BILLS DIGEST NO. 83, 2011–12, 23 November 2011

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011

Paula Pyburne
Law and Bills Digest Section

Date introduced:  4 July 2011

House:  House of Representatives

Portfolio:  Private Members’ Bill: Mr Bandt, Mr Broadbent and Ms Vamvakinou

Commencement:  On the day after the Royal Assent

Links: The links to the Bill, its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the Bill's home page, or through http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/. When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they become Acts, which can be found at the ComLaw website at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.

Purpose

The purpose of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 (the Bill) is to amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) to create a legal presumption that employment is the dominant cause of certain specified types of cancer, in the event that a person who has been employed as a firefighter for a certain period is diagnosed with that cancer.  Those cancers are primary site brain, bladder, kidney, breast, testicular, prostate, ureter, colorectal and oesophageal cancer, as well as primary non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma and a cancer of a kind which may later be prescribed.

Background

In a recent speech in the House of Representatives, Maria Vamvakinou outlined the increased risk of cancer for firefighters, stating:

There is a proven link between firefighting and the risk of some cancers and heart disease. Evidence collected through studies in the United States and Canada have demonstrated that this link is a real and present danger to the health of firefighters everywhere ...  In fact so evident was the relationship between firefighting and cancer related deaths that action was taken in Canada and the United States of America to address concerns and to put in place a legislative regime that provides security and support to firefighters and their families. It is called presumptive legislation and is a set of laws that identify diseases or conditions that have been shown to be hazards associated with an occupation. Presumptive legislation now exists in seven Canadian provinces and 43 US states and is designed to protect the family of a deceased firefighter.

... a silent killer ... comes in the form of exposure to numerous chemicals and gases which form toxic cocktails from plastics and other hazardous material during combustion. Think what exposure to radiant heat of up to 1,000 degrees can do to products that emit toxins and fumes which are inevitably absorbed by our firefighters time and time again as they go about their jobs. Fires in today's world are as much about toxins and chemicals as they are about heat and light. The plasticised, chemical world we live in means the vast majority of fires, however minor, emit elevated levels of toxins to which long-term exposure significantly increases the risks of certain types of cancer.[1]

The Bill is intended to ‘go some small way to remedying those very significant risks’.[2]

Medical evidence

Study by Tee Guidotti—2004

Guidotti prepared a number of early reports to the British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters setting out the results of his research into the links between cancers and the occupation of firefighting.[3] Guidotti’s 2004 report entitled: Cancer among firefighters in 2004: interpreting the evidence contains a helpful comparison of the conclusions reached by various expert groups up to that time.  Those comparisons are set out in table form below.[4]

Outcome

Cancer Care Ontario 2004

Guidotti, 1995

Industrial Disease Standards Panel of Ontario, 1994

Criteria

Strength of evidence of prospective epidemiological studies

Weight of totality of evidence

Strength and weight of epidemiological studies

Lung

There is no evidence of increased risk among firefighters

There is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting *

There is no association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

Colorectal

There is limited evidence of increased risk among firefighters **

There is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

There is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

Bladder

There is insufficient evidence to determine if there is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

Presumption has been established

There is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

Kidney

There is no evidence of increased risk among firefighters

Presumption has been established

There is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

Testes

There is insufficient evidence to determine if there is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

N/A

N/A

Leukemia

There is insufficient evidence to determine if there is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

Questioned whether there is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

Presumption has been established

Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma

There is insufficient evidence to determine if there is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

Questioned whether there is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

Presumption has been established

Myeloma

There is insufficient evidence to determine if there is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

Questioned whether there is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

Still some question whether the presumption has been established

Brain

There is limited evidence of increased risk among firefighters

There is an association between the disease and the occupation of firefighting

Presumption has been established

* Rebuttable presumption for non-smoking firefighters
** See report for discussion of colon, rectal and colorectal.

Study by LeMasters—2006

The medical evidence which was referred to at the introduction of the Bill consists of a number of studies.  However, one of the most comprehensive studies was carried out by LeMasters et al.[5]

Background

According to the World Health Organization, in assessing the quality of a study, it is necessary to:

... take into account the possible roles of bias, confounding and chance. ‘Bias’ is the effect of factors in study design, or execution, that lead erroneously to a stronger or weaker association than in fact exists between an agent and a disease. ‘Confounding’ is a form of bias that occurs when the relationship with disease is made to appear stronger or weaker than it truly is as a result of another factor that is associated with either an increase or decrease in the incidence of the disease. The role of ‘chance’ is related to biological variability and the influence of sample size on the precision of estimates of effect.[6]

Independent epidemiological studies of the same agent may lead to results that are different. However meta-analysis, which involves combining summary statistics from several (or many) individual studies, is a means of resolving this ambiguity.

The advantages of combined analyses are increased precision due to increased sample size, and the opportunity to explore, in more detail, potential confounders, interactions and modifying effects that may explain the differences between studies. A disadvantage of combined analyses is the possible lack of compatibility of data from various studies due to differences in subject recruitment, procedures, the method of measurement and effects of unmeasured co-variables that may differ among studies. Despite these limitations, well-conducted combined analyses may provide a firmer basis than individual studies for drawing conclusions about the potential carcinogenicity of agents.[7]

LeMasters study

The LeMasters study is a meta-analysis of 32 studies on firefighters to quantitatively and qualitatively determine their cancer risk.  Put together, the information from the separate studies involved 110 000 firefighters, most of them full-time, white male workers.

The study was conducted in the context of the World Trade Centre disaster, and concerns that had emerged relating to building debris particle exposures from pulverized cement and glass, fibreglass, asbestos, silica, heavy metals, soot, and/or organic products of combustion.

At the time of the LeMasters study, only one meta-analysis had previously been conducted—in 1990.  The purpose of the LeMasters study was first, to update the findings of the 1990 study by reviewing the methodologic characteristics of these studies and determining the probability of cancer by assessing the weight of evidence, including the calculated metarisk estimates.  Second, the study was to describe a methodology for use in a meta-analysis when diverse investigations are being evaluated and summarized.[8]

Risk for 20 different cancers was classified into three categories—probable, possible or not
likely—patterned after the risk assessment model which is used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).[9]  The study found:

•       probable risk for multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and prostate cancer

•       possible risk for testicular cancer, skin cancer, malignant melanoma, brain cancer, cancer of the rectum, buccal cavity and pharynx, stomach and colon as well as leukemia

•       unlikely risk for cancer of the larynx, bladder, esophagus, pancreas, kidney, liver and lung as well as Hodgkin’s disease.[10]

World Health Organization—2010

Since it was established in 1965, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which is part of the World Health Organization has developed a program of Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans.  Evaluations of the strength of the evidence for carcinogenicity arising from human and experimental animal data are made and grouped as follows:

•       Group 1: there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans

•       Group 2: there is almost sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans

•       Group 2A: an agent is probably carcinogenic to humans

•       Group 2B: an agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans

•       Group 3: an agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans, and

•       Group 4: an agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans.[11]

In 2010 the IARC published a Monograph relating to, amongst other things, firefighting.  It describes the two phases in municipal firefighting as ‘knockdown’ and ‘overhaul’ as follows:

During knockdown, firefighters control and extinguish the fire. Approximately 90% of municipal structural fires are either extinguished within 5–10 minutes, or abandoned and fought from the outside. This results in an average duration of heavy physical activity at fires of approximately 10 minutes ... Knockdown of large fires may last much longer. During overhaul, any remaining small fires are extinguished. The environment during overhaul is not as hot or as smoky as during knockdown, but it still contains products of combustion from small fires or smouldering material. Exposure can differ widely between the two phases of firefighting.[12]

The Monograph also provides significant detail about fire chemistry in particular range of toxic components in smoke.[13]  However, the IARC formed the view that:

There is limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of occupational exposure as a firefighter.

There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of occupational exposure as a firefighter, since no data were available to the Working Group.

Occupational exposure as a firefighter is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).[14]

Despite this conclusion, the Monograph does acknowledge that ‘firefighters are exposed concurrently to a multitude of chemical compounds that include numerous carcinogens’.[15] It appears that the rationale for assigning firefighters to Group 2B arises from the following factors:

•       studies used indirect (poor) measurements of exposure to carcinogenic agents, and

•       exposure of firefighters vary considerably depending on their job activities with only crude measures of exposure, such as duration of employment and number of runs, used in studies.[16]

Committee consideration

The Bill was referred to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee (the Committee) for inquiry and report by 15 September 2011.[17]

The Committee recommended slight changes to the wording of the Bill to ensure consistency in terminology and that the types of cancer listed by the proposed Bill ‘be expanded to include multiple myeloma, primary site lung cancer in non-smokers, primary site prostate, ureter, colorectal and oesophageal cancers’.[18]

Amendments to the Bill

On 31 October 2011, Maria Vamvakinou, MP, introduced a number of technical amendments to address the matters raised in the Committee report.[19] On the same day, Adam Bandt, MP, introduced an amendment to include all of the additional cancers recommended in the Committee report—with the exception of primary site lung cancer in non-smokers.[20]  The effect of the amendments is that the Bill, as amended in the House of Representatives, provides that the presumption will apply to firefighters who suffer from primary site brain, bladder, kidney, breast, testicular, prostate, ureter, colorectal and oesophageal cancer, as well as primary non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma and a cancer of a kind which may later be prescribed.[21]

Position overseas

Canada

Nine of the thirteen Canadian jurisdictions have passed presumptive legislation recognising the link between certain types of cancer and firefighting.[22] Notably the coverage is not uniform.

First, the number and types of cancer are not the same.  For example, in the province of British Columbia, only primary site lung cancers were initially the subject of presumptive legislation.[23]  However, further cancers have since been prescribed by regulation being leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, as well as, primary site bladder, brain, colorectal, kidney, testicular , ureter and oesophageal cancer.[24]  By comparison, the province of Alberta covers more cancers.[25]  In addition to those covered by the British Columbia legislation, province of Alberta Firefighters’ Primary Site Cancer Regulation also covers prostate cancer, skin cancer, breast cancer and multiple myeloma.[26]

Second, the qualifying periods vary greatly.  For example, in the province of Manitoba, the Workers Compensation Act contains a presumption that a firefighter who suffers from one of the listed cancers is suffering from an occupational disease, the dominant cause of which is his or her employment.[27]  The Firefighters’ Minimum Periods of Employment and Non-smoking Regulation sets out the minimum period of employment for that presumption to operate.[28]  By comparison, the relevant legislation in the province of Ontario, imposes stricter conditions and restrictions before the presumption takes effect.[29]

United States

The position in the United States is that:

As of April 2009, presumptive legislation regarding occupational cancers for firefighters is in place in 24 states in the United States of America (USA). Eight other states have presumptive legislation for firefighters pending. Within the USA, presumptive legislation is not uniform, and varies greatly between the states in both the cancers addressed, and the requirements necessary to receive benefits.[30]

Financial implications

There is no Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Bill.  That being the case, there is no assessment of the financial implications to the Commonwealth in the event that the Bill is enacted.  However, it appears that the Bill covers approximately 332 firefighters in the ACT and 663 who are employed by Air Services Australia.[31] 

The Committee report notes that it:

... explored the possibility that the Bill could bring about significant increases in premiums by improving the ease with which firefighters can access compensation. However, based on overseas experience as well as the fact that the legislation would not provide for any new grounds to claim, the committee is of the view that there would be negligible impact on the Commonwealth or ACT budget.

For information on the cost impacts of similar presumptive legislation in other jurisdictions the committee considered evidence provided by the Fire Chief Ken Block of Edmonton Fire Rescue Services in Canada. Fire Chief Block informed the committee that the cost impact of presumptive legislation in Canada had been ‘minimal if not negligible’.[32]

Key provisions

Current workers’ compensation regime

The SRC Act establishes the Comcare scheme which covers employees of:

•       Commonwealth Government agencies and statutory authorities (but excluding Members of the Australian Defence Force)

•       ACT Government and its agencies, and

•       corporations which have been granted a licence to self insure, provided the date of injury was after the date of the licence.[33]

The majority of Australian firefighters are insured under state workers’ compensation schemes and will not benefit from the Bill, if enacted.  However, the passing of the Bill will undoubtedly lead to moves towards harmonisation across all jurisdictions.

How the legislation works now

Under the SRC Act, compensation (which includes payment of medical and rehabilitation expenses as well as a component in respect of lost wages) is payable to an employee who has suffered an injury arising out of, or in the course of their employment, if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.[34]  For the purposes of the SRC Act the term ‘injury’ also includes a disease suffered by an employee.[35]

Generally, when an employee suffers an injury he or she must:

•       lodge a application for compensation on an approved form

•       provide medical evidence in relation to the nature of the injury their suffered, and

•       provide evidence which satisfies the employment contribution test relevant to the jurisdiction in which the claim was made.

Under the SRC Act where a person suffers from a disease, the employment contribution test is that the disease was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the person’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee.[36]

However, section 7 of the SRC Act contains additional special provisions that relate to ‘diseases’. Subsection 7(1) allows the Minister to specify that certain diseases are diseases related to employment of a kind specified in a legislative instrument.[37]  If, before the symptoms of the disease first become apparent, a person was employed by the Commonwealth or a licensed corporation in employment of the kind that is listed in the instrument, then the employment will be deemed (unless the contrary is proven) to satisfy the employment contribution test—that is, it contributed, to a significant degree, to the contraction of the disease.  The list is based on the International Labour Organization’s List of Occupational Diseases which contains those diseases for which clinical links have been established between the development of a particular disease and exposure to a particular toxin in the course of a person’s employment.[38]

An example of how the subsection currently operates was provided to the Committee during its public hearings as follows:

When we determine claims under subsection [7(1) of the SRC Act] there are two evidentiary tests considered. The first one is disease of a kind ... and the second is employment of a kind, which involves exposure to a specified risk. For example, the notice of the deemed diseases provides coverage for occupational diseases caused by benzene, for those employees whose employment involves exposure to benzene.

With that example, firstly, it must be established that the disease is of a kind caused by benzene and the person who is making a decision about the claim would rely on specialist medical evidence or research that provides a scientific and medical link to the contraction of a kind of disease caused by benzene. Secondly, the delegate would rely upon the information provided on the claim form or obtain factual evidence from the employer and/or the employee to establish that the employee was engaged in a kind of employment involving exposure to the risk—that is, of benzene—before they contracted the disease and their employment involved exposure to the risk. For example, if a firefighter fought structural fires, therefore it can be taken that he or she had been exposed to benzene.[39]

Despite the deeming provision, it is still open to Comcare to rebut the presumption that employment contributed to the contraction of the disease to the requisite degree if it can be proven that the person contracted the disease in some other way.

What the Bill will do

The Bill inserts proposed subsection 7(8) (as amended) which will operate to create a presumption that where firefighters who have served certain qualifying periods of service have developed the cancers which are listed in the table in that subsection, their employment is taken to have contributed to a significant degree to the contraction of the disease. 

Proposed paragraph 7(9)(a) provides that an employee is taken to have been employed as a ‘firefighter’ if firefighting duties made up a ‘substantial’ portion of his or her duties.  The term ‘substantial’ is not defined but could act to exclude volunteer firefighters.

Proposed paragraph 7(9)(b) (as amended) provides that an employee who was employed as a firefighter for ‘two or more periods’ that add up to the qualifying period is taken to have been so employed for the qualifying period.  This amendment is consistent with one of the Committee’s recommendations.[40]

The Bill shifts the burden of proof from the cancer sufferer to the employer. It will still be open to Comcare to rebut the presumption that employment contributed to the contraction of the disease to the requisite degree, if it can be proven that the person contracted the disease in some other way.  However, the significant change is that the decision maker would not be provided with information to establish that the employee was exposed to a specific risk, or that the disease suffered is a result of that risk.

Item 9 of the amendments introduced by Ms Vamvakinou inserts a requirement that the Minister cause an independent review of the operation of the Bill to be undertake and completed by 31 December 2013.  The report of the review is to be given to the Minister and published on the Department’s website.

Item 10 of the amendments introduced by Ms Vamvakinou provides that the amendments in proposed subsections 7(8) and 7(9) will apply in relation to a disease that an employee ‘sustains’ on, or after, 4 July 2011.  According to existing subsection 8(4) of the SRC Act, an employee is taken to have ‘sustained’ an injury, being a disease, or an aggravation of a disease, on the earlier of:

•       the day when the employee first sought medical treatment for the disease, or aggravation, or

•       the day when the disease, or aggravation, resulted in the death of the employee or first resulted in the incapacity for work, or impairment of the employee.

Concluding comments

From the perspective of available medical evidence, the IARC has acknowledged that firefighters are exposed concurrently to a multitude of chemical compounds that include numerous carcinogens.  The Committee has stated that it was satisfied that, given the quantity and quality of medical evidence that was presented to it, there is a link between firefighting and an increased incidence of certain cancers.[41]  Nevertheless, the Bill does include cancers which the LeMasters study considered were unlikely to arise from the occupation of firefighting (that is, bladder, oesophagus, and kidney cancer).

The policy underpinning a presumption for firefighters, as contained in this Bill, has been described by Guidotti as follows:

It is based on the idea that firefighters, like police and a few other public safety occupations, are expected to take risks that would be unacceptable in any other work environment. They may be trained to manage these risks and to protect themselves, but the working environment cannot be made safe because they deal with situations that are inherently dangerous and may lose control. In the interest of society and as safety professionals, however, they essentially waive the right to refuse dangerous work and routinely accept the risk, like a soldier sent into battle to defend the country. It is, by this logic, ultimately in society’s interest to compensate for this risk because the work has to be done.[42]

This Bill has bipartisan support—that is, the policy rationale for the Bill has been broadly, though not unanimously, accepted.  Some questions have been raised as to whether presumptive legislation is the answer to the problem of ensuring that persons who put themselves in danger for the rest of the communication are protected.[43]  The additional of the review mechanism into the Bill will provide for an assessment of the position again in the future.

Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2434.

© Commonwealth of Australia

Creative Commons

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.

Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au. Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.

ISSN 1328-8091

[1].               M Vamvakinou, ‘Adjournment speech: firefighters’, House of Representatives, Hansard, Canberra, 15 June 2011, p. 6189, viewed 1 September 2011, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Ff2b003ac-3c2a-4ce2-94a6-69827f8e1f98%2F0134%22

[2].               A Bandt, ‘First reading speech: Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011’, House of Representatives, Debates, Canberra, 4 July 2011, p. 7271, viewed 1 September 2011, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F81949ec5-bb5e-4d57-b163-4c4b25a141ee%2F0061%22

[3].               For example, T Guidotti, Evaluating the association between selected cancers and occupation as a Fire Fighter, Washington, 26 March 2003, viewed 8 August 2011, http://www.bcpffa.org/docs/BCPFFA%20report%20Dr.%20Guidotti%20-%20final.pdf

[4].               T Guidotti, Cancer among Firefighters in 2004: interpreting the evidence, Washington, 15 September 2004, p. 42, viewed 1 September 2011, http://www.bcpffa.org/docs/Guidotti%20report%20Sept%2015-04%20Interpreting%20the%20Evidence.pdf

[5].               LeMasters et al, ‘Cancer risk among firefighters: a review and meta-analysis of 32 studies’, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 48, no. 11, November 2006, pp. 1189–1200, viewed 1 September 2011, http://www.safetyinaustralia.com.au/images/stories/NewsFlashPDFs/cancer%20in%20firefighters.pdf

[6].               International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, World Health Organization, vol. 98, Lyon, France, 2010, p. 19, viewed 1 September 2011, http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol98/mono98.pdf

[7].               Ibid., p. 20.

[8].               LeMasters et al, op. cit.

[9].               SafetyInAustralia, USA Report: firefighters face increased risk for certain cancers, 20 August 2008, viewed 1 September 2011, http://www.safetyinaustralia.com.au/safety-news/970-20808-usa-report-firefighters-face-increased-risk-for-certain-cancers.html

[10].               LeMasters et al, op. cit., pp. 1199–1200.

[11].               International Agency for Research on Cancer, Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: painting, firefighting and shiftwork, vol. 98, Lyon, France, 2010, pp. 34–36, viewed 14 September 2011, http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol98/mono98.pdf

[12].               Ibid., Chapter relating to firefighting, p. 397, viewed 14 September 2011, http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol98/mono98-7.pdf.

[13].               Ibid., p. 399.

[14].               Ibid., p. 559.

[15].               Ibid., p. 557.

[16].               Ibid.

[17].               Details of the inquiry, including submissions made to the Committee can be viewed at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/firefighters/index.htm

[18].               Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 [Provisions], Senate, Canberra, September 2011, viewed 19 September 2011, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/firefighters/report/report.pdf

[19].               M Vamvakinou, ‘Consideration in detail: Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011’, House of Representatives, Debates, 31 October 2011, p. 12186, viewed 21 November 2011, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F230e5fc1-8f05-4f15-bf9f-d5f504bf9627%2F0268%22

[20].               A Bandt, ‘Consideration in detail: Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011’, House of Representatives, Debates, 31 October 2011, p. 12187, viewed 21 November 2011, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F230e5fc1-8f05-4f15-bf9f-d5f504bf9627%2F0269%22

[21].               The amendments were put to, and passed by, the House of Representatives on 3 November 2011. Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011, House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, 3 November 2011, no. 78, viewed 22 November 2011, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fvotes%2F2011-11-03%2F0015%22

[22].               Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Submission to Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 [Provisions], August 2001, p. 8, viewed 19 September 2011, https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=6b35bba1-ff0b-4e05-8c3d-d692e8f7e810

[23].               BC Laws, Workers Compensation Act (British Columbia), section 6.1, viewed 19 September 2011, http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/LOC/freeside/--%20W%20--/Workers%20Compensation%20Act%20RSBC%201996%20c.%20492/00_Act/96492_01.xml#section6.1

[24].               BC Laws, Firefighters’ Occupational Disease Regulation (British Columbia), viewed 23 November 2011, http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/11_125_2009

[25].               Alberta, Workers Compensation Act, section 24.1, 1 August 2011, viewed 19 September 2011, http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=W15.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779725809

[26].               Alberta, Firefighter’s Primary Site Cancer Regulation, section 2, viewed 19 September 2011, http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=2003_102.cfm&leg_type=Regs&isbncln=9780779738007

[27].               Manitoba, The Workers’ Compensation Act, section 4(5.2), viewed 20 September 2011, http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/w200e.php

[28].               Manitoba, Firefighters’ Minimum Periods of Employment and Non-smoking Regulation, section 2, viewed 20 September 2011, http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/pdf/w200-160.05.pdf

[29].               Ontario, Workplace Safety and Insurance Act 1997, section 15.1, viewed 20 September 2011, http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_97w16_e.htm and section 5, Ontario Regulation 253/07 Firefighters, viewed 20 September 2011, http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/d9c2fc60-223f-4472-9749-9b57944efb4f/2/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1

[30].               Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, op. cit., p. 8.

[31].               United Firefighters Union of Australia, Submission to Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee, Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 [Provisions], undated, p. 11, paragraph 4.21, viewed 22 November 2011, https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=8431bf1a-294e-4beb-ac45-26f215bc97d1

[32].               Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, op. cit., p. 30.

[33].               The list of the current licensees can be viewed at: http://www.srcc.gov.au/self_insurance/current_licensees

[34].               Section 14, SRC Act.

[35].               Section 5A, SRC Act.

[36].               Section 5B, SRC Act.

[37].               See the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Specified Diseases) Notice 2007(1), viewed 15 September 2011, http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2007L01983

[38].               The List of Occupational Diseases can be viewed on the International Labour Organization’s website: http://www.ilo.org/safework/whatsnew/lang--en/WCMS_124671/index.htm

[39].               S Kibble (Comcare), Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 [Provisions], Senate, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2011, p. 10, viewed 20 September 2011, http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s251.pdf

[40].               Ibid., Recommendation 3.

[41].               Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, op. cit., p. 29.

[42].               T Guidotti, Evaluating Causation for Occupational Cancer among Firefighters: report to the Workers’ Compensation Board of Manitoba, 7 March 2005, p. 6, provided by A Forrest, Submission to Economics Committee, Inquiry into the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011, 2005, viewed 16 September 2011, https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=05ea1e2c-543c-45f1-b110-211ea30d4970

[43].               K O’Dwyer, ‘Consideration in detail: Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011’, House of Representatives, Debates, 31 October 2011, p. 12193, viewed 22 November 2011, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F230e5fc1-8f05-4f15-bf9f-d5f504bf9627%2F0275%22 and Coalition Senators’ Additional Comments, Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, op. cit., p. 47.