Published on: June 2025
Record: HANSARD-1323879322-154016
Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025
Second Reading Debate
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Mr ALISTER HENSKENS (Wahroonga) (17:52:17):
Prior to the public interest debate, I made a number of points with regard to the cost of business under the current economic environment. I made the point that a serious government that operates in a world of substance rather than form would present reform to workers compensation in a transparent, evidence-based and considered fashion, especially if it takes away the rights of workers, which is asserted to reduce workers compensation premiums.
The Minns Government has not proceeded in such a manner. In fact, I regret to say it has operated in a most deceptive manner. The 56-page bill before this House, which was second-read just seven days ago, was the first occasion that the Opposition was shown a copy of the bill. Surely, if the Minns Government truly wanted the support of the Opposition, they would have supplied it with the bill, information about how they were proceeding and the evidence for what they say would assist business premiums on more notice than seven days. They would also produce evidence necessary to assess and justify the bill.
An exposure draft of the bill was quite different to the current version of the bill. It was the subject of a one-day upper House parliamentary inquiry on 9 May this year, which the Labor MLC who chaired the inquiry said was only scratching the surface, and that the time was inadequate to properly consider all of the evidence. No financial modelling was given to the one-day parliamentary inquiry, nor justification for the alleged savings to business premiums, as asserted by the Government.
In fact, the modelling reported in the media this week has not been given to the Opposition for scrutiny, with some limited actuarial figures only being supplied to the shadow Treasurer last night. These figures raise more questions than they answer. They could only provide adequate information to members of Parliament if they were further subject to interrogation, and further enhanced. They did not permit an assessment of how much particular aspects of the bill were reduced premiums.
Why was incomplete modelling information supplied to the Opposition only last night? This information has been deliberately held back, and intentionally provided in an incomplete manner. The public debate of this legislation in the media has proceeded in a very unfortunate manner. The Government has asserted that if the bill is not passed this week, business premiums will increase. This is a narrative accepted by some without any scrutiny or understanding. Premiums for workers compensation insurance for the 2025-26 financial year commencing on 1 June 2025 were set in March, and the premium notices have already been issued to businesses.
Nothing that we do today could impact the premiums for the next 12 months commencing on 1 July 2025. The information for the calculation of the 2026-27 financial year, commencing on 1 July 2026—that is, 13 months away—need actuarial work to be concluded by 31 December 2025. So, contrary to the narrative by the Premier, Treasurer and others that this bill needs to be passed this week, in fact, this Parliament has time to properly consider the changes and their impact beyond the few days since it was presented to the Opposition, including three parliamentary sitting days last week when MPs were dealing with other matters of business before the Parliament.
In addition to the lack of any evidence to support the assertions as to savings from this bill to workers compensation premiums, there are no measures directed to actually reducing the cost of workers compensation beyond taking away workers' rights. Prevention is better than cure. Where are the workplace measures from the Government that will reduce psychological claims, especially when a majority of those claims are from public sector workers? That includes employees of this Minns Government. The best that the Minns Government can do is background the media that these psychological claims are spurious claims. What an insult to the frontline workers and others who suffer trauma as part of their jobs!
This is a government that says it supports frontline workers and public sector workers, but through this bill seeks to take away their rights when they are injured at work. There are no provisions in this reform that prevent injury, nor are there any means that allow for better claims management in order to allow these frontline workers and others who make psychological claims to more quickly recover from their work-related injuries and return to work. Why hasn't a party that is said to care for the workers done that? Contrary to the narrative of the Minns Government, which is that this bill will reduce premiums for business, there are a number of measures within the bill that actually increase the premiums paid by business. There are good examples of why this bill needs more scrutiny, and to move more slowly.
Extension of time
Firstly, the new section 280AK on page 49 of the bill provides for the cost of the Industrial Relations Commission exercising jurisdiction under the new division 3A in relation to public sector employees in the new sections 280AA to 280AJ, to be paid by the premiums of businesses that receive no benefit from the applications to the Industrial Relations Commission. Only public sector employees are within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Commission. So the Government is seeking to have the private sector employers pay for the cost of measures directed only to the Minns Government's employees, and not private sector employees. []
Another new cost of business under the bill is the creation of a new claim allowed for excessive work demands. This is defined as demands that are:
(a) beyond the requirements expected of the worker's role, and
(b) repeated or persistent, and
(c) not reasonable in all the circumstances.
This will open up employers in the private sector to many new claims. Whose expectation determines the "worker's role"? The concept of "reasonable in all the circumstances" has traditionally been found by courts to be very broad and incapable of predictive outcome. This part of the bill is so vague and imprecise that it will increase, not decrease, claims and therefore premiums paid by businesses. Provisions in the bill seek to take out the independent Personal Injury Commission from management of assessment of the degree of permanent impairment and hand this role to the regulator, the State Insurance Regulatory Authority [SIRA]. Other provisions in the bill seek to take away the power of Parliament to disallow SIRA guidelines for how psychological injuries are assessed.
Why is this Government afraid of the independent Personal Injury Commission overseeing aspects of the system? Why is it afraid of parliamentary oversight? Representatives of small business have significant issues with the bill. There are real integrity and transparency issues consistently occurring with this Government. In 2008, while then in opposition, the now Government sought to remove the threshold under section 39 of the Act altogether, not increase it. Section 39 at that time had an impairment percentage of only 20 per cent, not the 31 per cent that is proposed in this bill. Members of the now Government, such as the member for Cessnock, said things like this:
We want to make sure that we do not kick people off this scheme and send them down the dark spiral to where the black dog lives. …
This amendment is about saving lives. It is about saving people from mental health despair and giving people a future instead of a dead end. People commit suicide when they feel like they have no alternative.
How can somebody who said that vote for an increase in the threshold to 31 per cent? Prior to the last election, a large number of Labor MPs promised to protect workers' rights by signing a pledge, but this bill is a complete breach of the pledge and the trust that they sought from the community that put them into government. The bill seeks to break that pledge by retrospectively increasing the threshold for whole person impairment for psychological injuries to 31 per cent. Where is the trade union movement on this? They have shown themselves to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Minns Government. They no longer properly represent their members.
That change in the bill will effectively prevent nearly all psychological claims being made on the workers compensation system. This proceeds on a nineteenth century type thinking that psychological injury is not equal to physical injury. A number of Coalition MPs have referred to case studies including real-world examples of psychological injuries that are not "spurious" as described by the Government, which has been backgrounding the media. Excluding thresholds for legitimate personal injury or workers compensation claims is lazy reform. I have witnessed this throughout my legal career. Prior to 2011 we saw Labor do this: lazy public policy by lifting injury compensation thresholds. They are now doing it again.
When the Coalition was in government, the public service advised that it needed to lift the threshold for third party personal injury motor vehicle claims in order to reduce the premiums for green slips. We were briefed that there were three main drivers of the premium increases. Rather than lift the threshold, the responsible Minister, Victor Dominello, dealt with the three drivers of cost increases. The result was that he was able to decrease premiums by more than had originally been advised without changing the threshold. I think the Minns Government should have done the same thing. I suspect with proper and not lazy public policy like this bill, they would have been able to reduce business compensation premiums without taking away workers' rights to claim for legitimate work-related injuries like this bill does.
The bill requires amendment. It is very disappointing that this is a missed opportunity to properly reduce business worker compensation premiums. It is a shame that the Treasurer seeks to blame everybody but himself. He has now presided over nearly two financial years as Treasurer. The Premier should have shown some leadership and scrutiny over the Treasurer. He should not be trying to push this through Parliament. He should not be misleading the public that it will impact premiums for the coming financial year. This is the time to get better outcomes for business and injured workers. We did that with green slips. With proper process we can do that again. With this bill, and in so many ways, the Minns Government is letting down the people of our State.
Ms KOBI SHETTY (Balmain) (18:04:21):
As indicated by my colleagues the member for Newtown and the member for Ballina, The Greens strongly oppose the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The changes proposed in the bill seek to raise additional barriers for workers making psychological injury claims. As we have heard from many members today, the most outrageous and damaging change is the proposal to more than double the whole person impairment [WPI] threshold from 15 per cent to 31 per cent for workers seeking ongoing support for a psychological injury beyond 2½ years. It is clear that this threshold is too high.
I too will quote Unions NSW secretary Mark Morey, who has warned that this change would disqualify 95 per cent of workers with permanent psychological injuries. At that level of impairment, the only ones eligible would be, in Mark Morey's words, "essentially catatonic". Comparing it to a physical injury, I have been told that it would be the same as requiring someone to have lost their arms and legs. It is a completely unreasonable threshold that will see vulnerable people pushed off the workers compensation scheme with detrimental outcomes. I am not going to mince words. We know what has happened in the past when access to workers compensation has been cut off, and we know what is likely to happen again. These changes will result in suicides. These are heartless reforms. I never thought I would be in furious agreement with the member for Kellyville on anything, but this is the parallel universe that we find ourselves in. A Labor government is making it almost impossible for workers to claim for psychological injuries, and the Coalition is standing up for the workers.
We have heard from experts in the field, unions and injured workers currently on the scheme staring down the barrel of losing medical and financial support about the impact this will have. This immoral and unethical proposal will leave injured frontline workers with no support, and without access to funding for necessary treatment. This legislation will ruin lives. In particular, we know it will have a devastating impact on frontline workers, including nurses, midwives and teachers. Those are the workers who bore the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic and who are continuing to struggle with chronic short staffing, unreasonable workloads and intense stress. The nurses and midwives are dealing with stagnant wages to boot.
These are the people we rely on to teach our kids and to care for our families when we are desperately sick. They are people like my dad, a firefighter of 30 years, who rescued people from burning buildings, pulled people from tragic car accidents and got up his ladder and literally talked people down from jumping off the edge of tall buildings. These are workers employed by the New South Wales Government who face structural and systemic issues that all too often result in psychological injuries. Rather than address the systemic problems within these sectors—which we all acknowledge—we have a Labor government looking to remove safety nets for injured workers on its watch, and it is absolutely shameful.
My colleague the member for Newtown has highlighted other concerns with the bill that I will not go into in detail. In the past few weeks, since the breadth of these proposed changes came to light, my office has received an incredibly high volume of calls and emails from people who are deeply concerned about what the changes will mean for their future and for the future of those they love. I will share some of their stories so that members of this place can understand the gravity of the decision they are about to make and what it will mean for frontline workers in our community who are dealing with these issues right now. A person in my community contacted me to express concern for her friend who is currently on the workers compensation scheme with a psychological injury. She wrote:
I have a friend who has sustained a psychological injury in the workplace in July 2024. She has been unable to work since then due [to] the severity of her symptoms and the ongoing failure of the workplace to address the multiple psychosocial hazards in the workplace impacting on herself and other workers—who have sustained both physical and psychological injuries requiring medical intervention.
Someone else contacted me to relay her experience with sustaining a psychological injury in her role as a social worker. She asked that I advocate in this place on her behalf and gave permission for me to share her story. She wrote:
I am a social worker with approximately 30 years of practice experience. My career has been untarnished and successful, up until I commenced work at a private all-boys school in 2023. To cut a long and complicated story short—I was effectively bullied and harassed to the point of breaking. Once broken; not sleeping or eating, constantly worried/ruminating of what will happen next feeling totally unvalued and disrespected, anxious all the time and with subsequent difficulties hearing and difficulty retaining things in my memory.
I attempted numerous discussions with HR. Heads of School, etc to no avail. I was totally voiceless and had no where to go and feel safe. Meanwhile, I continue to struggle to the point I still can't drive, and my marriage has collapsed. Yes, I have had thoughts of ending my life.
She is currently on a scheme. Let me pause there for a moment. This line, "Yes, I have had thoughts of ending my life", highlights the magnitude of what is possible with this reform. The Government is hoping to push severely injured workers, some of whom are suicidal, off the workers compensation scheme. We know what this will do. This person in my community goes on to say that she and two other workers at the school are on the workers compensation scheme for psychological injury. She said:
I trust you can infer my opinion of the changes the Minn's govt are proposing. It is clear they are completely insurer/employer focussed. Even more astonishing that they have chosen to focus on Psychological Injury, with absolutely no knowledge of the gravity of the actual injury. For myself, I lacked the cognitive capacity to make sound decisions. The fact I stayed there longer than I should and subsequently exposed myself to more damage - speaks to the shame and stigma individuals with psych injury suffer. I cannot understate the shame and stigma I, and others feel daily.
I thank this person for sharing with me her story. I know that relaying stories like this can be incredibly re‑traumatising. This speaks to the fear she's now living with, as she watches the Government consider these reforms—reforms that could leave her completely unsupported. This member of my community has faced difficulties with the current system and makes it clear that the system is in desperate need of reform, but the answer is not to push injured workers off the scheme. We know this will result only in more harm.
Another impacted person wrote to me and advised that last year she was assessed by a State Insurance Regulatory Authority [SIRA] approved psychiatrist as having a whole person impairment of 19 per cent. She was advised that she is unlikely to recover or be able to return to her prior role—a position she held for 14 years. Under the changes before us today, she also would be pushed off the workers compensation scheme. In her email to me she said:
Do not allow the government to raise the threshold to 30% Whole Person Impairment for psychological injuries, leave it at 15% which is already a very high threshold to meet. Ensure members of parliament understand how WPI is calculated (30% doesn't sound much but a person would be completely non-functioning in multiple areas of life and have very high support and care needs at 30%).
She also expressed concerns about the proposed changes to the assessment for bullying and related injuries. She acknowledged the need for reform but said:
It is employers who need to work harder to provide safe workplaces and adequately address psychosocial hazards in the workplace ...
She also called for "a review of how Icare and EML work in ways that are not trauma informed". She outlined experiences of harassment and pressure to return to unsafe workplaces with threats to cut off those weekly benefits. Those stories are not uncommon. It is impossible to deny that we need to reform and improve our workers compensation scheme in New South Wales—there is furious agreement from members across the Chamber on that. But the bill that we have before us today is not the answer. It sells out frontline workers and leaves some of our most vulnerable without protection.
The Minns Labor Government is prioritising the health of the budget over the health of injured workers, but it is not a real cost saving—it is just a cost shift. As the NSW Teachers Federation said, if these laws pass it would simply be "shifting the costs from the Treasurer's budget to injured workers families". I acknowledge my colleague in the other place Ms Abigail Boyd for her work on this issue. I am genuinely horrified by the proposed changes within this bill. I urge members to oppose this heartless reform. The Greens will not support the bill.Wewill continue to stand by injured frontline workers and their families, who deserve so much better.
Mr JUSTIN CLANCY (Albury) (18:12:53):
I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. As the member for Albury, and someone who is deeply invested in the wellbeing of our communities—as all members are—I recognise that we need to strike the right balance in the rules applying to workers compensation. But I do so from the perspective of a business owner. I still own a business. I am one of the few members of this House who perhaps can speak about that experience. I have been a business owner since 2008. I tell people that there is nothing more stressful than being a small business owner, having to navigate through events such as the global financial crisis and COVID. I bring that perspective to this debate.
As a business owner, a member of Parliament and a member of my community, I speak with deep passion about mental health and mental wellbeing in the community. I see the connection between mental health and mental wellbeing. In collaboration with my local business chamber, Albury Business Connect, last year we rolled out a mental health wellbeing app or platform, known as Leora, to examine how workplaces can play a crucial role in driving positive mental wellbeing and positive mental health in our community. I make a contribution to this debate from that perspective.
First, I will address the urgency with which the Government has presented the bill. We were told the bill must be passed in this place this week to ensure against an increase in premiums for small business owners. I have to say to Mr Minns and Mr Mookhey, "You're too late." I received the invoice for our business last week and I sent the payment on Sunday. Given that I received an invoice last week, it does not make sense to me that the Government is telling members that we need to pass the bill this week before premiums are increased. The narrative of the Government is that the bill must be passed this week. In my view, that is simply not true. If it were true, the point to make is: Why did the Government leave it until this point in time to bring the legislation before Parliament? As the member for Wahroonga pointed out, why was the bill presented to the Opposition only seven days ago? Is it not a sign of poor process and poor Government if there is a need to pass the legislation this week?
In my view, the bill has more to do with the Government's budget than it has with the Government truly caring about the costs of premiums and small businesses. Members of this Chamber must ensure that this legislation does not abrogate the responsibility of this Parliament to shape good law. As a business owner, a member of Parliament and representative of my community, I recognise the importance of using all available levers to drive down premiums applying to workers compensation insurance. I know firsthand the pressures of the cost of business and workers compensation is a significant burden. In my view, it is a hidden burden that those outside of business do not necessarily recognise.
A number of provisions in the bill are levers for driving down premiums, but I also see that parts of the bill will have an adverse impact from a business premium perspective. In that sense I support the Coalition moving amendments, such as removing excessive work demands as the basis for a claim. Oddly enough, the bill also provides for private businesses subsidising the Industrial Relations Commission [IRC]. We know that the IRC is responsible for hearings of the public sector under State awards. Private small businesses should not be footing the bill for government workplace issues. I would like to support the bill, but my support is contingent on seeing improvements made. The one provision that challenges me the most is around whole person impairment.
For clarity, whole person impairment is the term used when a workplace injury or illness is sustained that is permanent in nature and that the individual may be entitled to receive a lump sum payment in addition to weekly payments as well as medical and related expenses that their claim service provider may be paying to them. The level of the whole person impairment accepted by the claims service provider is also used to determine other time frames, such as how long they are entitled to receive weekly compensation payments and how long they are entitled to receive medical expenses.
This bill seeks to change the whole person impairment threshold for psychological injury to 31 per cent, not for physical injury but for psychological or mental health injury. Psychological injuries and mental health injuries are real, but this bill creates a double standard in the treatment of physical injuries and mental health injuries. If this bill passes, the Parliament will abandon people with very significant injuries, leaving them without access to any workers compensation payments beyond 2.5 years after the injury and to any medical support beyond 3.5 years after the injury. As a business owner, I know full well that we need to make sure that we do what we can to eradicate non-genuine claims, but we should not be abandoning those who have genuine claims and those who are vulnerable and have needs we should be meeting.
As a veterinarian, when I looked at the cases being assessed by icare, I could not help but be saddened by one case of a young veterinary nurse who was attacked by a dog. I relate to members what has been reported on this case:
… 34 year old female, full-time veterinary nurse attacked by a dog. The dog shook her arm and she instinctively moved her arm in the same direction as the shaking. The dog continued to shake and she needed to wait for the dog to let go. She feared for her safety and the safety of her child in utero who she thought would be killed. She was 34 weeks pregnant at the time.
When the dog let go, she dropped to the ground. She had surgery for her physical injuries the following day. She had not been able to return to work in any capacity since then. As a result of the workplace incident, she experienced deterioration in her mental state characterised by nightmares, flashbacks and distressing memories about the traumatic incident, physical and emotional symptoms of anxiety and panic, hypervigilance (particularly of larger dogs), heightened startle reaction, irritability, agitation, avoidance of trauma‑related reminders including avoidance of her workplace and larger dogs, low mood, social withdrawal, reduced motivation, reduced energy, reduced enjoyment in activities, sleep disturbance with poor sleep maintenance and appetite disturbance with weight gain that was not related to her pregnancy.
She also struggled with impaired attention, impaired concentration, impaired memory, feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness, passive suicidal ideation, loss of self-confidence, loss of self-esteem, loss of self-identity and difficulties with trust in interpersonal relationships. Her injury is considered psychiatric/psychological in nature and severe in its extent. She has been diagnosed with PTSD which has resulted in the development of pervasive symptoms of trauma, depression and anxiety that have caused impairment in her mood regulation, motivation, energy, sleep patterns, appetite, weight, attention, concentration, memory, ability to tolerate stress and pressure, coping mechanisms, self confidence, self-esteem and self-identity. These disabilities continue to have a negative impact on her social, occupational and other important areas of functioning. She was assessed at 17% WPI.
Extension of time
[]
When I saw the details of that case and recognised that was 17 per cent whole person impairment, I could not anticipate what would be required to meet the 31 per cent threshold that this Government is pushing for. As a business owner but also as a veterinarian, I would not want any of my veterinary nurses who was injured to that degree to not receive the support from the State that they deserve. Jennifer Ball, the president of the Law Society of New South Wales, believes that increasing the impairment metric from 15 per cent to 31 per cent would consequently rule out a majority of workers from accessing claims for workplace psychological injuries. She stated:
There's no doubt the sustainability of the current scheme needs addressing, but that should not be at the cost of those people who have sustained serious and debilitating psychological injuries on the job …
The proposed increase of the 'whole person impairment' (WPI) threshold to 31 per cent will conceivably exclude nearly all workers with psychological injury from making a claim. To reach 31 per cent WPI, a person would need to demonstrate they're unable to live alone, care for dependants, or to function in society.
I agree with Jennifer Ball that there is no doubt that the sustainability of the current scheme needs addressing, but we need to make sure that we do not do so at the expense of vulnerable people who have a genuine need. As the shadow Treasurer said:
There's no modelling showing how the harshest parts of this bill save money—just spin.
We back responsible cost savings, but not at the expense of the people who hold up our economy.
Mr JAMES WALLACE (Hornsby) (18:24:50):
I contribute to debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. You either believe that mental health is just as important as physical health, or you do not. The Minns Labor Government has shown through it actions—and through this bill—that it does not value mental health in that way. The Minns Labor Government is proposing that a higher threshold is applied to make it more difficult to claim compensation for mental health injuries as compared with physical injuries. It is simply wrong to do that. It goes against the importance and the seriousness that my generation places on mental health. In bringing this bill to the House, the Government turns its back on widespread community acceptance of the seriousness of mental health issues and importance of caring for people with psychological injuries. That is the fundamental reason that this bill must be amended.
The Coalition agrees that the workers compensation system needs to be modernised and made sustainable. But we also believe that mental health is as important as physical health. The Minns Labor Government wants to set the threshold for who can claim compensation for psychological injury so high that more than 95 per cent of people who are psychologically injured at work would be denied the ongoing compensation they need. That is not reform to make the scheme sustainable. It is a budgetary measure with no regard for how we, as a society and a State government, will care for people who need help. The bill will change the whole person impairment threshold for psychological injuries from 15 per cent to 31 per cent. The reality is that change will deny support to people with significant psychological injuries after two and half years. That means denying support for people who cannot work because they were injured at work.
People who suffer suicidal ideation are unable to leave the comfort of their home without a support person. They need someone to prompt them to maintain personal hygiene and a healthy diet. They no longer enjoy social activities. Their relationships are strained by separation and violence. They may require constant supervision and experience difficulties in concentration when performing basic tasks. That is the type of person who will be denied ongoing support if this bill passes, yet they are someone who cannot work because of an injury they suffered while at work. This Parliament needs to do a better job at protecting workers from psychological injury and helping those who are injured return to work, but the part of the Act that the Government seeks to amend will not do that. It will only make things worse.
The Minns Labor Government is trying to rush reforms through Parliament but has failed to build meaningful community support. The urgency that Labor speaks of—the need for Parliament to pass the bill this week—is simply concocted for political purposes. The Minns Labor Government knows that insurance premiums that businesses will pay for the 2025-26 financial year have already been locked in. Some businesses, as the member for Albury said, have already paid their premiums. This provides an opportunity for the Parliament to do its job and review the bill before premiums for future years after 2025-26 are set. We can come together and form a sensible solution to modernising the workers compensation system.
The Leader of the Opposition, Mark Speakman, and the Coalition are proposing sensible amendments to address some of the concerns I have outlined. That includes overturning the decision by the Minns Labor Government to differentiate how we treat workers compensation for workers with a psychological injury as compared with a physical injury; stopping small business from having to subsidise the failure of the State Labor Government to protect public sector workers from psychological harm through the need to establish a new Industrial Relations Commission for public sector workers; and removing "work demands" as the basis for claims, to protect businesses that have done nothing wrong from being subject to a claim. I commend the Leader of the Opposition for making a principled stand. The Coalition hopes that the Minns Labor Government will constructively engage with it in this process. We hope that the Premier and Labor members will listen to mental health advocates and workers about their concerns. There is time to reset, find a bipartisan solution and make a long-term and sustainable reform in this place.
Mr JORDAN LANE (Ryde) (18:30:20):
I contribute to debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 by first addressing my deep concerns with the Government's proposed changes. If passed in their current form, those changes risk turning this State's back on some of the most vulnerable members of the workforce. We all want a workers compensation system that is financially sustainable. That is not in dispute. But there is a right way and a wrong way to achieve that balance, and the bill is not even on the scale. Firstly, let us deal with the simple matter of timing. The Government claims the legislation is urgent. That is simply not true. The premiums for 2025-26 have already been set. The premiums for 2026-27 will be determined after March next year, based on the valuation from 30 December. So why the rush in June 2025? Surely the budget due later this month has not been so badly managed this past year that the only salvation lies in slash and burn. Surely it cannot be for a few days of cheap political announcements.
None of what is happening makes sense. To rush the bill without scrutiny and review will not even save money for business in the immediate term, but it will hasten the erosion of injured worker protections. Perhaps members opposite do not understand psychosocial injury or appreciate the decades of work that have gone into teaching people about its causes and impacts. Perhaps they do not understand the importance of acknowledging mental health, talking about it and educating society that to experience poor mental health is extraordinarily common and a challenge that is fixable with the right interventions. It is certainly not something to shy away from, avoid treatment of or, in the worst instance, withdraw support from. Let us be honest: Compared to physical injuries, mental injury claims are more complex, but they are no less real than physical ones. They deserve to be treated with dignity, not suspicion.
Frankly, we have spent decades as a Parliament elevating mental health in the minds of the public. The way some members who have been here far longer than I now appear to have forgotten that fact can only be symptomatic of a Government being told what to think rather than thinking for itself. That betrays the responsibility of this place and betrays the generation of workers who will be impacted into the future. I am sure that many of my generation find the different standard being applied to psychosocial injury compared to physical injury reflective of a time gone by. I am disappointed and frustrated to once again see the political class in government so out of touch with a generation offering the most potential. That approach is destined to make them the ones with the most to lose. It is unbecoming of any government, but particularly a Labor one. For all that party's stated values and traditions, the bill strays very far from them.
Right now, a worker suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression or other psychological harm can access support under our workers compensation system. The bill would limit that access. It would raise the impairment threshold for ongoing support, making it so hard that 99 per cent of people who are psychosocially injured at work would be denied compensation. Members should let that sink in. It is akin to abolishing the scheme. It is reflective of the highest order of hypocrisy. For all the Government's moralising about being a workers' party, it is not a workers' party. It is a party of shortcuts, lacking big vision and desperate for quick money to prop up a broken budget.
So who pays? It is people like the store manager in his late thirties with no prior mental health issues who was violently assaulted while closing his store. He was later diagnosed with post‑traumatic stress disorder and persistent depressive disorder. He has been unable to work since, despite attempts to return. His psychological injury left him with flashbacks, panic attacks, insomnia, memory loss, and total incapacity for work. His condition has required inpatient hospital stays and multiple rounds of medication. His assessed whole person impairment was 24 per cent. Under the bill, that worker's access to long-term support could be removed because his injury does not clear a new, arbitrary threshold of 31 per cent.
What is the message being sent to that worker? That his pain does not count? That his life has not been forever changed? How can Government members—with their values, traditions and stakeholders—look a store worker in the eye and say that an act that was out of his control and forever changed his life is deserving of nothing? And all for what—a quick sugar hit of coverage in the business media? It is pathetic. That is not even an isolated case. The case files are overflowing with workers—nurses, corrections officers, teachers and warehouse staff—who gave everything to their work, only to be left shattered when the job broke them. They are now being told, "You cost too much."
The worst part is that the Government does not deny that the bill is about cutting costs. In reality, it is seeking to balance the books on the backs of broken people. There is a moral dilemma. It is one thing to say the system needs reform; it is another to do so by ripping away support from those who need it most, without any credible investment in prevention or early intervention. Government members cannot, in good conscience, gut compensation for psychological injuries while doing nothing to prevent them. That is the equivalent of saying, "Health care costs too much, so let us only treat some conditions." The equivalent in education is only schooling some kids depending on where they live or, in crime, deciding to protect some communities and not others. Opposition members do not do that. Instead, they find ways to stop people getting sick, to innovate and to make offering quality education more affordable. We engage early intervention to drive down crime. We do not accept arbitrary exclusions in other parts of our society. We strive to support everyone, so why should that stop in the workplace?
What makes the bill even more jarring is the backflip by many on the Government benches. I have reviewed public statements made by Government members over several years. Many of them have expressed strong views in defence of workers, in support of mental health reform and against cuts to frontline entitlements. They are now being asked to abandon those views to ram through a bill that strips workers of dignity, support and agency. I say as a new member of this House that I have approached the issue on its merits. I do not feel wedded to the legacy of a former government, nor am I vested in my interest. My interest is in the principle, and I tell members on principle that the bill cannot pass in its current form.
That is why I will support the amendments proposed by the Opposition, which I believe strike a more reasonable balance and achieve a scheme that is sustainable without abandoning the integrity of its core mission. The proposed amendments are reasonable. They help to sustain the budget, they restore balance and they keep protections for those with serious psychological injury. If those amendments are rejected, Opposition members will insist on an inquiry, because none of us should sit comfortably knowing that we have made it harder for injured workers to seek compensation.
I finish by returning to the core point. The bill is not about sustainability; it is about shortcuts. It is about saving money without the hard graft of decent and considered reform that would focus on preventing psychological harm, investing in early intervention and creating safer workplaces for all. Members have a choice. They can choose to push the bill through, cut costs on the most vulnerable and hope that no-one notices, or they can take the time to get it right, protect workers who have already lost so much and send a message that mental health really matters. I know what choice I will make, and I urge all members of this House to do the same.
Dr JOE McGIRR (Wagga Wagga) (18:38:50):
I contribute to debate on the important Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Workers compensation is a significant part of the protections that our society provides for workers. It is important that we have a system in which people can receive treatment if they are injured at work, and that that treatment is provided to get them back to work. It is important that that treatment is part of a system that prevents injuries at work and, in the long term, supports people who cannot return to work. The reforms being put forward by the Government are significant. There are positive aspects of the bill and there are concerning aspects of the bill.
Before I address those aspects, I make an observation about the rushed nature of the legislation. A ministerial statement was made in March this year, an exposure draft was released two weeks ago and a bill was circulated one week ago, after a rushed Legislative Council committee process. Given the significant nature of the reform, that process does not seem appropriate. The Government has argued that it is necessary this year from a financial point of view. That is an important consideration. There has been a lot of talk about premiums being affected and not being affected. It seems to me that the driver is the Government's budget position and the provisions it needs to make in its budget process for future liabilities.
That goes to the heart of the financial viability of the Government. That is an important consideration for the crossbench, particularly for me, the member for Sydney and the member for Lake Macquarie, in terms of confidence and supply. We take those concerns extremely seriously. We have, with other members of the crossbench, engaged in depth with the Government. I commend the member for Sydney for his inordinate work. I also acknowledge the work of my other crossbench colleagues who have sought to understand the bill and the options—it is a complicated piece of legislation—within a tight time frame. We have sought legal, business, health professional, rehabilitation specialist and union advice and expertise when trying to form a view on the bill, which is complex. I particularly commend the member for Sydney for his work.
The bill, in essence, attempts to address issues to do with psychological injury. The Government has indicated that it is concerned that the costs of the scheme are going up, particularly for psychological injury. It points to the average claim for psychological injury rising from $100,000 to $300,000 over a period of five years, a 65 per cent increase in claims since 2022 for psychological injury, and a likely increase of 36 per cent in premiums. Those are significant factors. Importantly, from the Government's point of view, there will be a significant impost on the liabilities it has to account for in its budget process.
The bill has a lot of support across different sectors. Some of the contributions to debate on the bill do not mention that. Businesses, for example, are supportive because they know that the premiums are going up. A recent survey conducted by Business NSW suggests that as many as one in five businesses will not be able to afford the increase in premiums. That is a real threat to small business. Businesses welcome the ability to performance manage a person, and that work on reasonable expectations is long overdue. Businesses will appreciate that. That is a positive from a business point of view. Businesses are concerned about the premiums. The Government remains adamant that, for the premiums to come down, the measures in the bill have to be implemented in full. We do not have access to the detailed analysis from the Government, but it is adamant about that and it has those resources as its disposal.
Unions are concerned about protections for their workers, particularly about them being subjected to bullying and harassment. The Government has made a number of changes to address that issue. Importantly, it has taken action to address the issue of prevention. I acknowledge the Government's work in that respect, particularly in the related industrial relations bill, which will be debated later this week. That bill establishes a jurisdiction for bullying and sexual harassment within the Industrial Relations Commission and allows unions and workers to take action through that mechanism in the public sector. Addressing issues of bullying and harassment within the public sector is extremely important. They make up a large section of claims within that jurisdiction and obviously contribute to the costs of the schemes.
We have a large public sector. The New South Wales government is, perhaps, the largest employer in the Southern Hemisphere, with 400,000 workers. We should not be proud of the culture in some of our public sector agencies. That is particularly the case for health agencies, but it is not just health. Cultures of genuine bullying and harassment that have evolved in those organisations have gone unaddressed, often because of our workers compensation system. People who are being bullied or harassed take their workers compensation and psychological injury leave and disappear into the workers compensation system with no redress and no accountability taken by the person who did the bullying. People disappear into the system and spend a lot of time there, fighting claims with lawyers about liability and not getting the treatment that they need.
The Government has made genuine and real attempts to address those concerns. I welcome those attempts and the unions welcome them. They are long overdue. I suggest that the Government should do a lot more work on culture within the public sector. We could introduce a range of measures around that, with a particular emphasis on management training. I have spoken about that in a health context before. I will leave my comments on that issue. I also make a point about the importance of work capacity assessments. We must continue to use skilled health professionals. This is about returning people to work in good health. It is not about lawyers making money and arguing over liability but, because this is an insurance system, that is often what ends up happening. Some of these changes will go a long way to addressing those concerns.
I welcome the Government's $344 million package of actions to tackle issues with prevention and support for workers. I welcome the eight-week income and medical support. I welcome the initiatives in the industrial relations bill. I welcome reasonable action by management. I am convinced that these actions address my concern about not enough work being done on prevention. The key issue in the bill seems to be whole person impairment. Opposition members have expressed concerns about that and it is a genuine concern in the community. I acknowledge that. The Government remains adamant that the degree of permanent impairment needs to be 31 per cent. I, along with the member for Sydney and the member for Lake Macquarie, wrote to the Government asking that it be 21 per cent, but it remained adamant that that would not address the financial issues in the scheme. I acknowledge that the Government has made that decision in good faith based on the data it has.
Extension of time
I commend the member for Sydney for his work with the Government. As a result of that work, a range of initiatives have already been adopted. The Government has introduced a stepped introduction to the whole person impairment. It will go to 25 per cent, I understand, in October and then 31 per cent in July next year. The lump sum commutation option is a positive option for people with 30 per cent or less. That will enable them to leave the system early and effectively, and to seek their own care. There is a lot of benefit to that. I understand that the member for Sydney will propose important amendments that the Government will support. My support for the bill is contingent on those amendments. The amendments will provide that the actions of the bill will not be retrospective for people who are currently with a claim or in the process of a claim—for example, doing the prefiling work for a claim—and that there will be a review after two years, which will include a statutory review as well as a referral to a parliamentary committee. []
The review process at two years will include a statutory review and a referral to a parliamentary committee. Making sure that we do not have that retrospective component, and a review of that nature, means that we will, in two years time, be able to assess the impact of the whole person impairment changes. We will have data at that point and will be in a much better position to gauge the impact of it. At the end of the day, I do not think anyone knows precisely how the changes will work, but the Government is clear that it believes that they are necessary for the financial viability of the scheme. If the amendments of the member for Sydney are supported, I will support the bill, because that provides us with a reasonable way forward on the issue of whole person impairment. I acknowledge that is a serious issue in the community.
The Government also makes the point that the whole person impairment regime in this State cannot be compared with those in other jurisdictions because there are differences in the amount of funds that are paid out, in links to liability and in links to the scheme. I acknowledge those points as well. The option of a stepped introduction, no retrospectivity, making sure that a review is in place and the options of commutations provide us with a pathway forward on an issue that the Government says is fundamental to its financial position. I reiterate how important it is to look after workers. It is important to have a system that effectively treats injured workers and helps them return to work, that prevents workplace injury and that ensures that workers who cannot return to work are supported. We need a scheme that is financially viable. If we do not have a scheme that is financially viable, we will not have a scheme. We owe it to employers and workers and their families to get it right. As I said, I will support the bill contingent on the amendments being passed.
Ms STEPHANIE DI PASQUA (Drummoyne) (18:51:06):
I contribute to debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I am someone who values balance and who believes that good governance means weighing competing interests carefully, listening and acting not from ideology but from principle and pragmatism. That is why I cannot support the bill in its current form without sensible amendment. Let me be clear: I acknowledge the need for reform. The workers compensation system is under pressure, and we need to make it sustainable. Businesses, particularly small businesses, need certainty, and they need relief from rising premiums. That is a conversation worth having.
But the bill does not represent a balanced solution. Punishing people with psychological injuries is not the right way to do it. It tilts the scale too far and it does so at the expense of the very people who have held our communities together—our nurses, teachers, aged-care workers and public sector workers. Raising the threshold for mental health claims to 31 per cent whole person impairment in the way proposed in the bill presents challenges. It is a blunt instrument being used where the understanding of nuance is required. Mental illness is not less serious because it is harder to quantify on paper. It does not disappear because the Government wants to make it more difficult to prove. And it certainly does not get better when support to injured workers is denied or delayed.
The change risks pushing vulnerable workers out of the system altogether. Instead of helping them receive treatment, heal and return back to work, the bill is putting the burden back on them by punishing them for coming forward, for seeking help and for suffering the very real consequences of trauma and burnout in the workplace. It is especially concerning for our nurses and teachers. I met a group of local nurses a few weeks ago. I sat and listened to them with two of my parliamentary colleagues, the member for Newtown and the member for Balmain. Our electorates share a local health district. Those nurses gave up their time on a rainy Thursday night to meet with us and to tell us how they were feeling about their jobs. I was invited by those local nurses and I appreciate their invitation. They were honest with me about the issues they are experiencing in hospitals across metropolitan Sydney and particularly within the Sydney Local Health District.
They told me that they are under immense pressure in the health system. They are tired, overworked and under‑resourced, and they need to know that they have a workers compensation system that is there for them if they need it. Nursing is a profession marked by stress, exposure to violence and emotional exhaustion. Nurses are often asked to do more with less. The impact on their mental health is well documented and well publicised, especially in a post-COVID world. Yet the bill will make it harder for those nurses that I met with to access the support they deserve.
The solution cannot be to raise the bar so high that almost no‑one can reach it. If the Government is serious about reform, we must start with prevention. We must invest in safer workplaces, early intervention systems that identify problems and issues before they escalate, better literacy and understanding of mental health, and support services that are readily available and accessible. It is not about choosing between workers and small businesses; it is about finding a path that supports both. We can build a system in this State that is financially responsible and fair. That is the kind of reform I stand for. That is the kind of politics I practise—to stand on the side of people.
I acknowledge the Minister's presence in the Chamber today. There are things that the Opposition and the Government agree on, like the need to reform workers compensation to get a financially viable system. But we should conduct a proper consultation that involves communities and genuinely involves stakeholders so we can get something that is balanced, compassionate and sustainable.
Mrs WENDY TUCKERMAN (Goulburn) (18:55:14):
I speak in debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, which the Minns Labor Government is rushing through Parliament without proper scrutiny and that could have serious consequences for people who suffer devastating psychological injuries at work as well as financial implications for private small business. The Treasurer claims the bill needs to be passed by 1 July because of its impact on the Nominal Insurer's financial valuation, which helps determine premiums. But let us be clear: That claim is false, like many of the current Government's claims and thought bubbles. Premiums for the 2025‑26 year are already set and capped at an 8 per cent increase. The next important valuation is not until December 2025, and the next step to set the new premium rates based on that will not be due until March 2026.
There is no urgent deadline—just an attempt to push the bill through without thorough public consultation. Why the rush? The truth is that the bill is less about protecting injured workers and more about protecting the Government's budget. By tightening eligibility and reducing compensation, the Treasurer hopes to reduce the Government's insurance liabilities and make the books look better, especially when it comes to public sector workers. In its current form, the bill includes a surprising rule. It states that the costs for the Industrial Relations Commission [IRC] must be paid from the Workers Compensation Operational Fund. About 93 per cent of the money in that fund comes from private small businesses, but the IRC mainly handles cases involving public sector workers and government employees. It means that private small businesses would be paying for a system that only deals with issues related to public sector and government workers, which is not fair.
One of the other most concerning parts of the bill is the proposal to raise the whole person impairment [WPI] threshold for psychological injuries to 31 per cent. That might not sound like much but, in practice, it is almost impossible to reach. Medical professionals and legal experts say that even workers with severe post‑traumatic stress disorder or depression often fall well below that mark. Real case studies show that people assessed with 17 per cent to 20 per cent impairment have suffered extreme trauma. Yet, under the new rules, they would get no compensation. In fact, icare, the State's insurance provider, says only 24 people per year would meet the new threshold, and 17 of them are covered by the Nominal Insurer, which handles public sector claims.
It means the vast majority of injured workers, including frontline staff, will be left behind: paramedics, firies, nurses, teachers—the very people who support our communities day in, day out. Nurses, midwives and care workers represent the largest number of any occupational group with psychological injury claims over the past nine years, with nurses and midwives having the largest growth in the number of claims. And here is the kicker: The change would save almost nothing. NSW Treasury says the overall savings from the bill would reduce premiums by just 0.34 per cent. Most of those savings come from cutting off claims based on narrow "relevant events" and reducing weekly payments. Raising the WPI threshold adds very little.
It is almost unbelievable that Treasurer Mookhey and Premier Minns have convinced caucus members to turn their backs on pledges they made to workers before the last election. Who are they and what does Labor stand for? Recently I received a call from a constituent who told me that he was an ex-policeman, a lawyer and a victim of institutional abuse. He stated:
In 2018 I blew the whistle on iCare for corrupt practices and Daniel Mookhey used me as an opportunity to raise issues to him privately about Dominic Perrottet and others.
When it was convenient for him he used me to help him bring down and highlight inefficiency, corruption and malpractice but now he is doing what he can to damage the lives of people suffering from psychiatric injury caused by workplace injuries. I am one of those.
I wrote to Mookhey's personal phone message last week highlighting my concerns about raising 31% WPI for mental health injuries. This will create a huge issue for people and increase suicide related to mental health.
I am a volunteer and very community minded. I would be grateful if we could please discuss because this has serious implication for 100's of people, like me.
I called my constituent. He shared with me his message to Mr Mookhey:
Hi Daniel
We had some contact a few years ago about icare and the corruption going on there.
The purpose of this message is to raise my personal concerns about the changes to psychological injuries.
What is being proposed is unfair and unjust and goes against what you told me about protecting people like me who are prepared to stand up and say something in the workplace, despite being bullied and harassed. If you change the law, it will be the cause of people suiciding.
I didn't receive my injury from an act of violence, criminal conduct or a disaster in the workplace, but I am unable to work due to what iCare has done to me
My WPI injury is due to being bullied, victimized and targeted in iCare and I attempted suicide. It destroyed my career and I have never been the same since. My WPI was assessed at 21% but my life has completely changed, and it has impacted me so much I can't walk out the door.
The threshold is too high and suggesting it must be caused by violence, criminal conduct or 'certain disasters' in a workplace is simply unfair and goes against what you and the Labour Party proposed before coming into power.
iCare is a basket case because of the way it is run not because of injuries people sustain.
Please read what you are proposing
Changes for Psychological Injuries
Only psychological injuries caused by acts of violence, criminal conduct or witnessing certain disasters in the workplace are covered.
Workers who suffer a psychological injury due to bullying, sexual or racial harassment no longer have the right to make a claim unless they win their claim in a Court/Commission first.
Claims excluded if caused by "reasonable management action".
Weekly payments capped at 130 weeks.
No claim for negligence for below 31% WPI.
I would like to meet with you and discuss please.
My constituent never received a reply from the Treasurer. That is just one of the contacts to my office on this bill. I ask my Labor colleagues what they stand for. The amendments proposed by the Coalition are needed to ensure that this bill upholds the dignity of workers and that small businesses will not be subjected to cost-shifting to support public sector claims. The NSW Bar Association, made up of highly experienced legal professionals, has said that this bill is significantly different from the draft that was released earlier this year. That draft received only a brief, limited inquiry: one single day. That was Labor's attempt to let stakeholders understand what that bill will mean and how it will affect them.
This final version has major changes that have not been properly examined. No inquiry has been afforded, not even for one day. According to the Bar Association, the bill could have unintended consequences, and that is exactly why we need a full, transparent review before it is passed. Therefore the Coalition firmly advocates for amendments to the bill. If they are not supported, this bill cannot be supported in its original form. We will have no choice but to ensure that the matter is referred for a comprehensive review, to ensure that businesses are fully informed of the impacts. We need to get this right. The Labor Party needs to find its conscience and businesses need assurance that this is not another cash grab at the expense of those who can least afford it.
Mr MARK HODGES (Castle Hill) (19:03:32):
I speak on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The bill amends the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and other legislation. The Government's action to bring on the debate on this bill is disrespectful to the people of this State and to the many important stakeholder groups in our society. I have heard nothing from the Government to explain why there is such an extreme rush to debate the bill. As elected members of this House, we are bound to consult with our own communities and with stakeholders. The conduct of the Government is yet another example of a government that simply does not care about the views of the people of this State. Time and again the Minns Government demonstrates to the people of this State that it is out of touch with society.
The Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 seeks to reduce the cost of workers compensation schemes, including the Treasury Managed Fund and the Nominal Insurer, by a series of changes to how claims for psychological injuries are handled. It is important to note that members in this House all agree that appropriate measures must be taken to place downward pressure on workers compensation premiums. Reducing the costs incurred by businesses, particularly small businesses, is important. The reduction of costs incurred by businesses allows them to flourish, employ additional employees and reduce consumer costs, thereby improving their overall economic sustainability.
There are many small businesses within my electorate, and I absolutely agree that in this House we must support small businesses. Castle Hill electorate has a strong business chamber, which is one of the largest in the metropolitan area of Sydney. A rushed and poorly drafted bill is not the way to properly support businesses. Members know that on 8 May the Legislative Council commenced an inquiry into the proposed changes to liability and entitlements for psychological injury in New South Wales. The terms of reference specifically inquired into:
(a)the overall financial sustainability of the NSW workers' compensation system; and
(b)the provisions of the Exposure Draft of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 as provided by correspondence to the Committee.
The committee received a total of 62 written submissions. The committee hearing took place on 16 May. It was a very rushed inquiry. The President of the Law Society, Jennifer Ball, yesterday commented on the inquiry. She said that the Law Society "participated in the unusually truncated inquiry process" provided to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. Her comment that the inquiry was unusually truncated should stand as a warning to Government members. The committee produced a two-volume report consisting of more than 800 pages. The report was tabled less than two weeks ago, on 23 May.
To suggest that members of this House—and the community and stakeholders—would have time to digest an 800-page report and to consider all the amendments, which are different to the exposure draft, is just not right. It again plainly shows a government that is out of touch with our community. I note that the Hon. Damien Tudehope and the Hon. Susan Carter each produced dissenting reports. I commend those dissenting reports to members of this House. The bill we are now debating was introduced into this House on 27 May. It should be noted that the current bill, as I have noted, is substantially different to the exposure draft referred to within the inquiry.
There does not appear to be a valid reason why this Government has adopted a rushed process within the respect to the bill. It certainly could not have anything to do with the workers compensation premiums for 2025‑26. As other members have mentioned, those premiums for 2025-26 have already been set and have been posted to many businesses. Some of those businesses may have already paid their premiums for 2025-26. The premiums for 2026‑27 will not be set until after March 2026. There is ample time for the Government to consult with the community, with small business and with stakeholders. It does not make sense that this bill is so rushed. I note that the President of the Law Society also commented on the rushed process. She stated:
Given the paucity of consultation, and the Law and Justice Committee's inability, through lack of time, to apply meaningful analysis to the voluminous evidence before it, the Law Society encourages the Government to return the Bill to the design stage. It is possible to design a nuanced and appropriate scheme that continues to provide for meritorious claims.
I now wish to look at the main provision in the bill, which changes the whole person impairment [WPI] threshold from 20 per cent to 31 per cent. The increase in the whole person impairment threshold will mean that many workers will be unable to claim for primary psychological injury. In his dissenting report the Hon. Damien Tudehope noted:
There was no evidence provided to the inquiry as to why there should be a higher WPI threshold for psychological injuries or why the threshold should be raised to 31%.
Further, data from icare showed that only 24, or 1 per cent, of the 2,000-plus workers with a psychological injury and a WPI of 15 per cent or more would meet the proposed new threshold of 31 per cent, cutting off hundreds of injured workers each year from current supports. The president of the Law Society also commented on the proposed new WPI threshold. In submission 34 to the inquiry, she states:
In our members' experience, the number of cases involving impairment at 31 per cent or greater would be so rare that this threshold effectively abolishes the right of workers in NSW to pursue work injury damages claims against a potentially negligent employer even after they have successfully navigated the additional hurdles introduced by the other amendments.
The submission further states:
As the level of impairment demanded by the psychiatric impairment rating scale [PIRS] to reach 31 per cent will conceivably exclude nearly all workers with psychological injury from making a claim …
I have heard the cases that would not reach 31 per cent mentioned by various members. I also note that in his contribution, the member for Blacktown commented that the Opposition referred to only one case. Opposition members have now referred to a number of other cases, so I will not detail any more. I simply point out that the Law Society has indicated that the number of cases involving impairment at 31 per cent or greater would be so rare that this threshold effectively abolishes the rights of workers in New South Wales. I have received correspondence on the bill from members of my own community, including an email from Mr Patrick Mafi earlier today. He wrote:
I'm writing to you not as a lawyer or advocate, but simply as a person (with help from my partner) who has been injured, who did what was required, and who is now left feeling completely powerless. I have an existing workers compensation claim, submitted under the laws that were in place at the time — laws I believed I could rely on. The proposed Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 has filled me with fear. If the changes in this Bill are applied to claims that are already underway, people like me could lose rights we were promised. I've done everything the right way. I've followed the process, provided documentation, tended to my appointments and treatment — and now it feels like the goalposts are being moved just as I reach them. I am in the process of receiving an agreed WPI.
I cannot describe how destabilising and retraumatising this has been. It already takes a huge emotional toll to engage with this system. To think that all of that might be undone because the rules are being changed — while I'm still in the system — feels utterly unfair. I'm asking you, with as much hope as I can muster, to advocate for transitional rules that protect existing claims. Please don't let these new laws apply to those of us who are already struggling within the old ones. We are not trying to game the system — we are just trying to hold on to the small bits of support we were told we could expect.
At the outset I made the comment that we must support business, and I stand by that comment. Sensible amendments will be proposed by the Opposition, and I urge members to support them. As the Opposition has pointed out, it would be sensible for the Government to work with all stakeholders to achieve a more productive outcome for businesses and workers. Opposition amendments on sheet c2025-122B are sensible. In the event that those amendments are not agreed to, the Opposition will not support the third reading of the bill in this House. Instead, it will move them in the other place.
Mr PHILIP DONATO (Orange) (19:13:41):
I contribute to debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I say at the outset that this has been a very difficult bill to deal with. The objectives of the bill are:
Workers Compensation Act 1987the Act
(a)to amend the () to—
(i)implement changes to liability and entitlements for psychological injuries, and
(i)provide for the process of assessing the degree of permanent impairment, and
(iii)to enable disputes about liability for a lump sum death benefit to be settled, subject to agreement by the Personal Injury Commission, and
(iv)enable regulations to be made to expand the classes of claims which are eligible for commutations, subject to approval by the Personal Injury Commission in a particular case,
The bill also makes miscellaneous amendments to other related legislation. I have read the bill and the second reading speech of the Minister, whom I note is in the Chamber, along with submissions from various unions, injured workers, Business NSW, the legal fraternity, the NSW Bar Association and medical professionals. I have also relied upon my own personal life experiences as a son whose family owned a small business for nearly 35 years, an apprentice and later a government sector employee as a sworn member of the NSW Police Force. I can see problems in the bill for both businesses and workers.
It is clear and undisputed that the current workers compensation system in this State is failing to maintain financial sustainability, failing people with psychological injuries, failing business owners faced with increasing premiums and failing to get injured workers back to work. Briefing notes from Treasury indicate that there are genuine concerns that the current workers compensation scheme is at risk of collapse unless reform is urgently undertaken. For abundant caution, it should be crystal clear that this legislation is targeted towards the rise in psychological injuries as distinct from physical injuries. Many of the workers who will be caught up by this legislation work in public sectors like health, education, Corrective Services and social services.
Of course, employees who work in privately owned small- and medium-sized businesses—in many cases family businesses—will also be impacted by the bill. Some members have spoken about police officers. However, it should be made clear that this legislation does not pertain to police officers, as they have been carved out of the bill and have their own individual workers compensation insurance scheme. In New South Wales there are essentially two models of workers compensation insurance schemes that impact almost four million people: 3.5 million work in the private sector and are funded by premiums from 340,000 mostly small business owners whilst approximately 400,000 public sector workers are funded by the government-funded Treasury Managed Fund.
It is the fundamental right of every worker in a modern-day, vibrant society to go to work and come home safely at the end of their shift—and to have a robust, supportive and sustainable workers compensation scheme. Of course, the best possible scenario is for injured workers to receive the care and treatment they need as quickly as possible and, when safe to do so, get back to work as soon as reasonably practicable. This is what ideally should happen. However, I am sure all members have spoken with injured workers in their electorates and heard the horror stories of protracted waiting times and constant delays, medical appointments with doctors—their doctor, independent doctors and doctors representing insurance companies—and dealing with lawyers, icare, the State Insurance Regulatory Authority and insurance investigators, as well as the social isolation, stigma, and erosion of social connection and self-confidence. This can all be so debilitating for workers who are already suffering from a psychological injury. Something needs to be done to improve the system and better support our injured workers.
I have concerns about the bill in its current form, including the increase to the whole person impairment [WPI] threshold to 31 per cent. The accepted literature on this issue, which has been spoken about by other members, indicates that this is an almost unachievable level. I am concerned about the people who are midway through the process who will not be able to meet the 31 per cent WPI threshold. What happens to them? I am concerned about the speed with which this legislation has been brought before this House. I am also concerned that there has been a lack of proper consultation and scrutiny through a proper public committee process to examine this serious legislative reform. A one-day snap committee hearing is hardly sufficient to properly deal with such a matter.
What can be done to ease the costs and burdens on businesses? Appropriately resourcing SafeWork NSW with more inspectors, expanding mental health coaching and training, and research programs to prevent and manage psychological injuries for first responders and frontline workers are good initiatives. A new wellbeing unit targeting workplace behaviour is also welcome.
But what about rewarding and incentivising most of the businesses that do the right thing and do not have staff getting injured at work? At a time of increasing public discussions about removing the stigma of mental health, coupled with the ever‑increasing pressures being faced in the workplace, should we be surprised that there has been an increase in people suffering from psychological injuries in the workplace? I will listen carefully to each of the amendments that will be moved, and I will consider in what ways this bill can be improved.
Mr KEVIN ANDERSON (Tamworth) (19:19:47):
I contribute to debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 on behalf of my community. There is no doubt that the workers compensation scheme needs reforming. It is under pressure and changes need to be made. My colleagues have outlined various reasons why they have concerns with the bill currently before the Parliament. My focus will be on this Government's urgency to get it done this week. The Government has a red-hot interest in workers compensation right before the end of the financial year. It is desperate to get this locked away for the forward estimates to bolster its bottom line. Secondary to that process are the workers and employers.
In my view, when the exposure draft of the bill went out, there was no doubt that the Treasurer's office knew there would be changes. The bill before us is a result of that feedback: a different version. The question is what is left in the Treasurer's bag to make further changes? The Government has not provided the answers to questions from businesses and workers. I have spoken with businesses and organisations, and they have the same questions. What will be the decrease in premiums? Where is the modelling? Where is the mechanism that will achieve lower premiums? The answer from the Government is scare tactics.
Some business owners have already received their invoice for financial year 2025-26 with an 8 per cent increase in premiums. The Government's narrative that the legislation needs to pass this week is a fallacy. It has more to do with the Government's budget, protecting its bottom line, than with finding a better deal for businesses and getting the balance right for workers. This rush does not, and should not, relieve the responsibility of Labor to do the right thing. The Parliament should be making good laws. It has a responsibility to do so. The actuaries are locked away by 31 December each year, and the State Insurance Regulatory Authority [SIRA] has until 31 March to set the premiums for the following year—in this case 2027-28. Again, the Government is rushing this process through just to protect its numbers and credit rating.
Chambers of commerce in my area talk about the cost of doing business and insurance premiums are a big part of that. Businesses are the backbone of our economy, and they struggle to survive and meet their financial obligations. I support lower premiums for business. As a former business owner running a media and marketing agency, the rising cost of doing business was a constant challenge. Businesses need the Government to make good laws based on sound research and process.
Several aspects of this bill should be amended to make it a better piece of legislation for both businesses and workers, including amending the definition of bullying by adding "with intent to cause harm or distress"; removing excess work demands as the basis for a claim; removing the provision making businesses subsidise the Industrial Relations Commission—the IRC is responsible for hearings of the New South Wales public sector, and private small business should not foot the bill for government workplace issues; leaving the management of assessment with the Personal Injury Commission, rather than handing to it the regulator, SIRA; retaining the power to disallow SIRA guidelines for how psychological injuries are assessed; and removing provisions that would lift the threshold for whole person impairment to 31 per cent for psychological injury. The Parliament can do a better job and get a better deal for business and a better solution for those who need support.
Mr RICHIE WILLIAMSON (Clarence) (19:24:16):
I make a brief contribution to debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I have spoken to many small business owners in the Clarence electorate. Many of them have significant issues with the New South Wales workers compensation scheme, including but not limited to the cost of the scheme. I think members should always support small business and, where it is possible, drive down the costs for small business, particularly in regional New South Wales.
The workplace impairment threshold in the bill is not right. Simply raising the bar so high it makes it impossible to reach is not the way to bring genuine reform to the scheme. I say to the Government, "Take time to get this right. Take time to ensure your reforms are sensible and achievable. Take the great State of New South Wales and its small businesses with you." I relay part of a letter from Matt. He writes:
I am writing to you to express my concerns about the changes proposed by the NSW Treasurer under the banner of Workers Compensation Reform. I know you are aware of my personal workers compensation experience, and I can only add that I am extremely grateful I am now out of the scheme that was intended to help me but, in many aspects, did the exact opposite. There are so many elements of the Workers Compensation Scheme that need reform, with recommendations clearly highlighted in the McDougall report and by the law and justice standing committee that are being slowly considered and adopted, it seems illogical that this financially motivated bill has risen so swiftly it cannot have been properly considered beyond a financial gains spreadsheet.
He adds, "In short, these changes scare me. I say that knowing that these changes will mean the scheme that has been designed to protect as a safety net for injured workers in the workforce is not doing that. I am scared that my children will soon enter the workforce that my wife still remains in." Matt also writes:
These changes are completely against the progress society has made in recognising and accepting people suffering and enduring mental ill-health, as they have been unfairly singled out and targeted in the proposed changes. Sadly for me, as a person who has spent a good part of their career protecting the community and those unable to protect themselves, I see this as nothing short of demonstrating the actions of a bully by the NSW Treasurer …
He adds, "This something that will cause more harm than good." In conclusion, Matt writes:
I don't think anyone who has been touched by the NSW workers compensation scheme would disagree that it needs reform. However, the introduction of this bill will serve to only further harm injured workers and their families, who will be left to bear the consequences of this bill. It is obvious why the NSW Treasurer is spearheading this bill …
He adds, "It is simply to make sure the balance sheet is right for the budget." I urge the Government to simply press pause to ensure the settings are right so that the most vulnerable people in New South Wales, particularly those in the Clarence electorate, are not left behind. Do not rush this. The premiums are already set for the next financial year and, as members heard earlier, some of those premiums have already been paid. I say to the Government again, take the time to get this right. Tell small business owners throughout New South Wales what the savings will be for them. Illustrate to them, plain and simple, what this reform means not only for their workers but for their bottom lines. Show them where the savings will be made. Again, the bill in its current form is not right. Take some time and get it right for all workers and small businesses in New South Wales.
Ms MONICA TUDEHOPE (Epping) (19:29:52):
I speak in debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and start with this contribution:
Under this Government parliamentary democracy works by creating a crisis, softening the public by blaming the former Government, getting a few third parties on side, setting up a committee and beginning a carefully orchestrated media campaign.
Those are not my words; they are the words of Minister Cotsis, spoken against workers compensation legislation in the Fifty-Fifth Parliament. I can think of no better words to sum up the Government's approach to this legislation. The Government has told us that the bill is urgent and that it is the former Government's fault. It has run a sham committee and told us it wants to focus on prevention, with some vague financial promises. I deal with that last point first, because it can be easily dismissed: There is no legislative provision in the bill that will strengthen prevention. As for timing, premiums have already been set for the next financial year, and the Government knows that. It knows that the timing of this bill will do nothing for small businesses in the next financial year. It knows there is time to get this right. If the Government was genuine in its efforts to make this scheme more sustainable, it would know that there is time for the bill to be properly considered.
Instead, it has run a cynical media campaign trying to create a sense of false urgency and false care for workers. The only sliver of truth in its case is that it is doing this for financial reasons. That is why the bill is being led by the Treasurer. The bill is nothing more than a smokescreen for the Labor Government's woeful financial position. It cannot manage the budget, so it is taking an axe to the workers compensation scheme. The only reason to rush this legislation through is to meet the Treasurer's financial year deadline. This is an important piece of legislation on an important topic. It is important for small businesses and workers. The scheme does need reform, and we must get the balance right. Small businesses take risks that many of us in this place will never take. They show entrepreneurship and innovation, and we must do everything we can to support them. Given that, we must make sure that this legislation actually delivers reduced premiums to small businesses but does not do so by removing almost 99 per cent of the workers claiming psychosocial injuries. We must get the design of this scheme right.
Yet this legislation leaves workers with psychosocial injuries completely out in the cold, and this from a party that says it cares about workers. One has to ask, what is the point of the Labor Party? Ultimately, I thought it existed for workers and for workers' rights. Clearly, it does not. The bill will restrict claims for lump sum compensation to a miniscule proportion of psychological injuries that have resulted in whole person impairment of 31 per cent. Members opposite know that will capture very few people, and that is why the threshold has been set there. That threshold has been set not out of care for workers but because actuaries have told the Government that number will give it the financial result it wants.
I conclude by again referring to words spoken by other people, because they have said it better than I can. If the House will indulge me, I put their words on record as meaningful contributions to this debate. "Every member of this Government will wear this disgraceful piece of legislation around their neck." That was Minister Cotsis. "These reforms will particularly hurt low-income workers and those in physically demanding jobs. Raising the impairment threshold means many will be left without adequate compensation." Again, that was Minister Cotsis. "The biggest concern is we got this bill minutes before it was debated. That's one of the first times in history that we have seen a bill of this size that is this significant debated immediately, without giving any notice to the Opposition." That was Minister Park. "We must ensure that the system prioritises the wellbeing and recovery of those it is meant to protect." That was the Hon. Daniel Mookhey. I agree with the Treasurer. This bill is an axe when what is needed is a scalpel. The bill should be amended.
Mr GURMESH SINGH (Coffs Harbour) (19:35:00):
I contribute to debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 not just as a member of this House but also as someone who has spent years running businesses and listening to small business owners across New South Wales. I have seen the toll that workplace injury, particularly psychological injury, can take on individuals and families. I am someone who believes that fairness in government is not just a slogan; it is a duty we must all uphold. This bill, introduced by the Minns Labor Government, is deeply flawed. It has flaws that the Government's slick marketing campaign is trying to hide, that the faux emergency timing is designed to hide, and that the Government hopes are not given the time to be scrutinised and exposed. It is being rushed through the Parliament with an urgency that is political, not practical.
The Minns Labor Government has lost control of the budget. Labor does not know how to manage money and wants the bill rushed through Parliament so the budget it releases in two weeks looks a little better. Labor claims this legislation must be passed by 1 July, but premiums for the 2025-26 financial year are already locked in. I know that because I have paid mine already. The next filing is not due until the end of 2025. Labor's deadline is a fiction. When a government invents a deadline, it is usually because it does not want people asking too many questions, so let me ask a few. Why does the bill kick people with serious injuries off the scheme after just 2½ years? Why does it raise the threshold for support for psychological injury to 31 per cent, a level that very few people will ever meet? Why does it shift costs from government departments onto the shoulders of small family‑run businesses? And why, in two years of talk about reform, is there still no modelling to explain how these harsh changes will actually save money?
This goes to the heart of the integrity crisis in this Government. It talks about cheaper premiums for small businesses, yet it cannot tell us how much cheaper or when premiums will begin to go down. We know it will not be for next year. The Opposition supports reform, but only if it is fair, smart and humane. The Opposition cannot support a law that punishes people for being unwell. I am going to read a case study and let the people of New South Wales decide whether this person deserves support:
A 38-year-old female nurse on the Central Coast suffered significant psychological injuries due to workplace bullying and harassment. Her workplace environment has adversely affected her mental health, leading to debilitating consequences. She experienced repeated derogatory remarks and inappropriate behaviour from her manager, which contributed to her deteriorating mental health. As a result of the ongoing bullying and harassment, she developed psychological injuries assessed at 22% WPI.
Since May 2022, she has not been able to work, and her situation has severely impacted her daily life. She struggles with self-care and exhibits signs of social withdrawal, preferring to isolate herself rather than engage with others. She experiences difficulty traveling independently and can only do so with her husband's assistance. Her relationship with her husband has also been strained. Despite holding two diplomas and two certificates from TAFE, she is now unable to work in any capacity in the foreseeable future which has impacted her self-confidence and determination.
Psychological injury is real. I absolutely acknowledge the need to better sort the genuine psychological claims from those who are merely milking the system. Under this bill, genuine cases will find themselves ineligible for support unless they can meet a 31 per cent impairment threshold. This arbitrary number could be a death sentence for access to help. It is cruel, and it is absurd. It will force people to suffer in silence or to leave the workforce entirely. What message does that send? A lot has been said about small businesses during this debate. They are being asked to foot the bill for the Government's industrial disputes. Under this bill, private employers could be left subsidising claims from government departments that arise out of public sector disputes in the Industrial Relations Committee. That is not only unfair but also a betrayal of the very people who keep our economy running during tough times.
Labor says this is about reducing pressure on the system, but where is the evidence? Where is the modelling? Where are the figures that show these changes will actually reduce costs rather than pushing them out of sight and onto someone else? We have proposed other ways to create savings in the system, including tightening the rules around vague or unprovable claims like excessive workload, and cracking down on bullying claims that lack substance. We should look at innovative ideas like no-claim bonuses. Refocussing the scheme on genuine injury rather than workplace inconvenience is how you save money without throwing the most vulnerable workers under the bus. It is not only about who is covered but also how they are assessed. Labor wants to centralise and control that process. We say the Government should let the independent experts do their job.
The Personal Injury Commission should keep doing the assessments, and Parliament should maintain oversight so that the decisions are transparent and fair. These amendments are fair and sensible changes. If they are not accepted, then we will push for a full upper House inquiry and a proper investigation, not just a one-day hearing. We should not cut corners when we are dealing with a system that affects tens of thousands of injured workers and employers. This Government has produced a complex, half-baked bill. It is nearly 8.00 p.m. and we expect this debate will go on for a fair while longer. The Government is trying to ram this bill through Parliament before the public has the time to read the fine print.
In its current form, this bill hurts the people who hold up our communities—teachers, nurses, aged-care workers and apprentices. It places pressure on the backs of small business owners. It treats mental health as an afterthought. It offers spin instead of solutions. The Opposition cannot support this bill. We support a better way forward that helps people recover and return to work, that treats physical and psychological injuries with equal seriousness, that reduces waste without reducing compassion and that offers dignity to workers, fairness to business and transparency to the public. We can fix this system, but we have to do it properly. Every member of the Coalition wants lower premiums for workers compensation. The Opposition supports fixing the system and lowering premiums. We support genuine claims.
Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (19:42:32):
I contribute to debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I am greatly disappointed with the bill before the House. I am concerned with the impact it will have on injured workers across New South Wales and the chilling impact it will have on people coming forward to seek support for serious injuries caused in the workplace. The New South Wales workers compensation scheme exists to protect people who are harmed in the workplace. This harm can be caused by psychological injuries or physical injuries.
Members of this House should stand by the principle that individuals are equally deserving of care, treatment and compensation for psychological injuries, mental health impacts or physical injuries that occur in the workplace. Unfortunately, the bill before the House tonight does not do that. The New South Wales scheme needs fixing. Members on both sides of this House could work on it, but this Government is trying to push the bill through the House with very little notice. It only provided the bill to the Opposition for one week before it was introduced. It had a one-day inquiry into some of the most complex changes. It did not provide modelling, details or evidence to show whether the bill will actually lead to a reduction in premiums, as claimed by the Treasurer, or whether it will be an improvement for workers and small businesses across the State.
I have grave concerns about what this bill will do to people who are injured in the workplace. I am particularly concerned about the disproportionate effect that the changes to psychological injuries will have on women in the workplace. A significant proportion of the New South Wales public service are women. Most members also know that a disproportionate number of women suffer psychological injuries at work. The acting general secretary of the Nurses and Midwives' Association, Michael Whaites, gave evidence at the one-day inquiry. He said:
… 85 per cent of people who suffer a psychological injury at work are women. We see the proposed changes as, quite frankly, abhorrent. There are systems of work within health, whether it is NSW Health or other healthcare providers, that are injuring nurses, midwives and carers, who are predominantly women.
As the shadow Minister for Women, I speak to the Opposition's concerns for women in the workplace, particularly for women in the public service. We have an obligation to get this scheme right and to make changes that are appropriate for people in workplaces across the State. Our fundamental obligation is to care for those who are harmed.
Members of Parliament have a greater duty of care and burden of responsibility to the people employed in the public service. We set the policies and practices for the people on the front line who care for those that need it most, including nurses, aged-care workers and teachers. The New South Wales Government employs these workers, and it needs to protect them and care for them when things go wrong. This bill does nothing to protect people from serious psychological harm in the workplace. I want to see reforms that ensure workplaces are safe for people. We must work to stamp out bullying, intimidation, sexual assault and harassment. We might not want to believe that these ugly things are happening to people in the community, but they are.
We have read case studies and heard stories from people who have been impacted by psychological injury. They believe that this bill is failing them. For example, carers have witnessed multiple disabled children die. They have had flashbacks about the deaths and been unable to continue to care for children. They have been hospitalised, and some have even attempted suicide multiple times. These individuals could be left out by this scheme, because they have been assessed at 20 per cent whole person impairment [WPI]. We have heard an example of an individual who faced a violent sexual assault in the workplace. They could not shower or dress themselves and, in their view, they were unable to work. They were assessed at 19 per cent WPI.
It is not up to us to determine how WPI is assessed. The question before us today is whether or not we cut off medical and financial support for people when they are over or below a WPI threshold. The Opposition opposes removing the 31 per cent threshold, which is a core component of the bill. Experts across the field say that this will create a workers compensation scheme which does not cover anybody for psychological harm in the workplace. The bill will not protect individuals who have been sexually assaulted. It will not protect people who have witnessed the death of children in their care. It will not protect people who have been bullied and harassed to such an extent that they have tried to take their own life. It is abhorrent and should not be supported by this House.
We have heard evidence from other parts of the public service as well. The NSW Teachers Federation has approximately 60,000 members, and 80 per cent of them are women. The deputy president of the NSW Teachers Federation, Amber Flohm, said:
… a teacher in her thirties who was repeatedly sexually harassed at work and has an accepted workers compensation claim for a psychological injury. She continues to access treatment and engage with mental health professionals but is significantly injured and currently has no capacity to work.
Ms Flohm said that this is an example of what teachers face in their workplace. Teachers are at the front line helping to educate and support the next generation of our State. They are under daily pressures, particularly given the mental health challenges our young people face, with online and social media pressures. Teachers are being targeted with things like deepfake pornography, to undermine, attack and assault them. Yet those teachers could be left out with these changes.
The Nurses and Midwives' Association in particular has voiced strong concerns about this issue. The Women's Legal Service NSW also said that it is gravely concerned because the way in which psychological injury is regulated in the bill will have a deleterious and disproportionate effect on women. We know that women are more likely to be affected by sexual harassment, bullying and harassment, and that those things have often occurred prior to a claim for psychological injury in the workplace. The Women's Legal Service NSW said that the changes would present an almost insurmountable barrier to obtaining workers compensation for psychological injuries, especially for women.
The Opposition will move amendments in an attempt to ensure that the workers compensation scheme is affordable and sustainable. In the short term, we need to ensure that we protect workers and people who have experienced those injuries. We have a duty and a responsibility, and they have the right to expect and demand that from us. In that process, we also need to make sure it is an affordable scheme. There is a lot of debate about whether the premiums have been set. Based on advice received, the view of the Opposition is that the premiums have already been set. There is no need to rush through this legislation before 1 July for it to have any impact on this year's premiums. In fact, earlier this evening we heard the member for Albury, who is a small business owner, speak about the fact that he had already not only received his premiums but also paid them. The bill is not going to affect premiums this financial year. That is a misnomer from the Government and the Treasurer.
Extension of time
What is the motivation behind the bill? I am sorry to say that, as has been commented on in the media, it feels like it is a rush to get the budget in order before the Treasurer presents it in a couple of weeks. This is the last chance in the Parliament for him to do so, and we see that as a significant motivator. We need a State budget that is fiscally responsible. The Opposition supports that fundamentally. But that cannot happen at the expense of workers' lives and wellbeing. It is incredibly risky for us to push people out of support when the level of mental health issues across our community is increasing. The leading cause of death for anyone aged 15 to 49 is suicide. If we take away supports and push people into an environment where they do not have mental health, medical, financial or workplace support, they will potentially lose their homes and family relationships. And we risk seeing even more lives lost in this State. The Opposition is fundamentally concerned about that. []
A number of amendments have been foreshadowed and the Opposition would like to see them supported. If the amendments are supported, then we can support the legislation. We need to work together. It is disappointing that the legislation was not brought to us in advance, when we could have worked on and negotiated a good outcome. We have done that in the past. The Labor Government can do that. I have faith in a number of its members working with us. We did it on a number of major reforms when we were in government. Significant reforms like this take time, effort, collaboration and consultation; they cannot be rushed through.
The amendments include tightening the definition of bullying by adding a requirement that the bullying must be done with intent to cause harm or distress; removing excessive work demands as a relevant event on which a claim can be founded; removing a provision that would have businesses subsidise the Industrial Relations Commission through contributions to the Workers Compensation Operational Fund; leaving the assessment of the degree of permanent impairment with the Personal Injury Commission rather than handing it to the regulator, the State Insurance Regulatory Authority; and retaining the power of Parliament to disallow SIRA guidelines for how psychological injury is assessed.
Most importantly—and this echoes my earlier comments—the amendments remove the provisions that would lift the whole of person impairment to 31 per cent. If those amendments are supported by the Government, the Opposition will support the legislation. We will support ongoing efforts to look into the scheme and make it more affordable and viable in the long run. If the amendments are rejected, the Opposition will not support the legislation and it will vote against it. I will vote against it because of the significant harm it will cause to people across our community, particularly women, including women in the public sector.
If the legislation passes this House, the Opposition will move for it to be referred to a committee in the upper House. The only way to do a deep dive into the real harms of the legislation is to ensure that there is a good process of analysis. If changes are imposed, we must get them right for small businesses, for the public service and for the New South Wales budget. Most importantly, we must get them right for the people we owe a duty of care to, who have been harmed in their workplaces through no fault of their own and who do not deserve to be let down by this Parliament or the Government.
Ms SOPHIE COTSIS (CanterburyMinister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Work Health and Safety) (19:54:59):
— In reply: I thank all the members who contributed to debate on the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I acknowledge the many members who obviously consulted with their constituents, regardless of their political persuasion. Many members who may not be from the party I represent made genuine representations on behalf of injured workers, and I do not doubt the genuineness of those members. From the outset, I acknowledge the Treasurer and Minister Dib—who is in the Chamber—and their hardworking staff and officials. I also acknowledge my hardworking staff and officials.
I make a few points before I acknowledge the members who contributed. A number of members made disparaging references to the Treasurer, and I take umbrage at those. I have known the Treasurer for over two decades, so I know him very well. He is absolutely genuine about this reform because he cares passionately about injured workers. He has worked to contribute to the labour movement his entire adult life. He is also a highly intelligent and compassionate person. He is a very good man. A Labor Treasurer reforming something this big is challenging, as has been stated by the Premier, the Treasurer, Minister Dib, me and our colleagues.
Having worked with the Treasurer for a very long time in the space of industrial relations and workers compensation, I can tell members in this Chamber that when the Treasurer was the shadow Treasurer and shadow Minister for Finance and Small Business, he did incredible work in unravelling the icare and workers compensation scandals under the former Government. He exposed the devastating scandal that icare—set up by the former Government—did not have its eye on the ball in relation to injured workers, right from its embryonic stage to the time we came into government. The then shadow Treasurer forced the Government to hold an inquiry, which was led by Justice McDougall and which made some significant recommendations. Those matters moved at a glacial pace under the former Government. I want members opposite who made those disparaging remarks to look again at their comments, because I take offence to them.
Transcription in progress…
Search
Call 02 9909 2594
northshore@parliament.nsw.gov.au