WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION (PROTECTION FOR FIREFIGHTERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 November 2012.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (19:51): At this stage, the government opposes the Hon. Tammy Franks' proposed bill. On 5 November 2012, the Premier announced that career firefighters who contracted certain types of cancer would not have to prove the causation from their employment. The onus of proof would be on the employer to prove that the cancer was not caused by their job as a firefighter.

Overseas studies have shown that full-time firefighters are at greater risk of developing certain types of cancer, against other occupations, through direct exposure to carcinogens released by combusting materials. The state government values the important role our volunteer firefighters play in keeping our community safe and we have committed to look at whether volunteers may also be accommodated.

The government will consider the scientific evidence in relation to the types and lengths of exposure when considering whether volunteer firefighters' exposure to active firefighting and the related carcinogens is likely to be at a level that would also make it appropriate to reverse the onus of proof. The government believes that the scientific evidence will need to be clear, if volunteers are to be included.

It is worth noting that even Adam Bandt, the federal Greens MP who introduced the bill on this matter in the federal parliament, did not support the inclusion of volunteers at this time. He stated in Hansard on 31 October last year that '...if it is the case that, at some later stage, volunteer firefighters consider they can mount a similar, science based case to be included in this, then they are in a position to do that.'

Monash University is conducting a study of cancer, mortality and other possible health outcomes in South Australian and New Zealand firefighters, including how best to consider career and volunteer firefighters with respect to their exposure. The government will consider this, along with other science-based evidence.

A new regulation to address firefighter cancer is expected to be enacted by 1 July 2013, which will provide the government with enough time to investigate its options. Irrespective of this being applied to professional or volunteer firefighters, it cannot be retrospective.

Finally, it is important to note that no firefighter—whether full-time or volunteer—is precluded from lodging a worker's compensation claim under the current arrangement nor under the proposed changes. Under the current arrangement, any claim would simply be considered under the usual requirement of establishing that the injury occurred due to firefighting services.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (19:54): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to speak to the second reading of the bill. The Liberal Party has not resolved a position finally in relation to this bill but, unlike the government's position, we will support the second reading of the bill to allow the continuation of debate during the committee stage. We have indicated a willingness to support any vote at the second reading today but will indicate now that we are not prepared tonight, if the mover decided to proceed to a third reading, to support the bill at the third reading stage.

The brief history of this from my viewpoint is that, on 5 November, the Premier and the Treasurer announced that the government was going to introduce changes to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to recognise specific cancers that they said worldwide research had recognised as being more prevalent in firefighters, and the Premier's announcement, as has been indicated by other speakers, was limited to MFS firefighters and failed to extend to volunteer firefighters.

As one might expect, there has been a very strong negative response from volunteers to the government's decision. I have a copy of a letter from Sonia St Alban, Executive Director of the CFS Volunteers Association to the shadow treasurer, Iain Evans. In that letter, she says:

The Premier's announcement is totally unacceptable and has created a great deal of anger amongst CFS volunteers who give their time generously to protect communities across South Australia and assist the MFS at times of high demand. CFS volunteers contribute not only their time, but also the expense of travelling to stations, telephone calls and other incidentals for which they receive no recompense.

In further correspondence to my office, the CFS Volunteers Association has indicated that:

(a) The Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act as it currently stands recognises volunteer fire fighters and provides them with the same protection as paid fire fighters, and therefore should presumptive illness be awarded to MFS firefighters it will create a system that discriminates against volunteer fire fighters, although under many circumstances, they all perform the same duties.

(b) Studies conducted in various countries unanimously concur that firefighters have a higher probability of contracting one of 12 specific cancers.

(c) MFS and CFS firefighters attend similar if not the same incidents which means exposure to the same hazards and toxic fumes as fire does not discriminate.

(d) Whilst the CFS is often perceived as a 'bush fire' response group, that is far from true, as CFS volunteers are located in areas throughout the Adelaide Hills and the northern suburbs and include brigades at Tea Tree Gully and Salisbury—which are certainly not rural areas. Incidents attended by the CFS include hazmat, vehicle accidents and structure fires.

(e) The Premier's announcement has many volunteers questioning their value and worth as volunteers.

(f) The use of the term 'professional' by the Premier in relation to MFS firefighters has raised the ire of many volunteers who rightly consider volunteers to be professional, as remuneration is hardly a benchmark for professionalism.

I must say that that last point has been a consistent theme from volunteers: outright anger at in essence what they see as the Premier's dismissal of them as being unprofessional, by inference. That is, by referring to the MFS as 'professional firefighters', the CFS volunteers, by inference, have taken great offence at Premier Jay Weatherill's approach to this particular issue, as this letter to my office indicates. Clearly, as we see from the contribution of the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars this evening, he is supporting his Premier's position in relation to this issue.

On behalf of volunteers, and those who represent volunteers, I pass on advice to the Hon. Mr Kandelaars and to the Premier that the distinction between the MFS and the CFS by the use of the term 'professional' has created great anger and perhaps is something that the Premier may well like to reconsider in his further discussions on this and related legislation.

Within our party room there is considerable sympathy from a number of members for, firstly, the notion of providing some additional assistance, as announced by the government, in relation to MFS firefighters and also in relation to the point made by volunteers that, if it is to be provided to the MFS firefighters, then there is an equivalent argument for that same level of assistance or recognition be provided to at least some if not all CFS firefighters as well.

That was announced by the Premier on 5 November. Almost two weeks later, on 14 November the Hon. Tammy Franks introduced this bill into the Legislative Council; so, nine or 10 days after the Premier's announcement, the Hon. Tammy Franks introduced this bill. As she outlined in her second reading, she had been working on this bill for quite some time, and as I understand it, actually had confidential discussions with the government, or its representatives, in relation to the proposition of introducing some version of legislation. The Hon. Tammy Franks is obviously in a better position to know the precise nature of the discussions that she had with the government representatives, but she indicated in her contribution that she had been working on it for some time, and then the government went ahead and made this announcement on 5 November.

I am the shadow minister responsible for this particular area. I understand from a discussion with the Hon. Tammy Franks that some weeks ago she had a discussion on the issue with a member of the Liberal parliamentary party room, Peter Treloar. As the shadow minister for workers compensation, I have carriage of the legislation, so my first exposure to the thoughts behind this particular issue was on or just after 14 November, when the Hon. Tammy Franks introduced the legislation.

So, from our viewpoint, just on two weeks later, coming to a final conclusion on the bill it was impossible for us; well, it was easy enough I guess. If we do come to a final conclusion we will have to vote against it at the third reading today, however, given that we do not have enough evidence or have not had enough consultation with all stakeholders in relation to the issue.

There is enough support within the parliamentary Liberal Party to support the second reading to allow continued discussion of this, with the possibility of some members in this chamber next year moving amendments if need be in the committee stage and, ultimately, we reserve our position on the third reading as to whether we support this bill or oppose it, as it appears would be the government's position, given the statements from the Hon. Mr Kandelaars, the Premier and other ministers over the last few days.

I think the other important issue in relation to this—and I do not think we can gloss over it too quickly—is that WorkCover is a cot case in South Australia at the moment. After more than 10 years of Labor government mismanagement in South Australia, there has been a report tabled in the last 48 hours in this parliament from the tripartisan occupational health and safety committee of the parliament which highlights the fact that in just over 10 years we have gone from a position of an unfunded liability of around about $50 million to an unfunded liability of $1.4 billion and climbing. With that, sadly, we also have the worst return to work rates for injured workers in the country and the highest premiums; and, as I said, it is a legislative administrative cot case in terms of the administration of the scheme.

So, any decision that a parliament takes which potentially adds to the financial challenges for the scheme need to be fully considered. There is nothing so far in the debate from either the mover or, indeed, from the government (which is opposing it at this stage) to indicate what WorkCover says is the impact of the government's scheme, to be fair, which is just to limit it to MFS but also to extend it to CFS firefighters as well. Certainly from the Liberal Party's viewpoint, and potentially from an alternative government's viewpoint, we do not believe you should make decisions like this before you actually get the facts; that is, WorkCover needs to indicate to members in this chamber what the impact might be of both the government's move and the extension of that in this scheme.

I have heard some who are supporting the extension of the scheme to both MFS and CFS firefighters saying it will have very little impact and there will be only a limited number of firefighters who will be caught up in the new provisions. I am not in a position to dispute that because I do not know whether that is the case or not, but we need to have that evidence provided to the committee before we sign off on something. As I said, you have a scheme which is a cot case, it is haemorrhaging as we speak and climbing to an unfunded liability of $1.4 billion, so the parliament needs to have the facts before it signs off on anything which might add to the financial challenges of the scheme.

The other point I would make—and I do this just as a personal and individual point: I do not at this stage indicate that anyone other than myself necessarily raises this issue—is that I start from a principle that I need to be convinced as to the good sense of just making an assumption that because someone has a particular nominated cancer (this is, in essence, the whole argument for the government's bill, which we have not seen yet) it is automatically assumed to have come from having fought a fire.

The facts as I see them from those who support the bill are that a number of studies worldwide have highlighted the evidence that firefighters have had much higher percentages of certain cancers than others in the general community. I think the Hon. Tammy Franks has highlighted, and so has a Senate committee report, some of those studies. Certainly that is evidence which would indicate that, for a number of firefighters, their job has potentially created the conditions for the contracting of cancer.

Again, we have not seen the government's bill, which makes it difficult, but I would imagine it is going to be structured relatively similarly to the bill from the Hon. Tammy Franks but that is just an assumption. The issue that you can automatically make an assumption that because you have got a certain type of cancer it has come from firefighting is a huge jump, and I think even the proponents have to concede that in some cases that will not be correct. In some cases, there will be a firefighter who gets a particular cancer who may well have contracted it from any number of other causes.

I do not think that anyone could dispute that that is a potential fact in relation to some cancers contracted by some firefighters, because the studies have basically indicated that there is a higher percentage of certain cancers amongst firefighters than others. But, equally, any number of other lifestyles choices, or indeed even work choices—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Not that WorkChoices?

The Hon. M. Parnell: He's brought back WorkChoices!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: A small 'w', as opposed to a capital 'W'—prior to being a firefighter or in the case of—well, not necessarily just in the case of the CFS, because if one looks at the MFS, there are a number of firefighters who have other occupations and jobs as well. Having been associated with the West Adelaide Football Club, I know full well that some MFS firefighters not only play football, they have other occupations in addition to being an MFS employee as well.

So, it is clearly a possibility that a firefighter who contracts one of these cancers has got it from his or her work (that is, firefighting), or it is possible that a firefighter might have got it from some other cause as well. I do not think anyone can dispute that. The government's proposal suggests that they have obviously been quite comfortable to jump that particular step.

The Hon. Tammy Franks says, 'Well, if you're going to do it for MFS, it should be equal for the CFS,' and some of the correspondence from the volunteers says the same thing. In essence, it says, 'If you're going to do it for the MFS, you have to do it, in our view, for the CFS as well.' I am putting forward a personal view; this is not a Liberal Party view because, as I said, there is considerable sympathy from a number of members in our party room for jumping this principle for both MFS and CFS firefighters. But, I think it is a point that is worth discussion and debate in relation to this particular issue.

If we do it for this, do we then for WorkCover do it for a range of other occupations in relation to reversing the onus? If you get something and you happen to work in a certain occupation, and that occupation can demonstrate that there is a higher percentage of cancers, then is it automatically assumed? We have seen a recent debate with ABC TV employees in Queensland, I think, where there was a much higher percentage of a particular type of cancer, to the extent where they actually had to close down that particular location for a period of time. That is a specific example, but there are probably—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am just diverted, Mr Acting President, with that intrusion. I am sure I was making a powerful point, but it has completely gone now.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: It was.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, exactly; I just can't remember what it was now. Had I got past work choices? But, anyway, I think the point I was making was in relation to some recent publicity about the ABC facilities in Queensland, where there was a major campaign from the ABC Staff Association in relation to the much higher percentage of cancers. There are a number of other examples like that.

Ultimately, I think if we are going to make this jump where we say collectively as a parliament that we are going to just assume, for a number of occupations, that if you get this particular type of cancer or disease then it is automatically assumed that you got it from your work, even though you might have been exposing yourself to carcinogens or other hazardous substances in either your private environment, your previous work environment, or a second work environment whilst you have been working as an MFS or CFS firefighter.

So, I think that is an issue that warrants further debate, certainly within our party room, before we come to a final landing on it, and a debate in this parliament before we sign off or not sign off on the legislation. The open invitation that I, on behalf of the Liberal Party, put to all stakeholders involved in this is to put a point of view to certainly Liberal members in relation to this issue.

As I have said, it is not just an issue for the firefighters, although it is obviously of pre-eminent importance for them. We have written to stakeholders, such as business and industry groups and others, because ultimately, if it increases the cost of the scheme, it will be employers and many other stakeholders who will have to pay the increased premiums relative to other possibilities to provide the additional benefits envisaged under the government's bill and under this bill as well.

It may well be that the parliament, including my party room, believes that, if there is an additional cost, that is a cost well worth meeting. If there is an additional element to the unfunded liability, that is an implication that is worth the parliament accepting. I do not rule out the fact that my own party room may well come to that conclusion after it has had the opportunity to get feedback from other stakeholders.

In the relatively short time since 14 November, the only two groups that have responded to the Liberal Party have been the volunteer firefighters who, obviously, for many months have been actively engaged in this debate, and Business SA, which says it had not been but it gave us a very quick response in relation to the bill.

I guess that, to be fair to Business SA, we should indicate that it has evidently been told that the government is engaged in what I do not think it says is a root and branch review but a substantial review of the WorkCover scheme and the workers compensation legislation in South Australia. Having been told that by representatives of the government, it believes that this issue should not proceed at this stage but should proceed when the government comes back with its comprehensive package of changes to the WorkCover scheme.

Indeed, I think that the Premier, at the Labor Party Convention in about October, indicated that he was wanting to have another look at WorkCover. I guess the government does not believe that it did enough damage in the last round in terms of 2008 and its management for the last 10 years; it is going to have another go at it in the period leading up to the election, or perhaps make promises in the period leading up to the election, in an attempt to curry favour with groups the government may well have upset over recent years with its recent positions on the legislation.

Certainly, Business SA, having been told this has said, 'If the government is going to introduce a comprehensive package of changes, this ought to be considered as part of that comprehensive package of changes.' It may well be that the Hon. Tammy Franks, in responding, can indicate whether she has seen a draft government bill; we certainly have not. It may well be the fact that the government has announced it in November but it is delaying it until next year because maybe it does have a package of changes which will incorporate this as just one element of the package of changes, and perhaps we will see that package changes in the February session if that is the case.

With that, we indicate that we are prepared to support the second reading to allow continued debate on the bill, but we will be voting to either report progress immediately after the second reading vote or clause 1 of the committee stage of the bill. If, however, a vote was forced on the third reading tonight, we would be forced into a position of having to vote against the third reading, not because at this stage we want to but because at this stage we are not in a position to have formed a final judgement on the third reading.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (20:19): I commend the Greens, the Hon. Tammy Franks in particular, for taking the initiative on this issue. I can see no reason why those who volunteer their time and risk their lives for the benefit of the community should be treated any differently from paid firefighters in terms of eligibility for workers compensation.

CFS volunteers play a vital role in emergency situations not only in this state but across the whole of Australia. Those who are willing to put up their hand and offer their assistance should not be penalised if later in life they suffer from an illness as horrendous as cancer as a result of their voluntary work. I would be interested to know, either from the government or from the Hon. Tammy Franks, whether any sort of cost analysis has been done on this issue. Notwithstanding that, I will be supporting the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (20:20): I wish to put on the record very briefly Dignity for Disability's support for the Hon. Ms Franks' private member's bill. Indeed, I also congratulate her on this initiative. While the government had the opportunity also to support protection for our volunteer CFS firefighters when the Premier made this big announcement in November, it did not.

CFS firefighters provide an extraordinary service to our community, particularly in country and regional areas. Every time there is a fire or other incident in an area not serviced by the MFS, these volunteers disrupt their lives and, indeed, risk their lives, often leaving their paid work or hauling themselves out of bed in the middle of the night to protect or assist us or the rest of the community. Not showing them the respect of giving them the same protection and acknowledgement of their work as their paid MFS colleagues is, I believe, highly offensive and very disappointing.

In fact, I have to say that I was particularly infuriated by what I see as blatant cheek on the government's part by responding to a Dorothy Dixer question today, when we were told what a wonderful job this government has done in terms of promoting and protecting volunteers, especially when the government is surely aware of just how much community outrage there is about this. I personally found that particularly offensive, so I cannot imagine what the people who are volunteer firefighters will feel when they read today's Hansard and that particular section.

I would also like to add that, from my personal perspective, I was appointed to this chamber with the core business of protecting and promoting the rights of people with disabilities and, where relevant, people with chronic and disabling illness, and I do not see why cancer cannot be classified as such, so I certainly feel obligated to support this bill on that front. I will also say that I consider the government's approach of not supporting this bill as quite contradictory to the philosophy that the government has purported to support under the incoming National Disability Insurance Scheme.

We have been told by the government time and again that this is all about creating autonomy and the right to self-determination and so on for people with disabilities. I believe the reason the scheme needs to be implemented is that for so long those rights have not been implemented for people with disabilities, as they have to people without disabilities. I believe that this should be an opportunity for the government to start providing the same rights to all people.

I consider it very hypocritical to start saying that from now on, regardless of how you acquire your disability, you are eligible for the same protection, for the same services, for the same rights and so on and yet not apply that same philosophy to people who contract cancer because they undertake the work from a different position. To me, that is blatantly hypocritical and against that philosophy. Again, it really calls into question, to my mind, the government's true commitment to those philosophies.

I also have to raise the point that personally if I were dragged out of a burning building (or whatever else it may be) by a firefighter I would not care in any way whatsoever whether that firefighter were a volunteer or a so-called professional—although I would argue that volunteers are also professional because they have a lot more training in fighting fires than I do, so I do not feel that I have the right to discriminate on those grounds either.

I would not care if they were labelled as a volunteer or a professional; and, quite frankly, I would take personal offence if I were to find out that—and, I guess, in this context it is appropriate to use these words—my hero had acquired an illness from saving me from that incident. I would take it as a personal hurt and feel great sorrow if I knew that that person to whom I owed that great debt was not eligible for the same protections, regardless of the fact that they risked their life to save mine, and I believe that I am not the only person in the community who feels that way—I would certainly hope not, at least.

I commend the second reading of this bill to the chamber and sincerely hope that it gets the support of the council. Of course, it seems that this bill is not going to at this stage, but I must say that it would be particularly good to see support from the members of the old parties since they seem to be enjoying being in cahoots with each other on a number of issues today.

The last point I will make is to reiterate one that was made at the press conference that the Hon. Ms Franks held when she first went to the media about this particular bill. I am afraid I cannot recall exactly who said it, and I am paraphrasing them, so perhaps the Hon. Ms Franks can assist me a little here.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Evelyn O'Loughlin.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: She has already jumped the gun; I think she knows precisely what I am about to say.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: The CEO of Volunteering SA&NT.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Yes. When fires and smoke that can cause damage from inhalation, and so on, and when those things have the ability to discriminate between volunteer firefighters and professionals in terms of choosing not to make them ill, then we have the right to discriminate against them. Until then, we do not. I commend the bill.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (20:26): I also rise to indicate my support for the Hon. Tammy Franks' Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Protection for Firefighters) Amendment Bill 2012. In doing so, I join the honourable member's condemnation of this Labor government for not providing coverage to our invaluable Country Fire Service volunteers in its proposed regulation under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to reverse the onus of proof when claiming compensation for fire-related cancers.

Our federal counterparts have undertaken a comprehensive review of the scientific literature through the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, and expressed in their report their confidence that the causative link between firefighting and an increased incidence of certain cancers had been demonstrated beyond doubt. In recognition of this, the government seeks to be the first in the nation to presume that certain cancers contracted by a paid firefighter who has served for a qualifying period have been caused by the inhalation of carcinogens while extinguishing certain fires. The honourable member's bill, however, would rightly extend the same coverage to volunteer firefighters and preserve the equality they currently enjoy under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

South Australia has long recognised volunteer firefighters as workers for the purposes of that act and in doing so has extended coverage to them for injuries sustained whilst serving their communities, yet the government seeks to renege on this recognition and only provide protection to their paid Metropolitan Fire Service counterparts for work-related cancers. Carcinogens do not discriminate, and certainly not on whether one is paid. CFS volunteers in our regional and rural areas fight the same types of fires as the Metropolitan Fire Service—and, as was made plain by Ms Sonia St Alban, the Executive Director of the CFS, at the press conference I was invited to attend by the Hon. Tammy Franks, they often fight fires alongside their metropolitan counterparts.

There is simply no logical rationale for excluding them from this scheme. Under this bill, to be eligible firefighters—be they paid or not—will be required to have actively served for a qualifying period of varying length depending on the primary site of the cancer they have been diagnosed with. As an example, a firefighter who is diagnosed with primary site bladder cancer will be presumed to be covered under the act if they have actively served for 15 years.

Whilst we are yet to see the government's schedule of cancers and the qualifying period of service required for the onus to be reversed, I have no reason to believe it will vary greatly from that proposed in the bill before us. So, to be eligible, volunteers must commit a significant portion of their non-professional lives to the CFS and to the protection of our rural communities. For the government to somehow distinguish their service over such periods from that of their metropolitan counterparts is offensive, to say the least.

Yes, we will be the first state to provide presumptive coverage to firefighters with certain cancers, however, this is no excuse to be cautious and discriminate against volunteers. We should be setting an example for all other states. I, like the Hon. Kelly Vincent, can barely cope with the hypocritical attitude of this government. The spray that the Hon. Mr Hunter led against me during question time, stating that I do not value volunteers in this state, yet where is he on this issue? How hard is he fighting for the rights of our CFS workers to be treated equally?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: We will not even go near WorkCover and the hypocrisy of this government. That is a whole other five-hour speech.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: We will not go there. I am sure there will be plenty of opportunity to do so, though. So, I support the Hon. Tammy Franks and the intention of the bill. I believe this government is obligated to live up to the rhetoric and truly support our volunteers in meaningful ways, not with cheap words in this place, but through action. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (20:31): I support the second reading of the bill. I am not sure what is to be gained by going to a third reading this evening, given that there will be legislation with regard to this next year, I assume, whether it be part of a broader package or not, given that the government has announced it. The studies and the evidence is so clear about the increased risk of firefighters to certain cancers that, rightly so, the government has acknowledged that in its decision.

It does seem extraordinarily incongruous and, frankly, inexplicable as to why CFS firefighters would not have the same sort of exposure, given that CFS firefighters in many large towns attend house or business fires, chemical spills and road accidents and, of course, fight bushfires. So, apart from the fact that they might not be dealing with a towering inferno skyscraper situation, which mercifully is extremely rare anyway, it is hard to see how the exposure or the potential risk is different between MFS firefighters and CFS firefighters. I assume the MFS continues to employ part-time firefighters in country areas, who are—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Two hundred and twenty of them.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Two hundred and twenty of them, I am advised by the honourable mover of the bill, and I assume those people would be covered. Now, they are paid, but they are volunteers. You volunteer for the army, it does not mean you do not get paid. The pure fact of paid or unpaid should not be the determining factor because country cities rely very much on those part-time people and I very much doubt that a lot of them are doing it solely for the remuneration because that is not necessarily what motivates people to get out of bed in the middle of the night and attend house fires, it is also that they want to be of service to their community.

Those people are very important in the service that they provide, and I am assuming they would be covered by the government announcement, so it is hard to see how CFS volunteers would be different. I appreciate that there will be an opportunity next year to put more evidence and information forward with regard to this so that all honourable members can consider it further.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:34): I do also note that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire was going to make a contribution this evening, but I am sure that he will be able to do so in clause 1. I thank those members who have made a contribution tonight: the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, the Hon. Rob Lucas, the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. Kelly Vincent and the Hon. Ann Bressington.

I first address some of the points made. I take heart from the commencing sentence of the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars' speech on behalf of the government, where he said that at this stage the government is not in a position to support the bill that we have before us, which of course would provide coverage for not only the government's announced 'full-time paid professional firefighters' but also other firefighters in this state. I do not choose to use the word 'professional' when I refer to firefighters in this state. They are all professional, whether they are unpaid or paid. We have chosen to delineate the terms 'career' and 'volunteer', but they are both professional groups.

I note that there has been concern raised by some in the community that the government's announcement perhaps does not apply to retained firefighters within the MFS. Certainly I look for some clarity from government in their announcement on that. There are more than 1,100 staff in the MFS across 36 stations (20 metropolitan and 16 regional) in South Australia, and I understand that that workforce includes 885 full-time and 220 retained firefighters and non-operational management and support staff.

What I would re-emphasise here tonight is that this bill applies to firefighters. It does not apply to somebody who is not engaged in the act of fighting fires. Indeed, it would not cover cancers in terms of the reversal of the onus of proof for all of those MFS employees. It would only cover the firefighters. I do look for clarity from government about whether permanent and retained firefighters will be covered by their legislation. I also note the use of the word 'full-time'. Again, that raises some concerns, not only with me but also from others in the community who have expressed these reservations to me.

What I would say with regards to the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars' speech is that the Greens member for Melbourne, who in fact instigated this bill at a federal level unsuccessfully, had always wanted firefighters who were volunteers and career firefighters to be covered. He was not able to get the numbers on that. I do see that I do not have the numbers for a third reading vote on this bill tonight, so I indicate to members that I will not be progressing beyond the second reading, but I welcome the fact that people have been open to the debate and supportive of hearing the arguments.

What I would say about that federal bill is that the nature of the volunteer firefighting that that bill looked at with regard to the jurisdiction that the commonwealth parliament has was in fact very different to the nature of the fires fought in this state by the CFS. While they have the name the CFS, which of course stands for Country Fire Service, that is a misnomer because, as we have heard tonight, and as you will hear no doubt in coming months, Salisbury and Tea Tree Gully are hardly the country. Indeed, in the country it is not only grassfires and bushfires that those firefighters deal with.

The incidents that the CFS deals with in this state, as has been identified by several speakers, include hazmat incidents, of which there were 204 in the past financial year. There were 423 structure incidents and there were 2,534 vehicle related incidents. CFS firefighters were involved in 8,883 incidents in the 2010-11 year alone. That is an enormous contribution that those 13,500 CFS volunteers make. In fact, it is 280,858 hours' worth of unpaid labour—and very difficult labour, as I have said before—saving person and property. The benefits of the CFS to this state are enormous and certainly, in any debate of costs, those benefits must be weighed against the cost of any support for a scheme.

I thank the Hon. Rob Lucas for his very honest contribution that he is not in a position personally to support further debate on this bill, but I certainly appreciate that the Liberal Party has been very supportive publicly and in campaigning on this issue. They have, quite rightly, realised that this is something that South Australians care about and that there is a lot of community anger about.

Rob Lucas identifies quite rightly that the big jump in logic here, and the big jump that this parliament has to make, is accepting the science that these cancers are related to the act of firefighting. I commend the government for having made that jump and for having undertaken the work they did, obviously based on the work of the initial bill of the Greens' member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, and the Senate inquiry that followed that; however, I do commend them for having taken that first step.

As I said in my previous speech, they have taken a misstep by not including the CFS in this instance, and I do hope that that misstep will be soon corrected. The Hon. John Darley quite rightly also identifies that costings are something that would be useful to have in this debate. As a private member bringing this bill before the parliament, I do not have those, which is why I had sought to work with government on this issue and why I had hoped to have a cross-party consensus on a scheme that we could be proud of as South Australians that covered not only the MFS but also the CFS. I would welcome any support that government can provide with costings.

I would also point to areas such as the emergency services levy as logical places that could be looked at in terms of ensuring that we are able to recognise the contribution the CFS makes. I thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent and the Hon. Ann Bressington for their passion and strength of support for this measure right from the start. Also, the member for Frome, Geoff Brock, has been a very strong supporter, and I worked in the early stages on this bill with the member for Flinders and the member for Finniss, who attended the press conference hat I held.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: That's a worry!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I won't comment on internal Liberal matters, but I have certainly had wide-ranging support from many members of the opposition, and for that I am very grateful. I would like to draw members' attention to the reaction to the government's original announcement and also to the Greens' bill we have before us at the moment. One CFS volunteer has written:

It is quite disappointing to hear that CFS fire-fighters are not included in this new Act. I am a volunteer fire fighter at the Two Wells CFS brigade and I take offence to the notion that we are not perceived as professional fire fighters. We are an unpaid, highly professional alternative to the paid MFS fire service, providing a professional service to local communities and are extremely disappointed we have been left out of this Act.

Another writes:

I would like to know if us CFS volunteers ('who cost the government very little' compared to if the government had to pay a full time fire service across the whole state) breathe in different toxins and smoke when we go to the same fires as our metropolitan fire service colleagues, as well as all the other fires across the remaining 90% of the state.

Another writes:

I am a volunteer fire fighter. I have been a member of the Region 2 Operations Support Brigade for about six years and previously a front line fire fighter with the One Tree Hill Brigade for four years. As I am retired my response to call outs has been uninhibited by work schedules and my hours of duty particularly in the summer months are considerable. I have often been deployed by strike team, to many places outside of my region and was also deployed to Victoria during the Black Saturday fires in addition to my Brigade responses. I have never been a smoker but the amount of smoke I have absorbed over many hours must be considerable. It distresses me to think of the volunteers who have been self-sacrificing for thirty years or more who may feel exploited.

The volunteers in my brigade are employed, run their own businesses or are retired from the paid workforce. They usually drop whatever they are doing when paged to a fire. Regardless of their rank, position, duties or perceived importance, none expect any reward. No pay what so ever.

What I have noticed, is that all my volunteer team members, without exception, do not like to be devalued. For the government to suggest one must be an MFS fire fighter to experience conditions that may lead to specific cancers, beggars belief. MFS fire fighters are all supplied with breathing apparatus, we have only a few teams of volunteers trained and supplied with protective breathing apparatus. Our CFS Hazmat crews encounter the same dangerous chemicals and conditions. Volunteer fire fighters, (without breathing apparatus), spend 12 hour shifts breathing in dense smoke. One can get an eye wash, but one cannot wash the dangerous residue out of the lungs.

Another letter stated:

I would like to see the benefits afforded under the Protection for Firefighters - Amendment Bill 2012 extended to include all active volunteer firefighting members of the South Australian Country Fire Service.

Firefighters, both paid and volunteer, are exposed to various contaminants and chemicals through breathing and skin contact, and these contaminants and chemicals do not discern whether or not a firefighter is paid. So why limit the benefits to paid firefighters only?

The frequency of exposure is likely to be less with SA CFS members as SA CFS attends fewer calls to incidents where exposure is likely. However SA CFS members do attend such incidents from time to time and the risk of exposure is still present.

SA CFS members face extreme danger from many types of incidents, particularly wild fires, but also from hazardous chemical spills, fuel spills, structure fires and others. It is the governments responsibility to put in place health and safety policies to ensure that these volunteers are protected in exactly the same way as paid fire fighters.

How can a government discriminate based on whether a fire fighter is paid or not? SA CFS volunteers support and protect the South Australian community and save the South Australian Government millions every year by not having to pay wages and benefits to a paid fire fighter service in urban interface and rural areas. Come on, please look after them!

I am sure members will receive many such pieces of correspondence and phone calls over the summer months when it is always made patently clear to us just how much we need the CFS. In conclusion, I pay tribute to a CFS volunteer who I met with last week. His name is John Ames, and he is a voluntary firefighter who is currently suffering from oesophageal cancer and is in the Mary Potter Hospice. John has been a volunteer firefighter for some 15 years. He was also a veteran. He does not have a smoking history and there is no cancer history in his family, yet he has oesophageal cancer. Luckily for him the fact that he is a veteran means that he has not had to battle to have his medical needs met and the costs addressed.

He is aware that this bill, even in its current form, would not give him any compensation whatsoever, having only been—and I say 'only' sarcastically—a volunteer for some 15 years. In fact, under my bill he would need another 10 years of service before he would qualify, yet he wants to make sure that this bill is debated and passed, and he passes on that he wants his story told so that his workmates, colleagues and those who follow him can have the benefits of protection, will not have to fight for compensation, particularly when you are in the weakest moments of your life, after having contracted cancer.

With that, I understand that there is support in the chamber for a second reading vote, but I will not seek to push the bill further tonight. I sympathise with the concerns raised by the Hon. Rob Lucas that this is a very speedy debate. However, given the background of my attempts to work with the government on this, and then its announcement made that excluded volunteers, I thought it was a matter of such urgency that demanded not only this parliament's attention but also the exposure of the government's intent to the community. Over the summer months I imagine the community will have much to say on this bill, even if we have nothing further to say tonight.

Bill read a second time.