The bill, introduced by Greens MP Colleen Hartland in February of this year, was at the time ruled by the president of the Legislative Council as out of order on a constitutional issue. 

It was deemed (erroneously, it would now seem) that it was an appropriation bill (would result in additional costs) and therefore any such bill should be introduced through the Legislative Assembly. As a result the bill was sent to the economy and infrastructure standing committee to inquire as to whether the bill was in fact an appropriation bill. 

It will be up to that committee to make a recommendation as to whether or not the bill can proceed through its current path via the Legislative Council. 

However, even if the committee determines the Fair Protection for Firefighters Bill is an appropriation bill, the committee can still recommend that the Legislative Council allow it to be introduced through the upper house despite any constitutional issues. 

History has shown that the Legislative Council has in fact allowed that to happen in the past with appropriation bills.

If the Legislative Council does not allow the bill to continue along its current path, the Napthine-Wells government will have to front up and support recognising occupational cancer for firefighters if a bill is to be introduced and be passed in the lower house.

Recently a number of firefighters confronted Minister Wells in Parliament (myself among them) after he had claimed the government was waiting for the outcome of a Monash University study into occupational cancer for firefighters. 

My colleagues and I were able to put Minister Wells straight — the science is in — there is no question about the link between firefighting and the increased risk of some cancers. 

There is a wealth of international research which has confirmed the increased risk and some of those studies included Australian firefighters.

The Australian Parliament accepted that link by unanimously passing the Federal Fair Protection for Firefighters Bill in 2011 after a robust Senate inquiry. Even Monash University took steps publicly to correct Minister Wells and the Napthine government’s misinformation. 

Monash reiterated that the Australian study will build on the international research that has already determined the nexus between firefighting and the contraction of certain specific cancers.

After our discussions with Greg Barber on Thursday, The Standard contacted Premier Napthine for comment. His response was, and I quote: “We need to get the best expert opinion rather than proceed with a presumption that every cancer in every circumstance is attributable to their work because that’s simply not the case.”

In stating this the Premier has managed to be right and wrong all at the same time. 

He is incorrect, and categorically so, in claiming that they need to get the best expert opinion because the facts (not opinion — facts) are in.

 If they weren’t there would not have been total bipartisan support for the bill when it was introduced and passed federally.

He is, however, correct when he states that not every cancer is attributable to our work, but no one is claiming that they are. 

That is why there are 12 cancers specifically listed on the bill which have been conclusively linked to the carcinogens and toxins encountered by firefighters during the course of our work. 

If Premier Napthine really cared he would have paid attention to the bill and have already known that.

 The 12 cancers listed on the bill are: brain cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukaemia, breast cancer, testicular cancer, multiple myeloma, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, ureter cancer and oesophageal cancer.

Premier Napthine has been a proud and vocal supporter of Peter’s Project, as he absolutely should be, but it beggars belief that he could be so ignorant and care so little about the men and women who risk contracting cancer through the course of their work in order to keep Victorian communities safe.

Troy Cleverley, leading firefighter, Warrnambool.