House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Samfs Firefighters) Amendment Bill WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION (SAMFS FIREFIGHTERS) AMENDMENT BILL Final Stages Final Stages Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments. Amendments Nos 1 and 2: The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move: That the House of Assembly agrees with the amendments made by the Legislative Council. Motion carried. Amendment No. 3: The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move: That the House of Assembly disagrees with the amendment made by the Legislative Council and makes the following amendment in lieu thereof: Clause 4, page 3, after line 14 [clause 4(3)]—After inserted subsection (2a) insert: (2b)	If— (a)	a worker suffers an injury of a kind referred to in the first column of Schedule 2A; and (b)	the injury occurred on or after 1 July 2013; and (c)	before the injury occurred, the worker was presumptively employed by the Crown as a firefighter for the qualifying period referred to in the second column of Schedule 2A; and (d)	the worker was exposed to the hazards of a fire scene (including exposure to a hazard that occurred away from the scene) at least 175 times in any 5 year period during that employment, the worker's injury is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to have arisen from his or her presumptive employment by the Crown. Mr WILLIAMS House of Assembly Mr WILLIAMS: It was some weeks ago that we addressed this matter in this house and I remember at the time putting the position of the opposition to the Deputy Premier. Those of us on this side of the house fail to see how you can differentiate between somebody who fights fires on a continuing basis as a volunteer in the CFS as opposed to somebody who carries out the same work and faces the same hazards and risks to their own health as a fully paid member of the MFS or a retained MFS officer. As a consequence of the opposition maintaining that position, we supported the amendment that was moved to the government's bill in the other place. I remember saying distinctly, and I have not read the Hansard, in this place when we last addressed this matter that even though the government would not support the amendments that I moved in this place, at that time I believed the other place would support those or very similar amendments, and that is exactly what has happened. We remain convinced that there should not be a distinction between the treatment of one set of people and a second set of people simply because of the terms of their employment. We believe that if there is any distinction it should be about the level of risk that they face. The government is arguing that one group of people, because they are employed as professional firefighters, should be treated differently to a group who perform not dissimilar duties and face not dissimilar risks but are volunteers. I would have thought—and the opposition believes—that it is even more important that we give volunteers the level of cover that this bill proposes to give. The minister is proposing to come a little way. I have had discussions with the minister on this. Although I am not going to go into the content of private discussions that we have had, I just want the house to know that my position when representing the opposition, and the opposition's position, has always been that we cannot see why you would have a set of criteria which firefighters need to meet to qualify for this reversal of the onus of proof applying to one group and not applying to the other group. What we have argued consistently is that, if you are going to establish a reversal of the onus of proof—and there is some qualifying in the original bill insomuch as the years of service, we have accepted that and that seems to fit in with the studies that have been done on this matter, but the government is now saying, 'We will come some way to accommodate the CFS volunteers but they need to meet this other criteria.' My position on behalf of the opposition is that that would be fair and we would see that to be fair and equal if that very same criteria applied to everybody, whether they be a CFS volunteer or a full-time or retained officer within the MFS. The government has failed to argue why it does not find that an acceptable position. So I have to inform the house that the opposition's position has not changed. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: I rise to welcome the amendments from another place. Clearly, the Legislative Council has formed the view that people do need to be treated equally, that people do need to be recognised and respected for what they do, irrespective of whether or not they have a remunerative package associated with that contribution. I think it is quite unacceptable that the government still at this point is attempting to present another alternative to avoid recognising and respecting the people who are going out there and putting their lives at risk every day. I just find it reprehensible. I find it unacceptable. Just this week we have had two serious fires, where volunteers have been expected to go out and put their lives on the line in order to protect us and our property, and yet here we are on the last day of parliament and the government is still resisting what is, I think, an indefensible position, and that is to try to discriminate against those men and women who put their lives on the line for us. As we have said before and as I say again, those who are members of the Metropolitan Fire Service, whom the government decided were worthy of having consideration to the exclusion of all others, have made it absolutely clear that they have no issue with the men and women (their colleagues) in the Country Fire Service enjoying the same opportunity of the reverse onus of proof to enable them to be able to have easier access to a resource of compensation. Yet the government is still resistant. I think it is shameful of the government on their part. We are now going to be approaching another season of expectation by these people. I am just absolutely appalled at the government's resistance in this way. Let us look at the existence of the commonwealth position which is there, and of which there has been data clearly available on operating at the commonwealth level. We have had no presentation to us yet of any data from the commonwealth operation of this type of opportunity for the relaxing of the rules. So, the government, here on this closing day of parliament, should hang their heads in shame. Dr McFETRIDGE House of Assembly Dr McFETRIDGE: So I am not accused of histrionics, I would just like to ask a technical question of the minister; that is, both in the original bill and the amendment, it says, in paragraph (2a) subparagraph (d): during that period, the worker was exposed to the hazards of a fire scene (including exposure to a hazard of the fire... Does the definition of a fire scene include hazardous chemical incidents, flooding, car crashes, building collapses, or does there have to be flames and smoke involved in that? Can I just point out that the actuarial advice that has been given to the government is highly qualified. It says, 'We have provided maximum estimates, noting that they may overstate the costs considerably.' So, that is from the actuarial advice. This government should hang its head in shame. I tell you that the member for Light, the member for Newland and the member for Mawson had better start packing their bags because their CFS brigades are very, very angry about this. This will cost them their seats, and others, and I will make sure it does. Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN House of Assembly Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I just looked on my smartphone on the CFS app and, right now, there are six incidents that the CFS are attending in our state, as we speak, on a relatively low fire-risk day. Those volunteers who are out there, in their own time, on a weekday, trying to support people across our state, deserve exactly the same amount of workplace protection, medical insurance and health protection as any professional volunteer who might be doing the same thing at the moment. Where they do the same work, where they face the same risks, they deserve exactly the same support from our government. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will respond at the very end to all of that. Motion carried. Amendment No. 4: The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move: That the House of Assembly disagrees with the amendment made by the Legislative Council. Consequential amendments— That the House of Assembly makes the following consequential amendments: Clause 4, page 3, line 20 [clause 4(4), inserted subsection (3)(b)]—Delete 'subsection (2a)' and substitute 'subsections (2a) and (2b)' Clause 4, page 3, after line 32 [clause 4(5)]—After inserted subclause (4a) insert: (4b)	For the purposes of subsection (2b)— (a)	a worker is taken to have been presumptively employed by the Crown as a firefighter if the Crown was his or her presumptive employer under section 103A because he or she was a member of the South Australian Country Fire Service and voluntarily performed firefighting work in connection with that membership; and (b)	a person performs firefighting work if he or she engages in activity directed towards preventing, controlling or extinguishing a fire; and (c)	all of the attendances as a firefighter by a worker at any 1 fire scene on a particular day are to be taken to comprise 1 exposure to the hazards of a fire scene; and (d)	a worker who was employed for 2 or more periods that add up to or exceed the qualifying period is taken to have been employed for the qualifying period; and (e)	the qualifying period may include a period or periods that commenced or occurred before 1 July 2013. Very quickly, in relation to this, I just want to make a couple of points. First of all, the member for Morphett, just then, gave reference to the actuarial material about this. I hope everyone took notice of that. The member for Morphett had a copy of the actuarial materials from which he read just a moment ago. Dr McFetridge House of Assembly Dr McFetridge: Yes, read how qualified it is. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: Hang on. Dr McFetridge House of Assembly Dr McFetridge: Read how heavily qualified it is. Mr Gardner interjecting: The Chair House of Assembly The CHAIR: Order! The minister has the call. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: On 25 September, that material was available. I will let others work that out. Mr Gardner interjecting: The Chair House of Assembly The CHAIR: The member for Morialta will cease interjecting. Motion carried. [Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]