michael Costa who, when insisting on getting their own way, are putting at risk the ability of ordinary members to have a say in what their party stands for. Why would anyone want to be what Kevin Rudd in his speech called `As the members of our party you are its heart and soul, its hands and feet if you are to have no influence on its mind'.

I will not labour these examples, but we can take them and replace the words 'New South Wales' with 'South Australia' and replace the issue of electricity privatisation with the issue of cuts to injured workers' entitlements.

In New South Wales there were four backbench MPs who spoke against that plan and said that Premier Iemma risked being a lame duck premier. We are told that there are a number of members of the Labor Party here who similarly have voiced their opposition. I would like them to voice their opposition during this debate—there is plenty of time.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As the Hon. Rob Lucas says, we have not heard a squeak yet. We had the Leader of the Government referring to things that look like ducks and swimming like ducks, but I want to hear what backbench members of the government have to say about the plan. The article further states:

If we weren't so hypocritical we would've just told the people of New South Wales what we were going to do before the election and then let the people of New South Wales make the decision, but we did not do that.

That was Mr Gibson—one of the four New South Wales Labor MPs who came out against the plan. He said, 'I believe that this vote isn't only about the privatisation of electricity; it's about the very future of this party because, if we can have anyone in the party, whether it be a premier, whether it be a treasurer, come in here and overrule party policy and platform, then we haven't got a party'. Again, we might just as well be talking about South Australia because under this Rann Labor government there is no ALP conference until it is a convenient time for the government, and that will be after we have concluded our debate on this bill.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As the Hon. Terry Stephens says, there will not be a conference until after the blood starts flowing. Well, the blood is flowing. Again, that is at the heart of the argy-bargy we have seen over the role of the upper house and the role of proper scrutiny. The government knows that, for every minute, hour or day this debate continues, the Labor Party is suffering pain, because people are seeing it for what it is. They joined, and they voted on the basis of the lofty principles in the charter and in the platform, and now they have been sorely let down.

My understanding was that the ALP State Conference was supposed to be held in March this year, but it seems that it has been delayed until August to avoid an embarrassing vote on the conference floor. At least Morris Iemma in New South Wales had the guts to go to a party conference, but that is not the case here.

I also understand from media reports that two days ago (on Monday evening, in fact) an emergency state ALP Executive meeting was called and that at that meeting Premier Rann seconded a motion to shut down internal democracy by cancelling a scheduled state council meeting and deferring it to some time in June. I think that meeting was going to be held tonight; it is now not going to be held until June.

One union leader who is never backwards in coming forward is Wayne Hanson from the Australian Workers' Union. He referred in media comments to this issue of the Premier not wanting to face the party on WorkCover. He said:

The Premier and his parliamentary colleagues are doing everything they possibly can to engineer a situation to ensure that the government is not embarrassed in this situation as far as WorkCover is concerned because it knows that, if it does have a public debate, then this bill will be voted down by the party at large.

I cannot say it any more clearly than that. So, that is the plan: avoiding internal voice over WorkCover. Time will tell, as this debate proceeds, whether any other tactics, parliamentary or otherwise, might be used to try to silence those who want to have a thorough debate on WorkCover.

I have referred to anecdotal material, but I want now to refer to some of some of the more formal and considered responses of the trade union movement to the WorkCover legislation. The first of the press releases I am aware of from SA Unions from this current era (that is, since we have known about the legislation) was back in February 2008. The SA Unions' media release, under the heading, 'Strong support for injured workers', states:

An independent survey has revealed the public wants injured workers to receive proper WorkCover support. SA Union Secretary Janet Giles says, 'Two out of three South Australians do not support cuts to workers' entitlements.'

I might just reflect on that figure: two out of three South Australians. Two out of three South Australians did not vote for the Labor Party in the upper house of state parliament; the most democratic house of parliament, with proportional representation; the house where you achieve the number of seats according to the proportion of the vote you receive, and we know that two-thirds of the people did not vote for the Labor Party.

So, that has to bring into question this idea of a mandate—the mandate that people voted for us; we have a majority in the lower house; therefore we can do whatever we want. No; the people of South Australia voted for a parliament; they voted for two houses of parliament. They voted for an upper house of parliament, and they exercised their choice to ensure that the crossbench had a deciding voice when it came to government influence.

Those of us who work here are very familiar with the numbers: eight Labor; eight Liberal; six crossbenchers. We have collectively the balance of power, but no one of us on the crossbenches has it in our own right—and that is not a bad thing. It means that we do work together; we form loose alliances. However, the one thing those on the crossbenches have in common is that we vote according to our conscience and we always try to do what is right. We will not be told what to do by faceless party bureaucrats. However, the SA Unions' media release goes on:

[Janet Giles] says the state government will alienate voters if it caves in to business pressure to slash the WorkCover scheme.

I will not read her whole release, but she concludes by saying that South Australians want a fair deal for injured workers, and also:

We are heartened by the public's strong support for injured workers. There is widespread recognition that injured workers should not be further harmed by cuts to entitlements in order to satisfy the profit demands of the business lobby. Workers need support to rehabilitate and safely return to work and be productive again. It's apparent that people recognise slashing entitlements slows that process and ends up costing us more as a society. WorkCover is a crucial insurance policy for each and every South Australian who could potentially be injured at work. If it happens to you or your family, you want proper support to aid recovery. People don't want to be financially penalised in order to prop up business' bottom lines.

Later, on 26 February, under the heading 'Rann pulls a "Howard" on hurt workers', an SA Unions media release says:

Premier Mike Rann has abandoned any pretence of fairness and decency in sacrificing the rights of injured workers in order to prop up business profits...'This is a travesty' SA Unions secretary, Janet Giles says. 'Mike Rann risks being compared to John Howard by workers. He's stripping away their rights in order to appease the business lobby.'

As I mentioned before, the 'Your Rights at Work' T-shirts were prominent in the May Day rally on the weekend. Once the initial shock of this legislation had hit, the unions began to get more organised and, under the heading 'Unions unite to fight WorkCover attack', the SA Unions media release says:

A meeting of affiliate secretaries and officials unanimously supported SA Unions in coordinating a union campaign against the state government's unfair and ill-conceived legislation.

I know that a number of government members in this place still have strong connections to, or are still members of, those very unions who have agreed to form part of the campaign.

On 4 March, as details continued to emerge in relation to this plan, SA Unions pointed out in a press release that the 'WorkCover bill contains hidden nasties' (so we are now starting to get into the detail). The issue in that press release was one of retrospectivity, about whether these changes would apply to existing people on WorkCover. A quote from Janet Giles contained in the media release states:

Despite what the Premier says, it is our understanding that it is in fact retrospective for many workers. It means that, if this bill gets through in its current form, any worker injured for more than 2½ years would instantly have their support cut off. It is our opinion that this bill goes far further than the recommendations in the Clayton report. We are concerned by suggestions that this issue is being run by Deputy Premier, Kevin Foley, the chair of WorkCover, Bruce Carter, and a tranche of WorkCover lawyers, and that Premier Mike Rann may not have been properly debriefed.

The release goes on:

The original act is over 150 pages and the bill to amend the act is 75 pages. The amendments are complex and detailed. Even qualified Adelaide lawyers are currently spending days to properly examine the detail.

On that point, I would like to say that the complexity of this legislation is such that I have had probably six or seven experienced WorkCover lawyers contact me, offering to help to try to fully understand the legislation and help put together amendments to it. Janet Giles concludes that release by saying:

The bill should be delayed in order for proper analysis, including the impact of any changes on injured workers. It is untenable that such a huge piece of detailed legislation is passed through the parliament without members of parliament, including the Premier, really understanding its implications.

That is why I get angry when I hear that we are not working hard and that we are somehow delaying the government's agenda. If I take my job as a member of parliament (as a Green) seriously, then I am going to insist that we look at this legislation properly. The alternative is that there will be no democracy and that whatever the government says goes, however unreasonable.

The public campaign by SA Unions over WorkCover was launched on 5 May. The release from that day states:

SA Unions today begins its public campaign in defence of WorkCover with the launch of radio advertising in Adelaide. The two advertisements feature a man and a woman speaking directly to Premier Mike Rann about the impact that his proposed WorkCover cuts would have on them and their families. The ads are the first in what will be a targeted advertising campaign that will run for the foreseeable future until the WorkCover debacle is resolved.

It is perhaps an open question as to when the WorkCover debacle will be resolved. At one level, it will be resolved in this parliament when the legislation, as it appears it must, eventually will be passed. However, I have said it will not be passed until we have given it thorough scrutiny.

Yesterday in the Legislative Council we showed that when it comes to the serious and organised crime bill we can do the job that we were elected to do; we can give legislation proper scrutiny. However, we need time to do that. None of us are super human; none of us have unlimited resources. None of us have resources anything like the minister or the departments have but we do our best. If a resolution is achieved in parliament I am sure that the campaign will not end there. The campaign will then move into a number of other phases, one of which must be further reform to try to remove the worst excesses of this legislation.

In relation to these radio advertisements the media release continues:

'Their content mirrors feedback from the qualitative research commissioned by SA Unions to examine public attitudes and the potential impact of the government's bill. We know these are real. We know these are the real concerns of real people because that is what they have told us,' SA Unions secretary Janet Giles says. 'Mums are worried about the impact the cuts could have on their children. Dads are worried about their ability to provide for their families and make a safe return to work. For some, the spectre of being forced to sell their house, with rising interest rates and mortgage payments, is a very real possibility if they were injured and their WorkCover payments were slashed. WorkCover can be fixed without ripping support away from the injured,' Janet Giles says.

That, I think, is going to form a major part as we proceed with the debate: fixing WorkCover without slashing the entitlements of the people that WorkCover was set up to help.

The Hon. A. Bressington: And it can be done.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As the Hon. Ann Bressington says, it can be done. In this parliament we will explore ways to do that as we go through the legislation. The media release states further:

'We urge Mr Rann to listen to the concerns of his constituency and negotiate a better way; a way that doesn't kick a worker in the guts while they're down, yet deliver a bonus to business,' Ms Giles says. 'The first step ought to be a proper analysis of the bill and constructive cooperation with the union movement to achieve a fair solution. Under these changes, WorkCover will not be the most generous scheme in the country as the government claims, nor will people currently on WorkCover be spared from the changes, as the government is also claiming. There is a better way, ' Ms Giles says.

Just reflecting on that, it would have made our job in this parliament an awful lot easier if the bill that was presented to us was one that had been through those negotiations and had the support of the union movement and the support of those who represent injured workers. If we had been presented with a compromise we might still have needed to argue about a few little points here and there but the work would have been done. The work would have been done in the community around the negotiating table, rather than it having to be done by the 22 members of the Legislative Council.

On 30 March the unions called for an inquiry into the WorkCover rehabilitation industry. In a media release dated 30 March 2008, SA Unions secretary Janet Giles said:

'It will tell the influential Industrial Relations Society that the real problem with WorkCover is the rehabilitation industry.' Ms Giles has been invited to address IR Society members, including leading lawyers, judges, and industrial relations commissioners at a breakfast symposium on 31 March. It comes on the eve of a CFMEU rally at Parliament House on Tuesday, 1 April, the first in a series of actions leading up to a community rally on 3 May.

I remember that rally on April Fools' Day (1 April). I do not think I have ever seen workers as angry with the people who have, until now, been regarded as their political representatives. There was unparliamentary language, which I will not repeat here, but it was accurate.

In relation to the call for an enquiry into the rehabilitation industry, this media release states:

'We want a system that actively promotes swift, safe return to work. That requires an overhaul of rehabilitation and a better system than one that encourages employers to drag things out so they can wash their hands of responsibility after a couple of years. That's why we're rallying; why we are lobbying; why we have the backing of the community, and we won't stop until we achieve genuine fairness,' Ms Giles says.

The concern in this campaign against this legislation then switched to the tactics that the government appeared to be using to force the legislation through. Regarding the day on which the CFMEU members were rallying on the steps in front of this building, the release states:

'SA Unions has warned the government not to gag debate on its controversial WorkCover legislation by guillotining it through the lower house. We will be watching this law like a hawk, especially given the latest bit of extremism from Business SA and its blatantly excessive ambit claim of amendments,' SA Unions secretary Janet Giles says.

Janet Giles continues:

Mike Rann is supping with the devil. He's sat at the table with Business SA and tried to satisfy their appetite—and now they want even more. He must put an end to the business gluttony and ensure working families aren't starved. It's been suggested to us that the government may try to shut down debate and push it through the Lower House with minimal scrutiny. If that's the plan, then they ought to think again. Such a sneaky tactic would provoke widespread community outrage and intensify the union-driven campaign for a fair fix to WorkCover.

I am nervous that we might not get the opportunity to give the debate the thoroughness it deserves. We have managed to get through the second reading contributions pretty well, although a couple of members are still to speak. However, we need to ensure that we do this debate properly. It did not take very long in the lower house because really only one member of parliament was prepared to stand up and defend the rights of injured workers. The member for Mitchell was pretty much a lone voice, and he could not get support from parliamentary colleagues to thoroughly scrutinise the legislation. They did what they could, but the real debate was always going to be in the upper house.

According to this media release, the unions' warning came as the first of the rallies was held on 1 April, because it marked the resumption of parliament and the consideration of the WorkCover bill. Janet Giles said:

Today's rally of CFMEU members and their supporters is a taste of what's to come. These are the people who work in arguably the most dangerous jobs in our state and who have the highest levels of death and injury. They absolutely need a fair WorkCover system. What's more, they deserve it. They're putting their lives on the line only to see their support kicked out from under them by government MPs with the luxury of a limitless compo scheme.

The debate and the analysis of the legislation continued through April, but the additional information available to SA Unions was a range of amendments which the government proposed and which it claimed would fix up the system. On 2 April, SA Unions said:

The state government amendments to its controversial WorkCover legislation have served to tip the scales further in favour of employers.

So, according to the unions, it had the opposite effect, as follows:

SA Unions Secretary, Janet Giles, has disputed the Industrial Relations Minister's suggestion that the amendments were achieved through discussion with unions and business.

'These changes are manifestly inadequate and show that our concerns are falling on deaf ears. We have put comprehensive proposals to the government in the past 2 weeks, yet none of yesterday's amendments reflected the union position.'

'These changes are a stunt that proves the much vaunted negotiations were a sham. The amendments are merely an attempt to make Minister Wright appear reasonable, while distracting the public from our highly effective campaign.'

'Minister Wright's subsequent comments that this is his final position have exposed a government determined to attack injured workers by cutting their pay and stripping away their rights, while at the same time delivering a financial windfall to employers.'

'Mike Rann has lost the right to claim he's a Premier who represents the interests of working families,' Ms Giles says.

I am indebted to SA Unions because it has gone through in some detail the effect that the April Fool's Day amendments have on this legislation. For example, one amendment reduced weekly payments to 90 per cent of the salary after 13 weeks and to 80 per cent after 26 weeks. This was a slight modification of the original proposal but, as SA Unions pointed out, its implication was that a worker on minimum pay would still earn less than the national minimum wage because in this system there is no safety net or floor below which an injured worker cannot go. The verdict was that it was still bad for injured workers.

Another amendment introduced at that time related to the allocation of $15 million for a return-to-work fund. The response of the unions was that this was not new, that it was one of the Clayton recommendations and that it was not what the unions had asked for, namely, a discrete fund for retraining. I mentioned before that John Camillo has been consistent in his call for more effort to be made in the area of retraining.

This $15 million will be dissipated with the rehabilitation, promotion and information for business campaigns, etc. It will not solve the problem that workers who are injured can only go back to a different job if they can access the training to do so. The verdict on that amendment was that it was a window-dressing amendment and that it would not solve the problem.

The government also announced that there would be more powers for the WorkCover Ombudsman. Again, the response was that it would be window-dressing and, in fact, no better for workers. Another reform retained the 7.5 per cent levy cap instead of the proposed 15 per cent. We know that the government is keen to keep average rates low and, in fact, lower them, and that is the present in this—to lower them. However, in terms of the upper end of the cap, the proposal was 15 per cent, and it is being retained at 7.5 per cent. So, what are the implications of this?

The implications are that it will reward the most dangerous employers who injure and kill people. It was one of the only parts of the bill that put pressure on employers to make workplaces safer. This is a disgrace, when the bill already hugely favours employers. The SA Unions' verdict from these changes was that it was good for bosses—another benefit for bosses which does not help workers: it is a reward for bad behaviour.

Another reform that was introduced at that time was increased notice for ceasing payments and other penalties from seven days to 14 days, that is, to increase the notice period. The assessment of that is that currently the period is 21 days' notice, so it is still a significant reduction in the time for families to readjust to loss of income and changes in their circumstances. Verdict: it is bad for workers.

I will not go through every one of the amendments, but there are another couple I want to refer to. There was some clarification of this issue of medical questions that will be referred to medical panels. I know from the representations I have received that this is one of the major concerns that lawyers have with this, and I have had representations from many lawyers and legal groups saying the medical panels are a major problem. So there was some clarification in these amendments, but do they do the job? The assessment is that more detail needs to be seen, but the real fear is doctors determining inappropriate questions (and we have to deal with that), and it does not seem to stop the lack of justice for workers who would still not be able to appeal any decision of the medical panel. It is a question of whether it is the right body to be making the decisions and, regardless of the answer, if it makes the wrong decision, can anyone do anything about it? Can anyone challenge it? The verdict was that these reforms were slightly better, but the whole concept of medical panels is still bad for workers.

There was a proposal in the original legislation that was withdrawn in these 1 April amendments, and the government said that it was not proceeding with the proposal to provide lump sum payments for stress injury. The verdict on that is that one of the few beneficial changes for workers in the bill is knocked out due to pressure from business. So, it was a negative change. This means that stressed, injured workers continue not to be able to have their injuries compensated through a lump sum payment. The verdict is that it is bad for workers.

The government also clarified, in amendments, that the levy would be GST-free so that employers would not have to pay GST on the levy. This was a request by the employers, and it was granted—so, effectively, there is another reward to employers, at the expense of the unfunded liability and at the expense of injured workers. I will not go through the rest of them, because in the committee stage we will go through the bill as it currently stands, but there were a number of amendments, none of which satisfied the union movement.

On 4 April, SA Unions put out a release under the heading 'Injured workers shouldn't pay for the world's problems', and it states:

SA Unions secretary Janet Giles says it is entirely unfair to expect injured workers to pay for the impact of world financial markets on the WorkCover scheme.

The quote from her is:

Workers don't ask to be injured and they deserve fair support when they are. Yet the government is now arguing that WorkCover's worsening financial situation as a result of world money market woes further justifies its controversial legislation which strips workers of their rights. Why should vulnerable workers have to pay for a problem with the world markets? Why should they have to pay for mismanagement of the WorkCover scheme? Why should they have to pay for the failure of employers to do the right thing and get them back to work?

We will have to explore that issue in some detail later, because it goes to the heart of the unfunded liability which, as people now appreciate, is an actuarial estimation and there is a wide range of factors that go to determining what that number might be. It is slightly better than having a figure plucked out of thin air, but it goes so far into the future that there is a lot of guesswork, and I have seen estimates from people who are knowledgeable about these things that it is currently grossly overstated. It might not seem important whether it is $1 billion or $800 million—people will say, 'It is still a problem'—but, given that the primary agenda of the government appears to be reducing the unfunded liability, I think it is important for us to know whether we are taking $1 billion or some amount less than that out of the hands of injured workers and giving it to the bosses. It is important to get those figures right.

There was an attempt, again, by SA Unions to try to work with the Labor Party, even as advanced as these proposals were, as we are getting into April. The unions are still trying to work within their own circles: they are trying to work with their political colleagues in the Labor Party to try to get an audience and some resolution. A release from SA Unions on 8 April under the heading 'WorkCover gag. Beware the guillotine' states:

Today SA Unions was invited to brief members of the ALP caucus prior to the caucus meeting. Caucus members then requested that we be heard by the full caucus meeting, but this was an exercise in futility. A motion to caucus that the unions be heard was stymied by the Premier.

So, even within their own circles, there was not that opportunity for members of the Labor caucus to hear the message. I held a briefing and, again, not many turned up, so I will put on the record a bit later what members should have heard at that briefing. The release goes on to say:

SA Unions secretary Janet Giles says it shows an increasingly authoritarian Premier who has lost his way in relation to Labor values and the needs of the working families he purports to represent.

On the one hand unions were gagged and on the other hand senior members were deaf to reason despite this being probably the most challenging test confronting the ALP since it took office.

The unions in this campaign did not lose sight, and they have not lost sight, of the objective of trying to make sure that injured workers are looked after. If injured workers are not looked after properly by the WorkCover scheme, the unions, I think quite rightly, have looked to how else we can make sure that we do not send these injured workers below minimum wages and below the poverty line and have them miss out on their just compensation. On 9 April, the unions announced that they would use other methods to seek make-up pay for the WorkCover shortfall. The release states:

Some of South Australia's largest and most powerful unions will flex their industrial muscle to ensure their members are not short-changed by the state government's controversial changes to WorkCover. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the National Union of Workers, the Australian Workers Union and the Australian Education Union will seek make-up pay if there are cuts to WorkCover entitlements.

SA Unions' Secretary, Janet Giles, says, 'Unions are determined that workers injured through no fault of their own are not financially penalised. These four unions will seek clauses in their enterprise agreements compelling employers to cover the gap between wages and WorkCover payments for injured workers. This is especially pertinent for the AEU which is presently negotiating its new agreement with the Rann state government. Employers should think very carefully about their support for the Rann government's bill, because if it proceeds in its current form we'll be demanding that employers make-up for workers' lost entitlements. This would cost them considerably more than the reduction in their WorkCover levies. So if the state government pushes ahead with plans to slash workers' pay by 90 per cent or 80 per cent, business will be charged the difference', Mrs Giles said.

'It is a shame it has come to this. We know that it is possible to fix WorkCover's finances without hurting injured workers. Make-up pay is not our preferred option, but if that's what's required to protect injured workers and their families from being financially bludgeoned by this government, then so be it. And don't think that we can't do it. The precedent has been set interstate, particularly in Victoria. Unions there won the right to make-up pay as a result of former premier Jeff Kennett's attack on their workers compensation scheme. If Mike Rann wants to model himself on Jeff Kennett, then he has to expect a similar response here. We have conservatively estimated that if make-up pay was to be applied to people currently on WorkCover it would cost business $260 million, and that's on top of their WorkCover levies. These four unions will be amongst the first to seek make-up pay clauses in the agreements if the government proceeds with its retrograde and unfair WorkCover legislation, but they won't be the last' she says.

Meanwhile, we remind the government that we remain ever prepared to negotiate a new fair solution that fixes WorkCover's finances without further hurting injured workers. We know there's a reasonable solution. All that's required is reason on the part of government.

I must admit that I see the patience of a saint in these releases—to be calling day after day for the right to be heard, to sit down and to negotiate, but to be stymied at every step. There are parallels, I guess, with this concept of make-up pay with cuts that were made over many years to Medicare and to our medical insurance scheme. In the early days it was said, 'Yes, everyone will have all their medical costs covered'; but as the scheme is eroded people have to start looking at alternative ways to make up the gap. You go to the doctor now and, unless your doctor bulk bills, you still have to hand over cash—a very similar situation here.

We will end up with maybe a rump of WorkCover, and then entitlements having to be negotiated through other mechanisms, such as make-up pay, with employers needing separate insurance policies. It is not just SA Unions as the peak body that has waded into this debate. A range of other workers' organisations and other unions have come out very strongly against this legislation. For example, the AMWU, in a press release on 17 April 2008 under the heading 'Injured workers must not be disadvantaged', said:

Workers in South Australia are at risk of losing entitlements under the SA WorkCover scheme and the AMWU is not happy. In a move that has angered many people in South Australia, the government wants to cut workers' weekly payments by 20 per cent or they are off work through a work-related injury.

That has since been modified to a two-step process: 10 per cent, and then 20 per cent, but the 20 per cent is still there. The press release continues:

The AMWU has been leading the wider union campaign against the state government's move to reduce injured workers' weekly payments. Now the union has declared it will go after employers to make up the loss in earnings. AMWU's South Australian Secretary, John Camillo, says that the government's solution to the problem of the unfunded liability (to the tune of $800 million) is unfair to workers. Cutting workers' entitlements is punishing them for being injured. People who are injured at work do not deserve a cut in their pay and do not deserve to be put under financial pressure. Mr Camillo claims that the independent consultant employed by the government to look into solving the unfunded liability issue, Alan Clayton, did not give enough weight to the union submissions. The AMWU worked extremely hard to put in a submission which seems to have been ignored, as have all the unions. The unions asked for $30 million to be put aside for retraining long-term injured workers—

as we saw, we had only $15 million, and it was not directed to that role—

That is about 3 per cent of the amount that WorkCover receives from employers every year and we need to do something to retrain long-term injured workers who can't get back to work in order to reduce the unfunded liability. The government has agreed to half the amount. But Mr Camillo said the money will not be effective unless there is something in the legislation that compels employers to act on rehabilitating workers.

Mr Camillo said the AMWU is also angry about the government's plans to award employers who report workplace injuries early. Having a reward for employers in a bill which punishes workers for having the misfortune of being injured on the job is totally unfair. Mr Camillo says unions will not stand by and allow workers to lose their entitlements. We intend to seek enterprise agreements that compel employers to cover the gap between wages and any WorkCover payments for injured workers.

I think it is remarkable when in legislation we provide benefits to people for obeying the law rather than penalising them for breaking the law. I think it brings the law into disrepute when we start to go down that path.

One union that represents many people in the lower wage brackets, people who are very often casually employed, is the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union. On 4 April, the union came out with a statement, and I note that it also had half-page advertisements in the newspapers. The union stated:

Mike Rann has introduced changes to WorkCover that will slash injured workers' pay and significantly reduce their rights. At the same time, he wants to make WorkCover cheaper for employers.

It goes through some of the key changes, in particular, reducing injured workers' wages after just 13 weeks, restricting entitlements of workers with permanent disabilities and kicking injured workers off the scheme after 2½ years. Anyone can be injured at work. No-one asks to be injured, and that is why we need a fair system that helps injured workers to recover. We want safer workplaces and a system that gets injured workers back to work fairly and safely.

I believe that we should be grasping tight those areas where we have agreement, and everyone agrees that the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union's statement is what we should be aiming at: getting injured workers back to work, treating them fairly and making sure that their return to work is safe, rather than starving people back to work and having them go back prematurely.

Another union that has come out very strongly against these changes, the Public Service Association, is a most important union, because it represents people who work for us; people who work in our service sectors, whether it be prisons, national parks or hospitals, or wherever. In a release very soon after this legislation was announced, the PSA stated:

Media reports suggest that the government is considering cutting WorkCover benefits to injured workers.

Well, that is an understatement. It was not media reports suggesting it: it was happening. The release continued:

The PSA is completely opposed to any reductions in benefits. Workers do not choose to be injured and should not suffer further injury through pay loss. The media reports arise from the Clayton Walsh review, established by the government in 2007, to recommend changes to the WorkCover legislation. This follows proposals by the WorkCover board to reduce the corporation's financial pressures by savagely reducing benefits. Cutting benefits to workers is a knee-jerk reaction that inevitably arises when financial questions are raised about workers compensation.

I think that is an important comment. I will come back to this matter later, because the unfunded liability reflects a number of things. There is money in; there is money out. If money in and money out do not look to be adding up, you can say, 'Well, how do we deal with that? Do we reduce the number of people who are entitled to take money out? Do we reduce the amount that each person receives who is entitled to take money out? Do we put more money in? Do we try to make the pie bigger? Do we try to modify the types of payments we make to people, in terms of continual payments through weekly payments, or do we look at redemptions? Do we look at lump sums?' The formula is absolutely complex but, at the end of the day, it comes back to that simple 'money in and money out'.

The government's solution is to attack both sides of the equation. It wants less money in because it is going to collect fewer premiums: it wants less money out because it is going to cut the workers' entitlements. The PSA release concludes:

South Australian workers deserve a more effective, better workers compensation scheme, better focused on return-to-work programs. This would improve the system's financial situation and provide better support for injured workers.

I could (but I will not) go through a number of other press releases that a range of unions have issued. I think I have covered the key points. It is no disrespect to the other unions that their voices have not been heard. Through the vehicle of SA Unions, I can assure them that the Greens at least have heard what it is they have to say.

On 18 February, when these changes were announced, the Secretary of SA Unions, Janet Giles, was put in a very difficult position. She was on the WorkCover board and she had to decide whether she would continue in that role or whether she would take the role more appropriate to her office, that is, to stand up for the rights of workers. She inevitably chose the latter role and resigned from the WorkCover board. She made a brief statement to announce her resignation to the community, and I think it is important that that statement is placed on the record of this parliament. Janet Giles said:

Today I delivered a letter to Michael Wright, minister of industrial relations, submitting my resignation from the WorkCover board. The reason for my resignation is that as a board member I am unable to comment publicly on any matter in relation to WorkCover. This puts me in a conflict with my position as Secretary of SA Unions, which is to publicly advocate and lead campaigns for the rights of working people in our state.

Over the last five years the union movement has actively and positively participated on the board in order to address issues facing the WorkCover scheme. We supported a number of changes to the operation and management of the scheme, which we believe have set the right direction for the difficult job of turning the scheme around after a decade of mismanagement by the previous Liberal government and senior WorkCover officials. These changes included replacement of nearly all the senior staff, including the appointment of a new CEO; development of a strategic plan that was linked to outcomes; reviewing major parts of the scheme's operations, such as medical costs, self-insured employers and rehabilitation; employing one legal firm at a significantly reduced cost; and, rewriting a more accountable contract for the agent, including employing one agent, EML, rather than the previous four agents.

She goes on:

Because of the huge task at hand, these changes only started to take effect in March 2006. The scheme is now on track to be fully funded by 2013. It is a big and complex business and will take some time to turn around.

I will pause there because that begs one of the most important questions in this debate. If changes have been put in place, which a member of the WorkCover board believes were on track to lead to an improvement in the funding situation, why on earth are we rushing through with this legislation rather than perhaps tweaking those changes a little and giving them a chance to have some effect?

The Chicken Little 'sky is falling' attitude of the government that, if we do not pass this legislation, today, tomorrow or Mothers Day (as I think the Premier wants us to sit) somehow it will be a disaster for this state. I will not be bluffed or bullied into believing that the sky is falling. Yes, there are problems we have to deal with, but to suggest that if this legislation is not passed immediately it will be all rack and ruin is laughable. Janet Giles' resignation release goes on to say:

The rush by the board to recommend significant changes to injured workers' income and entitlements in an attempt to starve them back to work came out of the blue and was strongly opposed by the union representatives who produced a minority report to the minister in 2007. I believe the push for cuts to workers' entitlements is largely driven by the business lobby in order to reduce their WorkCover levy payments at the expense of injured workers. The recommendations of the board shift the blame and pain directly onto the injured workers and at the same time give employers a financial windfall. This is unfair and unbalanced and in our view contrary to the objectives of the Workers Compensation Act.

It is easy in this debate to lose sight of the objectives of the act. This is a system for injured workers to help them get back to work and compensate them for the time they are off work or if they are unable to work again. The statement continues:

For example, the board recommends a worker on the minimum wage have their gross weekly wage of $522.15 cut immediately to $496 as soon as they are injured, and then to $391.60 if they have not recovered after 13 weeks. No family can survive on this money, especially one with the extra strain of living with a work injury. In addition, a worker would have their income cut completely if they challenge a decision about their workers compensation claim.

I want to return to that issue later: the idea of someone having the temerity to challenge a decision and then having that used against them to cut their pay. She continues:

Unions in SA have met and determined that we will publicly campaign to ensure that working people in South Australia are protected when they are injured but also are returned to work safely as well as quickly. We call on the state Labor government to remember their core values of representing the interests of working people in our state and not support a reduction in injured workers entitlements. There are other ways to improve the return to work rate, in effective and humane ways which address the behaviour and practice of employers, service providers, WorkCover management and the agent. These should be explored by the state government rather than rushing to blame injured workers. We are willing to assist in this work. Unions in South Australia have successfully campaigned for the last three years to protect workers rights against a hostile federal government. We will be disappointed if now we are forced to campaign against our state Labor government to protect the rights of injured workers, but if we need to we will.

Clearly, that is exactly what the unions have been doing. It did it on 1 April on the steps of Parliament House with the CFMEU; it did it on May Day and at the rally on the weekend following May Day.

When something as important to South Australia as the resignation of a high profile person from an important public position occurs, it is reported widely in the news. I will not go through all the news reports and the reaction to Janet Giles retirement from the WorkCover Board because I am conscious that I have been telling the Legislative Council the views of peak bodies.

I have referred to the views of SA Unions and to other unions, but I have not referred to the reaction of ordinary people, ordinary workers, to these events. When Janet Giles resigned from the WorkCover Board a number of the online commentary websites started to fill up with public reaction. A range of comments was posted. For example, Joanna Vaughan, who writes for The Advertiser, reported it in both the newspaper and on line and some of the responses people made (I won't read all of them as there were many) were as follows:

Congratulations to Janet Giles for stepping out of the circle of greed constantly demonstrated by the employer and acknowledging that injured workers are not getting true value of care and financial support after they have been injured at work. There are many workers who are injured seriously and will never work again and, yes, there are those workers who attempt to 'rort' the system, thus giving genuine receivers of compensation a bad image. It is not this, however, that needs to be addressed but the imbalance of the system that is unfair, and this is what Janet Giles is demonstrating about.

It concludes:

Well done, Janet Giles, for standing up and being counted for an issue that so many are prepared to just sweep under the carpet. Blame the injured workers when, in the first place, it was not their fault they are in the position. Yes, Mr Rann, it will do some of your overweight ministers to take a 20 per cent cut, not just freeze what they have now and say what a good job the government is doing in controlling the state's economy and how responsible government is acting in this manner. Who are you trying to fool? Certainly not the true injured workers who from the day they were rushed into hospital with a life-threatening injury and have suffered financially and medically ever since, and now you want to make them bleed more. Mr Rann, there is no more blood left, but there is plenty of spine left, just ask Janet Giles.

I do find that the stream of conscientiousness that one gets on these websites shows that the responses are truly from the heart. It is often difficult to make out exactly what it is they are saying, but the sentiment is absolutely clear. Another comment is as follows:

Good onya, Janet. If you cannot abide by the politically motivated rules governing WorkCover, go out and help the poor buggers who are injured and have no income. The Rann-led Labor Party here in South Oz is getting arrogant and becoming ignorant to real people's needs, as did Howard's Liberals... 'is it time for a change of leadership of the Labor Party?

That is the question. Another comment states:

This is a real case of kicking people while they are down. Good on you, Janet, for making a stand. It's a pity the rest will not join you. As for those who get hurt at work, make sure you take all you're entitled to. As for you, Mr Rann, I hope you never need WorkCover.

Another comment states:

Well done, Janet. Congratulations to Janet Giles for quitting the WorkCover Board.

The final comment I will read states:

It is good to see Janet acting on the integrity of her position as a representative of South Australian workers. Regrettably, the ones who should be resigning from the WorkCover Board but who won't are those with the vested interests in aspects of the industry, together with Business SA representative, whose only mission seems to be to sink the compo raft that helps keep injured workers afloat during soul-destroying times that they are out of work and at the mercy of the system. Why do we still not have an independent commission against corruption to investigate the stench that hangs over WorkCover's $1.5 billion in foreign investments? I'd like to know where that card sits in the house of cards that is the international financial crisis.

Well, I am not even going to go there; that is a whole new can of worms, but I do mention that a common sentiment that is coming out is why injured workers should pay for the international financial crisis.

I urge honourable members to go on line if they want to see the depth of feeling. There is a range of blog sites where injured workers are having their say. I put a note on one of those blog sites inviting injured workers to write to me with their stories, and I said that I would refer to those stories in parliament, and I will do that, as we proceed through this debate, because no-one else is doing it. No-one else is putting the human face to this debate. The debate, whilst it focuses on unfunded liabilities, claims managers and administration, is at great risk of forgetting the ordinary South Australians who need extraordinary help because they were unfortunate enough to be injured at work.

I invited all members of the Legislative Council to be part of a briefing on WorkCover as this debate progressed, and I did it on 1 April, just after the CFMEU rally had been held. When we look at how long we have been engaging in this, we were talking about the bill even before it got to the upper house. We pre-empted that we would get it; that is the way in which parliament works. I do not want anyone to say that we sat on our hands and that we were not interested. We were working on this bill before it even got into this chamber and, if that is not giving deference to the government's legislative agenda, I do not know what is. We have worked very, very hard to make sure that we are in a position now to debate this bill fully.

I was disappointed that very few members of the Legislative Council chose to attend that briefing. Had they attended the briefing, they would have been given a different perspective on the WorkCover situation from the one they have been getting through the government's spin, which is all about unfunded liabilities and the ruin and destruction that will occur to the state economy if we do not cut the entitlements of injured workers.

I want to refer to some of the remarks that were made at that briefing, because honourable members were not there to hear it. Honourable members might think, 'Well, we choose what briefings we attend and, if we were not there, it was because we didn't care to be there.' However, I still want to make sure that the record shows what was said on that day.

There were a range of speakers. Janet Giles (and, again, I am not picking on her but I am emphasising her) was invited to present the position of SA Unions, and she put a lot of effort into succinctly summarising what the issues are for unions. I want to make sure that the record shows what she said on 1 April. Janet said:

I speak this morning as a union official. I am not a lawyer and nor is it one of my ambitions to be one—

to which I would say that being a lawyer can be a fine profession, and some of us have found it very rewarding—

Therefore I will address the current debate about proposed legislative change from the perspective of one who speaks for workers, defends the rights of people with little power and believes that industrial law should be there to provide balance and fairness in a world of work where employers have significantly more power than individual workers.

Our system of workers compensation was introduced to do two things. Firstly to provide support for workers who are injured at work to recover from that injury in a safe and supported way and return to work with minimum disruption to them or their workplace, and secondly to provide financial compensation to workers who have lost physical and psychological capacity due to being injured at work. At the same time our OHSW law makes it clear that it is the employer's responsibility to ensure that workplaces are safe both through ensuring the safety of their workers but also ensuring processes for workers to raise safety concerns, refuse unsafe work and have their issues addressed. One goes with the other. In order for a workers compensation system to work effectively we also need a strong OHS act with severe penalties for those who put workers in danger of injury and death.

The union movement has historically worked to get these laws in place. Even back in the very early days of the development of South Australia it was the tailoresses' union, including people like Augusta Zadow, who pushed for the inquiry into the sweatshop conditions of the textile industry and then lobbied for setting up of the very first industrial and safety inspectorate and laws to govern these.

As an aside, just yesterday we rejected (I think quite properly) a move to disallow regulations that affect outworkers, that affect those vulnerable, often newly arrived migrants who are exploited in a home work environment. I had not realised that it was those tailoresses who were at the forefront of this debate way back then. Janet continued:

On the other side, employers have constantly lobbied to reduce their industrial obligations to their workers and there has been a powerful lobby both here and nationally to weaken the obligations on employers in relation to safety as well as make it easier to just get rid of workers once they are injured.

In 2002 when the Rann Labor government was elected, they inherited a workers compensation system which was the victim of this political lobbying and it was not in good shape. When the system was first designed through a good process of discussions between unions, employers and government it did work. It did provide the support and security that injured workers needed. It did ensure employers met their obligations and it was also financially viable.

The messing around with the law over the years by politicians through the process of ideologically-driven posturing and lobbying left a legacy. The outsourcing of claims management because of the belief that the private market was more efficient led to a competitive insurance culture and in a small market like South Australia led to the danger of relationships that were far too close and a culture of lack of accountability. The introduction of redemptions into the system led to a lump sum culture and the changing of WorkCover to a corporate entity severed its connection to the parliament and undermined the ability for public scrutiny.

At the same time the OHS act was not used properly for many years by the previous Liberal government in the way it was intended. There were almost no prosecutions of employers during this time and the penalties in the act were embarrassingly low.

In Labor coming to power, the minister of industrial relations, Michael Wright, established three major reviews looking at three planks of our industrial framework—industrial relations, OHS and workers compensation. The first two were used as the basis for development of an overhaul of the legal framework and are now modern, effective and balanced laws. This was not done for the workers compensation system. The minister instead appointed a new board and gave them the job of making the system work more effectively, including dealing with the funding ratio which was badly affected by a political decision of the previous government to reduce the levy for employers. This single act sent the scheme financially backward.

The board was keen to help and took on the challenge in a bipartisan, constructive way by putting in place a large number of changes very quickly which had positive outcomes. We set our goal on being fully funded by 2013 and set about shifting the culture of the corporation to return to work and building accountability for this with every organisation we have contracts with.

Then last year something happened. I am still unclear about the trigger (my guess is that it was a realisation that it would be impossible to reduce employer levies for some time) but there was a sudden panic and push which led to a shift from looking at all aspects of the scheme and their interaction to a focus just on the injured worker as the problem and the need to change legislation to get people off the scheme. And let's be clear that this is the purpose of the amendment bill, not a focus on return to work (in fact there is very little research anywhere in Australia that compares return to work rates around the country, the only comparative numbers relate to getting people off the workers comp scheme).

This panic in my view did a number of things. Firstly it stopped the focus which was beginning to have effect in examining the internal workings of the scheme. Secondly it stopped the agent focusing on improving their own practice and allowed them to blame the legislation and the injured worker. They began to focus heavily on the funding position of the scheme as an agent priority. We even had injured workers reporting that their claims managers were justifying their unreasonable behaviour by saying their job was to reduce the unfunded liability. Thirdly, it created immediate conflict on the board even to the extent that when a report was made to the minister the union representatives refused to endorse the report and instead provided a minority report to the minister. A divided board is not conducive to considered and constructive management of a scheme. My fear was that there was at this time external pressures on the board which were not made explicit.

As they say, the rest is history. We now have a bill in parliament that has had no input from unions who represent injured workers and no input from legal experts who work in this area or from the community as a whole; and the worst-case scenario is that the bill could be passed through the parliament unamended by early June.

Why would this be a problem? First, the false premise behind the drafting of the bill is that injured workers are the problem because they do not want to go back to work and, therefore, the legislation needs to be designed to force them back to work or set a culture of fear that if they do not return they will be penalised. Cutting workers' pay to 80 per cent after 13 weeks will only serve to add financial stress to people who are already in pain and dealing with an injury recovery. Although most people do return to work before 13 weeks, it is common for there to be issues of timing of appointments for specialists and complications to the injury which cause delays outside the control of the worker.

If someone is on minimum pay the implications of this change would be to pay them lower than the national minimum wage. This change will result in a very small saving to the scheme of around $22 million, yet will cause so much distress. The impact of cutting people off the scheme after 2½ years is a very blunt instrument which is designed to be retrospective for all workers currently on the scheme, and force them off payments regardless of whether they are better. Nothing in the bill builds a better work review test or legislates for earlier fair resolution.

To discourage people not to pursue disputes by suspending their pay if they raise matters with the tribunal (with no equivalent penalty on employers) is very much based on a false assumption that workers are vexatious when they dispute decisions around their claims. Setting up medical panels is very likely to significantly reduce the acceptance of claims through a closed-shop approach to medical decisions about injuries in the interests of the financial position of the scheme, and the interests of employers rather than the injured worker.

All of these changes in the bill set a culture which actively dissuades people from making a claim and using the workers comp scheme as it was intended. They act against the support required to get people back to work. They are designed to focus on the injured worker and shift them from the state-funded workers comp scheme and onto the federal social security scheme. Secondly, there is no legislative incentive in this bill to encourage employers to do the right thing or penalise them when they do not. In a number of areas, the onus of proof is shifted to the worker. Also, a number of provisions under the current act are shifted by the bill to being set by WorkCover policy rather than by legislation and regulation, giving less public scrutiny and democratic control—something that recent experience would tell us favours employers rather than workers.

In the bill there is a weakening of the obligations for employers to find suitable work, as well as a weakening of the definition of suitable work, making it easier for employers to actively get rid of injured workers by providing them with unsavoury jobs. The proposed changes to the work capacity review at 2½ years, in practice, would provide no incentive for employers to get people better and back to work. It could work against the health of the scheme, because employers could do nothing and just wait the time out, knowing that they would have no obligation after this.

The opposition to the reintroduction of common law rights also means that there are savings for employers just by the removal of workers' entitlements. In Victoria, where the entitlements are similar to those in the proposed bill, 28 per cent of workers' payments under the scheme come from common law cases—and, in Queensland, it is 41 per cent. Without the right to sue the bill would not provide the fairest scheme in the country. It would provide a scheme that is 28 per cent less fair than in Victoria. There is also no recognition in the drafting of these proposals that self-insured employers do not have the same scheme management issues yet come under the same law. The bill will deliver a massive windfall to these businesses.

Thirdly, there is a huge missing piece of the system not even dealt with, and that is: what happens to people on the scheme? There is no examination or legislative requirement that will improve the behaviour of the rehabilitation industry or the connection between the employer, the agent and the rehab provider. We all know what works, and some self-insured employers, such as the Local Government Association, actually put it into practice: fast claims determination; immediate and supportive response; clear and targeted support for the worker; and return to work as soon as possible.

We have a rehab industry which, in a number of reported cases, seems to focus more on how to charge WorkCover for their services rather than actually achieving results. There is a need for an independent inquiry into the practices of the industry and also legislation that builds in the processes that we know work.

Finally, our overall concern is one of process and final legislative and scheme outcome. Yes, we do need to address the financial viability of the scheme. We have offered again and again to assist but the agenda does not appear to be really about this. It seems to be more about reducing the cost to business. If this is the motivation and this legislation is rammed through, then we are very likely to end up with a scheme which is still not effective in returning people to work safely and fairly but which is significantly cheaper for employers. Our estimation of the savings to business of this bill is $865 million over six to nine years, more than WorkCover's unfunded liability of $843 million.

What do we want?

1. Time to do the job of fixing the scheme properly. The bill should not be pushed through parliament. Members should have time to consider and amend, and an attempt to guillotine the debate would be scurrilous.

2. Engagement by the government of the key parties who legitimately care about having a fair but effective scheme.

3. To be able to learn from the experience of the self-insured employers in South Australia with speedy management of claims, immediate involvement of rehabilitation and health providers and fast return to work.

4. No levy reduction until we are confident that a fair system is delivered for workers that also addresses the financial issues of the scheme.

5. Independent inquiry into the rehabilitation industry in SA and their practice and success in supporting workers return to work.

6. Stronger focus on OHS with on the spot fines, penalties for employers that are linked to levy payments and the right of entry for union officials in order to assist in injury prevention.

7. Funding for re-training of injured workers.

We seek common sense and the bringing together of good minded people in our state from unions, employers, lawyers and providers who genuinely share our concern that injuries should be prevented but if they happen workers should be supported to get better quickly and get back to work and if they can't then they receive appropriate compensation.

If we do not succeed in getting a just result for workers in the current political process, unions will continue to meet our objectives of building justice for our members in the way that we have always done. If we cannot achieve it through good laws, we will use our collective strength to get it in other ways. In Victoria, it is common for collective agreements to have make up pay for injured workers for 52 weeks to ensure that, when the workers comp scheme stops protecting them they can rely on their union collective agreement for the rest. I know that SA unions are considering this as an option and looking across the border for assistance.

We will also continue to campaign publicly and politically to achieve justice for injured workers. If the bill is passed in its current form we will be forced to campaign beyond this legislative time frame. This issue goes to the very core of our business as unionists and regardless of the political persuasion of the government we will continue to do our job which is looking after the rights of workers to safe and fair work.

That address was aimed at us. It was prepared for members of the Legislative Council, the vast majority of whom chose not to attend. I draw the council's attention to the exception—that is, my honourable colleagues on the cross benches, many of whom attended that meeting.

I think that that contribution, from someone who has been intimately involved in the system for a long time, summarises very clearly what is wrong, what the process should be to get it right and what some of the practical solutions might be.

I want also to refer to some other remarks that Janet made not in the parliament but at the May Day rally. Again, they are important because they are addressed to the people of South Australia who hold themselves to be close to the labour movement and to the interests of working people. That is what May Day is all about. Again, remarkably few members of this place attended the May Day rally. Those who did attend did so in a fairly nervous manner because, whilst on one part they wanted to be seen to be supporting workers and supporting the campaign against this bill, they were nervous because their commitment to the parliamentary party did not enable them to actually put what they said were their principles into practice. So, this is the reflection on May Day specifically as it relates to WorkCover.

On May Day we remember the great achievements made by our nation to make the world a fairer and safer place. Over the last three years we have worked hard to get rid of Howard and create an opportunity for, once again, establishing fair work laws in our nation. This was done through the actions of many people at the grass roots level who spoke with their workmates and their families and persuaded them that Labor was the party for the workers and would support workers' rights.

Now is the chance to rebuild our nation on a platform of fairness and justice. It is the time to build from the ground up a new fair industrial relations system based on the principles of collective bargaining, to also build a family friendly workplace culture with a national paid maternity leave scheme for all, and to build a nationally consistent occupational health and safety system, which prevents accidents and injuries in the workplace and a nationally consistent system that fully and fairly compensates those who are injured and assists them to get better and back to work.

Yet in South Australia we are faced with a fight to maintain the rights of injured workers. This fight is fundamental to the work of the union movement. It is one of the big three jobs that we have in our nation: one, to advance the rights of workers to fair pay, treatment and respect; two, make sure workplaces are safe; and three, ensure that workers are looked after when they are injured at work. All these form a platform for decent treatment for all.

We thought that our Labor government shared this purpose and would work with us even in difficult circumstances on this shared purpose. We also thought we were partners in making this state a fair and just place to live and that, even if we had disagreements, we would be able to work them out in the interests of working people.

This current bill before the parliament at the moment shows that there is greater concern from our government about its reputation as economic managers than its reputation as social managers, yet this issue is also an economic one. At a time of high skills shortage we need to attract workers to South Australian industry and improve the skill level of our workforce. If wages, conditions, safety standards and workers compensation rights are worse here than other places we will not be able to deal with these issues.

The actuarial unfunded liability of a workers compensation scheme is a predictive number about the future. It is based on assumptions and patterns of the scheme operating over the next 40 years. It is not, as the Liberals would claim, a State Bank. It will not affect the ordinary South Australian taxpayer. It will not even affect the Foley AAA credit rating. It is outside the state budget.

Yes, there are financial problems in the workers compensation scheme and, yes, there needs to be change, but the problem with the bill is that the philosophy behind the proposed legislation is that the financial problems arising from people not being able to return to work lie with them, that there needs to be an incentive (financial and legal) to force and starve workers back to work because they choose to be on workers compensation payments. Well, none of us would willingly choose to be injured, and none of us would willingly choose to be treated the way workers are treated by WorkCover.

What the bill before parliament will mean to an ordinary worker is this. After injury, your capacity will be determined by a star chamber of five medical practitioners, chosen by WorkCover, with no representative rights and no appeal of their decision, except to the Supreme Court, which costs around $1,000 to appear, let alone lawyers' costs. If you are not back to work and better in 13 weeks, your pay is reduced by 10 per cent; and after 26 weeks it is reduced by a further 10 per cent.

For low paid workers living on the minimum wage—process workers, cleaners, aged care workers, disability support workers—this would mean that they would be living on less than the legal minimum wage set each year. Seventy-five per cent of women in this country earn less than $42,000 a year. South Australia is one of the lowest wage states in Australia. This will hit the most vulnerable the hardest.

If after 2½ years you have not been able to find work and are still injured, you will be kicked off all payments and forced to go to Centrelink to claim support. This means a significant reduction in pay, forcing injured workers to live on $546.80 a fortnight on a disability pension and $437.10 a fortnight on the Newstart Allowance. This will immediately apply to at least 1,000 workers, maybe up to 2,000 workers, who are currently on the workers compensation system for more than 2½ years.

If you have a dispute with the way your WorkCover claim is being managed and you want to go to the tribunal to argue it, your pay will be suspended during the dispute. This is just unjust. It will not be a significant saving to WorkCover and, once again, it will hit hardest workers on the lowest wages. Along with reductions in the amounts payable for loss of limb or function, cutting off people from payments after 2½ years is not backed up with any ability to access common law rights and sue employers for damages. Every other state in the country has this legal right in their workers compensation schemes.

The most insidious part of this plan, however, is that the justification for making these changes is not only the funding position of the scheme but also that employer levies are high and the government wants to cut their levies. So the plan is to cut workers' entitlements in order to give a windfall to employers. There are no corresponding demands on employers to behave differently to ensure that they make more effort to find work for injured workers and assist with retraining and making their workplaces safer in the first place. All the pain is borne by the injured worker.

So, what do we want? We want the ability to sit down with the government and genuinely work through a fair system that would also solve the financial problems of the scheme. This may mean some change, but change should be fair and impact on employers and not just on workers. We also want an independent examination of rehabilitation services, a genuine retraining scheme and a special project established to humanely manage those people who are currently on WorkCover for over three years to get them better and treat them with some dignity.

There is an undue rush to get this legislation through parliament. The plan was always, and continues to be, to get it enacted by July this year. The briefing continues:

It was passed in the lower house through the unsightly spectacle of Labor crossing the floor to sit with the Liberals on the 90 amendments put by Kris Hanna and then on the bill itself.

It is now in the upper house. Every crossbench member opposes this bill. The Liberals are playing a game where they speak against the bill but vote for it. It's up to the Independents and small parties to now ensure there is at the very least thorough debate in time for the community to hear the arguments.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Another Labor and Liberal collude.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Another Labor and Liberal collude, the Hon. Ann Bressington reminds us. Janet Giles' briefing continues:

We thank them for this. And I want to ask them now to come to the stage so you can see those who will support workers in this Legislative Council.

In fact, we did not go to the stage at that point, because a couple of us had spoken already. It continues:

We also call on those supporters who are ALP members of parliament and are also opposed to this bill to be brave, stand with us and do all they can to put pressure on the Premier to see sense and talk.

If the bill is delayed or if the bill goes through the parliament, regardless of the result, the fundamental work of the union movement continues. We will meet as a movement and determine how we best protect members in a hostile workers comp climate. We will continue to highlight the impact of these changes on working people and remind the public of who did it to them. We will re-examine the support we give to candidates in the next election and determine this support according to those who we know stood with us during this time.

We will also continue their campaign for safer workplaces and the better treatment of injured workers. This is our job. May Day reminds us of the nature of our work. It's a long struggle, never an easy fix. We have done before, we will continue to do it, and we know we have the ability, the will and the support to achieve it for the sake of the dignity of working people, a fairer community and a just future for our children and grandchildren.

I thank the indulgence of the council to put on the record those two important contributions by Janet Giles, because they do sum up more quickly than I could the real issues behind this WorkCover debate.

I mentioned earlier that, in response to Janet Giles resigning from the WorkCover board, a great many comments were put on the public news websites, which invite people to respond to news items of interest. A number of people responded not just to Janet Giles' resignation but also to the issue of the bill itself. The following include some community contributions made after people had explained to them what the impacts of this legislation would be. One such comment on The Advertiser website on 3 March this year is from Michael Dann of Two Wells. He states:

Mike Rann this surely is a joke. I and many other common blue-collar workers put my faith in the Labor Party to look after the average working man or woman. The grossly unfair IR laws had us all looking for a better leader to save us from sure financial and more than likely mental ruin only to be stabbed in the back by our own state leader...

There is now an unparliamentary word which I will not repeat. I did not realise how colourful his language was. It continues:

What are we to do now Mr Rann? With rising interest rates, higher cost of living, trying to support a family...which the government is begging us to make bigger, have more kids, earn less money, and if you hurt yourself while working? Too bad, goodbye house, goodbye self-worth, goodbye life as you once had it. Maybe next time you will be more careful!

I wonder if Mr Rann has ever had to live with chronic pain day in day out. Managing your life on painkillers, unable to go out with family, play games with your kids, constantly grumbly due to constant pain and use of painkillers. But then just when things couldn't get any worse, we will take away his job, his ability to support his family. Thank you Mr Rann. If you ever happen to be passing me in the street, sleeping on a park bench after our government is finished with us, please be sure to spit on me and kick me while I am down just to complete the job.

The quote concludes with another unparliamentary word, which I will not read. I will not go through all these, because there are pages of them. I will not test the patience of the chamber doing that. Another entry on the website states:

Shame, Mr Rann, shame, and to think I was stupid enough to think you cared about people and was even more stupid to help vote you into government. Ah, the benefit of hindsight—won't make that mistake again.

Another entry states:

I hope that some of the smug individuals who support these amendments sustain a work-related injury after these changes come into force. They may discover that it is possible to have a partial incapacity beyond the 2½ year mark and an employer unwilling to accommodate their restrictions. Guess what happens next? They will have every chance of losing their job when the employer insists that they perform their full and unrestricted pre-injury duties and they are physically incapable of doing so. This is the reality of what the economic rationalists are supporting. To add insult to injury, workers in this state have no right to sue their employer where their injury has arisen as a result of the employer's negligence, including a preventable explosion resulting in the loss of an arm. Well done Mike Rann and the Liberal—sorry—Labor Party.

That is a common theme where people mistake the Liberal and Labor parties on this issue. Another entry states:

Have Liberal Party members infiltrated the Labor Party to such an extent that they could seriously consider introducing legislation to reduce injured workers' entitlements? It is an absolute disgrace. So much for looking after the battlers!

Another states:

Shame on you Mr Rann. Injured workers should not be punished financially for being on workers comp. It's hard enough to get by on a mortgage and other expenses, and then to punish injured workers financially will only hurt them more. It does nothing to address the causes of workplace injury or safe occupational health and safety in the workplace. Why is Rann punishing injured workers in the hip pocket where it hurts them most? I'll be writing to my local Labor MP. My family and I will fight this bill to the death. (Yes, someone in my family is on WorkCover and I'm ashamed to have voted Labor at the last election).

There are far too many for me to go through them all, but I would urge members to get on to web sites, such as Adelaidenow.com.au. I have skipped over about 20. I will not read them. I will just do a couple more. Another entry states:

How can you call any system fair where injured workers' income maintenance is cut off until the dispute is settled? How do you explain to your family that we live in a democratic society and that's how the governments do things? Perhaps the job should be left to WorkCover counsellors to explain why injured workers are forced to sell their family homes because they were injured at work and are not getting paid until the court settles a dispute. Will the government reimburse the auctioneers' fees and the sales tax in the case that wages and back pay are reinstated in these circumstances? It is apparent that injured workers were not really consulted by Mr Clayton—another classic example of our democratic society. P.S. See you all on the steps of parliament house tomorrow.

The Hon. Ann Bressington asked me whether there is anything in these dozens and dozens of contributions about the Libs. For her benefit, I have found one. It states:

Mr Rann is sounding more like John Howard every day. It's an absolute disgrace to even contemplate cutting benefits to genuinely injured workers. I can't believe I am hearing a Labor leader support this. With this and the law and order debacle, with this softly, softly attitude of judges and Rann and the government lack of guts to take them on, I might have to vote Independent—oh God, I can't believe I am saying this—even Liberal at the next election.

Members are keen to see that I am reporting in a balanced way some of this online commentary. These are the contributions of ordinary South Australians—people whose voice is not normally heard in this place; people who have not, even through their elected union representatives, had a chance to put their position directly to the government. The final contribution I will read from this series is from John of Unley. He said:

Am I dreaming? I thought the Liberals would support the business sector and crucify the worker in this way and Labor would fight to the death for workers' rights.

There is some unparliamentary language, which I will not read. The contribution continues:

These changes will affect everyone, as we all work and know someone who has been injured at work at some time and needed WorkCover. It won't be hard to work out who to vote for at the next election. Good-bye Mike. What about those in dangerous occupations such as the police or firefighters who get badly injured protecting us all? Why would they want to do that when they will be left high and dry if they get injured? Snap out of it Mike. You are a Labor man. Trim the admin costs and reduce the fat cats and leave the workers' entitlements alone.

I think that pretty well sums up the range of contributions from ordinary members of the public and their reactions to this legislation.

We then get to the situation where the legislation has been introduced into the parliament and the lower house is invited to debate it. That is where we find this fascinating exchange in the other place where Labor members of parliament either speak with a forked tongue in saying that they do not like it but they will vote for it, or some even trying to justify the unjustifiable position. It was summed up, I guess, by the member for Enfield, who I think summarised the position of many of his colleagues. He said:

I can tell members here that the minister does not find the solutions palatable. Nobody in the government finds these solutions palatable.

My response to that is that, if I find some things not palatable, I do not eat it: I put it to the side of my plate. It ends up in the compost eventually. I try to find some good use for it.

I accept that a lot of what governments need to do is not palatable, but the usual approach and the decent approach when difficult and unpalatable decisions need to be made is that you try to bring people with you. You work hard on explaining to and working with your key stakeholders to get them to the point where they can see it from your point of view and they accept that something might be done. They accept often that painful solutions need to be put in place. But we are not even at that stage. As I have said before (and I will not repeat myself): the unions have not had the ability to sit down and negotiate with the Labor government.

The Treasurer in another place has tried to spin this debate in a way that I find most disturbing. He says:

As I have said before, this is clearly not an easy decision for a Labor government. This is a decision that has caused much angst within the Labor caucus, much angst within the Labor movement...There are unions protesting against this, and many of my colleagues are very unhappy about what this government is doing—and I respect their views. The Labor Party has demonstrated that, notwithstanding the fact that this has been an exceptionally difficult decision—and, dare I say, also a very difficult one for the minister—he should be applauded for the way in which he has managed to tackle a fundamental structural flaw in the scheme in the manner in which he has...This has not come easily to the minister, and I know that. It has not come easily to the cabinet, but it is what has had to be done. I think that what demonstrates a government's capacity to govern is that, even though a decision causes much friction, much tension, much emotion within a political party and its constituent bodies, at the end of the day it has the internal fortitude and the structural elements within the party to enable people to voice their opinions but for the party ultimately to reach a landing on a position. I have never been prouder of the Labor Party than I am today...

That is what the Treasurer said in relation to WorkCover. What a remarkable statement that is. I have never, I think, heard such an internally inconsistent statement which tries to reflect values which have been abandoned and make a virtue out of an appalling process that did not need to be handled in the way it was. He talks about 'internal fortitude' and 'structural elements within the party to enable people to voice their opinions'. Where was the internal fortitude when we compare the government's approach to this legislation to poor old Mr Iemma in New South Wales, who could have said exactly the same things about having to make tough decisions, but at least he had the decency to go through his party processes and be roundly defeated 700 votes to 100 votes, and then face the music.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The minister says that I should worry more about the bill than the Labor Party, but the point is that, in a democratic institution, people have a right to compare the legislation that a government puts forward with the principles that the government says it stands for. If there is a disconnect between what the government is doing and what the party says it stands for, then I think it is most appropriate for me, as it is for anyone else in the community, to draw attention to that fact. So, I do not apologise for pointing out the hypocrisy of the government. The Treasurer goes on:

I have never been prouder of the Labor Party than I am today, because I think that the Labor Party has demonstrated that we are a natural party of government, that we are a party that can govern, that we are a party that has the inner strength to do what is right...This is what makes a government. In a vibrant democracy with parliamentary representation, it is quite natural, quite appropriate and quite understandable that there will be varying degrees of emotion, dispute and unhappiness within a political party when it makes a hard decision. We are not a dictatorship.

Say that again: 'We are not a dictatorship'? It continues:

Our nation, our country, our state and our political parties are organic beings: they all have a view; members are entitled to express their views, and those views have certainly been well expressed.

Well, they have not been well expressed in the organs of the party that were specifically designed to have them addressed. Whether it is council meetings or state conferences, all of these are being subsumed under the desire of the government to get this appalling legislation through. So, the question that I have for the Treasurer is: if you are so proud and so confident of the democratic institutions within your party, then why will you not let your state council meet and why will you not bring forward your state conference?

I think the real reason for this is summarised in a very short but most telling sentence that was published in the Weekend Australian of April 19-20, in an article by John Wiseman under the heading: 'Labor, unions slug it out over WorkCover'. We have this very simple sentence which I think sums up the Labor Party's position and its attitude to the lack of consultation and negotiation in this whole debate. The commentary from John Wiseman is as follows:

Premier Mike Rann believes he can sweep this internal opposition aside because—

and then he quotes the Premier—

'We're a bloody sight better for working people than the alternative.'

At the end of the day that, I think, is at the heart of this debate. What the Premier is banking on is that, with those historical connections between the labour movement and the Labor Party and the general antipathy between the labour movement and the Liberal Party, the union movement at the end of the day will just lump it; they will just say, 'Yes, he's right, you know. There's nowhere else that we can go.'

I am not denying the century-long relationship between organised labour and the Labor Party and, as I said at the May Day rally, it is a relationship of some familiarity and we all know what the outcome of familiarity can be: familiarity breeds contempt.

The contempt that the Premier shows in the statement, 'We're a bloody sight better for working people than the alternative', is effectively saying, 'There is nowhere else for you to go. You must accept what we are doing because there is no alternative.' TINA, the acronym: There Is No Alternative. Where did that come from? Margaret Thatcher: she is the one who was forever saying, 'There is no alternative.' Clearly, the people at the May Day rally could see that there were Independents in attendance; the Greens were there in great numbers, and people could see that there was an alternative to the Labor government.

The person who received a great deal of praise was the Independent member—not Labor, not Liberal—for the seat of Mitchell, Kris Hanna, who received a rousing response from people. His contribution in the lower house is really the only contribution of any great worth. In fact, for all the effort that he went to with his amendments, his analysis and his suggestions for alternatives, I have even heard people say that he was too polite, that he did not go hard enough against the government.

I think that the member for Mitchell's contribution is one that he should be proud of. I expect to have my amendments to this legislation on file very shortly, a great many of which are based on the amendments that were moved by the member for Mitchell in another place.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Members will say, 'Well, we haven't had a chance to look at them', and that is right. The Hon. David Ridgway says, 'We haven't had a chance to look at them,' but —

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a few more. Members have not seen the amendments, but they will see them soon. It will not take most members by surprise to realise what kind of amendments they are. We will get to the committee stage of this debate and we will go through these amendments. Mr President, at this hour I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.