Bills

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SACFS) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:49): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Greens rise today to reintroduce a most important piece of legislation to this chamber, the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SACFS) Amendment Bill 2014. This bill seeks to ensure that volunteer firefighters do not have to prove which fire it was that caused a cancer, should they contract one of the 12 cancers that are compensable in the qualifying schedule. What this means is that if a volunteer firefighter suffers from one of the 12 prescribed primary site cancers and they have been exposed to carcinogens, toxins, or hazards of a fire scene for a significant part of their volunteer service, then their cancer is presumed to be caused because of their duty as a firefighter. Therefore, the bill adds the presumption into the act that the volunteer firefighter's cancer was caused because of their firefighting. It is presumed that the volunteer firefighter's cancer was work-related.

Under this bill, the employment of the volunteer firefighter is taken to have contributed to the cancer unless proven to the contrary. It is about reducing the burden of proof on those volunteer firefighters diagnosed with one of those 12 compensable cancers.

This presumptive protection is what we currently have in place for MFS firefighters, but not in total for volunteer firefighters. To presume that a firefighter's work has caused the firefighter's cancer is an important amendment, and I commend the government for taking steps to ensure that those who fight fires in a paid capacity now enjoy this presumption. I also acknowledge that they have gone some steps in recent months towards ensuring that some volunteer firefighters are able to access the presumptive legislation; indeed, they announced in this new parliament a task force to review the workings and the calls for CFS equality on this issue.

The work of our volunteer firefighters is just as important and risky as that of our MFS firefighters, and that is why the Greens advocate that we should offer all firefighters equal protection and compensation under WorkCover as they currently enjoy.

Currently, the laws state that a volunteer firefighter has to prove that they were exposed to the hazards of a fire scene at least 175 times in any five-year period during their volunteer service to qualify for compensation. This is an additional threshold on the equality that we seek and it is imposed only on volunteer firefighters and needs to be removed.

This bill will ensure that volunteer firefighters who contract those cancers are better able to access compensation and rehabilitation if they have undertaken specific duties. Under the bill, the qualifying duties of a firefighter will include preventing, controlling or extinguishing a fire and dealing with an emergency that requires the South Australian CFS to act to protect life, property or the environment.

It is incredibly important that this bill should pass, and pass speedily, as it ensures that we protect those who protect us. Volunteer firefighters put their lives and their health on the line each time they go out to protect their communities, so now it is time for this government and, indeed, this chamber to protect them in turn. This is the bill that the Greens previously introduced; indeed, they sought to amend the government bill that passed in the last week of the last parliament.

We have seen the government politicise this important issue. We believe that the government, while well meaning, did not understand the full range of duties that a volunteer firefighter in this state undertakes, and that is why the government's original position to provide this presumptive legislation for only MFS firefighters was indeed a misstep and a miscalculation, but we will accept that the government did it without all the knowledge and without the due diligence it should have undertaken.

The review that the government has now announced and the task force the government has now set up should have been set up three years ago when the Greens first took this idea and this proposal to the government. We welcome the government's baby steps in the long journey towards CFS equality, but we remind them that the rest of this parliament has already finished the marathon that is the understanding of this bill. On that note, I refer the two new members of this chamber, if they are having a look at this, to my previous speeches on this issue. I am happy to provide that information to the new members in particular.

All of us would have vividly in our recent memory the declared sanctions of the CFS Volunteer Association against this Labor government, with members of the CFSVA refusing to be photographed with government ministers or members or anyone who voted against the Greens' bill that would have granted them equal compensation and protection. I commend our CFS volunteers for taking that industrial action.

They took an action that did not, of course, stop them performing their duties of protecting the public of South Australia or indeed the property of South Australians, but certainly I think that it hit the government where it most hurt—the publicity and the good news stories to which this government has grown so accustomed to milking from our volunteer firefighters.

Our volunteer firefighters fought many fires across this state in this last season. They fought the Bangor fire from 14 January until the properties in danger were protected by the rain that eventually came. In those weeks that that fire burnt, our firefighters took up shifts in excess of 12 hours to fight those fires and to protect lives. The fire continued to burn for quite an extended period of time; indeed, it was 14 April when it was finally declared as 'safe'.

Other significant fires during this period were at Eden Valley, Rockleigh, Ngarkat Conservation Park and several fires on Eyre Peninsula. I am naming these areas that have been threatened by fires to illustrate just how many homes, shops, workplaces, schools, parks, recreational areas and, indeed, lives have been protected because of the hard and courageous work of CFS firefighters. In total, 7,000 CFS volunteer firefighters responded and were deployed in some capacity to assist with firefighting efforts in this last season.

It was reported to me by one of the members of the CFS that, should the Bangor fire have continued any longer, they were looking at all available firefighting resources being depleted. Of course, we are seeing firefighting incidents occurring well outside what we would have traditionally thought to be the height of the fire season, and these incidents are often quite surprising in their strength and ferocity and the absolute immensity of the task at hand. If we did not have the CFS, we would see a far greater cost to this state than we are discussing with this bill.

These fires are classed as significant, but there have between numerous other fires, road crash rescues, hazmat and other incidents to which CFS volunteers have responded over this same period. Also over this period, the CFS provided backup to the MFS, either through direct support at fires or as a change of quarters for MFS stations. A change of quarter is when an MFS station is depleted of resources and fire appliances from other MFS stations and the CFS is sent to the station on standby.

During one of the recent Wingfield fires, the Burnside CFS was sent on a change of quarters to the Adelaide MFS station in Wakefield Street and responded to several incidents in this time in the Adelaide CBD. This certainly puts paid to the theory that our CFS only tackle bushfires and that their work is markedly different from that of the MFS. Here, not only were they supporting the MFS but they were also filling in and taking on the roles the MFS would normally play in those incidents and fires. It is quite common during times of high demand that the SES that CFS brigades also respond to those incidents.

Considering the ferocity and magnitude of the fires in South Australia over this summer, we should all be thankful for the enormous commitment and effort of CFS volunteers. They ensured that no lives were lost, and indeed so many properties were saved because of their efforts. Last year, we saw the government table the Taylor Fry report on the last sitting day of this place; they did so under sufferance and only because this council refused to continue the debate on that particular bill had that report not been tabled. The report estimates the cost of changes to the compensation of firefighters should we afford the CFS equal treatment to MFS firefighters.

The costs were estimated in that report without the qualifying periods we have used here and in the bill that was moved to insert the schedule which has a qualifying period between five and 25 years of service and lists the 12 primary site cancers scientifically linked to the act of firefighting. What was disturbing about that report, which this council finally ensured saw the light of day, was that those assumptions were not in that report. Indeed, the figures that were cited in the debates made an assumption that there were no qualifying periods, and I find that a disturbing politicisation of this debate.

I would also like to note that the industrial relations minister has to date not provided the cost of covering volunteer firefighters under this particular presumptive bill. He has in debate referred to several figures—$25 million, $1.8 million, $36.2 million, $84.8 million and $60 million—in his second reading speech to the government bill and in media interviews during the debate. I think it is important to note that no matter what the cost is, not having a volunteer firefighter force to fight fires is going to be much more costly to our community.

I would like to see this task force provide the actuarial figures based on accurate presumptions and based on the proposal that the Greens, the CFS Volunteers Association and other members of this parliament have put up for debate, not on a theory that there is no qualifying period or that there are no borders put around what we are talking about here.

It is all very well to talk up the figures and say that this is going to be way too expensive. It would be far more useful for the government to ensure that we all have accurate figures based on what is being asked for by the CFS Volunteers Association, that is, equality and the schedule that is currently enjoyed by the MFS firefighters.

A firefighter chooses to be a firefighter not to be thanked for their services and efforts but to protect their community. However, this selfless commitment can result in their developing cancer due to the risks they have been exposed to in the line of that noble duty. The schedule of cancers listed here have been scientifically linked to the act of firefighting. They are not exhaustive, they are quite refined, and it is very little to ask that we support those who contract cancer in the course of those firefighting duties when they are there protecting our lives and properties.

It is absolutely crucial that we pass this bill and that we do so speedily. I would note that while the rest of the nation largely was out celebrating the coming of the new year, our firefighters this summer were protecting our communities, homes and livelihoods.

I met a couple who have been volunteering for the CFS for some years. They married during the summer period, just before Christmas, and they have never had a honeymoon because each year they have been out fighting fires. I know that they look forward to that honeymoon, but they certainly said that they look forward to the passage of CFS equality even more.

Now it is time for this parliament to protect our volunteer firefighters. CFS firefighters face equal risks to those faced by the MFS firefighters; they should be afforded equal protection and an equal presumption. That is equality and that is justice, and that is what the Greens will continue to push for in this chamber. With that, I commend this bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.W. Ridgway.