Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share 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.

See this speech in context