Read into Hansard on Wednesday 25th September 2013
WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (FIRE-FIGHTERS) BILL 2013 (No. 27)
Second Reading
[3.55 p.m.]
Mr VALENTINE – Mr Deputy President, I support the principles of this bill. I thank all members for their contributions. You have taken about 5/6ths of my speech but that is all right. That happens all the time. I thank the career and volunteer firies across Tasmania because they do such a great community service. Someone said that is a given and it is but thanks are extended. I thank all the firies who came to the briefings and provided us with information.
I experienced the Dunalley fire as I was down there at the time. I thank those firies that were there, who through their efforts saved our property, possibly at risk because the weather changed a bit later than we thought, and we ended not losing our place. We can be thankful that they were fighting that particular portion near Little Boomer Bay. Largely, in my patch, I have career firefighters. There would be one or two volunteer brigades that exist in the Hobart precinct but mostly they are career firefighters.
I cannot agree more with the member for Apsley when she talks about the role the volunteer firefighting units play in a community. They are community glue; there is no question about that. They bring the community together for a common purpose, for the community good and it provides that focus and plays a significant role as any school might play in a small community. It provides the opportunity for members of the community to come together.
I turn to the honourable leader’s second reading speech. On the first page it talks about the presumption established by the bill as based on numerous scientific studies, which indicate that firefighters are at greater risk of developing certain types of cancers because of their increased exposure to hazardous materials. That is obvious and that is the reason I support this. Out there in the community one in three suffer cancer and that is high enough for a general member of the community but to have that increased by an activity that protects the community, is something that needs to be addressed. This bill goes a long way towards doing that.
The bill goes further by applying the legal presumption to volunteer firefighters. The question is: does it go far enough? I turn to page 3 of the second reading speech and it says, ‘for the purpose of this bill the persons employed as a firefighter, if the persons employed as a career firefighter or engaged as a volunteer firefighter’. My question is to the honourable leader. Forestry Tasmania has firefighting personnel, as does the Parks and Wildlife Service. Where do they sit in all of this? This is the Fire Services Act we are dealing with and for the most part it might be that they are captured in some way, and I would hope that that is the case.
The second reading speech says the fourth and final criteria is that the worker must have experienced a certain number of exposure events during their employment as a firefighter, and that has been commented on by many members. It comes down to not so much the number of events, as has been pointed out by a lot of members, but the type of event. Not every fire may be seen as containing carcinogenic material, but does it? Take the Dunalley fire, where we had volunteer firefighters rocking up to a blaze at Boomer Bay and Jetty Road close to an oyster-processing facility that was on fire, with huge numbers of plastic oyster baskets and very toxic smoke. Just a bit further up the road at Kelly’s sawmill there were wood glues for lamination going up in smoke, and trucks going up in smoke. At Dunalley, down near Boomer Jetty, there were cars alight. It was hot enough to melt the alloy wheels on those cars, and they were flying down the bank. Windscreens were melting over steering columns. Firies and volunteer firefighters around that sort of stuff were being exposed to very toxic smoke.
I turn to an article in a public health statement on creosote. It comes from the Department of Health and Human Services in the United States and was put together in 2002. It says –
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that coal tar is carcinogenic to humans and that creosote is probably carcinogenic to humans.
Well, I guess that states that the jury is out as to whether creosote is indeed a carcinogenic substance. I am sure the firies that are here today attending a bushfire, especially in the mopping-up phases, can smell that creosote coming out of the timbers. If they are treated timbers there might be other nasties in there. This article goes on:
Creosotes are created by high-temperature treatment of beech and other woods –
Beechwood creosote in the USA of course. You only have to check your wood-fired flue to know that there is creosote in the eucalypt product that is burnt in our fires. It goes on further to say:
Wood creosote is a colourless to yellowish greasy liquid with a characteristic smoky odour and sharp burnt taste.
I reckon most firies have had that catch in the back of the throat when they sniff or get a whiff of that creosote that is burning.
We do not know later on down the track whether it might be found that those attending bushfires are just as likely to have been exposed to carcinogenic smoke. We do not know it today, but it might be discovered in the future. This article, under ‘How might I be exposed to creosote’, talks about hazardous waste sites being a major source of contamination with creosote, then it goes on to coal tar and coal tar pitch and the like. If they are attending a hazardous-waste fire, and the member for Windermere was talking about one of those near George Town, it is quite likely that firies and volunteer firefighters are exposed quite regularly to creosote. Structural fires might turn out to be just as savage on the volunteer firefighter.
I notice with the Dunalley fire that there was a lot timber going up in flames but much of it was oxygen-starved. I noticed very consistently that the leaves were still on the trees in these fires. They did not burn because simply the oxygen was not there to burn them. Does that mean that a lot of the stuff that was burning was giving off creosote because usually creosote comes about as a result of an incomplete burn? The leaves were fried on the trees – it was the most unusual thing that I have seen in my 63 years.
The mopping-up operations are another opportunity for them to be exposed to these nasties. I turn to the minister’s letter of 17 September, in which he says in the third paragraph:
In addition, the research involving career fire-fighters largely relates to fighting structural fires. I also understand that no research has been completed relating to the incidence of cancer and fire-fighting in bushfire situations and this may be something that will be addressed as part of the study being currently undertaken by Monash University.
The member for Elwick dealt a little with that. I want to read into Hansard the aims of that Monash University study:
The aims of the study have been clearly established during the feasibility study and in later discussion with AFAC and the members of the study Advisory Committee. These aims are to:
- Investigate differences in the overall death rate and rates for specific causes of death in Australian firefighters compared to those of the general population. The outcomes of primary interest are deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease, non-malignant respiratory diseases and traumatic injury.
- Examine differences in the overall cancer rate and rates of specific cancer types in Australian firefighters compared to those of the general population. The cancers of primary interest are brain and central nervous system malignancies, melanoma, testicular cancer, prostate cancer, bladder cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and for women, cervical cancer, thyroid cancer and breast cancer.
- Compare the cancer incidence and death rates for subgroups within the cohort; e.g. by agency, type of firefighter, duration of active firefighting, types of incidents attended and other exposure types.
- Assess the feasibility of investigating other health outcomes for which employed and volunteer firefighters may be at risk.
- Identify exposures which may be associated with increased risk of cancer and/or mortality among firefighters.
That gives you a clear understanding of what is expected to come out of that Monash study. It also shows that there is a lot of work to do to understand this whole environment that this bill finds itself in, if I can put it that way.
I move back to the situation with the number of events. It is a very interesting one. Other members have brought attention to how one event might only be half an hour as opposed to another event which is 14 hours long and you might have an extended exposure to it, and then you might come a day later and another day later. Is that one event or three events? Is it three events of intensity at 1 or intensity at 10? There is much work to be done on the data side to get our house in order and to be able to understand the level of exposure that individuals have. It is recognised that there is work to be done on the information systems also. I know through briefings that there is some work being done in that regard. This means there will have to be much closer attention to the paperwork – individual firies may thank you for your efforts in doing that – but that means diligence all around and it will bring to the operational aspects a degree of administrative discipline if we are to see this operate correctly because we have to have the information to make judgments when it comes to whether a case has merit or not.
I move to page 5 of the second reading speech and it states ‘a further safeguard is included in the bill which provides that the presumption is rebuttable if there is evidence to the contrary. This is a standard feature of presumptive legislation’. It is not inevitable that a claim is accepted. Each claim will be subject to that rigorous examination and there will be checks and balances, such as whether the individual has other jobs that might expose them – and other members have raised that; or whether they are a smoker. All of these things will come in to play.
The honourable leader states that –
a mechanism has been included in the bill which requires that a review of the legislation must be completed as soon as practicable after 12 months of operation and annually thereafter. This mechanism will provide an opportunity to assess the general effectiveness of the amendments, as well as to review any developments in medical research or improvements in the incident recording systems used by the Tasmanian Fire Service.
I highlight that because, for instance, on the study on creosote the jury is out. Maybe over the next 12 months, the next two years, it might come back with some conclusive evidence. It might be that gets included in the schedule 5 as one of the particular cancer types that might emerge. I cannot say right now that we know every cancer type that is ever going to affect firies as a result of their work so the review period is really important and that it is looked at.
I turn to the minister’s letter of the 24 September. It says –
While actuarial advice suggests that the number of claims is very low, it is expected to cause an increase in the annual insurance cost paid by the Tasmanian Fire Service. However, the additional impost will not represent a significant burden on government and it is expected to be covered from existing resources.
That is dealing with the lower end of the scale in what the bill is providing and this is where the rubber hits the road, as to whether we think that is good enough. Volunteers save the community many, many dollars and it has been quoted as $5 billion nationally. Their contribution needs to be recognised by the community and if this means an increase in the fire levy, I believe the community would accept that. Other members around this Chamber have also expressed that to me. The community understands that those people are out there fighting for them, to protect them and to protect property and assets so it is important that we look at the costing side of it, cost does come into it, but we also have to understand that there is a community will to see this issue addressed.
The minister’s letter of 24 September deals with cost considerations. He says –
In the preparation of any legislation costs and benefits are a consideration. The analyses of these factors are integral to the viability of the proposals put forward. In the case of this legislation, it was realised that changes to place the Tasmanian Fire Service on risk to cover certain types of cancers affecting fire‑fighters would have an impact on the workers compensation insurance premiums the TFS pays.
I think everyone understands that,
This may in turn have consequences for the Fire Service Contribution.
That seems to me to be the way to deal with it. We have the actuarial advice and that advice tells us that for the favoured model, the annual number of new claims – it goes from $310 000 to $360 000. For exposure model 4, which is covering every firefighter regardless of whether they are a volunteer or a career firefighter, it goes from $2.11 million to $2.48 million.
On my calculations, at $400 000 per 1 per cent for the fire levy, that would be a 5.25 per cent increase in the fire levy. I know many local governments would be saying, ‘You’re not going to expect us to collect that, are you?’. But if the increase in the levy were explained, many people would say, ‘Yes, that is fair and reasonable’. It should be seriously considered and I await the amendment to be put by the honourable member for Windermere. Maybe there is an opportunity to go to tender on the extra insurance costs – it may see the costs reduced. But, actuaries are pretty smart people and they generally get it right. It is not over the top, and the percentage increase in the fire levy that would be required is probably close to the mark.
As the member for Mersey highlighted, do we want the volunteer service? I believe everyone would say we do want a volunteer service – there would be a resounding ‘yes’ to that question. We do not want to be seen to be putting a wedge between volunteer firefighters and career firefighters. We have to be logical and prudent in the way we deal with the community’s funds, and that is what we are dealing with for the most part. But whether you are a volunteer firefighter or a career firefighter, to go home and tell your wife and family that you only have a few years to live is not a good thing.
In Committee
[5.24 p.m.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 – (Sections 27 and 28 inserted – Presumption as to cause of certain diseases in relation to fire-fighters and review of operation of section 27)
Mr DEAN – Mr Chairman, this is the area I flagged in my second reading debate contribution that I would seek an amendment to. The amendments all run together and if the second amendment is not successful then the others would also fail, so I am seeking guidance on how I should approach this.
CHAIR – It would be appropriate for the honourable member for Windermere to move the first two amendments because the first amendment facilitates the process for the second amendment and then we will take the other amendments in their turn. It is perfectly appropriate for the honourable member to move the first two amendments as he proposes now.
Mr DEAN – Thank you, Chair, for that advice. I move –
That clause 4 be amended in proposed section 27, subsection (1), paragraph (c), by leaving out ‘disease; and’ and inserting ‘disease -‘;
and in paragraph (d) by leaving out the paragraph.
…
Mr VALENTINE – I agree with the honourable member for Murchison. I was just discussing with the member for Apsley the alternative to this and it would seem to me that might be more acceptable to the government. It will be interesting to hear from the honourable leader about this. Whichever way it goes, it needs to be equitable and, as the research happens, then it can be revisited. I support the position of the member for Murchison.
…
Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN – The honourable member for Mersey is correct. If we are to report progress the member would need to seek leave to withdraw his amendments.
Mr DEAN – Thank you, Deputy Chair. I have a little bit of advice on the side and I appreciate that advice very much. Accordingly, at this time, I seek leave to withdraw the amendments as currently on the table, and that progress is reported.
Leave granted.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Read into Hansard on Thursday 26th September 2013 – Resumed from 25 September 2013
Clause 4 – (Sections 27 and 28 inserted)
[3.09 p.m.]
Mr MULDER – I take the podium to say that the member for Windermere has some further amendments that relate to paragraph (d) and that mine relate to paragraph (b).
Mr CHAIRMAN – The honourable member for Windermere’s amendments will come first. If the honourable member at the lectern wishes to speak on clause 4 he can do so but not move any amendments he has circulated. At this stage, if the honourable member was proposing to move the amendment which has been circulated, that would not be appropriate. He might like to consider that position, or do you want to speak on clause 4?
Mr MULDER – Thank you, Mr Chair. The issue was that I was – shall I say – misinformed rather than misled about the order in which these various amendments appeared, so I will simply withdraw, and if you want to be pedantic I am happy to take this as a tick on the first speak.
Mr DEAN – Mr Chairman, I move –
That clause 4 be amended in proposed section 27(1)(d)(i) by leaving out ‘260’ and inserting instead ‘150’.
Mr Chairman, should I also move that second amendment, which works in together, at the same time?
Mr CHAIRMAN – Yes, that is in order.
Mr DEAN – Thank you. Mr Chairman, I move –
That clause 4 be further amended in proposed section 27(1)(d)(ii) by leaving out ‘260’ and inserting instead ‘150’.
…
Mr VALENTINE – Mr Chair, I have a question with respect to a firefighter who may have spent some full-time service as a career firefighter – say two or three years – then goes into the volunteering role. Presumably with that 150, as it now stands, there must be some credit back. I do not know how that would work. There will be people in this position so I am interested how that might work.
Mr FARRELL – A worker who is a volunteer firefighter for part of the qualifying period and a career firefighter for another part of the qualifying period will still be required to satisfy the exposure threshold. However, this only applies if the worker needs to rely on a period of work as a volunteer firefighter in order to meet the qualifying period.
Dr GOODWIN – I believe we are all relieved a resolution was found to yesterday’s impasse. We were struggling with this. We wanted to try to ensure that what was a perceived inequity was addressed but we were not convinced that the member for Windermere’s original amendment was the way to go and we were not sure whether the honourable member for Murchison’s was the way to go. I am very pleased that the honourable member for Windermere and others were able to sit down with the government and work their way through this issue. It was something that we were all very concerned about in this place and I know that it was a matter that was raised in the other place also. All parties are to be commended for being able to reach a resolution and in a timely fashion so that we are able to conclude debate on this bill today – hopefully.
…
Amendments agreed to.
Mr MULDER – Mr Chairman, I move –
That clause 4, proposed section 27, subsection (4), paragraph (b) be amended by inserting ‘on any one day’ after ‘attendances’.
…
Mr VALENTINE – Mr Chairman, I guess we are in the mood for compromise, and this is a compromise in a way, in the sense that if you have three events in one day, a couple of those events might be a bushfire and one might be a toxic event. In a perfect world you would record every event that a firefighter attended, but obviously from a recording perspective that is very impractical.
I support the honourable member for Rumney’s amendment.
…
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to and bill taken through the remaining stages.
[4.06 p.m.]
Mr President, I move –
That the bill be now read the third time.
Bill read the third time.
Read the full debate from Wednesday 25th September here and Thursday 26th September here