Victorian firefighters will request IBAC to investigate the background to controversial changes that they argue will weaken protection for firefighters who contract occupational cancer from workplace exposure.
Firefighters are exposed to tens of thousands of chemicals at everyday incidents such as kitchen fires, car crashes or chemical spills but were blocked from WorkCover benefits because they could not prove which chemical at which of hundreds of career emergencies caused their illness.
The chemicals leech into their bloodstream not by breathing (they wear breathing apparatus) but by dermal absorption, the toxins that get through their breathable PPC and onto their skin.
Presumptive legislation – enacted by all Australian States, and across the globe – recognises the unique risks that firefighters face in protecting the community. Rather than standing back until it is safe, they are the only workers who work in the ‘Hot Zone’ and enter burning structures.
Firefighters’ presumptive legislation allows them to claim support when they contract certain cancers, based on their years of exposure – and based on years of scientific evidence on their risk.
Legislation before the Victorian Parliament would extend presumptive legislation from firefighters to “persons”, and firefighters are concerned this could make the current system unviable and lead to later government cuts.
While most occupations would still be able to access WorkCover for defined incidents, firefighters would be back to zero.
United Firefighters Union Secretary Peter Marshall says the Union has failed to stop the proposed changes to Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Act on reason and scientific argument, and will now request IBAC to investigate the background as to why the changes were proposed and pursued.
“Presumptive legislation for firefighters was supported by all Federal political parties, based on science.
“We met with Victorian Ministerial staff who confirmed that the extension of presumptive legislation to cover mechanics is a result of a ‘previous commitment’.
“Who is doing whom a favour?
“This is public money, and it is in the public interest that IBAC should investigate whether any corruption has occurred.”
