WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION (SAMFS FIREFIGHTERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

The House of Assembly agreed to amendments Nos 1 and 2 made by the Legislative Council without any amendment; disagreed to amendment No. 3 and made an alternative amendment as indicated in the following schedule in lieu thereof; and disagreed to amendment No. 4 and made the consequential amendments as indicated in the following schedule:

No. 3. Clause 4, page 3, after line 14 [clause 4(3)]—After inserted subsection (2a) insert:

(2b) If—

(a) worker suffers an injury of a kind referred to in the first column of Schedule 2A; and

(b) the injury occurred on or after 1 July 2013; and

(c) before the injury occurred, the worker was presumptively employed by the Crown as a firefighter for the qualifying period referred to in the second column of Schedule 2A; and

(d) the worker was exposed to the hazards of a fire scene (including exposure to a hazard that occurred away from the scene) at least 175 times in any 5 year period during that employment,

the worker's injury is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to have arisen from his or her presumptive employment by the Crown.

No. 4. Clause 4, page 3—

Line 20 [clause 4(4), inserted subsection (3)(b)]—Delete 'subsection (2a)' and substitute:

subsections (2a) and (2b)

After line 32 [clause 4(5)]—After inserted subclause (4a) insert:

(4b) For the purposes of subsection (2b)

(a) a worker is taken to have been presumptively employed by the Crown as a firefighter if the Crown was his or her presumptive employer under section 103A because he or she was a member of the South Australian Country Fire Service and voluntarily performed firefighting work in connection with that membership; and

(b) a person performs firefighting work if he or she engages in activity directed towards preventing, controlling or extinguishing a fire; and

(c) all of the attendances as a firefighter by a worker at any 1 fire scene on a particular day are to be taken to comprise 1 exposure to the hazards of a fire scene; and

(d) a worker who was employed for 2 or more periods that add up to or exceed the qualifying period is taken to have been employed for the qualifying period; and

(e) the qualifying period may include a period or periods that commenced or occurred before 1 July 2013.

Consideration in committee.

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

That the Legislative Council do not insist on its amendment No.3 and agrees to the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly.

This amendment provides for the application of the presumption to volunteer firefighters who are exposed to the hazards of a fire scene in accordance with the provision. This amendment is an extension of the presumption to volunteer firefighters who are exposed to the hazards of a fire scene which includes being exposed to a hazard away from the scene at least 175 times over any five-year period.

While this does not include all volunteers, it is consistent with the circumstances described by the member of parliament in another place who advised that, whilst remaining a registered volunteer firefighter, he had not been exposed to a fire scene for the duration of his time in parliament, which I believe he stated was around 16 years. So the government provision strikes a balance between those in the position not dissimilar to the member of parliament who never faced a fire scene, and those volunteers who are regularly exposed. I am sure that those members of parliament would not expect to be beneficiaries of the proposed legislative presumption provided by the government in this bill.

Basically, the government's original position was to extend protections to country firefighters but only under some limited criteria. The amendment that was passed in this place removed that and provided protections to all volunteer country firefighters without any criteria being applied in the cap that the government had considered. Basically, I am saying that the position here today is that the lower house has rejected this house's amendment to remove the cap, so to speak.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It will come as no surprise to members that I rise to oppose the government's proposal that this council not insist upon its amendments. It is no surprise, also, that in the dying hours of this debate in both the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council the protestations against the CFS inclusion on a parity with the MFS have moved from the science, which was the original stumbling block, to the cost.

I note that, when this bill was debated in the House of Assembly a few months ago, that argument was not raised in the opening stages of the debate but it was in the dying minutes of the debate that the cost was raised. I refer members to the Deputy Premier in the other place, who at that time, in terms of the documentation, stated:

The annual cost for career firefighters, including the retained, who have a certain number of callouts—not just for periods but a certain number of callouts—is $2.58 million. That is the effect of the bill [overall]...if [the CFS] were conservatively included, according to the material I have here, on one particular set of assumptions we are talking about $24.95 million additional.

I note there that he says if the CFS was 'conservatively included'. In the media overnight, that $25 million was bandied about and in this place yesterday minister Gago indicated that the cost of the inclusion of the Greens amendments would total $25 million. It is interesting that in the original debate that was seen as the conservative estimate and somehow it has become the Greens estimate that would cost $25 million. I also note that in media reports this morning the Deputy Premier has said that this will cost $90 million. Obviously, he must be calculating for more than an annual cost with those—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Four years, possibly.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Possibly over four years and, clearly, there must be a year in which accumulated cases kick in. Again, we do not have that detail. The Deputy Premier in the House of Assembly debate when this bill first passed in that place, then went on to quote this passage. He said:

We have estimated the maximum annual cost of cancer claims for the CFS to be $36.2 million with—

At that point, he was interrupted by the member for Bragg with the question, 'Who's "we"?' to which he replied, 'The actuaries.' The member for Bragg then asked for a point of order and she asked the Speaker, 'If the Attorney is referring to a report or material I ask him to table the report.' The Deputy Premier replied, 'I am happy to give you the material,' to which the member for Bragg, quite rightly, said, 'Good.'

I was listening to that debate that evening and I was excited because it was going to be the first time that the Greens had seen the government's actuarials. These figures seem to jump up and down and change from day to day. To go back to the House of Assembly debate, the Deputy Premier then said:

—but can I finish explaining it? I told you I would give you that before, for goodness sake. I will start the quote again:

'We have estimated the maximum annual cost of cancer claims for the CFS to be $36.2 million with qualifying periods and $84.8 million without qualifying periods. The above estimate can be seen as a maximum cost as it assumes that—'

and he breaks away from the document—

and then it goes on. What I am saying to members here is this: my colleague the Minister for Emergency Services has attempted to find a situation whereby, in effect, the CFS would accept that they could be brought within this umbrella on the same basic set of criteria as the retained firefighters and there has not been an agreement to that proposal. They have said, 'That is not good enough.'

I note some salient points there. The figures keep moving around, and they were promised to be provided in the House of Assembly in the concluding third reading stage of the bill's debate there some two months ago. Indeed, we had a repeat of that yesterday, as members are well aware. I asked in the committee stage of debate on this bill, and by minister Gago I was told that overall the bill would cost, for the MFS, $1.8 million and, for volunteer firefighters—with the government's model, they have certainly put extra barriers on the ability of the CFS firefighters to fall within the protections—they believed it would cost $2.6 million.

I just ask members to reflect on that and then to note that I went on to ask the minister what she based those figures on and to provide that report. She undertook to this council that she would ask the minister if she was able to provide the actuarial report to this council. Certainly, we proceeded the debate in good faith on the assurance that the minister would seek that document. I would have hoped that it would be not only tabled for the House of Assembly members who asked for it two months ago but tabled here for those members who were told that the minister would be approached and should, hopefully, be amenable to us having those figures before us to facilitate debate.

When your only argument is that it costs too much, you really need to tell us how much it costs and stop changing the figures; if you are going to expect us to trust you that it costs too much, you really need to table that actuarial report. The fact that you introduced a scheme in the first place without consulting the CFS, only working with the United Firefighters Union and doing a cosy deal between the Labor Party and a Labor union that has shut out 13,500 current CFS volunteers, leads me to be very suspicious of anything you say on this issue. With that, I strongly oppose the government's message.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I was hoping I would be able to relieve my colleagues of having to listen to me any further in this session, until this disgraceful act by the government to come back to this house and say that it is going to look after one part of the firefighters and not another part. I have no choice but to come in on behalf of Family First and support colleagues in this debate who are not going to support the government's message from the House of Assembly.

Further to what the Hon. Tammy Franks has said, I did make reference to this yesterday. I have some other questions and matters regarding the deliberations on this in a little while, but my first question to the minister (and I will ask them one at a time) is: can the minister actually confirm that there was an agreement done between the government and the UFU regarding this legislation for paid MFS firefighters? My sources advise me that there absolutely categorically was. For the public record, can I have confirmation that the government did involve and engage the union (the UFU), which provides a ticket in this house—at least one—for the government? Can we have the truth on this? My very strong sources say that a deal was done.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised no.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I guess we can only take that at face value, but I have a lot of sources in emergency services, and that is certainly not the advice I have been given.

My next question relates to the debate yesterday or the day before, or whenever we did debate this in this house, when the absolute majority of the house—that is, the Legislative Council—said all or none. That is not a reflection upon the MFS firefighters themselves, but it is about fairness and equity to the thousands of CFS volunteers.

The minister said in response to me that she would see from the lead minister—because I know this minister is only the messenger on this one—whether or not we could actually see the figures, and the fact is that these figures have bounced around. Can the minister advise whether we will be able to see the actuarial figures before we vote in a little while?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The officer here today believes he can table that report. He has just gone to get a copy of it now, and we are happy to table it today.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I rise to indicate the Liberal Party's position on the leader's motion. The Liberal Party's position until this stage has been very clear. We have fought long and we have fought hard to try to provide the broadest position in relation to CFS firefighters, and that has been the position the party, through its various spokespersons I am advised, has adopted throughout.

The position that now confronts the parliament and the Liberal Party is clear. We have been advised, and I think crossbench members I have just spoken to have indicated that it is their understanding as well, that if the Legislative Council insists on its position the government is, in essence, going to lay the bill aside or jettison the bill. That is, as we lead into this period, the position will be that MFS firefighters will not be covered and the much more limited and restricted number of CFS firefighters under the government's proposal will also not be covered. So, that what confronts the Liberal Party in this chamber at the dying embers of this particular parliamentary session, because whilst the opposition has indicated that it is prepared to sit for another week it is quite clear that the government is not going to sit for another week—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Why not?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, you put that question to the Hon. Mr Weatherill in terms of—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So, in the dying embers of the parliament this afternoon, this chamber and the Liberal Party is confronted with the position of either supporting the proposition, which is that a limited number of CFS firefighters get covered by the scheme and the MFS gets covered, or nothing; not the Liberal Party's preferred position, and the majority in this Legislative Council chamber, which is for MFS and all CFS firefighters to be covered. That is the stark choice that confronts us at the moment.

I accept that there are some in this chamber who are going to take the position, or will take the position, that it is all or nothing; that is, they are not prepared to accept the position that the MFS is covered and a limited or restricted number of CFS firefighters are covered. I accept that their position is going to be all or nothing; that is, unless all of the CFS are covered then no-one will be covered at all, and given that the earliest the parliament, after the election, is likely to convene is in May something of next year.

So, that is the stark position that has been confronted. Whilst I do not normally refer to the position of the Liberal Party party room, we discussed all of the details of the propositions on Monday and these particular circumstances were canvassed and considered. The shadow minister for this area—we have two people who handle this, two people with the broad responsibility, the member for Davenport was the former shadow minister but now the member for MacKillop has the carriage of it (working with the member for Davenport), and they have instructed me and made it quite clear that the decision of the Liberal Party in the circumstances that we are confronting at the moment is that we are not prepared to see nobody covered as a result of the parliament's consideration of the bill.

So, there are the two unpalatable options; that is, no-one gets covered, with the government laying the bill aside, or reluctantly agreeing to the government's position of the MFS firefighters being covered and a small number of CFS firefighters being covered. Of those two options the party room's position, I am advised by the shadow minister responsible, the member for MacKillop, is that we would choose the option of providing some coverage to firefighters. So, for those reasons, Liberal members in this chamber will adopt that position, albeit reluctantly.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Could the minister, just for the record, clarify this situation? Initially, there was the debate about the fact that SAMFS firefighters are subjected to more risk than the CFS because the CFS goes and puts out a grass fire on the road verge. That was the debate; where the government started. Now we have established that the debate is actually about money, notwithstanding, I might add, the tens of millions of dollars—in fact, the hundreds of millions of dollars—a year that the CFS volunteers provide for free to the government and the community of this state. Notwithstanding that, we are now in a debate that is all about dollars.

Given that we are waiting for the actuarial documentation and transparency, because this is a consult, consider and announce government, does the minister admit, on behalf of the government, that the government concedes—because we have some figures, we just do not know which figures are true—that CFS firefighters, sadly, are as much at risk of contracting cancer when engaged in firefighting as SAMFS firefighters? If your actuarial is done on the numbers, as I understand it is, it must have been done on the base that there was significant risk to volunteers. Can the minister answer that, please?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We are debating the bill again. All of this information that is available to the government was put on the record yesterday, and we are really wasting the time of this chamber in wanting to repeat it all. I outlined the government's arguments clearly yesterday. There were monetary considerations and there were also risk considerations, and I am not going to repeat those because they are clearly on the record.

We said that country volunteer firefighters are at less risk of exposure to contaminants or carcinogens than are full-time career firefighters. All of that is already on the record, and I made it clear that it was a combination of factors. So, we are just repeating ourselves. The report is still not available and, as I said in this place yesterday, I do not believe that that makes any difference. The figures that we had available to us in terms of the estimates and the formula that they were based on we have put on the record. They are already on the record and part of Hansard, so I will not repeat those.

I agree with the Hon. Robert Lucas that it is a matter of principle. We disagree on this, so we just need to move on. You have the numbers, so I am not too sure why we are protracting this. It is a principle. There are people in this chamber who believe that the same rights should be afforded to all firefighters—career firefighters and country volunteers. The government has a different point of view, and we have outlined our reasons for that. We have a difference. The report, as I referred to, is not going to make any difference to that basic principle because your view is that the same entitlements should be afforded to all firefighters. We disagree and you have the numbers. We need to just vote on this and move on.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The entire point of this is that the government says that the costings will show that this an unaffordable measure. We have asked for the actuarial report the government is referring to, and the government has said that they would table it, they said they would table it in the House of Assembly, they said that they would table it yesterday in this place. I move:

That we report progress until we have that actuarial report before us.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Can I just respond—you have not moved it yet, though, have you? You have just indicated an intention?

The CHAIR: Order! There is no debate on that.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Did you move or did you just indicate an intention? It is a point of clarification.

The CHAIR: I heard that you moved to report progress. We do not need a seconder in committee.

The committee divided on the motion:

Majority of 7 for the ayes.

Progress thus reported; committee to sit again.