Bills

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SACFS) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 May 2014.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:44): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to support the second reading of the bill. Members will be well aware that this has been a well-argued principle and piece of legislation. I put a position on behalf of Liberal members in this chamber in general terms back on 26 November last year. Subsequent to that, there has been a state election, at which there has been some public debate and discussion on this issue.

On 22 January this year, Liberal leader Steven Marshall issued a joint press release with the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire which indicated that a Marshall Liberal government would provide these CFS volunteers with the same access to compensation for specified cancers as for paid firefighters. The Liberal Party's position has not changed since then, and for those reasons we will support the second reading.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (17:45): I rise on behalf of the government to respond to the Greens' attempt to circumvent the review process that has been agreed to between the government, the Country Fire Service volunteers and other key government stakeholders. As was recently outlined in the other place by the Minister for Industrial Relations, this review process is well underway, as was promised before and after the state election.

The council will recall that on 19 June 2013 the Minister for Industrial Relations introduced into the other place the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation (SAMFS Firefighters) Amendment Bill 2013. With the support of both sides of politics, this bill was passed by both houses in November last year. Let me make clear that no firefighter, whether a volunteer or paid, is precluded from lodging a workers compensation claim under the current arrangements for cancer compensation. I reiterate: no firefighter, whether volunteer or paid, is precluded from lodging a workers compensation claim under the current arrangements for cancer compensation.

The current act is one of the most progressive in the country on presumptive legislation, matched only by Tasmania. It removes the onus of proof on paid firefighters, as well as a cohort of Country Fire Service volunteer firefighters who attend a comparable number of fires to their Metropolitan Fire Service counterparts. Nevertheless, the government recognised last year that the amendment was controversial, and we have listened to the concerns of the CFS Volunteers Association, the Country Fire Service and the community, and as such the government promised last year that it would review the amendments if re-elected.

Well, the government was re-elected and we quickly commenced the review as promised. Since the state election, the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Minister for Emergency Services and the Minister for Regional Development have discussed the legislation and the demands of volunteers and met with interested parties, the Country Fire Service, the CFS Volunteers Association, the Metropolitan Fire Service, the United Firefighters Union, SAFECOM and others. It was agreed by all that the assumptions made in the original actuarial report would be reviewed by a working group of interested parties, and the costings for various presumptive legislation options would again be developed by an independent actuary whose appointment was agreed by the parties.

This process of reviewing the assumptions has now mostly been completed, free of any political involvement. The assumptions have already been provided to an independent actuary, and the review will be completed within about three months and tabled in parliament by the end of September, as promised. The government will then have the most up to date information, agreed by all, to inform decisions, including the extent of coverage provided by the government.

Nevertheless, the Greens decided again to introduce their own amendments to the legislation, legislation both houses had already considered and ultimately rejected. The Greens introduced this bill knowing that the government and volunteers were currently working together in good faith. I can only assume this was undertaken for political purposes, knowing that the review was underway and knowing that the opposition was planning to introduce amendments.

I ask the Greens: if you are so convinced that the government's estimated costs for the presumptive legislation are wrong, as per your 7 May speech, what costings did the Greens use, who did your actuarial work, and how much should the Treasury put aside for your bill? How nice it must be to live in a world where you only put forward ideas and do not need to be concerned about how much it might cost the taxpayer.

The Greens have again demonstrated their complete inability to understand the facts and the government's position on this issue. It is astonishing that the Greens—given that they have been in possession of the original actuarial report, which contains all costings, with and without qualifying periods, and despite their claims to the contrary on 7 May—still cannot grasp the various costings the government has outlined.

I will help by pointing the Greens to page 5 of the actuarial report, which states that $24.95 million is the annual cost for the CFS to be fully included. As previously advised, but not understood by the Greens, the figure of $1.8 million relates to the costs under the government's 175 over five years model. The other costs that were discussed by the Minister for Industrial Relations, $36 million and $84 million, are very clearly explained on page 4, table 2.1.

It is deeply disturbing to the government that the Greens speak with such authority on this issue but still do not understand the basic costing implications, and, rather than reading the report and asking appropriate questions, try and twist and turn the debate purely for political purposes. In fact, on 7 May in this chamber the Greens accused the government of politicising the issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the Greens and the Liberal Party who have attempted to convince the people of South Australia, including volunteers, that they are not covered by the legislation rather than explaining to those less informed that it is about the burden of proof. I reiterate: no firefighter, whether volunteer or paid, is precluded from lodging a workers compensation claim under the current arrangements for cancer compensation.

Let me assure you, Mr President, that the government has done its homework. We did develop costings, we have spoken with Tasmania and the commonwealth about the legislation, we have looked carefully at the extremely high costs predicted in Victoria if they went down this path—which, I understand, they rejected, like all other states except Tasmania and South Australia. We have looked at the science through the Monash studies and comparable studies undertaken in New York and Canada, and we will continue to look.

The volunteers understand the reason for the review; unfortunately, the Greens do not. The government appreciates the concerns of our brave and selfless volunteers, and again thanks them for working so professionally with the government on this issue.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:54): Sometimes I think that members of the government have a different understanding of the truth than do the regular folk of this state, and, indeed, of the CFS Volunteers Association, who fully support the Greens and the Liberal Party bringing this bill back to this place. I am glad the government has finally realised that at the moment any firefighter (paid or volunteer) can take a cancer compensation claim to WorkCover and have that claim accepted.

So, the liability already sits with government; the financial implications are already there. By not having a presumptive schedule that is equal what this Weatherill Labor government says to volunteer firefighters who put their lives on the line is that, 'You are lesser and we are probably going to fight you. If you get cancer and you come to us with a WorkCover claim we are going to fight you. We are not going to give you presumption, we are going to fight you on your claim for WorkCover. We are going to shirk our responsibility, even though you put your life on the line to save our state, our property and, indeed, the people of this state.'

What I would note is that while the government has said that it has taken notice of the science it was the Hon. Kyam Maher who came into this place and said that the science was not there to prove that volunteers and paid firefighters in this state should have been treated the same. It was this government that put up a bill that did not even consider including one single volunteer. It was this council, this chamber, that pushed the government and, indeed, the Minister for Industrial Relations (dragged kicking and screaming) not only to finally release the actuarial report that he kept quoting selectively from but to have an amendment to their government bill that did not, in the first instance, consider the plight of one single volunteer, to actually have a scheme that gave second-class citizen treatment to CFS volunteers.

It was this council that has long championed and long spoken to the CFS Volunteers Association, when I must note that it was not until the passage of the current legislation that minister Rau sat down and spoke with the CFS volunteers for the first time, after repeated requests for a meeting. We have been through several ministers on this bill. We have been through several years of debate. It is no surprise to members of this chamber that the Greens were going to bring this back. Indeed, I co-sponsor this particular bill with Dr Duncan McFetridge of the opposition and I thank him for his ongoing commitment to this issue.

I find it a little cute, to paraphrase one of the Labor ministers, that somehow the Weatherill government has a longstanding commitment to presumptive cancer compensation legislation for CFS volunteers and is here to do the behest and the bidding of the CFS volunteers. If they spoke to the volunteers, with respect, they would know that there are still industrial work bans on, that the CFS volunteers of this state are still taking industrial action against members of the Weatherill government in not having photos for photo opportunities taken with members of your government, that they are continuing to maintain the rage, that they support this bill to the hilt and that they just want equality and respect. It is the least we can do for people who put their lives on the line for us. If this fire season shows anything it shows that we need them more than they need us.

What I find cute is that you are coming in here and asking for costings, yet your actuarial report we had to drag kicking and screaming out of you on the last sitting day in this place. Indeed, as I say, the assumptions made in that report that were quoted by the Minister for Industrial Relations selectively did not factor in the schedule of the 12 primary site cancers and did not start with the five years minimum qualifying period of service, and indeed 25 years in the case of oesophageal cancer with a range in between—did not use those figures. The opposition, with their costings at the election, came up with a much lesser figure, although quite a substantial figure. But the liability sits with us.

So, the financial impost of the bill is a moot point because any volunteer firefighter and any paid firefighter who contracts cancer can take that claim to WorkCover and have it assessed. What we do with the presumptive legislation is we put it out there and say, 'This is a schedule by which more than likely we are going to presume that that cancer that you have contracted was linked to the act of your firefighting, to that brave act that we are very happy to stand and take photo ops with them straight after a fire, but five, 10, 25 years down the track when they contract cancer we do not want to hear from them,' seems to be the story coming from this government. What we say to them is that we respect you and we treat the work that you do as a firefighter with the respect that it deserves by giving the CFS equality with the treatment that we have given the MFS when it comes to presumptive legislation on cancer compo.

I have to say that not one single person will go out and try to contract cancer to get compensation. I am pretty sure in saying that. Yet that seems to be one of the underlying assumptions that the government makes here, that somehow this scheme will be rorted. I have to point out that somebody will have to have fought fires for at least five years and, in some cases, more than 25 years, to qualify, and then contract cancer—and one of the 12 specified cancers that are linked scientifically to the act of firefighting. That is a pretty high hurdle. In its current legislation, the government has a high hurdle for the MFS and then it has an even higher hurdle, in fact it has a steeplechase, for the CFS.

We have not politicised this issue, we have not come in here with our research not done; it has been this government time and time again who has fudged this issue. The government listened to its union mates and did not talk to the CFS volunteers, and they have been dragged kicking and screaming to something that I believe we should have had cross-party work on right from the start.

When I first took this issue to the government (it was the then minister Snelling and the then minister Wortley who I first spoke with about this issue), we should have had cross-party support for a bill to come before this place that considered the science and considered equality, as had been the case right up until that point under WorkCover. We had never treated the CFS volunteer firefighters differently from the MFS firefighters. We had always considered that a firefighter was a worker for the purposes of the WorkCover Act.

You were the ones, as a government, who stepped away from that absolute respect for the work of firefighting, whether it was paid or unpaid. Indeed, you were the ones who suffered electorally as a result. You did win government. You have made up the numbers for a minority government in the House of Assembly but what I would say is that sitting in your cabinet is the Minister for Regional Development, the member for Frome, the man who co-sponsored with me in the last parliament the bill that we have before us here today. I expect he will be voting for it this time around. I know that he has been co-opted into your review. The review I believe is simply yet another stalling tactic from people who did not have the respect to work with the CFS volunteers from day one.

I would also say that in your cabinet is, of course, the member for Waite who has previously supported CFS equality and we will certainly be keeping him to that previous support. I am sure the local Mitcham CFS volunteers will have something to say about it should he not. With that, I commend the bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (18:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

At 18:05 the council adjourned until Thursday 5 June 2014 at 14:15.