Premier’s office forced to quell backbench rebellion on workers’ compensation

More than a dozen Labor backbenchers were preparing to send a signed letter to Premier Chris Minns urging him to delay the introduction of the contentious workers’ compensation reform bill, but the correspondence was kiboshed at the eleventh hour after the premier’s office warned MPs against signing it.

The disquiet within the Labor caucus about Treasurer Daniel Mookhey’s plans to curtail access to the state’s workers’ compensation scheme came as the government faced an uphill battle in progressing the legislation through a hostile upper house on Thursday.

Opposition Leader Mark Speakman confirmed on Tuesday that the Coalition would oppose Mookhey’s compensation bill unless a series of amendments were accepted by the government. This included cutting a proposed new threshold for those with serious psychological injury to receive long-term support or claim damages.

Treasurer Daniel Mookhey claimed the Coalition’s amendments to the government’s workers compensation legislation would cost $1.9 billion.Credit: Sam Mooy

The increase of the Whole Person Impairment (WPI) has been widely panned by the unions, psychiatrists and the Greens as being unnecessarily severe. A parliamentary hearing last month heard that 27 of the hundreds of employees with a workplace psychological injury each year would be eligible to claim long-term benefits under the proposed threshold.

A Liberal source unauthorised to speak publicly about internal deliberations said besides the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers members and Legalise Cannabis MP Jeremy Buckingham, the crossbench in the Legislative Council appeared largely sympathetic to the Coalition’s position, leaving the likelihood the legislation would be pushed to a parliamentary inquiry.

Five Labor MPs speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive party matters said concerns about elements of the draft bill, the rushed legislative process and lack of detail provided to the caucus resulted in the circulation of a draft letter to Minns and Mookhey, calling for the introduction of the bill to be delayed.

One of the MPs described the letter as being dead on arrival because upper house MP Anthony D’Adam was perceived as being responsible for the correspondence, saying some backbenchers were wary of being associated with the outspoken MP.

“There’s an atmosphere around him as the resident troublemaker. If it was initiated by someone else, it might have had more success,” the MP said.

One backbencher said there were about 13 MPs prepared to sign the correspondence, but there were concerns the contents of the letter would be dismissed because the signatories were predominantly from the soft-left faction, and included backbenchers who were considered to be “troublemakers” by the premier’s office.

Those concerns resulted in the letter being circulated more broadly among senior members of the right faction. Soon after, a senior adviser in the premier’s office called most of the government’s backbench MPs, dissuading them from adding their signature to the correspondence.

“She monstered people,” one MP said of the calls.

A spokesperson for the premier denied there was anything untoward about the calls.

Concerns about the bill resulted in a meeting of about eight Labor MPs in parliament around 9pm on May 26, the Monday night before the bill was introduced. Some of those present were worried about the union movement’s public rebuke of the legislation.

One of the attendees described how news of the gathering appeared to reach Mookhey, who called one MP in the meeting to provide a briefing on the bill. The briefing was then broadcast on loudspeaker to all MPs present. But some felt their concerns had not been allayed because Mookhey did not address the issues “head on”.

A senior government source said: “MPs had a chance to have their say in the party room. The position on the bill was adopted unanimously by the caucus. It’s disappointing that someone is taking the debate outside the party room.”

On Wednesday morning, Mookhey warned that the Coalition’s amendment reducing the proposed WPI threshold would add $1.9 billion of “additional financial pressure to the scheme”.

“Ultimately, in the event that the Legislative Council and the Liberal Party decide not to act tomorrow, what they are endorsing is the status quo,” he said.

“The Liberal Party would be endorsing a broken system, knowing full well that it is broken, knowing full well that the price of that broken system is being paid by injured workers and businesses alike. Every day which we delay reform is a day in which the reform task becomes harder.”

Asked whether Labor MPs were given enough time and information to consider the legislation, Mookhey said he was “absolutely certain” some would have liked a longer timetable, but insisted he had undertaken seven separate consultations with the Labor caucus’ economics committee along with “multiple meetings” with MPs.

“I well and truly accept that for the Labor Party, of course, this is a difficult reform, and I respect every Labor caucus member’s right to agree or disagree with it … but I can simply say that the caucus did support these reforms, and they did support these reforms overwhelmingly,” he said.

Opposition Treasury spokesman Damien Tudehope said Mookhey had provided no modelling to support his $1.9 billion figure, and said he hoped the crossbench would support the Coalition’s amendments.

“It’s consistent with the way the treasurer treats not only the opposition, but treats the public generally, is that he never does his homework and just expects people to accept everything that he tells them,” he said.

“It is a moveable feast. I think [the Greens] are yet to decide on their position ... They are very unhappy with the process, so in those circumstances, we would certainly welcome their support.”

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.