WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION (SAMFS FIREFIGHTERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 September 2013.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:06): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to support the second reading of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SAMFS Firefighters) Amendment Bill. The government has introduced this bill following its commitment to reverse the onus of proof under the WorkCover scheme on full-time firefighters who develop certain cancers. There has been a long and detailed debate in the House of Assembly on the issue.

The government's original bill did not include CFS volunteers, but the government has now drafted amendments which would include the CFS volunteers in the scheme. The government's amendment would reverse the onus of proof under the WorkCover scheme for CFS volunteers who have attended more than 175 fires over a five-year period and who develop certain cancers. The amendment does not include retained MFS workers.

The Liberal Party's position, I think, would be best summarised if I can quote a press statement released today by the member for Bragg (the shadow minister for emergency services) and the member for Morphett (the shadow minister for volunteers). Under the heading of 'CFS volunteers call for cancer cover', those two members say:

The State Liberals will today receive a petition signed by 10,000 volunteers calling for CFS volunteers who contract cancer while working to be provided the same protection as paid firefighters.

The Country Fire Service Volunteers Association will present the petitions to Shadow Minister for Emergency Services Vickie Chapman and Shadow Minister for Volunteers Duncan McFetridge on the steps of Parliament House at 12...o'clock.

'The State Liberals support volunteers and we have supported proposed changes to bring volunteers in line with paid firefighters,' Ms Chapman said. 'Unfortunately the Weatherill Labor government has failed to support volunteer firefighters but hopefully this petition makes them wake up.'

Dr McFetridge said that CFS volunteers who risk their lives across the State must be supported. 'We need to ensure our thousands of volunteer firefighters receive the same protection as our hard working paid firefighters,' Dr McFetridge said. 'Cancer does not discriminate between volunteers and paid firefighters.'

As I said, the statement from the member for Bragg and the member for Morphett, on behalf of the Liberal Party, summarises the Liberal Party's position on the legislation.

There are a series of amendments to be considered in the committee stage of the debate. We will address those amendments when we get to the committee stage of the debate, but I indicate at this stage that the Liberal Party supports the second reading of the legislation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:09): When we think about victims of fire, our thoughts usually turn to those who tragically lose their life as an immediate consequence of smoke inhalation or heat exposure. What we often do not think about are the less immediate and obvious victims who may be affected by cancer decades after these events through exposure to the toxic carcinogens released through fire. Firefighters have a higher rate of cancer than the general population. According to the current scientific body of knowledge, this can be attributed to their exposure to carcinogens found in both structural and environmental fires.

This government bill seeks to ensure that we as a state have better WorkCover protection for career firefighters. I note that the government has begrudgingly tabled an amendment in this chamber, which it did not put forward in the other place, to give some protections for CFS firefighters but certainly not on a parity with career firefighters.

The Greens note that it is important to protect all firefighters. We need better protections not just for career firefighters but also for volunteer firefighters. That is why we have previously put up a private member's bill on this issue and why in this debate we move to amend the government bill to protect not just some but all firefighters. They will fall under the strict criteria set by the schedule in the bill.

There are no illusions here that somebody signs up for the CFS one day and then the next day qualifies for the provisions in this bill. Indeed, there are periods of service as a firefighter for a minimum of five years—but in some cases and for some cancers a maximum barrier of 25 years—to qualify for these particular presumptive protections. We do not believe that the schedule should discriminate between paid and unpaid, career and volunteer. We do not believe that there should be additional barriers put in front of CFS firefighters as the government amendment to its own bill seeks to do.

This bill before us, of course, has as its forerunner the federal act which began as the Greens member for Melbourne Adam Bandt's Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The Greens' bill at that commonwealth level drew on the substantial scientific body of evidence based on the examination of firefighters across the world. The accompanying and extensive senate inquiry recommended that Australian firefighters should have the same coverage as firefighters in other jurisdictions overseas, most notably Canada and the US.

It is well recognised that the science has advanced to support this contention and that this particular schedule of cancers that is outlined in this bill are those that have been proven to have causal links to the act of firefighting. I note that they are exactly the same as the schedule of cancers in my own private member's bill, which passed this place some time ago. The science connecting these particular cancers to the act of firefighting has significantly progressed over past decades. We have a very large body of knowledge that links these cancers identified in the schedule with the act of firefighting.

Indeed, it is the very science underpinning the legislation that is pivotal to its justification. It is science that the government has accepted. However, it has taken a long time for the government to accept that the science applies to somebody who receives a pay packet as well as to somebody who does not. On 5 November 2012, the Weatherill government acknowledged the science when it made its compensation announcement at the MFS 150^th birthday celebrations. Premier Jay Weatherill said at the time:

We will join the Commonwealth and become the first state in only the third country in the world to recognise and compensate firefighter cancer. Our MFS firefighters are often exposed to dangerous chemicals and fire hazards in the course of their daily employment. Scientific studies across the world have demonstrated that firefighters are at greater risk of developing certain types of cancers through direct exposure to materials as part of their job. If those firefighters develop those types of cancers they should be rightly compensated.

Indeed I agree, as should volunteer firefighters. For those members who may need further convincing beyond the words in this government-issued press release of the science, I refer those who may question the science to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee review of presumptive legislation, which concludes that:

...a link between firefighting and an increased incidence of certain cancers has been demonstrated beyond doubt.

The international studies investigated by the committee noted that the science has become progressively more sophisticated, and policymakers are now able to access several large-scale studies which conclusively show that there is a link between firefighting and cancer.

In fact, it has often been stated that firefighting is the most studied occupation in the world when it comes to cancer. There are literally dozens of major studies spanning over 20 years that have made definitive connections between firefighting and elevated cancer risks. These conclusions were indeed used to inform Manitoba's presumptive legislation—the first of its kind in the world—and subsequent presumptive legislation in other jurisdictions in Canada and the US.

Other studies have confirmed a link between more than just brain cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukaemia and firefighting, as we certainly address in this bill before us. Following that research, Manitoba expanded its list of recognised occupational cancers, from their original five to 14—indeed, more than we have before us today.

Following the research, there was also a study of professional firefighters in New Zealand. I use the word 'professional' acknowledging that all firefighters engaged in South Australia are indeed professional, be they paid or unpaid. It followed a cluster of testicular cancers that was detected in Wellington in the 1980s. The study looked at those particular cancers in a cohort of firefighters and compared them to the incidence in the general population using data obtained from the New Zealand Health Information Service.

As a result of that study by Bates, the following was quoted in the Senate committee with regard to the commonwealth legislation:

[It] put the scientific world on its heels. They found that the level of testicular cancer for New Zealand firefighters—I believe they looked at 4,800 New Zealand firefighters within about three decades—was upwards of five times that of the general population.

When Mr Alex Forrest, President of the United Firefighters of Winnipeg and Canadian Trustee of the International Association of Fire Fighters, presented to the Senate committee in Australia as a witness, he said:

When this study came out I read it and said: 'Five times the level—it just cannot be true.' Almost immediately different epidemiologists—

a word I always have difficulty saying—

around the world took on the challenge of discrediting the study out of New Zealand. A gentleman by the name of Jockel out of Germany looked at all firefighters in Germany. What he found surprised him. His study almost exactly replicated the results—the rate of testicular cancer in New Zealand was the same as the rate in Germany. That just shows you the global aspect of this.

There was another large meta study confirming these results in 2006, where researchers, led by Grace LeMasters, looked at 110,000 firefighters and replicated the rate of testicular cancer. So, there you have three studies—one from New Zealand, one from Germany, one from the United States—all showing these same elevated rates of cancer for firefighters.

The Senate committee heard that most overseas jurisdictions with similar legislation currently in place to that which we debate today have moved substantially beyond the original five cancers, originally covered in the Manitoba legislation in 2002. Certainly, the large volume of scientific research has supported every province in Canada moving towards covering 14 cancers. We are some way behind in that work. We certainly do not yet have presumptive legislation in this state, and we only have 12 cancers in this bill before us today.

In summary, the cross-party Senate committee was confident that there was compelling evidence for a federal bill as well as for states such as ours to enact similar presumptive legislation. When, on 5 November 2012, the then treasurer, Jack Snelling, and Premier Jay Weatherill announced that South Australia would be the first state to support firefighters with presumptive cancer legislation, and then disappointingly failed to give that due recognition to the volunteers of the CFS who put their lives on the line to protect people in this state, it was a bittersweet pill to swallow for those current 13,500 firefighters and, indeed, their families and loved ones.

In 2012, Tasmania also announced its scheme and has since become the first Australian state to introduce presumptive legislation. I note that Western Australia, too, has recently announced that its scheme is to proceed in that state. From the outset, it is important to observe that the current Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act already applies to CFS volunteer firefighters. They are already prescribed under regulation 17 as 'volunteers' for the purposes of section 103A of the act. I strongly refer members in considering this bill, and in considering my amendment, to review that section of the act.

There is no need for this bill to have specifically covered MFS career firefighters. Had it simply addressed firefighters, the CFS would have been assumed to be part of the cohort to be continued to be treated on a parity, as they are now under WorkCover provisions. I note that in the bill before us the work of a firefighter is defined and, quite rightly, it ensures that MFS employees who are not firefighters are not captured by the provisions. Appropriately, the bill provides:

...a worker is taken to have been employed as a firefighter if fire fighting duties made up a substantial portion of his or her duties.

It does not cover somebody in the MFS who only answers the phones or does reception or perhaps promotional or other work with the MFS: it covers firefighters.

This is an understanding already echoed by the government on this issue. I note that there is actually nothing new in this bill in terms of WorkCover compensation available to either CFS or MFS firefighters. What it does is reverse the onus of proof for a firefighter who has contracted one of the stated 12 primary site cancers on the schedule.

That is certainly not the position we would want to be putting to somebody who has devoted five, 15, or up to 25 years of service as a firefighter who has contracted cancer. At that time, we should be offering them support and not putting up barriers to their accessing compensation through WorkCover. They have contracted a cancer and they are possibly looking at a life-threatening illness; they are certainly debilitated and they deserve respect, not a battle and asked to prove at which fire they contracted the cancer.

That a firefighter's work has caused the firefighter's cancer will apply for those diagnosed from July this year—indeed, the date when the bill was meant to have already been implemented by this government as per the original promise by Premier Weatherill at the 150^th MFS anniversary celebrations. I note that, once this bill is passed through this parliament, it will be retrospectively applied not only from that date in July this year but will apply for firefighters who have provided service, as per the schedule, prior to this year. It will simply give recognition to the science we have known for many decades and, finally, it will keep the promise the Premier made at the 150^th anniversary celebration.

If this bill is passed into law, and it has the Greens' amendments, it will ensure that a career or a volunteer firefighter will not actually have any specific new rights to compensation but they will not be required to go through the arduous process of battling to prove the causal link between their work as firefighters and the particular fire where they contracted the cancer.

The cancers that are relevant to this debate, as I have said previously, do not include, for example, lung cancer—one of the most common and, indeed, one that many would argue is causally linked to firefighters. Specifically, there are 12 cancers: primary site brain cancer and primary site leukaemia, for which the qualifying period of service of a firefighter for those two cancers will be five years; for primary site breast cancer and primary site testicular cancer the qualifying period will be 10 years; for primary site bladder cancer, primary site kidney cancer, primary site non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma, primary site prostate cancer, primary site uterine cancer and primary site colorectal cancer the qualifying period will be 15 years; and, for primary site oesophageal cancer, it will be 25 years. These are not easy barriers to qualify—they are significant periods of service to this state as a firefighter—in the unfortunate event of contracting one of these devastating cancers.

I note that previously in this council we debated this issue and, when my private member's bill was before this place, I note the words of the Hon. Kyam Maher. On behalf of the Weatherill government, he said that they were waiting for the Monash survey. At the time, he said:

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

Indeed, I think it has been shown to be a stalling tactic. The Weatherill government had already accepted the science of this issue when it issued that 5 November 2012 press release. Indeed, had they meaningfully communicated at any stage with the Monash survey before putting that position to this council, they would have been in no doubt that that position was a red herring in the debate.

Given the Monash survey was then being held up by the Weatherill government as a key reason for opposing the private member's bill that has been languishing in the lower house since May this year, I wrote to Associate Professor Deborah Glass and Professor Malcolm Sim who are currently working on the study. I read from the letter, dated 3 June 2013, I received from them and I quote the relevant parts:

Thank you for your email about the National Australasian Firefighters' study.

We are concerned that decisions about presumptive legislation are being delayed pending our study's findings. We believe that there is already good evidence from a very large number of previous human studies that work as a firefighter is associated with an increased risk of several types of cancer. The main focus of our study is to provide information for more effective prevention of cancer and other adverse health outcomes in firefighters.

The Australian study is designed to expand upon the previous findings of increased cancer rates found in many human studies. The LeMasters study and 2007 review of human studies by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organisation, identified several cancers where there is clear epidemiological evidence that they are associated with work as a firefighter...

We believe there is already good evidence from a very large number of previous human studies that work as a firefighter is associated with an increased risk of several types of cancer. Given the large number of studies already undertaken in firefighters and the positive associations for increase in several types of cancer, the results of one or more future studies, including our study, are very unlikely to change the overall conclusions of increased cancer risk among firefighters, as the results of all studies need to be taken into account.

Whilst it is true that there is little data on the cancer risks specifically for volunteer firefighters, a gap which our study hopes to address, it should be noted that in the course of firefighting, volunteer firefighters might be expected to have exposures similar to those of career firefighters.

Our study is a prospective study which will present its first report next year, but may well take several years to deliver definitive findings about exposure to specific carcinogens. Our strong view is that decisions about compensation processes should be made on the basis of the available scientific evidence at the time. There will always be one more study on the horizon, and waiting for more research findings, especially in this situation where the results of many cancer studies in firefighters are already available, will lead to unacceptable delays, possibly extending into years. The results of future studies can always be used to fine tune any legislation put in place now.

Yours sincerely, Associate Professor Deborah Glass and Professor Malcolm Sim.

So back in June, a month before this scheme was originally announced to have begun, even the very authors of the Monash National Australasian Firefighters' study did not believe there was any reason to delay this legislation before us, despite the government's allusions to the contrary and unlike the government which had yet to make good on legislation at that stage. They were certainly urging that we move forward on volunteers as well as career firefighters.

By leaving out volunteers from their announced scheme, the government did not deliver for all firefighters in this state. Indeed, what they did was they raised the anger not only of volunteer firefighters but of course of the communities they serve. We saw that anger on the steps of Parliament House today and we have seen that anger in communities across South Australia. I note the good work of the opposition and in particular the member for Morphett on this issue, along with many other members who are very active either as CFS volunteers or on behalf of their CFS brigades in their local electorates. I note that the petition today had well over 10,000 signatures. It was collected in a very short period of time and, in the speech that the CFS made in delivering that petition today, that anger was palpable. I read from the statement given to me by Sonia St Alban, the executive officer of the CFS Volunteers Association, in which she states:

Where is the fairness? How does Government justify this double standard?

Last year CFS volunteers responded to 690,000 hours of emergency calls—an extraordinary effort.

Fire season has not yet commenced in many areas, yet CFS volunteers are already regularly responding to fires—protecting lives and property; Yet, Government fails CFS volunteers when it comes to protecting those who protect us!

Government states that this new Cancer legislation will remove some of the pressure from the families of career fire fighters suffering from one of the 12 identified cancers that are proven to be more prevalent in fire fighters.

What about volunteer fire fighters; are their lives and their families not equally important?

The Government position on this important issue is a slap in the face for CFS volunteers, and devalues the immense contribution CFS volunteers make towards protecting South Australia.

The message from CFS volunteers is clear—It is not acceptable to protect some fire fighters while ignoring the risks to ALL fire fighters. The cancer risk faced by ALL fire fighters is very real; and just as fires do not discriminate, neither should the Weatherill government.

It has been some time since I took up this matter. After the passage of the federal bill, I took this matter up with ministers of the Weatherill government some years ago, and it has taken some time for the Weatherill government to be dragged kicking, screaming, carping, whingeing and whining to this place today to finally debate its own bill. It is not only a slap in the face for those volunteers, but definitely for those they work to protect and their families, that this government has not accepted the science for those who are not paid, although it has been quite willing to accept the science for those who are.

I know that the Labor conference two years ago debated this policy reform, and I understand that it did so at the behest of the United Firefighters Union. I do not begrudge the CFS firefighters for due protection, but you cannot escape the fact that, if you accept the science for somebody who receives money in their pocket for the act of firefighting, you cannot disregard the science for somebody who does not receive a single cent for the act of firefighting.

In these dying days of this parliamentary session we will finally, hopefully, see this bill passed and the Greens' amendment included to cover CFS volunteer firefighters. It is to the shame of this government that this scheme was in fact meant to have begun in July this year—it was announced in November last year. It was taken to the government as an idea the year before that. It is shameful that it has taken so long finally to be debated. I note that this is the first week it has actually received a position on the priority list from government in the whole time this bill has been sitting in the Legislative Council.

With that, it being the last sitting week, we only have a few hours left to ensure we protect not just career firefighters but also volunteer firefighters. I ask all members to consider—certainly government members—what it would cost the South Australian taxpayer if we only had paid firefighters in this state. I close with the words of the CEO of Volunteering South Australia and Northern Territory, Ms Evelyn O'Loughlin, who said on this issue:

The logic that only paid firefighters should be covered will only prevail when fires can distinguish between paid firefighters and volunteer firefighters.

With those wise words, I commend the second reading of this bill to the house and indicate that the Greens strongly endorse the incorporation of the Greens' amendment for the treatment of the CFS on parity with that originally proposed by government for the MFS. This is simply a bill that should protect all firefighters of this state.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (16:34): I thank honourable members for their second reading contribution, and by way of concluding remarks, I would like to say that the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SAMFS Firefighters) Amendment Bill 2013 passed in the House of Assembly on 24 September 2013 provides additional protection to metropolitan firefighters exposed to a higher cancer risk as a result of their work.

The bill provides South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service firefighters, including retained firefighters, with extended workers compensation entitlements from 1 July 2013. It is consistent with the commonwealth Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Act 2011. MFS firefighters who contract any of the 12 specified cancers will be entitled to workers compensation without having to prove that the cancer arose from their employment with the MFS. This is subject to qualifying periods and other provisions in the bill, and is also subject to absence of proof to the contrary.

Since the introduction of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SAMFS Firefighters) Amendment Bill on 19 June 2013, there has been some public discussion about this presumptive legislation applying only to MFS firefighters and the issue of equity for volunteer firefighters. It is possible that volunteer firefighters working in regional centres, for example, may experience similar exposure levels to carcinogenic materials as retained firefighters employed by the MFS. This could mean that some volunteer firefighters may have similar risks to that of retained firefighters in relation to the cancers identified in the bill.

The amendment to the MFS firefighters bill recognises that potential cancer exposure risk of volunteer firefighters by introducing a threshold approach similar to that passed by the Tasmanian parliament on 26 September 2013, assented to on 21 October 2013. To become entitled to the legislative presumption, a CFS volunteer firefighter will need to have at least 175 exposures in any five-year period, which is an average of 35 per year and is based on the average number of fires attended each year by MFS retained firefighters. That information is from SAFECOM. The qualifying period for the relevant cancer will also need to be met.

The amendment that extends the legislative presumptions to CFS volunteer firefighters who meet the threshold is estimated to cost $1.8 million per annum (excluding administration) and it is in addition to the estimated entitlements for the MFS career (including retained) firefighters, of $2.6 million per annum. I submit the amendment to vary the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SAMFS Firefighters) Amendment Bill to extend to volunteer firefighters registered with the South Australian Country Fire Service and presumptions of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SAMFS Firefighters) Amendment Bill 2013, subject to threshold exposure criteria. With those few words, I commend the bill to members.

Bill read a second time.