Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It may suit the committee for any proposed amendments to be moved and for the question on each amendment or group of amendments to be deferred until the conclusion of debate on all amendments. This would allow any interested member to speak to any amendments that had been moved. After the committee has debated any amendments moved now and also this evening, questions on the amendments or group of amendments proposed by members will be adjourned to a future day.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (10):

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 7), omit "first diagnosed", substitute "sustained".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 10), at the end of paragraph 7(8)(c), add "and".

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 10), after paragraph 7(8)(c), insert:

(d) in the case of a cancer of a kind covered by item 8 of the following table—satisfies the conditions (if any) prescribed for such a cancer;

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 11), omit "is taken to have been the dominant cause of", substitute "is, for the purposes of this Act, taken to have contributed, to a significant degree, to".

(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 17 and 18), omit "several periods", substitute "2 or more periods".

(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 19), omit "period.", substitute "period; and".

(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 19), at the end of subsection 7(9), add:

(c) an employee is taken to have been employed as a firefighter only if he or she was (disregarding the effect of any declarations under subsection 5(15)) employed as a firefighter by the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth authority or a licensed corporation.

(8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3, after subsection 7(9), insert:

(10) Subsection (8) does not limit, and is not limited by, subsections (1) and (2).

(9) Schedule 1, page 3, at the end of the Schedule, add (after item 1):

2 Review of amendment

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of the amendment made by item 1 to be undertaken and completed by 31 December 2013.

(2) The person who undertakes the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(3) The report must be published on the Department's website.

(10) Schedule 1, page 3, at the end of the Schedule, add (after proposed item 2):

3 Application

The amendment made by item 1 applies in relation to a disease that an employee sustains on or after 4 July 2011.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the wish of the Main Committee, the question that the amendments moved by the member for Calwell be agreed to is deferred until after debate has concluded on all amendments.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (1):

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after table item 7), delete table item 8 and insert:

I reserve my right to speak.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the wish of the Main Committee, the question that the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to is deferred until after debate has concluded on all amendments.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great privilege to speak to this bill and move these important amendments on behalf of the government. This is a significant moment for the professional firefighting community in their quest for presumptive legislation as today this parliament moves to deliver the legislative framework necessary to protect Australian firefighters from the health hazards posed to them by the very profession they serve with such courage and professionalism.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Chris Evans. I also commend the bipartisan support of the member for Melbourne and the Member for McMillan and the work of Senator Gavin Marshall, who chaired the Senate inquiry. I thank them for their contribution to this very important issue.

The government supports the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 and will table several technical amendments to ensure that it operates in a fair and sustainable way and that it is consistent with the requirements under the rest of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. Every day firefighters risk their health and safety to protect the lives and property of other people. Their contribution to the community cannot be underestimated. The government therefore supports the removal of any unnecessary barriers to firefighters having their workers compensation claims recognised. The amendments that the government will move today have been the subject of consultation with the ACT government, who is a major employer of firefighters covered by this bill, as well as the United Firefighters Union.

Item 1 will replace the term 'first diagnosed' with 'sustained', which is the terminology already used throughout the act and which determines how the date of an injury is to be determined. The government will also move an amendment to allow additional conditions to be attached to cancers which might be added over time by way of regulation. Subject to passage of the bill, the government intends to prescribe primary site lung cancer. This is consistent with the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee's recommendation and North American firefighters' legislation. However, also in line with North American firefighters' legislation, the addition of primary site lung cancer will be limited to nonsmokers. The proposed amendment will allow that condition to be included, which the government intends to develop in consultation with experts and key stakeholders.

Item 4 proposes to replace the phrase 'dominant cause' in the current bill with 'significant degree', which is the terminology currently used throughout the act. The government will also move an amendment to replace the term 'several periods' with the phrase 'more than one period'. This will avoid the risk of not covering firefighters who have accrued two rather than several periods of employment.

Item 7 proposes an amendment that would further define 'firefighter'. The amendment would limit the provisions of the bill to a firefighter employed by the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth authority or a corporation licensed under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The effect of this amendment would generally be to limit the bill to career firefighters who are mainly involved in fighting structural fires. This reflects the current state of scientific knowledge about the links between cancer and firefighting work.

Proposed item 8 clarifies that the bill does not limit an employee's right to have their claim assessed under other provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The government will also move an amendment to require an independent review of the bill to be conducted by 31 December 2013. This is consistent with best practice regulation and will require that a written report be provided to the minister and published on the departmental website. Finally, item 10 will set an operative date for the legislation, with the new provisions applying to diseases 'sustained' on or after 4 July 2011, the date the bill was introduced into the House.

In moving these amendments, I would like to pay tribute to the late senior firefighter Robert Reed, his widow Janet Reed and their children Sarah and Corey Reed. Robert passed away in October 2009 as a result of kidney cancer. I also want to acknowledge those firefighters who bravely shared their experiences with cancer, knowing they would not benefit from this legislation. They are: station officers Dean Symanns and Phillip Wigg; leading firefighters Scott Morrison, Mick Busst, Philip Brown, Ross Lindley and his wife Karen Lindley; senior station officer Paul Henderson; and commanders Frank Besanko and Guy McCrorie. I also want to acknowledge International Association of Fire Fighters General President Harold Schaitberger, international expert and senior firefighter Alex Forrest and distinguished fire chief Ken Block. I also acknowledge pioneers such as retired superintendent John Berry, who had the foresight to commission a report into cancer related illness in firefighters in 1991. I want to thank the National Committee of Management of the United Firefighters Union of Australia, who made available the expertise of various Australian firefighters who assisted the Senate inquiry. I also give a warm acknowledgement and thankyou to Peter Marshall and his team for their tireless efforts. I commend the work of all those involved and welcome these amendments. (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 is seeking to introduce retrospective compensation for firefighters who are diagnosed with certain types of cancer, after qualifying periods of services.

Firefighters are an important part of our community and we all support and appreciate the wonderful work they do promoting fire safety and protecting people from fires. In any survey of ordinary everyday Australians as to the most trusted professions, firefighters always rate at or near the top, as should be the case. All Australians acknowledge, rely upon, respect and trust firefighters and the brave and remarkable work they do for our communities.

The coalition supports this bill, but it is important to note that it is for a very specific group of firefighters who are exposed to a specific number of fires with specific hazardous chemicals that can cause cancers. This bill will bring about change for around 2,800 firefighters, the majority of whom are employed by the Australian Capital Territory government. These firefighters are a very specific group who represent approximately eight per cent of the Australian firefighting labour force. The remaining firefighters are covered by the relevant state or territory workers compensation legislation.

The introduction of this presumptive legislation is to ensure the class of employees, namely firefighters, if employed for specific lengths of time can deem certain cancers contracted by them to be work related unless the contrary is established. For firefighters who develop the specified cancers as a result of their work, the cancer will be deemed to be work related and therefore compensation will be available.

The qualifying periods of employment highlight the length of time for which one must come into contact with these types of fires to qualify and indicates that most firefighters would never be exposed to the same levels that the qualifying firefighters will have been. The cancers and associated qualifying periods of employment as set out in the bill are: primary site brain cancer—five years; primary site bladder cancer—15 years; primary site kidney cancer—15 years; primary non-Hodgkin lymphoma—15 years; primary leukaemia—five years; primary site breast cancer—10 years; and, primary site testicular cancer—10 years. The amendment put forward will remove the onus of proof required for certain cancers. Instead of the employee having to demonstrate the illness is work related before they are compensated, it will be up to the employer to produce evidence that the cancer is not work related.

Whilst the coalition supports this bill, it is important to ensure that this legislation does not set a precedent for compensation claims by other industries or other firefighters who are not exposed to the same level of hazardous chemicals that can cause these harmful and deadly illnesses. Whilst firefighters do have access to workers compensation it has proven difficult to pursue some claims because of the unique nature of their workplace.

The coalition appreciates and understands these concerns and it is therefore supportive of this legislation. I know how many people in the Riverina have contacted me in relation to supporting this particular legislation, these particular amendments, to ensure that it is supported, and that it does go through, to support those firefighters in the dangerous work they do now and into the future so that they have peace of mind.

It is also important to remember that there are other channels for compensation for other firefighters and other workers in different industries who develop illnesses or are injured in the workplace. We do not need to introduce, nor should we introduce, legislation that is specific for each possible scenario when these measures are already provided for by states and territories.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As foreshadowed when this bill, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011, was in the main chamber when we last sat, the federal and ACT governments had raised a number of concerns about the operation of the bill. There was then to be a period of discussion during which we would consider how to deal with those concerns. A fortnight later, I am very pleased to be in a position where there are a set of amendments proposed by the government and supported by the Greens, and there is an amendment that I have moved that I understand will be supported by the government. The member for Calwell outlined the amendments well and went through the purpose of those amendments, so I do not intend to add to that. Those amendments will clarify issues around prospectivity, clarify to whom the bill applies and clarify the date from which the bill operates.

There is one matter, though, that I do wish to note briefly. In the course of the discussions, the ACT government raised the point that it wanted to make it clear that this bill and these amendments would apply to employed firefighters and not to volunteers, because there are a number of volunteers who are employed in the ACT government. Accordingly, that is reflected in these amendments. My position is that I hope that, if it is the case that, at some later stage, volunteer firefighters consider they can mount a similar, science based case to be included in this, then they are in a position to do that. Maybe the review of the legislation that is to be conducted, to be concluded by 31 December 2013, would be an appropriate opportunity to do that. It should be said that, when the bill was first introduced, it proceeded on the basis that we were talking about, where it applied to a very small group of employed firefighters, but that should not preclude those who feel they are in a position to make a similar, science based case coming back with that at some later stage. But they will not be included in this amendment, as I think everyone understands.

The amendment that has been circulated in my name, amendment (1), gives effect, broadly—with one exception—to one of the recommendations of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. The report of the committee noted that the number of cancers to be covered by the bill was substantially less than what is covered in other jurisdictions and, in particular, in Canadian jurisdictions. The Senate inquiry recommended that, were the bill to proceed, Australian firefighters should have the same—no less but certainly at least as much—cover as is given to firefighters in other jurisdictions. The science has advanced, and all of the cancers that I propose be included, as per my amendment, are supported by the science, according to the Senate committee inquiry and as reflected by the legislation in other jurisdictions.

The one exception I mentioned is lung cancer. Lung cancer will not be covered by this bill, and the primary reason for that is that there is not yet in Australian law an adequate definition of 'nonsmoker'. The Senate committee recommended that the reversal of onus and the presumption that this bill would enact only apply to nonsmokers who get lung cancer, but there is as yet no suitable definition of 'nonsmoker' in Australian law. As the member for Calwell indicated, that is something that the government will enact by regulation when there is a suitable definition of 'nonsmoker'. All interested parties will have the opportunity to contribute to the framing of that definition because it may have broader implications.

I would like to conclude by commending the approach taken by the government and the opposition in this matter. Minister Evans's office in particular has devoted a good deal of time to making sure that we come up with a solution that addresses the legitimate concerns of employers but also provides the support that firefighters in other jurisdictions are entitled to, in line with the Senate committee recommendations, which ought to be put in place. I commend the opposition for their stance on this. I think it would be a fitting end to this year to pass, with the support of everyone in the parliament, a bill that will give greater protection to those who protect us.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First let me say that I recognise that the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 covers a very small group of people, comparatively speaking, in the ACT. I also recognise that, where it applies to certain diseases, it will have time limits imposed on each of those diseases. I also recognise that it may not be quite as generous as the Canadian model. I also recognise that there will be ongoing studies before a definition of 'lung cancer' will fit comfortably within this legislation. I join with the Greens and government members in saying, however, that the general thrust of this legislation is very important.

I want to reiterate some of the points we have made leading up to these amendments. We do not always readily appreciate that firefighters carry out a number of duties. It is not just firefighting in the conventional sense of the word. In Queensland, for example, they have primary responsibility for fast-running river rescues. They put out grass fires, go into burning buildings, clean up toxic chemicals and confine fuel leaks. As we have seen with the legislation for people who worked at Maralinga during the atomic tests and legislation we are now considering for the people who worked on desealing-resealing the F111s, there are a lot of hazards that go beyond simple fires.

Although this applies to a fairly small group of people—initially in the ACT because others are covered by state legislation—if we get this right it will become benchmark legislation. No doubt others will look to this legislation—perhaps the states will review their legislation against ours and perhaps volunteer firefighters, who this is not proposed to cover at this stage, will also start to look to it. We need to recognise the sort of work that firefighters do. It does not just stop with racing into a building, although that is where firefighters are most vulnerable.

It is also good to reiterate the point about their clothing. Their clothing needs to breathe because of the intense heat that the firefighters sometimes face but because it breathes they are exposed to benzene, styrene, chloroform and formaldehyde. The prospect of firefighters attracting certain forms of cancer is higher. According to Alex Forrest, who is the Canadian trustee of the International Association of Fire Fighters, studies have shown that firefighters have two to four times the level of some cancers compared with the general population. As the member for Melbourne said, the Senate committee 'is confident that a link between firefighting and an increased incidence of certain cancers has been demonstrated beyond doubt'. That brings us to this legislation that will apply largely in the ACT.

We need to recognise that there are a lot of Australians who have fought brain cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, breast cancer, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukaemia. They are all deadly cancers that generally put a shudder through us. Firefighters meet those in their normal daily work. It is challenging. Having fought in other fields for people exposed to chemicals I support these amendments. I think they will go a long way to getting justice for a very important part of our community.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 and the provisions the bill makes to ensure that the men and women of Australia's fire and emergency services are buffered to some degree against the financial and personal hardships that can result from working in the extreme and dangerous conditions they face on our behalf. By amending the bill, the government will remove the legislative barriers that currently obstruct access to workers compensation arrangements for approximately 2,800 firefighters, predominantly in the ACT, and will align the Commonwealth legislation with standards afforded to firefighters across Australian states and territories, standards which are provided as a right in countries with similar fire incidence profiles, like the United States and Canada.

When we think about the victims of fire, our thoughts turn to those who tragically lose their lives as a consequence of smoke inhalation or heat exposure. We do not think as often about the firefighters themselves, who can be affected by cancer decades after being exposed to the toxic carcinogens released through fire. The government understands that Australian firefighters have a higher rate of cancer than the general population, a finding that can only be attributed to the exposure of firefighters to carcinogens found in both structural and environmental fires. I was surprised to learn that even in bushfires, firefighters are exposed to cancer-causing substances such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and dioxins in the smoke. A 2008 study by Cornell University found that thermal decomposition of products such as wire coatings, rubber and vinyl tubing, in addition to chemicals generally released from brush forest and tyre blazes, significantly heightens the risk of breast cancer.

With the passage of this legislation, the government is ensuring that firefighters at risk of cancer will have ready access to workers compensation. This is really the least that can be done in terms of providing essential support at a time of significant distress to people who have given so much to our protection. As we look ahead, the climate science indicates a likely increase in the number and intensity of bushfires. That only reinforces the value of the government's work in better planning and coordination when it comes to fire avoidance and firefighting and the value of adequate protection, facilities and equipment for our firefighters.

In my own electorate of Fremantle, the federal government recently committed $1.5 million in partnership with the City of Cockburn to build a $3.7 million emergency services headquarters that will house both the Cockburn and South Coogee volunteer bushfire services. This is an incredibly welcome investment, especially in the context of the metropolitan bushfires that took more than 70 homes during Perth's last summer. My uncle and aunt's home was one of these.

Earlier this year the government established the Public Safety Mobile Broadband Steering Committee to investigate calls from the Fire and Emergency Service industry for a mobile broadband communications system. Such a system would allow for live streaming video from fire locations, tracking of biodata and live monitoring of the location of fire and emergency services vehicles and personnel. The most effective measure in ensuring the safety of firefighters, however, is to reduce the number of fires that require their involvement. The government is making a contribution in this area through a series of fire hazard reduction programs and, in the longer term, through the implementation of the clean energy future package. These reforms will work to slow the effects of climate change and greatly reduce the environmental factors fuelling an increase in fires through higher average global temperatures and prolonged drought.

In conclusion, the fair protection for firefighters bill is an eminently sensible piece of legislation that will ensure that the men and women of the fire and emergency services will be looked after and have access to workers compensation arrangements in the event that they are affected by cancer. What is more, through industry consultation, the government is working hard to make sure that firefighters have access to the services and equipment they need, and that we make a coordinated effort to reduced fires across Australia by tackling the causes, both natural and human, through legislation and education.

If a soldier experiences injury or post-traumatic stress after returning home from combat, there are support services and there is a financial safety net. If a police man or woman is injured or develops health issues in the course of their duties, there are provisions that will ensure that they get the help they need. With this bill we are ensuring that if firefighters develop health problems as a result of their work protecting lives and property in extremely hazardous circumstances, there is adequate and appropriate access to the financial support they will need. It is the very least we can do, it is timely and it is overdue. For all these reasons, I wholeheartedly support this bill. I commend the member for Melbourne, Mr Bandt, for bringing this legislation to parliament, and the government and the opposition for supporting it.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection For Firefighters) Bill. Before I discuss the legislation. I would like to start by pointing out the remarkable service that career firefighters and volunteer firefighters provide to all of us in the community. Their work is truly remarkable. In some cases they risk their own lives in the pursuit of saving the lives of others. Their courage and bravery in defending property and person cannot be underestimated and their dedication can never be questioned. It is important to understand and remember that point. This debate is not about being pro-firefighter or anti-firefighter; it is about the specific legislation that has been brought before the House and its implications.

I would like to highlight today three concerns I have with the legislation that is before the House. Most significantly, this bill seeks to break the causal link between the workplace and an illness that is acquired in the workplace. Instead it deems that if certain cancers are acquired by a professional firefighter and that firefighter has been a firefighter for a period of time, as prescribed in the schedule, then they are deemed to have acquired the specific cancer as a result of their professional duties—that is, that it is work related. I am concerned by this, because I believe a causal link is important. Under existing laws, it is something that all other professions are subject to. If the science is as strong as stated in the information that has been brought forward, it would not be difficult for the science to be proved under the existing legislation. This change in the onus of proof is a real shift in the foundations on which our legal system is predicated. I think it is concerning.

The second issue that I would like to raise today in relation to this legislation relates to the fact that this legislation covers professional firefighters only, not voluntary firefighters. Up until now, up until before the member for Melbourne spoke, it was said that this is critical because it is a significantly small, narrow and targeted piece of legislation—it was only for professional fire fighters. Yet the member for Melbourne himself said that it is something that could be expanded to voluntary firefighters and to anybody else who could demonstrate the science. Voluntary firefighters should not be in any worse position than professional firefighters. I find it curious that this has been brought forward for professional firefighters only. One can only question what the motivation might be behind that. I do not make any statements regarding that, but I do find it most curious indeed.

The third issue that I would like to raise in relation to this legislation is the precedent that it sets. It is very clear that there are very many professions that put themselves in danger for the rest of the community—emergency service workers, policemen and policewomen, ambulance workers and many others—the list goes on and on. This legislation will be used as a precedent to expand out to other professions. That should concern a number of us who perhaps are considering only the stories that they have heard in relation to professional firefighters. I must say, the stories are very moving. They touch my heart as I am sure they did the heart of the member for Melbourne and others who support this legislation. But it is my very strong and considered view that presumptive legislation is not the answer to this problem. Today I place on record my personal opposition to this legislation.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the determination of the selection committee, the time for consideration of the bill has expired. The questions on the amendments moved by the member for Calwell and the member for Melbourne are adjourned until a later hour.

Sitting suspended from 13:34 to 16 : 00