Tuesday 22nd of September 2020



BARRY O'Farrell's behaviour over the past week has been baffling.

Last Sunday, we carried a front page story revealing parliament's road safety advisory group was urging the government to consider extending school zone hours.

The Premier obviously had plans for his Sunday that didn't include having to deal with a potentially unpopular proposal. So, instead of batting the proposal away as a recommendation he wasn't so keen on, he took aim at The Sunday Telegraph.

Mr O'Farrell's strategy was simple: kill the story in its tracks so it didn't feature on radio news bulletins all day, and didn't get a run on the high-rating Sunday night TV news.

Mr O'Farrell told journalists that the story was 'BS' and speculated the source of the "inaccurate" story was Labor upper house MP Walt Secord.

He then trashed Sunday newspapers in general.

"I've talked to the chairman of the committee this morning, and surprisingly - this is my scepticism about other stories in the Sunday papers - there is no recommendation in his report to extend the hours of speed zones outside schools," he said.

With no other journalists having access to the yet-to-be published report, it was an easy kill, and his media strategy for that day stayed on course.

The problem for Mr O'Farrell is that the story was accurate. Two days later, on Tuesday, the report was tabled in parliament, and there it was: "Recommendation 18.


bazza speaks BS....

"He's the Premier who speaks BS" - the Sunday Telegraph editorial re Barry O'Farrell http://t.co/LanDhq63

more premier bullshit...

"The changes simply mean if the parliament passes the laws, the laws come into effect from the day the government signs off on them and from that moment on they take effect."

Mr O'Farrell compared it to speeding fines.

"You find the week after we put them up the people who got fined two weeks earlier do it under the other regime," he told ABC Radio.The Legislative Assembly voted 65 to 24 to pass the coalition's plan to rein in WorkCover's deficit of more than $4 billion.

The changes are expected to go before the state's upper house by the end of the week.

Unions NSW secretary Mark Lennon said Mr O'Farrell's claim that the changes were not retrospective demonstrated that he didn't understand the legislation.

"This is cruel, retrospective legislation that pulls the rug from under sick and injured workers," Mr Lennon said in a statement."We know of specific cases where grieving widows who were set to seek compensation for nervous shock will now be denied the right to even make a claim."

Mr Lennon pointed to schedule 12, clause three of the new laws, which he said clearly stated the changes could be applied retrospectively.Sydney-based personal injury lawyer Ivan Simic agreed that the laws were retrospective and workers who'd made claims under the old regime would be immediately affected.

"It's going to affect the vast majority," he said.

"The starting point for the legislation is that it applies to all injuries and claims that were made before the date of the commencement of the Act."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/ofarrell-denies-plan-to-rein-in-4-billion-workcover-deficit--is-retrospective--lawyers-say-hes-wrong-20120620-20myv.html#ixzz1yJai8wCf