WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION (SAMFS FIREFIGHTERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I ask the government to provide the financial impact of this bill as it currently stands.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised it is $1.8 million for the volunteer firefighters and $2.6 million for the career firefighters.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Just to clarify the figure regarding the volunteer firefighters, is that as per the government amendment to the government bill? How is that calculated in terms of incidences? How many volunteer firefighters were deemed not to fall within the purview of this bill, given those incident requirements?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that the calculation was based on 800 firefighters and 35 incidents per annum, and the number of incidents per annum, I am advised, was based on the number of incidents observed by retained firefighters.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 2, line 3—Delete 'SAMFS'

This is the first of three amendments that I have. It simply deletes the reference to 'South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service', because the intention of my amendments will be to cover the CFS and the MFS on a parity, so there will be no need for the bill to refer only to the Metropolitan Fire Service.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Which amendment are you moving?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have moved my amendment to change SAMFS and delete that from the title of the bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Which amendment number is it?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It is [Franks-1] 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 2, line 3—After 'SAMFS' insert 'and SACFS'

This amendment ensures that the operation of the bill is extended to volunteer firefighters registered with the SA Country Fire Service. Basically the amendment inserts 'SACFS' after 'SAMFS'.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: My question is to the Leader of the Government for an explanation. Is the minister saying that, as a result of the movement of her amendment, the minister and therefore the government support the Hon. Tammy Franks? I just want to get clarification on that but also to put on the record that Family First very strongly supports the Hon. Tammy Franks's efforts and any amendments that she puts forward to ensure that fairness and equity occur with this matter, whether you are a paid firefighter with the South Australia Metropolitan Fire Service or whether, indeed, you are a volunteer professional firefighter with the Country Fire Service of South Australia.

We can see that there should never be any differential and we see no rationale to differentiate. I also say, whilst the minister seeks to answer my question, that colleagues will note that the report of the community safety and emergency services select committee—which was tabled yesterday and which will be debated in private members' time today—has absolutely confirmed the importance of Country Fire Service volunteers getting the same opportunity as paid Metropolitan Fire Service staff.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I am on record as supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendments, and I strongly support them now.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I put on the record anew that Dignity for Disability strongly supports the Hon. Ms Franks' efforts in this area and will continue to do so.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I put on the record that this is similar to an amendment moved by the Liberal Party in the House of Assembly and for those reasons, and for the reasons I outlined in the second reading, we will be supporting the amendment as well.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: For the record, I indicate that the Greens will not be supporting the government amendment. The government amendment continues to put further barriers to the CFS falling under the purview of the scheme, barriers that are not put in place for MFS career firefighters. It treats the two groups differently. Yes, there may be some parity there with some members, but overall MFS members automatically qualifies under this bill once they reach the very high criteria set out in the schedule of 12 cancers for the number of years of service and, indeed, for that service being tied to the act of being a firefighter, which is defined in the bill as the significant portion of their work being in the act of firefighting As I said in my second reading speech, it certainly does not apply to receptionists or people who are not in the field.

I concur with the Hon. Rob Lucas that these are the same as the Liberal amendments in the other place. We believe that the better way forward is to treat all firefighters equally, and that is what the Greens' amendments do. The government amendments do make some concessions, and I acknowledge that the government has come some way to better recognising CFS firefighters in its amendments, but they do not go the full way to providing full equality. With those words, the Greens oppose the government amendments. I strongly endorse the Greens amendments to all members in this place.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am a little confused in relation to this whole matter—some say that is because I am from the country, and that may or may not be the case. For clarity and qualification, can the minister rule in or rule out that the rationale for the government's pushing this bill for paid firefighters only is to do with some backdoor agreement with the union and maybe funding issues as we head towards the election?

Can the minister put on the public record the reason for the government's giving something to one lot of firefighters and not to another? We will be opposing the amendment, but I need to have an answer to this question. It is beyond belief! We have not had a reason put to this committee as to why the government would do something for some but not for the other. Having once been an active member of the CFS, and as minister having worked with them and having observed what they do with their training, I can say that CFS firefighters attend bushfires, vehicle accidents, structural fires, oil fires and tyre fires—all of the fires—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Car fires.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Car fires—all of the fires that the MFS attend. They are no more protected in the work they do, sadly, in terms of the risks associated with cancer, than paid firefighters. Can we have a clear and precise reason why the government has gone down this bizarre track?

The CHAIR: It is in the second reading speech.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The difference between the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment and the government's amendment is that, basically, the government's amendment seeks to introduce a threshold to country volunteer firefighters for cover. That threshold, as I said, is the 35 exposures per annum, whereas the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment, if that was to get up, removes that threshold completely. It would, in short, provide exactly the same entitlements or coverage for career firefighters as it would for the country volunteer firefighters.

The government's rationale for providing a different level of protection, if you like, is based, I am advised, on evidence that suggests career firefighters are far more exposed to structural fires and it is that exposure that increases the risk of cancers and other health risks; whereas the country voluntary firefighters are less exposed to those structural fires and therefore it is considered that the risk would be less for them.

The difference in terms of costs—the government's threshold as indicated, if that was to be put in place, would cost South Australians $1.8 million per annum. The Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment would cost taxpayers $25 million per annum.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am getting more and more flabbergasted, not with the minister—she is the messenger—but with the government. My question is: given that you have been able to work all that out, can you table all the statistics, mathematics and all of the costings, all the information you have that actually comes up with those figures, because clearly a lot of work has been done? When claiming $25 million as against $1.8 million, the parliament, I think, needs to be able to see the figures.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: In terms of where the estimate of the $25 million came from, I am advised that the calculations were based on Taylor Fry actuarial evidence that established the costs for the Country Fire Service and the MFS, and I am happy to seek advice from the minister about whether I can table that and make it publicly available. I would need to seek his advice, just in case there was something else in that that meant that that was not possible. However, if I can, I will.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As a point of qualification, is the minister saying therefore that she intends to report progress until we see this? Is the minister saying that we will definitely be able to know one way or another whether we are able to see this before the third reading?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I intend to proceed with this. The government's intention is to complete this bill. If the honourable member is saying that this is a threshold issue for him and he is not able to proceed without that information, it is his prerogative to report progress. But I am very keen to proceed because I doubt that evidence will make much difference to the way the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and Family First are going to vote; that is my sense.

The government has given an outline of the Taylor Fry actuarial evaluation. If our word is not good enough, I am not too sure where we go from there. I would have thought our word was pretty good for that.

The CHAIR: Before I call the Hon. Ms Franks, I might add that everyone on the crossbenches and the opposition is supporting the Hon. Ms Franks, so the numbers are certainly there. The Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you Chair, I was rising briefly to say that I would not support reporting progress. This bill has taken far too long to get to this parliament in the first place. It was meant to be implemented on 1 July this year; indeed, it will be retroactively implemented. I do understand from information I have received that in fact the government is implementing measures in this bill with some of the members of the MFS as if it had been implemented. Certainly, I commend the member for Bragg who did ask for these particular figures to be tabled in the debate on this bill in the other place, and I look forward to their eventual procurement and their becoming available to parliament.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Just for the record, in case I have confused the amendment the government is moving, and it is just a technical thing. I need to clarify that after 'SAMFS', our amendment would also include the insertion of 'SACFS', but it will result in exactly the same outcome. It does not change the outcome, or the argument, or the threshold. I am just not sure that I was clear that it included both those titles, not just one.

The committee divided on the Hon. Ms Franks' amendment:

Majority of 6 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 2 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 2, line 15 [clause 4(1)]—Delete 'subsections (2) and (2a)' and substitute 'this section'

I am advised that this is simply a technical tidy up. It is a word change that removes the words 'subsections (2) and (2a)' and replaces it with 'this section'.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 3, lines 6 and 7 [clause 4(3), inserted subsection (2a)(c)]—Delete 'by the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service ('SAMFS')'

This deletes 'by the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service ('SAMFS')' from that clause. It is following on from the treatment of both CFS and MFS as firefighters under this bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. The government prefers to include SAMFS and CFS (Country Fire Service).

Amendment carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Franks–1]—

Page 3, line 14 [clause 4(3), inserted subsection (2a)]—Delete 'employment by SAMFS' and substitute 'that employment'

Again, this amendment treats the MFS and the CFS as firefighters.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Am I able to move all of these: (a), (b), (c) and (d)? Can I speak to all of them?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Do you mean amendments Nos 3 to 6?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Yes.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): My advice is that those amendments should not be moved, because of the amendments that have gone into the bill. So, the advice we have received is that you not proceed with those amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Okay.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Thank you, minister.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So, what is she not moving?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The minister is not moving amendments Nos 3 to 6—the rest of her amendments.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Does the Hon. Ms Franks want to put that on the record?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Certainly; I indicate that, should they have been moved, the Greens would have opposed them. These amendments apply additional criteria on top of the original bill that was put forward including only the MFS. Clearly, having quite a strict criteria of qualifying periods of as high as 25 years of service as a firefighter is a pretty high barrier to have already completed. To then require more paperwork, on the CFS in particular, that they detail that they have been to at least 175 incidents in any five-year period, and other burdens of proof, when we are in fact looking at the fact that one fire could actually cause these particular cancers—it is related to the act of fire fighting.

If somebody has devoted, five, 10, 15 and, in the case of oesophageal cancer, 25 years of service to qualify for a presumptive ruling, on something that they could already take to WorkCover and contest, should they be able to prove the single fire at which they contracted that cancer, I think it is simply an additional burden that is unwarranted and therefore we would not support it, should it be moved.

Clause as amended passed.

Remaining clause (5), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

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) (11:31): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:31): I simply want to welcome this bill and put on the record a thank you to those whom I have worked with in terms of formulating the amendments the Greens moved to this bill and in formulating our original private member's bill. I thank the countless CFS volunteers and the 10,500-plus people who signed the petition that was presented to parliament yesterday.

I thank Pip McGowan, a CFS volunteer who took photos for the campaign page; Roger Flavell, the CFS Volunteers Association President; Sonia St Alban, the Executive Director of the CFS Volunteers Association; Kirsti Oliver, the Executive Assistant; Andy Wood, a Vice President, and Jeff Clark, the other Vice President of the CFS Volunteers Association; the former executive director, Wendy Shirley, whom I first had communications with on this issue some three years ago; and Evelyn O'Loughlin, the CEO of Volunteering SA&NT and others at Volunteering SA&NT, including Pat Austin, the Communications Manager.

I also thank Dianah Mieglich, a former staff member of the member for Frome, who partnered with me for the private member's bill; and the member for Frome carries passage, still, of the private member's bill that now reflects what we have just done here in this debate. I also want to pay tribute to the work of the member for Morphett on this issue (Dr Duncan McFetridge), in particular. I thank members of the opposition for their strong support, and every member of this parliament who was not elected as a Labor member for their strong and ongoing support for this bill.

Finally, for sharing with me some of the last moments of his life, I thank a man called John Ames, who was a CFS volunteer who, in 2012, lost his battle with oesophageal cancer. He had been a CFS volunteer for some 22 years and was a firm believer that this law needed to be enacted, even though he would not himself have qualified for the assistance of the presumptive treatment, having not achieved the very high criteria of 25 years of service. He was an impressive man and I wish to pay tribute to him at this time.

Bill read a third time and passed.