‘Worth anything': Fiery clash over workers
NSW's workplace tsar has been accused of breaking a promise over workers compensation reforms in a furious clash in parliament.
A revised proposal to reform workers compensation, specifically psychological injuries claims, was tabled last week by Industrial Relations Minister Sophie Cotsis.
Ms Cotsis said the compensation plan sought to instil a 'culture of prevention' in the scheme, and give clarity to employers on their rights and responsibilities.
Detractors argue the changes would lock many out of receiving damages – namely a new 30 per cent threshold for permanent impairment due to psychological injury.
While the Opposition is yet to formally announce its position on the bill, Liberal leader Mark Speakman questioned Ms Cotsis on Tuesday morning over the threshold. Opposition Leader Mark Speakman is yet to announce the Coalition's position on the reforms. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia
Mr Speakman claimed during question time that Ms Cotsis had pledged to remove the provision – known as Section 39 – altogether prior to the 2023 state election.
'Are your promises worth anything?' Mr Speakman asked, sparking shouting across the chamber.
In the fiery exchange that ensued, Ms Cotsis shot back that she was 'more of a worker's friend than the Leader of the Opposition (is)'.
'Where were you when people died under your watch?,' Ms Cotsis said, referencing the former Coalition government.
'Where were you when review after review came out and said that you needed to fix work health and safety? You were nowhere.'
Police Minister Yasmin Catley, Roads Minister Jenny Aitchison, and Building Minister Anoulack Chanthivong were all also grilled over their position on Section 39. NS Industrial Relations Minister Sophie Cotsis tabled the bill last week. NewsWire / Jeremy Piper Credit: News Corp Australia
'I'm delighted to always get a question about workers in this place,' Mr Chanthivong said.
'Because there's only one party in this parliament to speak when it comes to workers – its actually us'.
The planned reforms have stirred controversy since they were first introduced earlier this year, with support from some of the businesses community.
The state's unions, including the NSW Teachers Federation, Unions NSW, and the NSW Nurses and Midwives Association, have instead opposed the bill.
Their members rallied outside parliament earlier this month, calling on the government to reconsider the plan and to engage with the unions. NSW Police Minister Yasmin Catley was also grilled over her position on Section 39. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia
In tabling the bill last month, Ms Cotsis noted amendments had been made since its first iteration and that a tripartite review committee would be established, including Unions NSW.
The bill also seeks to address the NSW government's bottom-line, with Treasurer Daniel Moohkey ruling out any further payments to the state's self-insurer.
Business leaders told a parliamentary inquiry into the bill earlier this year that insurance premiums to businesses and charities had seen their premiums increase.
Treasury modelling released by the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday warned business and not-for-profits may be forced to fork out an extra $1bn per year if reforms aren't made.
A separate bill seeking to amend workplace health and safety legislation was also tabled in NSW parliament.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Labor's super tax includes option to avoid asset sales by allowing option to pay tax from super fund, Sky News reveals
Sky News can reveal the Albanese government's tax on superannuation balances above $3 million will allow people to pay the charge directly from their super funds. The move is designed to counter concerns that individuals will be forced to sell assets such as farms or investment properties to meet the cost of the tax. The option mirrors existing provisions under Division 293 of the tax code, the extra tax on people earning more than $250,000 a year. Under Labor's plan, the same mechanism will be available, enabling individuals to use their super balance to pay the tax, even though it will apply to unrealised capital gains. Treasurer Jim Chalmers believes the fact that people can pay the tax out of their super should negate the argument people will have to offload assets to pay the tax. The proposed tax—an extra 15 per cent on earnings for balances over $3 million—has drawn heavy criticism for including unrealised capital gains. Critics have warned that taxing unrealised gains could unfairly impact superannuants whose wealth is tied up in volatile or illiquid assets like property or businesses. Adding to concerns has been the government's decision not to index the $3 million threshold to inflation. AMP Deputy Chief Economist Diana Mousina conducted modelling that showed the average 22-year-old will be hit by the tax by the time they retire. The government has said the measure is modest, fiscally responsible, and affects only a small proportion of high-balance accounts. The Coalition has confirmed it will oppose the super tax 'every step of the way' after speculation about possible negotiation on the indexation and unrealised gains. Shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien has slammed the proposal as 'grossly unfair' and said it 'flies in the face' of Coalition values. 'To think a person can make a theoretical profit—no money in their bank—and get taxed on it every year, that's not fair,' Mr O'Brien told Sky News on Thursday. The government is expected to rely on support from the Greens to pass the legislation in the Senate. The minor party has indicated in-principle support but has floated two possible amendments - lowering the threshold to $2 million and ensuring it is indexed to inflation. Some politicians under the generous defined benefit pension schemes will not have to pay the tax until after they retire. Sky News Sunday Agenda also revealed recently that state officials on the old pension schemes will be exempted from the tax due to constitutional protections.
Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
J.D. Vance chastised Europeans on free speech. He wasn't wrong
There is a counterfactual fantasy, not much indulged but not dismissed entirely, in which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese went to his second election in the brief 'vibe shift' between Donald Trump's triumphant return to the US presidency in 2024 and his clumsy tariff whammy in 2025. Perhaps, if the Australian election had taken place before 'Liberation Day' the outcome would have been different for Peter Dutton. More likely, it would not. In any case, such imaginings are of no use to the Coalition. It's as helpful to them as the reverse counterfactual is to the Social Democrats I spoke to in Germany this week. Germany held its election in February. The incumbent government was led by a chancellor from the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the German analogue of the Labor Party. Perhaps if the election had come after Trump's global tariff day, the SPD might also have retained power. But as the German election was set for February, only 20 per cent of German voters chose the SPD. The Social Democrats now have a lower primary vote than the Alternative for Germany (AfD), an economically conservative-turned-far-right party that has made immigration control its primary platform. If the Albanese government cared to take the German experience as a cautionary tale – a possible but avoidable future – it could reflect that what occurred there is just part of a pattern rolling through the Western world. These trends come to Australia late and slowly. But they do seem to come eventually. US Vice President J.D. Vance described what was about to happen to Germany at the Munich Security Conference in February. He warned that European governments must listen to and respect their citizens, even when the message is not agreeable to the official and intellectual classes. And in this context he urged the conference to bear in mind that 'when political leaders represent an important constituency, it is incumbent upon us to at least participate in dialogue with them'. The problem is one of free speech. The precise amount of it which should be permissible, the dose which inoculates against social strife and what constitutes an overdose which would poison the social waters. Germany has taken the homeopathic approach to free speech, hoping that a minuscule amount, heavily diluted, will cure what ails the nation. Vance's words generated indignation among European leaders and officials. But it spoke from the soul of many voters. Days later, the German public delivered a historic high primary vote for the AfD. The gulf between what is said and what is thought was dramatically exposed by democracy.
The Age
5 hours ago
- The Age
J.D. Vance chastised Europeans on free speech. He wasn't wrong
There is a counterfactual fantasy, not much indulged but not dismissed entirely, in which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese went to his second election in the brief 'vibe shift' between Donald Trump's triumphant return to the US presidency in 2024 and his clumsy tariff whammy in 2025. Perhaps, if the Australian election had taken place before 'Liberation Day' the outcome would have been different for Peter Dutton. More likely, it would not. In any case, such imaginings are of no use to the Coalition. It's as helpful to them as the reverse counterfactual is to the Social Democrats I spoke to in Germany this week. Germany held its election in February. The incumbent government was led by a chancellor from the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the German analogue of the Labor Party. Perhaps if the election had come after Trump's global tariff day, the SPD might also have retained power. But as the German election was set for February, only 20 per cent of German voters chose the SPD. The Social Democrats now have a lower primary vote than the Alternative for Germany (AfD), an economically conservative-turned-far-right party that has made immigration control its primary platform. If the Albanese government cared to take the German experience as a cautionary tale – a possible but avoidable future – it could reflect that what occurred there is just part of a pattern rolling through the Western world. These trends come to Australia late and slowly. But they do seem to come eventually. US Vice President J.D. Vance described what was about to happen to Germany at the Munich Security Conference in February. He warned that European governments must listen to and respect their citizens, even when the message is not agreeable to the official and intellectual classes. And in this context he urged the conference to bear in mind that 'when political leaders represent an important constituency, it is incumbent upon us to at least participate in dialogue with them'. The problem is one of free speech. The precise amount of it which should be permissible, the dose which inoculates against social strife and what constitutes an overdose which would poison the social waters. Germany has taken the homeopathic approach to free speech, hoping that a minuscule amount, heavily diluted, will cure what ails the nation. Vance's words generated indignation among European leaders and officials. But it spoke from the soul of many voters. Days later, the German public delivered a historic high primary vote for the AfD. The gulf between what is said and what is thought was dramatically exposed by democracy.
