WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION (PROTECTION FOR FIREFIGHTERS) AMENDMENT BILL
28/11/2012
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (20:20): I wish to put on the record very briefly Dignity for Disability’s support for the Hon. Ms Franks’ private member’s bill. Indeed, I also congratulate her on this initiative. While the government had the opportunity also to support protection for our volunteer CFS firefighters when the Premier made this big announcement in November, it did not.
CFS firefighters provide an extraordinary service to our community, particularly in country and regional areas. Every time there is a fire or other incident in an area not serviced by the MFS, these volunteers disrupt their lives and, indeed, risk their lives, often leaving their paid work or hauling themselves out of bed in the middle of the night to protect or assist us or the rest of the community. Not showing them the respect of giving them the same protection and acknowledgement of their work as their paid MFS colleagues is, I believe, highly offensive and very disappointing.
In fact, I have to say that I was particularly infuriated by what I see as blatant cheek on the government’s part by responding to a Dorothy Dixer question today, when we were told what a wonderful job this government has done in terms of promoting and protecting volunteers, especially when the government is surely aware of just how much community outrage there is about this. I personally found that particularly offensive, so I cannot imagine what the people who are volunteer firefighters will feel when they read today’s Hansard and that particular section.
I would also like to add that, from my personal perspective, I was appointed to this chamber with the core business of protecting and promoting the rights of people with disabilities and, where relevant, people with chronic and disabling illness, and I do not see why cancer cannot be classified as such, so I certainly feel obligated to support this bill on that front. I will also say that I consider the government’s approach of not supporting this bill as quite contradictory to the philosophy that the government has purported to support under the incoming National Disability Insurance Scheme.
We have been told by the government time and again that this is all about creating autonomy and the right to self-determination and so on for people with disabilities. I believe the reason the scheme needs to be implemented is that for so long those rights have not been implemented for people with disabilities, as they have to people without disabilities. I believe that this should be an opportunity for the government to start providing the same rights to all people.
I consider it very hypocritical to start saying that from now on, regardless of how you acquire your disability, you are eligible for the same protection, for the same services, for the same rights and so on and yet not apply that same philosophy to people who contract cancer because they undertake the work from a different position. To me, that is blatantly hypocritical and against that philosophy. Again, it really calls into question, to my mind, the government’s true commitment to those philosophies.
I also have to raise the point that personally if I were dragged out of a burning building (or whatever else it may be) by a firefighter I would not care in any way whatsoever whether that firefighter were a volunteer or a so-called professional—although I would argue that volunteers are also professional because they have a lot more training in fighting fires than I do, so I do not feel that I have the right to discriminate on those grounds either.
I would not care if they were labelled as a volunteer or a professional; and, quite frankly, I would take personal offence if I were to find out that—and, I guess, in this context it is appropriate to use these words—my hero had acquired an illness from saving me from that incident. I would take it as a personal hurt and feel great sorrow if I knew that that person to whom I owed that great debt was not eligible for the same protections, regardless of the fact that they risked their life to save mine, and I believe that I am not the only person in the community who feels that way—I would certainly hope not, at least.
I commend the second reading of this bill to the chamber and sincerely hope that it gets the support of the council. Of course, it seems that this bill is not going to at this stage, but I must say that it would be particularly good to see support from the members of the old parties since they seem to be enjoying being in cahoots with each other on a number of issues today.
The last point I will make is to reiterate one that was made at the press conference that the Hon. Ms Franks held when she first went to the media about this particular bill. I am afraid I cannot recall exactly who said it, and I am paraphrasing them, so perhaps the Hon. Ms Franks can assist me a little here.
The Hon. T.A. Franks: Evelyn O’Loughlin.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: She has already jumped the gun; I think she knows precisely what I am about to say.
The Hon. T.A. Franks: The CEO of Volunteering SA&NT.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Yes. When fires and smoke that can cause damage from inhalation, and so on, and when those things have the ability to discriminate between volunteer firefighters and professionals in terms of choosing not to make them ill, then we have the right to discriminate against them. Until then, we do not. I commend the bill.
