Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the proposed amendments be agreed to.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me considerable pleasure to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011. The starting point is that the House is united behind this quite extraordinary bill. It is extraordinary because it identifies a certain section of our society comprising professional firefighters and recognises that they expose themselves to a degree of danger and hazard which involves long-term risks to their health.

Numerous studies in the United States and Canada, and now in Australia, indicate that there is a correlation between service in the protection of our society against fire—in particular chemical fires and other major fires which cause hazard both in the firefighting process itself and in the long term—and the incidence of cancer. Firefighters as a group come in as a fit array of young people. Their general level of fitness is higher than that of the rest of the community, so in the ordinary course of events their natural disposition would be to have a lower rate of cancers in the long term. We see, however, that those leaving the profession have a higher risk of many cancers—including brain, bladder, kidney, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, leukaemia, breast and testicular cancers. This bill is born of these facts, and it has managed to win the support of those on all sides.

The bill reverses the onus of proof, and that is a significant threshold which should be viewed with caution because to change the onus of proof and to assume that a cancer is caused by a particular line of service is an enormous step. However, we have to consider the international evidence, in part related to the September 11 tragedy and the extraordinary rate of illness and significant disease which has been brought upon those firefighters over the past decade. This legislation has been brought about in part by the evidence from Canada and now the evidence from Australia. Against that background of considerable and significant evidence the coalition decided to allow this bill to pass and in effect to provide the support necessary for it to do so. I was part of the joint cabinet discussions, and I acknowledge that Senator Abetz was a particular champion of this legislation. Many others have been supportive of it. It recognises the role of firefighters in protecting our community, and it also recognises that there is significant evidence that they place themselves in harm's way.

So this bill wins our support. It is a particular step in relation to about 2,800 firefighters, the majority of them in the ACT. ACT firefighters represent about eight per cent of the total number of Australian firefighters. I have given an undertaking to the volunteer brigades in my own community at the CFA level to put the case that they also wish for consideration of the safety and long-term health of volunteer firefighters. They include people within the Peninsula group of the CFA, including Boneo, Dromana, Flinders, Main Ridge, Mt Martha, Rosebud, Rye and Sorrento; within the Western Port group of the CFA, including Balnarring, Baxter, Bittern and Crib Point; within the Hastings group, including Langwarrin, Moorooduc, Mornington, Red Hill, Shoreham, Somerville, Somers and Tyabb; within the Bass Coast group, including Bass, Corinella, Dalyston, French Island, Glen Alvie, Kernot, Kilcunda, Phillip Island and San Remo; within the Casey group, which includes Clyde, Pearcedale, Warneet-Blind Bight, Devon Meadows, Tooradin; and within the Cardinia group, which includes Bayles, Koo Wee Rup and Lang Lang. That is an additional step. We would need to look at the data. We need to approach this with an open mind. If the data stacks up, then their case becomes equally strong.

On this day, we have the evidence in relation to the safety of long-term professional firefighters and the correlation between their job and risks to their health. On that basis, I am delighted to support this legislation and I note that is now our duty to look at the long-term health of and risks for our volunteer firefighters.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased this evening to stand in support of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011, along with the amendments that have been agreed to after fairly detailed and extensive consultation. I know very well that firefighters dedicate themselves to protecting our lives and our communities. They do extraordinary work in extraordinarily tough circumstances. So I am very pleased to be able to speak on this bill this evening, because it will go some way towards supporting our firefighters when they need it most—in times of illness.

I know that there has been ongoing consultation about the bill through the Senate's deliberations and the Senate committee inquiry, and I know that those processes have been informed by members of the UFU, by a range of firefighters and experts and by others who contributed to those very important and appropriate deliberations.

The work of both career and volunteer firefighters in my electorate of La Trobe is, I know, very much valued by our local community. I should note that I have heard from a number of my own constituents about their support for this bill, and I am sure that they will be glad to see the legislation passed, once it eventually makes its way through this place.

The Dandenong Ranges, which are within my electorate, are particularly exposed to the risk of bushfire, but I note that one of the federal government's most recent initiatives in protecting against the risk of bushfire is the contribution of over $800,000 towards building disaster resilience in the Dandenong Ranges. So the work that firefighters do is very well known to me. As it stands, the legislation before us will generally apply to career firefighters, since scientific knowledge has identified a generally higher incidence of cancers among those who attend structural fires. However, should new evidence emerge suggesting a comparable link between bushfire fighting and cancer, then I believe that that should, appropriately, be considered as part of any future review of the legislation. Career firefighters risk their health and safety each and every day in order to protect the community, and the government wants to ensure the removal of any unnecessary barriers that would prevent them from having their workers compensation claims recognised.

I particularly note that the government is moving an amendment to allow for further conditions that might be added over time, through regulation. For example, the government intends to prescribe the inclusion, in future regulation, of primary-site lung cancer, consistent with the recommendations of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee and consistent with comparable North American legislation. However, also in line with North American firefighter legislation, the addition of primary-site lung cancer will be given to nonsmokers. The condition would be included through a proposed amendment which the government intends to develop in close consultation with experts and key stakeholders. The amendments that have been made to the bill, I hope, give further clarity to the legislation in ways that the government hopes will ultimately be of benefit to firefighters.

It was initially unfortunate to read in our national press that, at first blush, members of the opposition, including a number of Victorian Liberal MPs, had expressed concerns about supporting the legislation. I gather, however, that those MPs have not prevailed. I particularly commend the member for McMillan for his personal and very steadfast support for this bill.

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 act. This government appreciates the endeavours that firefighters make, both career firefighters contemplated by this bill and the amendments to it and also the very many volunteer firefighters who put themselves at risk in fire prone areas of my electorate and in parts of the Australian community where there is considerable risk. The resulting risks to their health should be reflected upon and appropriately dealt with in legislation. It is particularly pertinent that we are doing it through this bill and the detailed amendments today.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011, a bill the coalition will not be opposing. The reasons for the introduction of this bill have been outlined by previous speakers. In particular, it comes about because of the higher incidence of diseases which occur in our firefighters and they are: primary site brain cancer, primary site bladder cancer, primary site kidney cancer, primary non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, primary leukaemia, primary site breast cancer, primary site testicular cancer and some other forms of cancer, which are also included in this table.

From overseas studies and from studies here in Australia it is shown that our firefighters are incurring these types of cancers at a higher rate than the general populous. Given the fact of their general health and the tests they undertake to qualify as firefighters, it seems there is a link between the job they are undertaking and the diseases which sadly they are incurring.

The coalition is not opposing this bill but its support has come with—it is no secret—considerable discussion because it reverses the onus of proof. This is something which is quite unique and something which we on this side have had some very serious discussions about because reversing the onus of proof could lead to the start of a process for other sectors to go down this path. It was only sensible and rational and showed the ability of us on the coalition side to discuss these matters in full and to look at all the consequences. That is what indeed happened and in the end the coalition has decided not to oppose this bill.

I have been a volunteer firefighter and have seen first-hand what firefighters have to undertake when attending road accidents where there are chemical tankers which have overturned. I must confess I have not seen or had to attend fires where houses have been on fire but I have fought fires which have threatened houses. I take this opportunity to take my hat off to all those firefighters both urban and rural who put their lives and, in some cases—as the evidence from Canada and here indicates—their health at risk for the job that they do. It is a very difficult profession which requires extraordinary bravery. I think all of us in this place take our hats off to the courage of the men and women who undertake it. It is in large part for their heroics and bravery that the coalition had decided that we will not oppose this bill.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to support the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 with some pleasure. There are people in our society, firefighters among them, who work very much at the front line when keeping us safe. Firefighters will go into a burning building to save property, and they go well and truly above the call of duty when lives are at stake. For most of us, it is just a job that is done. We see them in their red trucks and we know what wonderful work they do, but few of us really understand the risks that they take to life, limb and mental health when they do their job. Few of us know that they do not talk about what actually happens when they attend an accident where a semitrailer has run over a person or someone has been run over by a train. These are circumstances and events that stay in their minds for the rest of their lives.

Similarly, when firefighters move into a burning building, they are subjected to toxins that we now know beyond doubt lead to increases in cancers. The original bill referred to one cancer. Mr Bandt has moved an amendment to increase the number of cancers listed to include multiple myeloma, primary site lung cancer in nonsmokers, primary site prostate cancer, ureter cancer, colorectal cancer and oesophageal cancer. The government is prepared to support that amendment in the interests of fairness for firefighters.

The science underpinning this legislation is pivotal to its justification. Given the quantity and quality of evidence collected around the world, there is no doubt that there is a link between firefighting and increased incidence of certain cancers. That has been demonstrated beyond doubt. I should say that we are talking about career firefighters. We are talking mainly about the men and women who go into burning buildings, because the science demonstrates that that is where the toxins are released. But, if at some time in the future there is scientific evidence to demonstrate bushfires also lead to increased risk of cancer, then the government will consider that as well.

Similar legislation has been in place overseas for nearly a decade, and in recent years it has in fact been strengthened as more evidence has been found to show that cancers result from exposure to the toxins in burning buildings. Studies conducted around the world, including in Australia, in the 1980s demonstrated that certain types of cancer are caused by the release of carcinogens, and these are the various substances that firefighters are exposed to in the course of their daily work.

On the matter of lung cancer, the government intends to prescribe it at a later date. The issue is in the definition of a nonsmoker. That definition will be developed by the government in consultation with experts and key stakeholders. So dealing with lung cancer will come at a slightly later date.

In many parts of Australia our firefighters wear the very best of equipment and the very best of clothing, but because of the kind of work they do it is important that the clothing they wear breathes. If it did not, firefighters would no doubt have very serious issues given their high heart rates in the circumstances of their work. Their clothing breathes, which means that even with the best of protective gear they are exposed to substances that are absorbed into their skin through the course of their work. When firefighters start in the job they are some of the fittest people in the country. The firefighting service is extremely difficult to get into and is very competitive, I am told. As I said, when they join the service they are among the fittest people in our community but, within five years of working under those conditions, they are almost twice as likely as the average person to contract leukaemia, and there are other forms of cancer where the risk is much, much higher than that. This bill recognises the realities of work as a fireman. It recognises that we support them not only in the work they do but in the lives that they live because of their work. I commend the bill to the House.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the fact that I have three metropolitan fire and rescue service stations in my electorate of Cowan, I am very pleased to join in this debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011. I have the greatest respect for the emergency services and the great job that they do for the community. I would like to speak about the work undertaken by the firefighters and the risks they take in order to protect our community. Not only do they have to face deadly fires and the dangerous outcomes that can result from damage to structures caused by fire, heat and water, but they are also responsible for facing chemicals and hazardous substances, the nature of which may not even be known at the time of combating the threat. Added to those overt dangers is the additional hazard of having to wear protective clothing and use breathing equipment for protracted periods as well as work with foams and suppressants necessary to combat the threats. Clearly it is a high-risk employment, and they are not circumstances that other vocations share.

I am very happy to add my voice to this debate and speak about the inclusion in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 of seven specific cancers relating to firefighter employment with their specified qualifying periods. Those cancers are: primary site brain cancer; primary site bladder cancer; primary site kidney cancer; primary non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; primary leukaemia; primary site breast cancer and primary site testicular cancer. Through this legislation a firefighter, who has achieved the specified qualifying period and has been consequently diagnosed with a specified cancer, then has their employment taken as being a dominant cause of the contraction of the disease. To me it is not right that under these very special and unique employment circumstances a person should have to prove the length of service when so many relevant carcinogenic risks are involved.

I thank my constituents who have contacted me and raised this matter and thank some of them who made contact, although there were more. Thank you to Kelvin Lockwood, Dean Fanderlinden, Ronan Gilmore, Sarah King, Claire Gregory, Michelle Williams, Chris Arter, David Parody, Gillian O'Callaghan and Paul Woodward, who all sent emails to me. I also thank those who sent additional emails in the way of follow-up: Kevin Jolly, James Hunt, Michael Sciaresa, Jason Cuperus, Timothy Jones, Darren Guelfi, Jacqueline Hardingham and Peter Chappell. I personally know Tim Jones from church and also from Kingsway Christian College, where his son, Paul, just became dux for 2011, so I congratulate Paul, and also Tim for his information to me. It is certainly an outstanding family.

As I previously said, I have three fire and rescue service stations located in Cowan: Joondalup, Wangara and Malaga. Four shifts at each station provide 24-hour protection and support to the surrounding areas in the northern and north-eastern suburbs. I previously visited Wangara Station earlier this year and met C shift. I have great confidence in all of these stations and in the members on each of the shifts.

In the last few days I have received further emails regarding additional varieties of cancer that should also be included such as: multiple myeloma; primary site lung cancer in nonsmokers; and primary site prostate, ureter, colorectal and oesophageal cancers. I have not had the opportunity since joining the list of speakers for this debate this morning to ascertain any great detail on these additional cancer types. However, from a look at the Cancer Council of Australia's website, it would seem that more information is required before these forms of cancers could be added. I am not saying that they should not but, given that one in 10 men are diagnosed with colorectal cancer by age 85, the already high frequency does make me feel that a clearer medical link is required. Similarly, the frequency of prostate cancer in men is significant without any known cause. The vocational link is again not clear to me.

I believe that further consideration is warranted of these additional cancers and that in the future such considerations should involve the medical evidence, the causal links to the vocation and how firefighters can be better protected and looked after. It is my understanding that this bill has primary coverage for those employed in the ACT; however, it will be influential for other firefighters around the country. I think the focus on these matters should cause the Fire and Emergency Services Authority in WA to continue to vigorously explore the procedures, the equipment and the exposure to risk factors of all firefighters. The firefighters do a great job for our community, and FESA must examine the processes, procedures and exposures to risk in order to minimise the threat to those who help our community.

I close by again thanking the shift teams at Joondalup, Wangara and Malaga fire and rescue stations for the great job they do.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I feel very privileged to be speaking here in this place on this day to this bill and the amendment. It is very timely that we discuss these matters given that many of us are wearing a little grey ribbon to help signify that it is Brain Tumour Awareness Week internationally. It is very important to address the consequences of cancer in any person, and in particular in firefighters when we think about the lack of choice of workplace which firefighters have to attend to. You cannot choose the sort of fire that you are going into; if you are going into a fire, you are going in to find what is there. You are going to be breathing the air that is generated there, and the evidence is very clear that firefighters, essential workers in our community on whom we rely for our very lives, are going into toxic contexts. So it is important that this bill comes before the House to improve the outcomes and access to workers compensation for these vital people in our community.

I cannot say that I ever dreamed of being a fireman when I was young, but I certainly have watched my son have dreams of becoming a fireman. I have practised 'get down low and go, go, go' with the kids. We have probably all experienced the fireman's healthy and sustaining reach into our lives. Recently I was very privileged to spend three days on HMAS Stewart in the Red Sea, where I underwent a small example of firefighting onboard. The conditions of a trial run in which I was fully covered gave me a very short experience—and, hopefully, the only experience in my entire life—of having to be in a suit. But our firefighters find themselves in real-life crisis contexts.

It has been put on the record in this place today and through the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, which investigated this matter in its international context, that there is very significant, deliberate information which states that firefighting is one of the most studied occupations in the world, especially when it comes to cancer, and that many studies—in fact, dozens of major studies—have been made around the world over the last 20 years. They have absolutely confirmed that there is a definite connection between firefighting and elevated cancer risk. Given that reality, the amendments that were put forward to the bill by the member for Calwell and the member for Melbourne this morning are important legislative tools to ensure that we provide the best access to workers compensation for those critical workers in our community. The Senate committee inquiry into the bill recommended that the number of listed cancers be increased, and that seems absolutely appropriate. Now it will include multiple myeloma, primary-site lung cancer in nonsmokers, primary site prostate cancer, ureter cancer, colorectal cancer and oesophageal cancer.

There is science underpinning this bill, but there is also good acknowledgement of the real-life risk that firefighters face, and I want particularly to mention Billy McLean, who is a larger-than-life character in our local community. He works at the Umina Fire Station in the seat of Robertson, which I am privileged to represent here. In addition to his courage and that of his colleagues in going and fighting the fires in our area, we often find that—although they are overrepresented in work related injuries and illnesses—our firefighters are among the most generous people in our community. When the floods took hold of Queensland, I was able to go to an event—they called it 'the 000 emergency fundraising event'. Billy McLean and many of the firefighters from the Central Coast were there doing their bit to help out other Australians. With the generosity that they showed and their bravery, they certainly deserve our recognition and accolades today. They also deserve our support through the very practical measures in both the bill and the amendments which are before the House for consideration on this day.

I will close with a happier thought. We are talking about men and women who give their lives to—and lose their lives way too early because of—the work they do. But I was pleased to spend Friday night with Reg Brown, aged 82, a former firefighter who received a McKell award for his services to the Labor Party. They are all good people there and I am sure our amendments will make a big difference to their life outcomes and to their families.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for consideration of the bill has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.