Parliamentary Committees

Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation: Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SACFS Firefighters) Amendment Bill

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (15:59): I move:

That the report of the committee on the referral of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SACFS Firefighters) Amendment Bill be noted.

The committee's report is in response to a referral from the other place, on 16 October 2014, on the question that this bill now be read a second time. The member for Newland moved an amendment to the question, namely:

That all words after 'be' be left out and the words 'withdrawn and referred to the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation for its report and recommendation' be inserted in lieu thereof.

The Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SACFS Firefighters) Amendment Bill was introduced by the Hon. Tammy Franks of this chamber on 7 May 2014 to provide volunteer firefighters with the same presumptive protection for 12 specified cancers, as is already available to career firefighters, without the need for them to prove which carcinogen, toxin or hazard of a fire scene they had been exposed to during their voluntary firefighting career.

CFS volunteer firefighters' cancer is taken to have been caused because of their firefighting and is, therefore, work related. The committee has worked diligently and undertaken its responsibility in this matter seriously in order to provide a report in a most thorough and timely way.

Firefighters are usually the first responders in the event of fire (or other emergency situations) and while many of us run away from danger these brave and highly-respected men and women run towards it. The most recent bushfire at Sampson Flat (which was one of the worst in the state's history), and its devastating effects, are still being felt by many in the local community, including volunteer firefighters.

It is a sad reality that while protecting the community from fire, chemical spills and other emergencies, firefighters put their own lives and safety at risk. We hear news of reports about injuries and fatalities arising from work performed by firefighters, but we do not hear a lot about the long-term health risks, such as cancer.

Following a Senate inquiry in 2011, the commonwealth government introduced legislation to provide presumptive protection for firefighters who contracted any one of 12 specified cancers. Whilst career firefighters in the commonwealth jurisdiction no longer have to prove that a specified cancer arose from their employment, the same protection was not provided to volunteer firefighters.

The Senate inquiry found that, whilst there was sufficient evidence to provide presumptive protection for career firefighters, there was insufficient evidence to provide the same protection for volunteer firefighters. This was influential in a decision by the Deputy Premier when he introduced the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SAMFS Firefighters) Amendment Bill 2013 into the parliament in June 2013 to provide presumptive protection for SA career firefighters only.

It is now internationally recognised that both career and volunteer firefighters are potentially exposed to the same cancer risks. International research has demonstrated very clear links between the work that firefighters perform and certain specified cancers. Firefighters are at a greater risk than the rest of the community in contracting 12 specific cancers including brain cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer and leukaemia—to name a few.

Many countries, including Canada, provide the same presumptive protection for volunteer firefighters as career firefighters. In 2013, Tasmania became the first Australian state to enact presumptive legislation for the benefits of its 300 career firefighters and 5,000 volunteers. Western Australia, which has had presumptive protection in place for career firefighters since 2013, extended protection to volunteer firefighters in 2014, but some other states continue to debate this issue.

In recognition of increased awareness of cancer risks to both career and volunteer firefighters, last year the Deputy Premier, together with the Minister for Emergency Services, announced that South Australian CFS active volunteer firefighters will be provided with automatic compensation if they are diagnosed with one of the 12 specified cancers. Therefore, the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SACFS Firefighters) Amendment Bill has been superseded since this announcement, which resulted in changes to section 31 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1996 and schedule 3 of the Return to Work Act 2014, which is yet to commence.

Whilst inquiring into this matter the committee found that the Australian Fire and Emergency Services Authority Council, which represents both career and volunteer firefighter agencies in South Australia and New Zealand, had commissioned Monash University to undertake a health study of Australian firefighters. The research was led by occupational hygienist, Associate Professor, Deborah Glass, who released the final report in December 2014.

The research found that firefighters are a healthier cohort than the general population but their length of service as firefighters can increase the risks of contracting several types of cancer. However, the risk estimates reported are uncertain and should be interpreted cautiously. Professor Glass recommends a follow-up in five years.

For members' interest, I will just expand on some of the findings of the Australian Firefighters' Health Study report by Monash University. The overall risk of mortality was significantly decreased for firefighters, with almost all major causes of death significantly reduced for male paid firefighters and for male and female volunteer firefighters. The study states that this is likely to be the result of the strong and healthy worker effect and the likely lowering of smoking rates amongst firefighters compared with the Australian population.

Male firefighters did not have an overall increase in the risk of cancer compared to the Australian population; however, there was a trend of increased cancer risk with the number and types of incidents attended. The likelihood of cancer would increase for a volunteer with the number of fires attended. There was an increased risk of prostate and testicular cancer for male firefighters and a decreased risk of lung cancers. There was an increase in the death rate for full-time firefighters, but this was still lower than the overall Australian population.

For male volunteer firefighters, the mortality rate for cancers was reduced with increased years of service; however, the report states that the numbers were too small to draw a firm conclusion. Overall, cancer incidence for female volunteers was similar to that of the Australian female population. There were statistically more melanomas, but the excess did not appear to relate to the service duration or the number or types of incidents in internal analysis. The report stated that there was no overall trend by duration of service, although it should be noted that the report also said:

For female career full-time firefighters there were too few deaths or cancer cases for meaningful analyses. The limited data suggests that their risks were not higher than that of the comparable members of the Australian population. For female part-time paid firefighters there were also too few deaths for meaningful analyses but there was no observed overall increased risk. For part-time paid female firefighters, there was a statistically significant increase in brain cancer, which was based on only three cases.

The report states that a number of cancers now have a good cure rate, so incidence is a better measure of disease than is cancer mortality. Due to this, the report did not analyse mortality for separate cancer categories. I reiterate that the report was uncertain in many of the risk estimates and, as a result, the report should be interpreted cautiously. The report recommends a follow-up report in five years, which would increase the statistical analysis and provide more accuracy on the risks of cancers amongst firefighters.

In conclusion, I extend my sincere thanks to the Presiding Member of the committee (Hon. Steph Key), and all other members of the committee: the Hon. John Dawkins, the Hon. John Darley, Nat Cook (member for Fisher), and Stephan Knoll (member for Schubert)—I should also mention the former member of the committee, Katrine Hildyard (member for Reynell)—for their contribution and the commitment they demonstrated to this task. I would also like to thank the committee's executive officer, Sue Sedivy, for her consistent and untiring work. I commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:11): I rise to support the motion, and I thank the Hon. Mr Kandelaars for his extensive summary of the work of the committee in relation to this matter. I should say that the report actually provides what I think is an excellent history of the bill and the related matters. Some of it could be seen by people outside this system as being quite bizarre. There was a situation where some parts of the government thought it was very clever to move that the private members bill in the lower house be referred to the Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Committee to—and these are my words—get rid of it for a while, and to stall.

We have seen those sorts of activities on behalf of the government in the lower house in the past. Then, of course, within days, some other arm of the government that obviously had not been talking to the one that referred it to the committee decided to come up with legislation which superseded the referral. So, I do recommend that people have a look at the report, as it actually summarises that rather bizarre set of events.

I suppose, as we move around this building, we sometimes pick up some information that is not always available to everybody. I became aware that some elements in cabinet wished that the committee might just ignore the referral and not bring up a report. I have got to say, I am very pleased that the committee unanimously determined to fulfil its responsibility to bring a report to the parliament. I personally thought it was offensive that elements in the executive of this government, having initially deemed it appropriate to flick this off to a committee to take it away and look at to get rid of the issue, then suddenly decided to fix the issue and then told committee members, 'Oh, well, just forget we ever sent that to you.'

Well, that is not the way a good parliament works, it is not the way the Westminster system should work. I am one who very much supports the committee system, and I have to say that I am proud of the fact that the committee determined that it was absolutely inappropriate for us to go away and forget that we ever got the referral. I am pleased about that.

In conclusion, I should indicate that I would particularly note the detail in the Presiding Member's remarks in the report, and I also commend the conclusion of the report for those who are interested in the detail of this matter, and many in the community are obviously very interested in the welfare of the voluntary firefighting workforce.

Like the Hon. Mr Kandelaars, I also thank the Presiding Member, the Hon. Steph Key, for the manner in which she chairs that committee. I thank all other members of the committee, particularly the hardworking sole staff member of the committee, Ms Sue Sedivy. I commend the report to the council.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:16): It would come as no surprise that I rise to speak to this motion and, indeed, in support and to thank the committee for their work. This is an issue that has been long before this parliament. The bill that was referred to the committee by the member for Morphett mirrored the bill that I brought to this place many years ago and continued to bring to this place in the form of both private members' bills and, indeed, amendments to government bills.

I am pleased to see that, with the return to work debate, we have finally seen this issue addressed in government amendments to that particular bill, which have now become law. It does seem odd to a bystander to see this report now coming back to a parliament to recommend something that we have already now done as a parliament.

Of course, the complexities of the story are far greater than that, and this is an issue that has now ended not with a bang but with a whimper. It is an issue which I think will continue to go on, because it is an issue which goes to the treatment of CFS volunteers by this government: the lack of respect accorded to them and afforded to them, that this government did not take heed of the Senate inquiry into this issue, did not take heed of the fact that, internationally, volunteer and career firefighters have already been afforded this presumptive treatment under the laws of various jurisdictions. They did not want to listen to those particular perspectives, particularly in that the South Australian volunteer fire force, by its very nature, fights structural fires which are the subject of the studies that show that there are these causal links between certain types of cancer and the act of firefighting.

We are very privileged to have the CFS volunteer fire force we have in this state. As climate change continues to impact and create increased and more extreme climate changes for us as a state, we should be even more grateful. But what does the current minister do, according to The Advertiser front-page story of this week?He threatens to sue people who give him bad publicity when they point out that perhaps it was not the most appropriate time for him to be doing a photo opportunity just after one of the most recent emergencies in our state.

I would say to that minister that he should heed the lessons of this report, that he may be coming in here in future times perhaps with a different perspective on his emergency services reform if he does not listen to the CFS and the SES volunteers. Let's hope that their voices are heard by the government well before a posthumous report needs to come back to this parliament. With those few words, I support the report.

Motion carried.