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

I have a few brief remarks in closing this debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011. Firstly, I note the significance of this House's first co-sponsored bill. The bill is sponsored not only by me but also by the member for Calwell and the member for McMillan and it is seconded by the Independent member for Kennedy. The first-ever bill proceeding through this place that enjoys support right across the chamber is testament to a number of things. It is testament to the independence of the United Firefighters Union, many members of which are here with us in the gallery today, and also the very strong science based case that they have put for this legislation.

The bill also reflects an understanding right across this chamber that many of the firefighters who will be affected by this bill do put their lives on the line for us in some very obvious ways. It is an extremely risky job to go into a burning building to rescue someone and then to extinguish the fire. But what the science shows, what the firefighters have demonstrated to us and what the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee has endorsed is that the risks do not stop there. Indeed, it is often the case that the after-effects of repeated exposure to the kinds of chemicals that are found especially in structural fires can be just as lethal as the fires themselves.

What is clear from the science put to the now concluded Senate inquiry into this bill is that, when firefighters are repeatedly exposed to the toxic cocktail of 70,000 synthetic chemicals in the average home fire because it seeps in through their uniforms, no matter how good the uniforms are, although firefighters might start the job 20 per cent healthier than the average member of the population they can find themselves after five years, for example, having up to twice the risk of leukaemia and a much greater case risk of cancers like testicular cancer.

The firefighters union, through the campaign it conducted to bring this matter to the attention of the House, has convinced all of us, no matter where we sit in this chamber, that we should be doing what we can to protect those who protect us. The Senate committee did recommend there be some amendments to the bill but did recommend that the bill be passed. It is my anticipation that the second reading of this bill will now pass through the House. We will have the opportunity Monday fortnight to consider some of the amendments. It will then come back here the following Thursday and I anticipate it will still continue to enjoy the support of everyone right across this chamber so that we can hopefully, if all proceeds well in the other place, have this legislation in place by the end of the year. I think it will be a remarkable testament to this parliament that we finish the year with a co-sponsored bill that is about protecting those in the community who protect us. So together, I know, with many others in this place—and I am sure many of those in the gallery—I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 41, further considerations of this bill shall be accorded priority over other public members' business and the selection committee may determine times for consideration of the remaining stages.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—My comments will be exceptionally brief. I told my staff when I saw this bill that, no, we are not going to vote for it. We are not Santa Claus here to be handing out money, pay and conditions to everyone who wants some extra pay and conditions. Jen Eliot, my chief of staff, said, 'No, you will read the scientific basis for this request,' and she forced me to read the scientific analysis and data put together by the United Firefighters Union. Having read that, there was no way that I could then shy away from backing the bill. It was an unassailable case.

In making that statement, I want to pay a very fine tribute to the firefighters union here. It is very seldom that we in this place get a case put as professionally and as scientifically as that. They fought like tigers to stay out and away from amalgamation, and that decision has served this union well. It is a very good decision today, and we thank the honourable member Mr Bandt for bringing it forward. But most of all I think that it is a tribute to good unionism. Unions seem to get criticised almost universally throughout the Australian media these days and all of us are intimidated and do not come forward and praise a union these days. This action is something that needed to be done and has now been done. My congratulations to both sides of the House and to the initiator, but most of all to the union—a very, very fine performance.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the Leader of the House I very much welcome the firefighters who are here in the gallery today. They do a great job on behalf of the Australian people and it is fantastic to see them in the people's house today. This is an initiative that has widespread support across the House of Representatives and across the parliament. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party and the government, I very much welcome them here today.