WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION (SAMFS FIREFIGHTERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message (resumed on motion).

The CHAIR: Minister, you have already moved that the council do not insist its amendment No. 3 and agrees to the alternative amendment made by the House of Assembly.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I seek leave to table the Taylor Fry report dated 15 February 2013.

Leave granted.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The report indicates quite clearly the figures that I put on record yesterday and have been reported in the other place. I refer members in particular to page 5 of the report and I think all members have now received a copy of that report.

Table 2.2—the estimated annual cost of cancer claims—shows that if CFS firefighters are included in the scheme, that is $2.58 million per year. If the qualifier is not included, the cost is $24.95 million per year. If that is projected across the forward estimates, the career MFS figure would become $10.3 million across the forward estimates and the volunteer CFS cost would be just under $100 million in costs. The difference of that is $90 million and that is the $90 million blowout in the budget from the government's original proposal to what was earlier supported by the government. This is the figure that has been referred to during debate in both places.

If the council agrees to the proposal put forward in the amendment No. 3 being a qualifier of the 175 fought fires over five years averaging 35 fires a year, the additional cost is estimated to be $1.8 million. Basically, the Tammy Franks figure—the cost of her amendment—ends up being $24.95 million per annum additional costs and the cost of the government's amendment from this place is an additional $1.8 million per annum.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I just had one more small contribution to make. I thank the minister for tabling the document. It would have been helpful to all members in this council to have had this document much earlier. Indeed, it should have been provided in the House of Assembly debate in the original second reading, particularly as cost came up as the major barrier.

We do not have the ability here and now to go through the figures and really interrogate them, but I will accept them on face value at this stage. The Greens' position remains unchanged—we continue to insist upon our version of the amendments. I simply wish to reflect upon the Liberal Party position in the House of Assembly this morning where it remained firmly in support of the coverage of all CFS and was not attracted to the government model. They voted that way in the House of Assembly just before the lunch break. The member for Bragg went out on the steps of parliament at 2pm today and stated to the media that the Liberal Party opposition would stick to their guns on this and that they would not change that position. Yet an hour later in this place there is a new sheriff in town, and the Liberal Party appears to have changed its position.

I have spoken briefly to the CFS Volunteers Association, who indicate that they are incredibly disappointed with the Liberal opposition and they feel gutted. I think it is a sorry state of affairs that we are in the dying hours of this parliament finally debating this bill with these facts on the table. It does not give justice to CFS volunteers, who I believe will find it a cold comfort that they are going to get a second-class scheme compared to the MFS.

Certainly there is no ability now to explore other possible compromises that could have been made. I know that the CFS Volunteers Association does not support the government's model. There possibly may be other models but in these last hours it is not going to be possible to come to those solutions. With disappointment, I indicate we continue to hold the line and hold out for equal treatment for CFS volunteers. We will be interested to see how the Liberal Party votes on this.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I advise that Family First have not changed their position after looking at the actuarials. I thank the government for finally giving them to us, but it does not change our view at all. It should be one for all and all for one. There should not be a separation in any respect at all. I also have spoken to the CFS Volunteers Association and they are very disappointed, to say the least. That is all I have to say. I cannot understand the rationale.

The committee divided on the motion:

Majority of 8 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

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

That the council do not insist on its amendment No. 4.

Motion carried.

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

That the council agrees to the consequential amendments made by the House of Assembly.

Motion carried.

At 17:55 the council adjourned until Tuesday 17 December 2013 at 14:15.