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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Day after day, week after week and year after year in our homes, our workplaces, our towns and our farms, firefighters put their lives and their safety on the line for us. The risk that faces a firefighter when they walk into a building, a structure or a home that is burning, or when they walk into a bushfire the likes of which we saw in Victoria on Black Saturday recently, is very obvious. But what is often less well known is that one of the greatest risks to a firefighter's health and their life comes not from those few moments, minutes or hours when they are fighting a fire but from what happens to them afterwards. That is because in an average home there are around 70,000 synthetic chemicals, and when they burn they produce a toxic cocktail of chemical smoke, with many compounds that we have not even properly identified the health consequences of yet. At the same time as everyone else is fleeing to get out of there, the firefighters put themselves right in the midst of that smoke.

In many parts of Australia we have some of the world's best protective equipment, breathing apparatus and turnout gear that the firefighters wear. But, because they are in an environment where their heart rate is up and they are working hard, of course the material has to be able to breathe—otherwise the firefighter would expire; they would suffocate. In the same way that it lets their body heat out, it lets that toxic chemical smoke in. When it does that, it comes at enormous, almost unpreventable risk to the firefighter.

What we know is that firefighters start in their career, as you would expect, about 20 per cent healthier than the average member of the population. But within five years, studies have shown, they can be almost twice as likely as the average person to contract leukaemia, and the risk of testicular cancer and other forms of cancer is much, much higher than that. It is for that reason that elsewhere around the world governments of conservative and progressive persuasions—in seven out of 10 provinces in Canada and many states in the United States of America—have changed the law so that firefighters who suffer those sorts of cancers are much more easily able to access compensation for themselves and their families.

The reason that is important is that at the moment, when a firefighter goes and seeks compensation for a work related injury for that kind of cancer, they get asked: 'Can you tell us at which specific fire you contracted that cancer?' Of course that is impossible. So many of them are right now suffering and many have died unable to access proper compensation. What the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 will do is reverse the onus of proof so that for certain kinds of cancers where there is strong medical evidence in support it would be presumed that that cancer is work related unless it can be proved otherwise. This will make a world of difference to the people who protect us.

I introduced this bill at the beginning of July, and since then the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee has spent the intervening time inquiring into the provisions. I am extremely pleased to note that the report, which the Senate received only on Thursday, has as its main recommendation 'that the bill be passed'. In fact it makes four recommendations, each of which will improve and expand the scope of this bill.

If one wanted any reminder about why this was necessary, just think about the fire that we had here in Canberra on Friday. At the same time as police were going around evacuating people from the site and preventing them from attending, firefighters were going the other way, right into the middle of a toxic cocktail of chemicals. That is what they do every day. It is not just chemical factories, as I said, that pose a risk to firefighters; it is what is in every ordinary household.

I would like to close by quoting the Senate committee inquiry report:

The committee recognises that when a person spends their professional career inhaling and absorbing known—and probably some as yet unknown—carcinogens in the course of public service, it is the moral duty of the community to enable them to seek compensation should they fall ill as a consequence.

That is what we here in this House have the power to do and it is what we should do. I am extraordinarily pleased that, as is the case in other parts of the world, this is proceeding with cross-party support. I commend the bill.

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

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

I rise also to speak on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011, which was first introduced into the House in early July. I, the member for Melbourne and the member for McMillan jointly sponsored this bill to amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, or what is known as the Comcare legislation. I want to thank the members for their contribution to this very important issue and for the constructive way in which this bill is presented before the House today. I felt compelled to raise the issue of fair protection for firefighters in an adjournment debate after meeting with a delegation from the United Firefighters Union of Australia who came to Canberra to raise awareness about the life-threatening aspects of their profession and to speak to us about the occupational health and safety concerns of those involved in the firefighting profession.

Since the bill's introduction, the Senate Standing Committees on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations has held an inquiry that looked into the fair protection for firefighters bill and the case for presumptive legislation. The multiparty committee received many submissions and witness statements from individuals and organisations and, having conducted site visits—which included one to Tullamarine Airport in my own electorate to view a demonstration by aviation firefighters—tabled its report last Thursday in the Senate. In thanking the member for Melbourne and the member for McMillan, I would also like to thank the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, chaired by Senator Gavin Marshall. I welcome the committee's report and its endorsement by members of the committee. This has been a comprehensive investigation and it is now this parliament's job to consider the findings of this investigation.

The Senate committee's report identifies key findings and recommendations guided by the facts, as is the case in the United States and Canada when it comes to fair protection for firefighters. In both those countries presumptive legislation already exists, and it is time for this parliament to enact similar legislation. Key findings of the Senate report reaffirm the original purpose of this bill, which is to provide for a rebuttable presumption for firefighters to access assistance and compensation if they are diagnosed with listed life-threatening diseases after the qualifying period of service. There are 14 listed types of cancers, and it is about recognising where, when a firefighter contracts one of these cancers, the burden of proof should sit, with appropriate safeguards in place.

The Senate report also affirms the fact that there is compelling scientific evidence demonstrating that cancer is an occupational disease for firefighters. We now know that firefighters are indeed at a greater risk of contracting some cancers because they are exposed to toxins and carcinogens in the course of the firefighting profession. The report also found that firefighters can never be fully protected from the hazard of absorbing toxins and carcinogens as the firefighting protective clothing must be able to breathe; otherwise, the firefighter would perish from metabolic heat build-up. It also found that the current legislation is an inadequate mechanism to achieve the objective of providing assistance and compensation for work related illness for firefighters.

The fact is that there is scientific evidence; there is a non-exhaustive list of occupational cancers directly associated with the firefighting profession. There is also evidence of the positive benefits that have resulted from legislation similar to that before us in North America, where there is not only an increased awareness of cancer among firefighters but also a more proactive approach to the health and wellbeing of firefighters, earlier detection of cancer and therefore a better chance of treatment and survival. That has a positive impact for recruitment and retention in fire services. We should note these facts and be guided by them. Concerns about the possible flow-on effects, notions of a flood of claims and costs associated with similar presumptive legislation in Canada and the Unites States, are entirely negligible, as the Senate report has identified.

If ever there was proof of the courageous and essential work that our firefighters do it was, as the member for Melbourne said, here in Canberra last week, when our firefighters had to battle a huge chemical blaze as a result of a toxic explosion. That is an example of the hazardous nature of this job. And it is not only the big toxic fires that risk firefighters' health but everyday household fires, with which the risks increase with the length of service.

It is important, therefore, that this parliament continues to reflect the evidence based approach to this issue shown so far by the members and senators who have contributed to this debate in a non-partisan way and that it recognise the importance of enacting presumptive legislation through the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I want to pay tribute to the United Firefighters Union of Australia. Unionism is something that seems to be maligned almost continuously in the media throughout Australia, and I am sure that the corporate owners of the media think it is a good idea to have no unions so they do not have to pay anyone very much money. In this case, I was a very reluctant starter. Staff had to sit me down and bang me on the head with the statistics. The firefighters union put forward a very professionally prepared brief and they had unassailable statistics. Clearly the incidence of cancer in firefighters was way out of proportion with that of the rest of the population. We know, of course, that certain chemicals are carcinogenic and breathing them can lead to cancer—as I have said many times in this House in relation to exhaust fumes from motorcars.

Before we had effective unionism in this country, one in 31 of us went down the mines, and this was really a mining and, to a lesser extent, a shearing country. All we had in the 1890s and 1900s was our mining industry. The one in 31 of us that went down the mines died down the mines or died the terrible death from 'miner's titus' when they came up. Humphrey McQueen and his social sketches of Australia went into the fact that everyone that worked for over two years digging the sewerage ditches in Sydney died of miner's titus. So we know that there are certain chemicals that, if they are breathed in, will tend to cause cancer. The firefighters union have made their case very professionally, and today we see again the value of trade unionism, as we saw before the start of last century.

I am very, very proud of the fact that my great-grandad put £3,000 behind the strike fund in the 1890s. In terms of today's money, £3,000 is nearly $1 million. All right, he was very wealthy but, at the end of the day, he was a storekeeper in Charters Towers—albeit Charters Towers was bigger than Brisbane in those days—and he made the decision to isolate himself socially from so many of the rich and socially prominent people in the community, not that that would have worried him. He is in the history books as backing that, and I am very proud to say that it is a tradition that our family have upheld for many, many years and I hope will continue in the future.

In backing up the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 moved by the honourable member, I praise him for his work here. I also praise the members from the Liberal Party and Labor Party who have supported this legislation.

The fact is that, if you work as a fireman, you will breathe in fumes that will tend to give you cancer. You will have a far greater chance of contracting cancer than anyone else in society today. These people risk their lives. I think all of us watched the footage of 7-11, which probably brought out most graphically how these people did not think, they looked neither right nor left—they just went in and did their duty, and many of them died. Many of our firefighters in Australia have also died—maybe in less huge, but in very similar, conditions. So we pay them a great tribute and we also pay their union a very great tribute in bringing this to the attention of the House, and in winning over even sceptics and opponents such as me.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for Kennedy for his remarks on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011. He has been won over by the argument. I think that is very important—quite often the Australian public do not get a chance to see arguments being put in this place that win over a member of parliament—even though he does not seem to have suffered a lot of damage from his staff knocking him about as he has claimed!

I also recognise the member for Melbourne's and the member for Calwell's work in this and the interest that they have taken in the interests of firemen and their families, having regard to the issue they brought before us in the first place. Secondly, I recognise that their actions have meant we are able to go through a process whereby we were able to go to a Senate committee and have the issues, can I say without any pun intended, flushed out. Before I go on, I promised myself at the start of this year that I would recognise those that have gone before us. I am not talking just about Indigenous people and I am not talking just about those who came on tall ships or our leaders of the nation; I am talking about people like Peter Marshall, the national secretary of the United Firefighters Union, and all those who have gone before him, who work in the interests of their union and the people that they represent and serve. It is not just about Peter; it is about all of the people.

We heard the member for Kennedy talk about his great-grandfather. He had a lot of money if he could put £3,000 into a strike fund on behalf of unionists of the day. It just shows you that this House is made up of many a complex person. We are not, any one of us, like all the others. And the stories that come out are often interesting.

I also want to note today, because it is important to me, that the member for Brand is in the parliament at the very moment. He has had a few hiccoughs along the way with his health. We welcome him back and we appreciate the fact that he is well and up to the task of doing the job on behalf on his constituency and this nation.

Having said that, it is very clear to me that there may be some in the House who have concerns about this bill. You heard the member for Caldwell say that if you have concerns after reading the report—she outlined a couple of them—it is only right to raise them with the executive government. What I do not want to happen here is that a report as important as this one is for firefighters and their families—in the arguments that it makes and the facts that it lays out—is put on a shelf somewhere to collect dust. That is not what I am here for.

I am here to learn that the report will properly be addressed by executive government, and if it needs further consideration or further inquiry, or people need to be reassured, let them put their concerns before the minister and have them addressed. Go back to someone who has the information, because to me it is fairly clear that if you are a fireman in this country today, you will be dealing with toxic fires that we did not have to deal with 10, 20 or 30 years ago. If a car burns now we do not know what the toxins are that come out of it—toxins that have detrimental health effects causing cancer in firemen here and around the world.

Although the member for Kennedy said 7-11 I think he meant 9-11. That event brought home to all of us that there were those who were killed on the day—I believe, to this day, that there could have been many more people killed—and there were those who have suffered after that massive event. I put it to you that firemen in this country are no different. They go out and put their lives on the line. In doing so, in the long run they put the health and wellbeing of themselves and their families on the line as well. It behoves this parliament to consider what the report has recommended and act on this bill on behalf of these people, especially those three little boys I saw over there in the Senate courtyard today.

Debate adjourned.