Today in Parliament, Abigail spoke in strong support of the Workers Compensation Amendment (Firefighters’ Diseases) Bill 2025, which expands presumptive cancer protections for NSW firefighters to include additional scientifically supported cancers.
Abigail said:
On behalf of The Greens, I indicate our support for the Workers Compensation Amendment (Firefighters' Diseases) Bill 2025, a piece of legislation that could have and should have been introduced by the Government long before now. We are pleased that the Opposition has demonstrated just how simple it is to introduce this long-awaited and long-promised bill—all three pages of it. It illustrates how the Government's tardiness on this can only be explained by an unwillingness to look after a critical set of injured workers and not by any legislative complexity.
From the Government's response just now, it appears that its complete disregard for injured workers, its willingness to punch down on the most vulnerable people in our State, its complete lack of intelligence and creativity in coming up with any other way that does not cruelly cut off support for the most severely injured workers to ensure the scheme is sustainable whilst still fulfilling the scheme's core purpose of providing injured workers the compensation they deserve—all of that attitude—extend beyond its disgraceful workers compensation reform bills and apply equally, apparently, to the reform before us.
A firefighter's risk of cancer is three to five times greater than the general population. It is for that reason that presumptive cancer legislation was passed in New South Wales in 2018 to provide eligible firefighters with access to workers compensation for 12 specified primary and work‑related cancers, meaning that when a qualified firefighter develops one of 12 specified primary cancers and meets service criteria, the cancer is automatically presumed to be job‑related, eliminating the need to demonstrate causation. Without such laws recognising a presumption in favour of claimants that the disease injury is work‑related, individual claimants must gather complex and precise medical and exposure evidence.
In 2022 the International Agency for Research on Cancer published a report classifying firefighting as a cancer‑causing profession, and it identified firefighting cancer exposure beyond the 12 specified primary cancers currently covered in New South Wales legislation and the other equivalent interstate legislation. That research has supported recent amendments to workers compensation legislation in the Northern Territory, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Commonwealth to increase the numbers of work‑related cancers covered to include primary site lung cancer, primary site skin cancer, primary site cervical cancer, primary site ovarian cancer, primary site penile cancer, primary site pancreatic cancer, primary site thyroid cancer and malignant mesothelioma.
Sadly, firefighters in New South Wales are not yet covered by the same protections. Adding those additional cancers to our legislation will deliver the protection to firefighters that they deserve, in line with the rest of the country. Despite broad support across the New South Wales community and in this Parliament, such that these laws could pass with the Government's support, the Minns Labor Government has instead dragged its feet in providing New South Wales firefighters with additional coverage for work‑related cancers to ensure that they have the same protection as other firefighters across the country who are working in equally dangerous conditions.
This bill seeks to expand the range of cancers that are covered under presumptive protections. They would include these missing cancer types, for which there is already compelling scientific evidence and moral weight in favour of their inclusion. If these cancer types are included in the law, firefighters will not have to fight to simply prove that firefighting is the cause of their cancer. It will mean that firefighters can focus on recovery rather than legal battles, and it will make it easier to access compensation and care so that they do not have to bear the financial burden when illnesses stem directly from their service. That is especially important because treatment costs can be astronomical. Some claims average over $170,000, and many exceed $400,000.
The presumption is so important because of the unconscionable conduct of insurers like Employers Mutual Ltd [EML], acting on behalf of government agencies like Fire and Rescue NSW, which make offensive and cruel arguments in an attempt to avoid making payments to support workers injured in the line of duty. I will talk through just one example from earlier this year of the truly perverse arguments that are routinely litigated against workers. It is the case of a firefighter who had contracted prostate cancer after seven years of service as a firefighter. Despite prostate cancer already being on the presumptive list, their claim was vigorously challenged by the insurer because they had not met the requisite 15 years of service. Following arbitration, it was determined that the firefighter's employment was a substantial contributing factor to the development of his injury.
Despite that finding, the insurer proceeded to appeal. EML, on behalf of Fire and Rescue NSW, argued that the firefighter's evidence regarding their exposure should not have been accepted as evidence. In its argument, EML summarised five aspects of the firefighter's statement to which it objected, and gave brief submissions in response. It reads:
i.'… I have been exposed to many toxic substances.' -- The [respondent] provided no details as to what these toxic substances were or the length of the exposure.
ii.'Bushfire smoke' … 'Most toxins and chemicals released during a bushfire penetrate the P2 masks.' The Respondent Worker provided no details as to his own exposure to bushfire smoke or how long he was using the P2 masks.
iii.The vague statement that he was 'exposed to start up diesel particulate' – again without providing details as to when and for what length he was exposed.
iv.The exposure to carcinogenic in the contaminated turnout clothing – no details as to what stations and when he was exposed to the decontamination.
v.The statement regarding the chemicals which he was exposed to during salvaging – and the words 'routinely.' The Respondent Worker's statement provided no times or dates or periods of exposure to any of the chemicals, nor the types of chemicals the Respondent Worker was exposed to.
EML argued that there was "no basis" for the conclusion of the judicial member overseeing the initial stages of the case and that the respondent's assertions were "supported by other evidence". It submitted that there was "no other evidence of exposure to carcinogens" and reiterated its argument that, therefore, the firefighter's statement was "imprecise and unsatisfactory". EML continued:
The Member failed to consider the extent, (both in terms of quantification and type) of the Respondent Worker's actual exposure to potential toxins, of which the Respondent Worker provided no actual evidence of any … degree of exposure. The Member relied simply upon the opinion of Dr Korbel who noted that the employment of 7 years of service was a substantial contributing factor and accepted that conclusion without evidence as to what exposure had occurred over the 7 years.
EML described the firefighter's evidence as a "summary of his employment", "nothing more than a basic outline" and a "vague statement". The judicial member determining the appeal rejected most of the grounds of the appeal, finding:
The appellant's grounds of appeal are repetitious and confusing. Several are unmeritorious.
With respect to the complaint that the respondent's evidence was too vague and should not have been accepted, the Deputy President said:
It is true that there is a lack of precision as to the frequency of the respondent's exposure to the chemicals alleged to be present at bushfires, in vehicles, and when conducting salvage and overhaul operations after building fires. However, the fact that the evidence is deficient does not render it illogical or of no probative value. The respondent may have had genuine difficulties in recalling precisely when he was exposed to the various substances enumerated in his statement. As the Member found, there were also the firefighter attendance statistics counts which recorded the respondent's attendance at fires and other emergencies in his role as a firefighter.
The deficiencies in the respondent's evidence did not prevent the appellant calling evidence to rebut it. The nature of the work of a firefighter and his exposure to the relevant carcinogens at the various stations at which it employed the respondent was surely a matter the appellant was able to address through documentary, statement, or expert opinion evidence.
As for the arguments that the firefighter could not give evidence as to the nature of toxins to which he had been exposed, the Deputy President said:
The second limb of the appellant's objection to the evidence at the arbitration hearing is that the respondent did not possess the expertise to identify the chemicals to which he was exposed both at the stations and at fires. Generally, the chemical components of smoke, fumes, and material at bushfires, during and after building fires, and in the operation of fire vehicles would be a matter for an expert. However, the respondent is a senior firefighter and might be expected to have a rudimentary knowledge of the matters on which he gave evidence.
There cannot be any suggestion of unfairness in the admission of this evidence. The appellant had ample opportunity to adduce documentary, lay, or expert evidence addressing the issues raised in the respondent's statement.
I have gone on at some length about this case because it perfectly encapsulates the need for presumptive legislation and shows how, even with a presumptive framework in place, workers are still put through the wringer when seeking compensation for the injuries they have incurred through work. The appeal in this case relied heavily on criticism of the firefighter's evidence, claiming it to be unreliable, insufficiently expert and imprecise as to determining the exact, specific trigger of the cancer. This threshold of precision that gets applied by insurers and government agencies would be impossible for just about any career or volunteer firefighter to demonstrate—requiring them to identify specific instances over their service, identify what carcinogens they were exposed to, and for how long, on any given day.
The quality of evidence that could reasonably be expected for a disease of this type that emerges, by its very nature, over a long period of time is going to be imprecise at times and in more of a narrative form, but that does not mean it is not true. But insurers and government agencies that do not want to foot the bill will poke every hole they are able to. That is why presumptive laws like this are so necessary. Without them, firefighters would be—and are, for cancers not currently on the list—forced to give exhaustive levels of detail and be cross‑examined about those details. Presumptive laws remove the need for proof of causation in cases where there will inherently be multiple causal factors—including ethnicity, genetics, diet and occupational exposure—where it is impossible to identify a single cause.
The Greens strongly and enthusiastically support this bill. I thank the Opposition for bringing it to the House, but it should not have had to. Frankly, it is an embarrassment that it has got to this stage. Through the Government's floundering, it has failed to deliver a very simple piece of legislation that has been enacted across nearly the entirety of the country. The parliamentary inquiry into Labor's other grotesque failures on workers compensation entitlements elicited evidence from the Government as to how much these laws would cost. It is probably one of the many reasons the Government is so desperate to avoid the scrutiny that comes with our inquiry. We received the following evidence:
There are a number of qualifying factors that impact these costings. The Treasury Managed Fund covers the paid firefighters as volunteers are largely covered under a separate scheme.
Prospectively for the paid firefighters, this is estimated to have a cost of $12.2m p.a. and estimated total cost in the 5 years to FY28/29 of $55.3m.
If retrospectivity to 2018 and volunteer firefighters are also to be included, the estimated total costs in the 5 years to FY28/29 is $211 million.
That is over a five-year period. We are talking about $43 million to provide comfort, security and certainty to firefighters who have put their lives on the line for this State. That is the amount of money that we are talking about to avoid the cost that would be involved in taking them to court and putting them through more harm and stress. Our inquiry into the workers compensation bill is trying to isolate other factors and costs that the Government can cut. We must ensure that we have a sustainable system that puts the burden where it is needed and that, ultimately, protects workers who need to be protected.
I know what this Government is like. I am certain that these figures are modelled on the very worst-case scenario that will likely never happen. I ask members to look at how shockingly low these figures are. The most the Government could come up with in a worst-case scenario is $20 million dollars a year, at a stretch, to recognise the fact that firefighters face an increased risk of cancer as a result of their work. We have a moral duty to support them if they do. The policy of expanding presumptive cancer laws was a commitment the Government made prior to the election. It has been promising to do it for years, but there has been no progress. I can only assume it was because that paltry sum made them baulk. It is not good enough. I wish this was a Government bill. I wish that Labor was a better party for New South Wales while in government. I really do.
Members must force the Government's hand when we are faced with a government that is so unwilling to put its hand into its pocket and do the right thing for the working people of this State. I thank the Opposition for doing that. If the Opposition had not done it, then I reckon I was not far off from doing it myself. The Government has the opportunity to be gracious and to recognise this issue should be above politics. It is simply the right thing to do. The Government can vote it through and be proud of eventually doing the right thing—the thing it said it would do before it got the keys to government. I finish this speech by honestly and sincerely thanking the Fire Brigade Employees Union for its powerful and ongoing advocacy on behalf of its members. Because of the FBEU's relentless pressure, New South Wales is one step closer to being a fairer jurisdiction for the brave people who risk their lives and wellbeing in defence of us all. The Greens support the bill.
10 September 2025