Can they sink any lower?

Firefighter cancer bill divides the opposition
Katharine Murphy
September 22, 2011

Proposed legislation will reverse the onus of proof and make it easier for firefighters with cancer to win workers' compensation.

A PROPOSAL giving sick firefighters easier access to compensation has triggered a revolt in the Coalition party room, with MPs arguing the Greens-initiated bill will be a boon for plaintiff lawyers and establish a dangerous precedent that will flow to other industries.

The bill being proposed by Greens MP Adam Bandt would create a new legal presumption that if firefighters are diagnosed with certain types of cancers it will be understood for compensation purposes that they contracted the illness at work.

The Age understands deputy Liberal leader Julia Bishop made her objections to the Bandt bill known during shadow cabinet consideration of the proposal.

At the Coalition party room meeting this week, it was recommended to MPs that they not oppose the bill - greatly increasing the chances it will pass through parliament.

But Liberal MPs including Bruce Billson, Bronwyn Bishop, Kelly O'Dwyer, Jamie Briggs, Paul Fletcher and Alex Hawke objected strenuously to the new legislation, and argued that it should be opposed on the grounds that it was poor public policy.

A number expressed concern about the bill reversing the onus of proof - from individuals having to make their legal case regarding cause of illness, to cancers henceforth being presumed to be work-related.

There was also concern that the proposed change would flow to other essential services industries.

Liberals Eric Abetz, Stuart Robert and Russell Broadbent spoke in support of the Bandt bill. Mr Broadbent, a prominent Victorian moderate, is co-sponsoring the proposal with Labor MP Maria Vamvakinou.

Mr Broadbent has a long association with firefighters and their trade union, having being engaged as a singer at many trade union balls.

Mr Bandt, before he entered federal parliament, represented firefighters as a lawyer. Given the disagreement, the issue was referred back to the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to decide.

Mr Bandt told Parliament this week that the change was necessary, and had been adopted widely in the United States and Canada.

''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,'' Mr Bandt said.

theage.com.au/national/firefighter-cancer-bill-divides-the-opposition-20110921-1klfy.html#ixzz1YwLdkA5l

In light of:
Findings indicated that firefighters had a probable cancer risk for multiple myeloma with a summary risk estimate (SRE) of 1.53 and 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.21–1.94, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (SRE 􏰀 1.51, 95% CI 􏰀 1.31–1.73), and prostate (SRE 􏰀 1.28; 95% CI 􏰀 1.15–1.43). Testicular cancer was upgraded to probable because it had the highest summary risk estimate (SRE 􏰀 2.02; 95% CI 􏰀 1.30–3.13). Eight additional cancers were listed as having a “possible” association with firefighting.

Conclusions: Our results confirm previous findings of an elevated metarelative risk for multiple myeloma among firefighters. In addition, a probable association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, prostate, and testicular cancer was demonstrated. (J Occup Environ Med. 2006;48: 1189 –1202)

iaff.org/hs/PDF/Cancer%20Risk%20Among%20Firefighters%20-%20UC%20Study.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8903750

The mad monks Bishop twins strike again.. :(

I'm rather pleased with Senator Abezt though...surely Tony will will not show us that his morals can sink any lower, by standing in the way of this very good policy from the Greens to protect our brave fire fighters?

But anything 'is' possible with this man.

Good informative post btw.

Keep them coming. :)

I DO think Abbott can sink LOWER..Abbott is as LOW as any politician in Australia's history..He is the record LOW of the LOWS.

He will do anything, say anything, hurt anyone, destroy lives, support industry murderers and polluters, proliferate sexism, destroy respect for australian Prime ministers, encourage mob scenes, destroy progress, ...all of this to sit his psychotic superior self on the throne of parliament.

We are doomed if Australians don't start waking up to this crack pot con man.

God help us.

The problem with this legislation is PRECEDENCE. Precedence is one of the powerful builders of common law and to make such assumptions of cause on cancer could wreak havoc in our compensations system. it might be nice to do such a thing but it needs to be funded and managed adn this isnt possible.

Well, Abbott ALREADY has "form" on this issue - regarding his vilification of former James Hardie employee - and mesothelioma victim - Bernie Banton i

Firefighters are beleived to be predisposed to certain cancers. These were what they wanted to target. It was said no so long ago that a firefighter after 5 years has more chance of cancer than someone in another job.



Quote:

Firefighter cancer risk study necessary THERE has been suspicion for many years that our courageous firefighters are at greater risk of contracting cancer than the general population. International studies have certainly pointed to an increased incidence. Now, a landmark study in Australia will examine the health and job records of firefighters across several states going back 30 years. It will cover career and volunteer firefighters. The three-year study by the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council and Melbourne's Monash University should provide an overdue assessment of the situation. In 2009, Monash University undertook research in Queensland following a cluster of cancers at the Atherton fire station. The study found rates of cancer in the profession were no higher than in the state's general population. The firefighters' union urged caution on the findings, stressing the "relatively small sample size of Queensland firefighters over a relatively short period of time". The Queensland study was the impetus for the new research. It recommended that a national study of cancer incidence and mortality would provide a clearer picture, as well as identifying which types of fires posed the greatest risk. Deborah Glass, from the Monash Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, who led the Queensland research, will spearhead the national study. The most substantive overseas research was done at the University of Cincinnati in 2006. It found firefighters were twice as likely to develop testicular cancer and had higher rates of 10 other types of the disease. The research showed an increased risk of 50 per cent for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and 28 per cent for prostate cancer. It attributed the higher risk to exposure to toxic substances released when certain materials burn. United Firefighters Union WA secretary Graeme Geer fears the dangers are growing because of the increasing use of new plastics and other man-made construction materials in society. WA's Fire and Emergency Services Authority maintains that research on cancer incidence in firefighters is inconclusive. It also says overseas research is not applicable to WA because safety practices vary around the world. Mr Geer disagrees. "Firefighters are very worried about it," he said. "They're concerned that it seems to be on a monthly basis they hear of another firey suffering cancer. "Firefighters are the fittest group of people to start with, so the rate of cancer should be even lower than it is in the general population." The union is campaigning for laws that would automatically recognise cancers contracted by firefighters as being work related. This would mean firefighters wouldn't have to fight long legal battles while battling illness. WA's Cancer Council also believes the risks are real. "It seems there is some kind of additional risk associated with working in the firefighting game," spokesman Terry Slevin said. FESA supports the national study. Depending on the results, there could be changes to best practice standards, equipment and personal protective clothing, a spokesman said. The Sunday Times welcomes the study. Firefighting is a dangerous occupation without there being added health risks. Our crews need peace of mind or, if the research confirms suspicions, better protection and compensation. Board overload IS it any wonder we're called the Wait Awhile state? With hundreds of government boards and committees adding to the already bloated bureaucracy, decision-making appears more arduous than competing in The Amazing Race. In June 2009, Premier Colin Barnett promised to halve the number of boards and committees, which then were 1276. Of these, 518 had paid members. Two years on, we have 656 boards and committees with paid members an increase of 138. Labor's Mark McGowan pointed out that this was in addition to the creation of six new government departments and commissions. He has asked Mr Barnett to reveal the cost of sitting fees paid to those board and committee members. It's a fair question.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/opinion/firefighter-cancer-risk-study-necessary/story-e6frg41u-1226073502677

There is NO problem with this legislation..none at all. It is a legislation to honor Australia's commitment to care for workers in vulnerable work place positions, this is NOT a third world country btw. We all know the Liberal party have lost all humanity regarding Australian workers, that's a given, but if they block this legislation I can't imagine any civilized or caring Australian will agree. Hopefully Abbott and his wrecking team will continue their decent into the bowels of darkness and Australians will become enlightened once again about the evil nature and the true evil agenda of Tony Abbott esquire.

Abbott and his BIG mining handlers and their BIG wrecking ball. ::)

Compassion is hardly one of the Coalition Rights strong points.

You can say that again...but of course that's a given with the cory Bernardi/Abbott Liberal party of doom and gloom.

What's even more disturbing are the bigoted and inhumane people who follow him. :o

keep spewing out your loser-based vitriol and totally ignore the substance of the argument. we wouldnt want you to step out of character end be reasonable and balanced, would you?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 11:33am:

The problem with this legislation is PRECEDENCE. Precedence is one of the powerful builders of common law and to make such assumptions of cause on cancer could wreak havoc in our compensations system. it might be nice to do such a thing but it needs to be funded and managed adn this isnt possible.

It's not precedence unless anyone else trying to get it as well can demonstrate a job-related cancer risk, which is what firefighters have done.

This already occurs for some positions. For example, if you worked in an asbestos mine and you contract mesothelioma, then it's not up to you to prove that it was caused by your employment, it is assumed.

Same goes for this legislation. It has been shown that firefighters have almost double the risk of certain cancers to that of the general population, so this proposed legislation swaps the burden of proof from the sick firefighter across to the employer.

If you don't think that's reasonable, what would be your alternative? How would one prove that a particular case of cancer is work-related. Should samples of the smoke from every fire attended during a career be presented as evidence?

Well said NBN myths!

Keep up the good fight against the evil Abbott circus of lies.

Don't be threatened by the Cory Bernardi internet spammers threatening to put a bullet in us even thought the right wing moderator encourages violence from the Cory Bernardi internet spam gang to threaten posters with a bullet by not banning them for violent threats of a bullet..

Thanks for your info..
I'm passing it on and spreading the owed every day.

Street marches against the LYING Abbott/Murdoch/Aaln Jones Party of NO coming soon.

Stay tuned.

A perfectly good discussion is being trampled and degraded by insanity!

NBNMyths wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 11:33am: The problem with this legislation is PRECEDENCE. Precedence is one of the powerful builders of common law and to make such assumptions of cause on cancer could wreak havoc in our compensations system. it might be nice to do such a thing but it needs to be funded and managed adn this isnt possible. It's not precedence unless anyone else trying to get it as well can demonstrate a job-related cancer risk, which is what firefighters have done. This already occurs for some positions. For example, if you worked in an asbestos mine and you contract mesothelioma, then it's not up to you to prove that it was caused by your employment, it is assumed. Same goes for this legislation. It has been shown that firefighters have almost double the risk of certain cancers to that of the general population, so this proposed legislation changes swaps the burden of proof from the sick firefighter across to the employer. If you don't think that's reasonable, what would be your alternative? How would one prove that a particular case of cancer is work-related. Should samples of the smoke from every fire attended during a career be presented as evidence?

case- by-case. Any PRESUMPTION of guilt - which is what it is - isn intrinsically unfair. Any claim for compensation would already take into account the higher risk of firefighters but would not make it a fait accompli. you do understand  that cancers are caused from reasons OTHER than your emplyment?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 5:04pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 2:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 11:33am: The problem with this legislation is PRECEDENCE. Precedence is one of the powerful builders of common law and to make such assumptions of cause on cancer could wreak havoc in our compensations system. it might be nice to do such a thing but it needs to be funded and managed adn this isnt possible. It's not precedence unless anyone else trying to get it as well can demonstrate a job-related cancer risk, which is what firefighters have done. This already occurs for some positions. For example, if you worked in an asbestos mine and you contract mesothelioma, then it's not up to you to prove that it was caused by your employment, it is assumed. Same goes for this legislation. It has been shown that firefighters have almost double the risk of certain cancers to that of the general population, so this proposed legislation changes swaps the burden of proof from the sick firefighter across to the employer. If you don't think that's reasonable, what would be your alternative? How would one prove that a particular case of cancer is work-related. Should samples of the smoke from every fire attended during a career be presented as evidence? case- by-case. Any PRESUMPTION of guilt - which is what it is - isn intrinsically unfair. Any claim for compensation would already take into account the higher risk of firefighters but would not make it a fait accompli. you do understand  that cancers are caused from reasons OTHER than your emplyment?

Isn't it just as unfair (more, IMHO) for a cancer-sticken person to try to come up with proof that one or more of the 10,000 (50,000?, 100,000?) fires or incidents they went to caused their cancer? Aside from quoting statistics, how could this be done? And if the statistics support the argument (which they apparently do), then why not shift the burden of proof to the employer? Doing so doesn't mean compo is fait accompli, it just means the employer has to prove an alternative cause. Lung cancer? Smoker? bad luck.

Once you have a factor of >= 2 for any illness associated with that occupation, it becomes statistically more likely that the employment caused the illness, rather than any other cause or group of causes.

Keep up the good work exposing the LYING thoughtless Abbott Liberal party circus.

Much appreciated.