COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
INQUIRY INTO FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES LEGISLATION
Report No. 3 in the 37th Parliament
2006
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Published by the Legislative Assembly, Parliament of Western Australia, Perth, October 2006.
Printed by the Government Printer, State Law Publisher, Western Australia.
Community Development and Justice Standing Committee
Inquiry into Fire and Emergency Services Legislation
ISBN: 1 920830 88 X
(Series: Western Australia. Parliament. Legislative Assembly. Committees. Community Development and Justice Standing Committee. Report 3)
328.365
Copies available from: State Law Publisher 10 William Street PERTH WA 6000
Telephone: (08) 9321 7688 Facsimile: (08) 9321 7536 Email: [email protected] Copies available on-line: www.parliament.wa.gov.au
- 2 -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
INQUIRY INTO FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES LEGISLATION
Report No. 3
Presented by: Mr A.P. O'Gorman, MLA Laid on the Table of the Legislative Assembly on 19 October 2006
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS Chairman Mr A.P. O'Gorman, MLA Member for Joondalup Deputy Chairman Mr M.J. Cowper, MLA Member for Murray Members Mr S.R. Hill, MLA Member for Geraldton
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas, MLA Member for Carine
Mrs J. Hughes, MLA Member for Kingsley Co-opted Member Hon P.D. Omodei, MLA Inquiry into Fire and Emergency Member for Warren-Blackwood Services Legislation (25.08.2005-13.04.2006) COMMITTEE STAFF Principal Research Officer Ms Katherine Galvin, BSW Senior Research Officer Ms Nicole Gibbs Seconded from the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia (17.10.2005 - 21.04. 2006) Research Officers Ms Melissa Dove, BSc (Geol Hons), Grad Dip Ed Seconded from the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia (17.10.2005 - 28.04. 2006)
Ms Dawn Dickinson, BSc (Hons), MURP (from 23.05.2006)
Ms Nicole Burgess, BA (until 21.11.2005) COMMITTEE ADDRESS Community Development and Justice Standing Committee Legislative Assembly Tel: (08) 9222 7494 Parliament House Fax: (08) 9222 7804 Harvest Terrace Email: [email protected] PERTH WA 6000 Website: www.parliament.wa.gov.au
- i -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMMITTEE MEMBERS...... i COMMITTEE STAFF...... i COMMITTEE ADDRESS ...... i COMMITTEE’S FUNCTIONS AND POWERS...... vii INQUIRY TERMS OF REF ERENCE...... ix CHAIRMAN’S FOREW ORD...... xi ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...... xv GLOSSARY...... xix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... xxv RECOMMENDATIONS...... xxxix MINISTERIAL RESPONSE...... lxi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND...... 1 1.2 CONDUCT OF THE INQUIRY ...... 1 1.3 THE CONTRIBUTION OF VOLUNTEERS TO EMERGENCY SERVICES ...... 2 1.4 SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY...... 3 1.5 A NOTE CONCERNING TERMINOLOGY ...... 3 CHAPTER 2 THE MEANS BY WHICH LEGISLATION PUTS IN PLACE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT MEASURES TO PREVENT, PREPARE FOR, RESPOND TO AND ENSURE RECOVERY FROM FIRE AND EMERGENCIES ...... 5 2.1 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ONE EMERGENCY SERVICES ACT ...... 5 Committee assessment...... 10 2.2 THE EMERGENCY SERVICES ACT TO BIND THE CROWN ...... 11 Committee assessment...... 19 2.3 BUILDING SAFETY...... 20 Background...... 20 2.4 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AUTHORITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA’S POWER IN RELATION TO INSPECT ING BUILDING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ...... 21 Certificates of Classification (Occupancy)...... 25 Committee assessment...... 26 2.5 THE POWER TO INSPECT, EVACUATE AND APPLY FOR AN ORDER TO CLOSE DOWN BUILDINGS ...... 29 Committee assessment...... 32 2.6 INSTALLATION OF FIRE PREVENTION APPARATUS ...... 34 Committee assessment...... 35 2.7 THE POWER TO APPROVE AND CANCEL THE APPROVAL TO ESTABLISH BUSHFIRE BRIGADES ...... 36 Committee assessment...... 42 2.8 RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OPERATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE UNITS...... 44 Committee assessment...... 53 2.9 MANAGEMENT OF STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE UNITS ...... 54 CHAPTER 3 THE MEANS BY WHICH LEGISLATION PUTS IN PLACE APPROPRIATE RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ON LAND OWNED/MANAGED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OR BY STATE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES ...... 57 3.1 THE POWER TO REQUEST LAND OWNERS, LAND OCCUPIERS OR LAND MANAGERS TO DEVELOP FIRE MANAGEMENT PLANS...... 57 FESA requests the power to compel the development of fire management plans...57
- iii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The local government perspective...... 60 Department of Conservation and Land Management perspective...... 63 The view of other organisations...... 67 The development of fire management plans ...... 74 Liability ...... 76 Interstate arrangements...... 77 Interstate compliance arrangements ...... 81 Multi-agency advisory committees on fire management planning ...... 81 Committee assessment...... 83 CHAPTER 4 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INCIDENT COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS IN FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES INCLUDING INTEROPERABILITY IN MULTI-AGENCY INCIDENTS ...... 91 4.1 FIRE CONTROL...... 91 Control...... 91 Command ...... 115 Committee assessment...... 116 4.2 THE INTEROPERABILITY OF COMMUNICATIONS IN EMERGENCY SERVICES ...... 118 CHAPTER 5 THE MEANS BY WHICH STATE LEGISLATION ESTABLISHES REGULATORY RESPONSIB ILITY TO ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE PREVENTION, PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE MEASURES ARE ESTABLISHED FOR EMERGENCY S ERVICES ...... 127 5.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGULATORY BODY FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES 127 Interstate arrangements...... 134 Committee assessment...... 136 CHAPTER 6 THE MEANS BY WHICH LEGISLATION PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN CENTRALISED CONTROL AND COMMUNITY CENTRED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ...... 141 6.1 ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS OF BUSHFIRE BRIGADES ...... 141 Committee assessment...... 148 CHAPTER 7 ANY MAJOR ISSUES THAT THE COMMITTEE CONS IDERS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE INQUIRY...... 151 7.1 WHETHER THE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AUTHORITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA SHOULD BE RE-ESTABLISHED AS THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES...... 151 The proposed new departmental model ...... 157 A new name for the department is recommended...... 159 Implications on the management of the Emergency Services Levy in the event of re-structure of FESA as a department...... 160 Consultation on proposed changes...... 161 Interstate arrangements...... 166 Committee assessment...... 171 7.2 APPLICATION OF THE EMERGENCY SERVICES LEVY...... 174 Background...... 174 Perceived success or otherwise of the Emergency Services Levy funding system...... 175 Capital and Operating Grants ...... 179 Resource-to-Risk assessment models ...... 180 Grant allocation processes...... 181 Increased administration associated with Emergency Service Levy grant applications...... 181 Requests for expansion of the Emergency Services Levy...... 182 Proposed solutions to address the perceived shortfall in Emergency Services Levy funding...... 186 Impact of the Emergency Services Levy - FESA’s perspective...... 187
- iv - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Committee assessment...... 190 7.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AREA S ...... 193 Committee assessment...... 196 7.4 FIRE HYDRANT OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE ...... 197 Establishment and removal of fire hydrants in fire districts...... 197 Maintenance of fire hydrants in fire districts ...... 198 Ownership and maintenance of fire hydrants outside of fire districts ...... 198 Funding of fire hydrants ...... 198 Concerns regarding the ownership and maintenance of fire hydrants in this State...... 199 Interstate arrangements relating to ownership and maintenance of fire hydrants. 202 Previous reviews of fire hydrant ownership and maintenance...... 203 Proposal for transfer of ownership and responsibility for fire hydrants and associated debate...... 204 Recommendations relevant but separate to ownership of, and responsibility for, fire hydrants...... 212 Committee assessment...... 213 7.5 PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES TO INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES .... 217 7.6 HEAVY INDUSTRY EMERGENCY RESPONSE ARRANGEMENTS ...... 225 Industry arrangements...... 227 The view of other organisations...... 232 Committee assessment...... 235 7.7 PERIPHERAL ISSUES ...... 237 Issues pertaining to legislation ...... 237 Issues pertaining to Emergency Services...... 238 Committee assessment...... 251 APPENDIX One ...... 253 BRIEFINGS HELD ...... 253 APPENDIX Two ...... 257 WITNESSES TO HEARINGS HELD ...... 257 APPENDIX Three...... 267 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED ...... 267 APPENDIX Four...... 271 LEGISLATION ...... 271
- v -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE’S FUNCTIONS AND POWERS
The functions of the Committee are to review and report to the Assembly on: -
(a) the outcomes and administration of the departments within the Committee’s portfolio responsibilities;
(b) annual reports of government departments laid on the Table of the House;
(c) the adequacy of legislation and regulations within its jurisdiction; and
(d) any matters referred to it by the Assembly including a bill, motion, petition, vote or expenditure, other financial matter, report or paper.
At the commencement of each Parliament and as often thereafter as the Speaker considers necessary, the Speaker will determine and table a schedule showing the portfolio responsibilities for each committee. Annual reports of government departments and authorities tabled in the Assembly will stand referred to the relevant committee for any inquiry the committee may make.
Whenever a committee receives or determines for itself fresh or amended terms of reference, the committee will forward them to each standing and select committee of the Assembly and Joint Committee of the Assembly and Council. The Speaker will announce them to the Assembly at the next opportunity and arrange for them to be placed on the notice boards of the Assembly.
- vii -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
INQUIRY TERMS OF REFERENCE
That the Committee examine, report and make recommendations on fire and emergency services legislation in Western Australia, with particular reference to:
1. the means by which legislation puts in place effective and efficient measures to prevent, prepare for, respond to and ensure recovery from fire and emergencies;
2. the means by which legislation puts in place appropriate risk management strategies on land owned/managed by local governments or by State Government departments or agencies;
3. the effectiveness of incident command and control systems in fire and emergency services including interoperability in multi agency incidents;
4. the means by which State legislation establishes regulatory responsibility to ensure that appropriate prevention, preparedness and response measures are established for emergency services;
5. the means by which legislation provides an appropriate balance between centralised control and community centred emergency management; and
6. any major issues that emerge that the Committee considers should be included within the inquiry.
- ix -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD
I am pleased to present to the Legislative Assembly the third Report of the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament. This Report finalises the Committee’s Inquiry into Fire and Emergency Services Legislation, commenced on 24 August 2005. The Report comprehensively covers the six terms of reference adopted for the Inquiry.
This Report reflects the dedication of those involved primarily, either directly or indirectly, in the prevention, preparedness and response to emergencies in this State. What cannot be underestimated is the dedication of the State’s volunteer emergency services personnel and the cost benefit of their service to the Government and community, particularly in regional and rural Western Australia.
Although the following comments are made in the context of response to a fire incident, they perhaps best encapsulate what this Report is trying to achieve:
Whether it be a red truck, a white truck or a blue truck that arrives to put the fire out is irrelevant. Let us put the fire out, but, more importantly, let us have an appropriate management regime in place so that we can manage the hazard and the fire…1
In reiterating these remarks, it is not the Committee’s intention to diminish the importance of retainment of the individual identity of the emergency services groups. Rather, it accepts that although stakeholders have divergent views about what should happen in the management of emergencies, or in fact for prevention or preparedness for emergencies, the Committee believes that through thorough consultation and extensive research it has arrived at proposals to ensure that the most effective system is in place to enhance community, asset and environmental safety.
One of the critical issues that the Committee has had to consider is the impact of rural adjustment on some local governments’ ability to provide adequate response arrangements for emergencies. Proposals to address shortfalls in service delivery are not intended to undermine, and in fact provide for, local governments who are well resourced and who provide a dedicated emergency response to hazards.
The Committee envisages that the two most contentious issues in this Report will be control arrangements in multi-agency incidents and compulsory fire management planning on prescribed categories of land.
Several significant State and Commonwealth Government reports, including two Coronials, have highlighted community safety issues inherent in the authority for control being dispersed across a number of agencies in multi-agency incidents. The Committee acknowledges that in many instances a high degree of co-operation has been engendered at the local level to address this issue. However, it views that to ensure consistency in approach, such arrangements need to be legislatively mandated. The Committee has therefore recommended that one agency, the Fire and
1 Mr Robert J. Fenn, Executive Director Development Services, City of Albany, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p7-8.
- xi - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, be empowered to assume control in these circumstances. The Committee foresee and is in fact ever hopeful, that the need for this will not often arise. I emphasise that the recommendation is in no way intended to undermine a Hazard Management Agency’s ability to command its own troops, minimise the importance of local knowledge in the firefighting effort or the Department of Conservation and Land Management’s2 expertise in forest fires and biodiversity values. The Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia will in these circumstances provide overall coordination and will be able to engage resources at a level beyond the capacity of most local governments and in some circumstances, the Department of Conservation and Land Management. The decision for assumption of control will be made at the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia’s executive level and it is requested that the Auditor General give consideration to reviewing the use of these powers, in line with other recommended amendments to the legislation.
The Committee views that there is insufficient focus on fire planning for large tracts of land, including Crown land. Although other factors also come into play, evidence of the latter is perhaps best drawn from the Kimberley and Pilbara regions of this State which are burning at an alarming rate. The intention is to introduce a reasonably consistent yet flexible approach to risk assessment and mitigation across the State in an attempt to protect the State and community’s valuable asset base. The Committee has reviewed fire management planning templates and do not perceive these to be unduly onerous on land owners or land managers. The Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, where practicable, will assist in the development of these plans and the Committee has suggested a process for fire management planning which it believes will ensure the input of significant stakeholders and consideration of key values in land management.
The Committee believes that the Report represents the opinion of the broad array of stakeholders relevant to the Inquiry, that proposed legislative amendment accounts for regional differences and that due consideration has been given to interstate emergency services models and practices and their applicability to Western Australia. The Committee is therefore of the view that it has delivered a comprehensive report with a strong analytical basis that provides practical solutions for implementation by Government for improved performance in the prevention, preparedness and response to emergencies in this State.
I would like to thank Members of the Committee for their contribution to the Inquiry, including the Hon. Paul Omodei, MLA, who was co-opted during the initial stages of the review.
Access to comprehensive information, particularly in the formative stages of an Inquiry, is critical. The Committee therefore seconded Ms Nicole Gibbs and Ms Melissa Dove, both Senior Research Officers, from the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, to assist in its deliberations and the drafting of the Report. Their input was critical in understanding the complexities of the emergency services legislation, its application at a practical level and the interrelationship of relevant issues. On behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank these staff for their dedication to the task at hand.
2 Renamed the Department of Environment and Conservation on 1 July 2006.
- xii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
I also recognise the contribution of the Committee’s Principal Research Officer, Ms Katherine Galvin and Research Officers, Ms Dawn Dickinson and Ms Nicole Burgess for their coordination of investigative travel, overall analysis of pertinent issues and written contribution to the Inquiry.
As a consequence of the latter, report content reflects a balanced view of Stakeholder contribution to the Inquiry and thoroughly considers the implications and interplay of the Committee’s recommendations.
MR A.P. O'GORMAN, MLA CHAIRMAN
- xiii -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
“ACB” Aerial Controlled Burning
“AG” Auditor General
“AIIMS” Australasian Inter-Service Incident Management System
“AVBFB” Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA (Inc)
“AWARE” All West Australians Reducing Emergencies
“BCA” Building Code of Australia
“BFB” Bushfire Brigade
“BFCC” Bush Fire Coordinating Committee (NSW)
“BFMC” Bush Fire Management Committee (NSW)
“BPAC” Bushfire Prevention Advis ory Committee (SA)
“Building Regulations” Building Regulations 1989
“Bush Fires Act” Bush Fires Act 1954
“CALM Act” Conservation and Land Management Act 1984
“CALM” Department of Conservation and Land Management
“CCWA” Conservation Council of Western Australia
“COAG” Council of Australian Governments
“CSO” Community Service Obligation
“DEC” Department of Environment and Conservation
“DHW” Department of Housing and Works
“DLI” Department of Land Information
“DOAC” District Operation Advisory Committee
“DOCEP” Department of Consumer and Employment Protection
“DoE” Department of Environment
“DPC” Department of the Premier and Cabinet
“DPI” Department for Planning and Infrastructure
- xv - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
“DSE” Department of Sustainability and Environment (Victoria)
“DTF” Department of Treasury and Finance
“EDO” Environmental Defender’s Office
“Emergency Management Act” Emergency Management Act 2005
“Emergency Management Regulations” Emergency Management Regulations 2006
“EP Act” Environmental Protection Act 1986
“EPA” Environmental Protection Authority
“ERM” Emergency Risk Management
“ESL” Emergency Services Levy
“ESU” Emergency Service Unit
“FESA Act” Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998
“FESA” Fire and Emergency Services Authority (of Western Australia)
“Fire Brigades Act” Fire Brigades Act 1942
“FMAC” Fire Management Area Committee (Tas)
“FMP” Fire Management Plan
“Forests Act” Forests Act 1918 (repealed by Section 147 of the CALM Act)
“FRS” Fire and Rescue Service
“FTE” Full Time Equivalent
“GIS” Geographic Information Systems
“HAZMAT” Hazardous Material
“HMA” Hazard Management Agency
“HMO” Hazard Management Officer
“ITC” Integrated Tree Cropping
“LEMC/ LEMAC” Local Emergency Management Committee
“MFPC” Municipal Fire Prevention Committee (Victoria)
“MOU” Memorandum of Understanding
“MRWA” Main Roads Western Australia
- xvi - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
“MVSRG” Metropolitan Volunteer Sea Rescue Group
“NCC” Nature Conservation Council of NSW
“NK LCDC” North Kimberley Land Conservation District Committee
“OAG” Office of the Auditor General
“PGA” Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia
“Policy Statement No. 7” State Emergency Management Committee Policy Statement No. 7
“PPE” Personal Protective Equipment
“PPRR” Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery
“RIC” Remote Indigenous Community
“RUBTA” Rural Urban Bushfire Threat Analysis
“SAT” State Administrative Tribunal
“SEMC” State Emergency Management Committee
“SES” State Emergency Service
“SLIP” Shared Land Information Platform
“SRRP” Statewide Resource Replacement Plan
“UCL” Unallocated Crown Land
“UFU” United Fire Fighters Union (of Western Australia)
“UMR” Unmanaged Reserve
“VFRS” Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service
“VMRS” Volunteer Marine Rescue Service
“WA Farmers” Western Australian Farmers Federation (Inc)
“WALGA” Western Australian Local Government Association
“WAPC” Western Australian Planning Commission
“WAPOL” Western Australia Police
”WAFBB” Western Australian Fire Brigades Board
- xvii -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
GLOSSARY
“Australian Building Codes The Board is a joint initiative of Australian Governments and includes Board” representatives from the building industry. It was established as a result of an inter-government agreement signed by the Australian Government and relevant Ministers in March 1994 and reaffirmed in 2001. It is responsible for:
§ “developing and managing a nationally uniform approach to technical building requirements, embodied in the Building Code of Australia (BCA);
§ developing a simpler and more efficient building regulatory system; and
§ enabling the building industry to adopt new and innovative construction technology and practices.”3
“Building Code of Australia” Produced and maintained by the Australian Building Codes Board on behalf of the Australian, State and Territory Governments, the Code contains technical provisions for the design and construction of buildings and other structures. It is aimed at enabling “the achievement and maintenance of acceptable standards of structural sufficiency, safety (including from fire), health and amenity” for the community.4 The Building Code is released as a yearly edition.
“Building Regulations” “The [Building Code of Australia] is given legal effect by building regulatory legislation in each State and Territory…In Western Australia, the Act of Parliament that empowers the regulations of certain aspects of buildings and structures, is the Building Regulations 1989”.5 These can be viewed online at http://www.slp.wa.gov.au.
“Bush Fire Brigade” Any group of persons however constituted and whether incorporated or not, registered with a local government in accordance with the Bush Fires Act 1954 for the purpose of controlling and extinguishing or preventing the occurrence or spread or extension of a bushfire, or for any other purpose prescribed by that Act.6
“Bushfire Brigade/State Established to oversee the capital funding allocations to local governments for Emergency Service Capital Grants their Bushfire Brigades and State Emergency Service Units (respectively).7 Committees”
3 Australian Building Codes Board Available at: http://www.abcb.gov.au/index.cfm?fuseaction=DocumentView&DocumentID=85 Accessed on 02/02/2006. 4 Australian Building Codes Board, Available at: http://www.abcb.gov.au/dsp_document_view.cfm Accessed on 02/02/2006. 5 Department of Housing and Works, Available at: http://www.dhw.wa.gov.au/193/745.asp Accessed on 02/02/2006. 6 Section 42A and 44 Bush Fires Act 1954. 7 Emergency Services Levy A Fairer System for All:Local Government Manual for Capital and Operating Grants, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Perth, November 2005, p15.
- xix - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
“Command” As defined by the Australasian Inter-Service Incident Management System, command is the direction of members and resources of an organisation in the performance of the organisation’s role and tasks. Authority to command is established in legislation or by agreement with an organisation. Command relates to organisations and operates vertically within an organisation.8
“Consultative Committee” A committee established under Section 22 of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998, one member of which is represented on the FESA Board in accordance with Section 6 of that Act. Consultative committees are established for each of the Bush Fire Service, Fire and Rescue Service, State Emergency Service, and Volunteer Marine Rescue Service.9 “Control” As defined by the Australasian Inter-Service Incident Management System, control refers to the overall direction of emergency management activities in an emergency situation. The authority for control is established in legislation or in an emergency plan and carries with it the responsibility for tasking and coordinating other organisations in accordance with the needs of the situation. Control relates to situations and operates horizontally across organisations.10 “Crown land” As defined by Section 3(1) of the Land Administration Act 1997, Crown land refers to all land except alienated land (i.e. that which is held in freehold).
“Emergency Management One of a number of emergency services organisations amalgamated to form the Services” Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia when it was formally established as a statutory Government Authority on 1 January 1999.
“Emergency Services Levy There are five Emergency Services Levy rate categories that apply, depending on Category Areas” the type and level of fire and emergency services available to a property. Properties with more services available to them contribute more to the Emergency Services Levy.11
“Emergency Services Levy Funding for bushfire brigades and State Emergency Service Units is allocated via Grant Scheme” a grants process where local governments apply for an operating grant and a capital grant for each service.12 “Emergency Services Levy” A State Government property-based levy introduced on 1 July 2003 to rectify inconsistencies, inequities and comp lexities in emergency services funding arrangements. The Levy is the principal funding source for Career Fire and Rescue Service, Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Local Governments’ Bush Fire Brigades, State Emergency Service and Volunteer Emergency Service Units.13 The Levy is collected by local governments via inclusion in Council rates notices, and is then sent directly to the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia.14
8 Ibid, p19-20. 9 Section 22 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998. 10 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p19. 11 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/default.aspx?MenuID=195 Accessed on 01/08/2006. 12 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/default.aspx Accessed on 01/08/2006. 13 Letter from Mr Robert Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 08/11/2005, p2.
- xx - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
“Emergency Service Unit” A multi-functional unit operated by volunteers trained in a number of emergency operations and established in accordance with the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998. Emergency Service Units can combine the resources and expertis e of a State Emergency Service Unit, a Bushfire Brigade, a Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services Brigade and/or a Volunteer Marine Rescue Services group.15
“Fire and Rescue Services State operated brigades. Brigade”
“Fire -break” An area of land cleared for the purpose of preventing the outbreak of a bushfire, or for preventing the spread or extension of a bushfire which may occur. Section 33(1) Bushfires Act 1954 empowers local government to direct land owners to install fire-breaks.
“Fire Brigades Board” On 1 January 1999, the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia was formally established as a statutory Government Authority. It replaced the WA Fire Brigades Board, as well as the Bush Fires Board.
“Fire district” Fire districts are established by Section 5 of the Fire Brigades Act 1942. The original intent of fire districts was: § to define operational emergency services boundaries; and § (prior to the introduction of the Emergency Services Levy) to assist with the administration of emergency services funding.16
“Fire management plan” A strategic risk management tool for the purpose of mitigating the impact of fire. Basic content generally comprises the identification of local assets, the identification and evaluation of fire risks and the identification (and often scheduling) of strategies and/or actions for mitigating fire over the lifetime of the plan.
“Fire Services Brigade” An amalgamation of a Bushfire Brigade and a Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services Brigade.17
“Forest Products Commission” A Government trading enterprise established to develop and market Western Australia’s renewable timber resources.18
14 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/upload/shared/docs/ESL_Question__Answer_2005_Website1.pdf Accessed on 10/10/2006. 15 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at http:// www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/default.aspx?MenuID=350&ContentID=327 Accessed 14/07/06. 16 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p41. 17 Ibid., p13. 18 Forest Products Commission, Available at: http://www.fpc.wa.gov.au/content/about_us/about_us.asp Accessed on 01/08/2006.
- xxi - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
“Hazard Management Agency” An organisation which, because of its legislative responsibility or specialised knowledge, expertise and resources is responsible for ensuring that emergency management activities pertaining to the prevention of, preparedness for, response to and recovery from a specific hazard are undertaken.19
“Hazard Management Officer” A person authorised under Section 55 of the Emergency Management Act 2005.
“Northern Country Zone of the The Northern Country Zone of the Western Australian Local Government Western Australian Local Association represents the local government authorities of the City of Geraldton, Government Association” and the Shires of Greenough, Northampton, Chapman Valley, Irwin, Mingenew, Mullewa, Morawa, Perenjori, Coorow, Three Springs and Carnamah.
“Performance-based system” In the context of the Building Code of Australia, generally refers to the criteria that must be satisfied in order for some objective to be met. Performance-based systems generally provide greater flexibility to achieve an acceptable outcome as opposed to strict standards.20
“Productivity Commission” The Australian Government’s Principal Review and Advisory Body on microeconomic policy and regulation.21
“Resource-to-Risk Model” This is a Statewide model, developed by the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia to ensure:
§ “consistency in the allocation of emergency services resources across the State;
§ [that] resources are allocated according to the types and frequencies of emergencies in a community and the potential risk to community members; and
§ Emergency services units and brigades are established according to the risks in the community, the availability of resources in surrounding areas and emergency planning in the area, region and State”.22
“SEMC Policy Statement No. 7” The primary policy document providing overarching emergency management arrangements for the State of Western Australia. The policy will eventually be superseded by State Emergency Management Policies developed under the Emergency Management Act 2005.
“State Emergency Service A non-operational organisation created to support the rights and needs of SES Volunteers Association” volunteers,23 one member of which is represented on the FESA board as provided for by Section 6(1) of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998.24
19 State Emergency Management Committee (Revised 2005), Policy Statement Number 7 ‘Western Australian Emergency Management Arrangements’. 20 Australian Building Codes Board, Available at: http://www.abcb.gov.au/index.cfm?fuseaction=DocumentView&DocumentID=86 Accessed on 01/08/2006. 21 Productivity Commission, Available at: http://www.pc.gov.au/ Accessed on 06/02/2006. 22 Submission No 16 from the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p12. 23 Western Australian State Emergency Service Volunteers Association, Available at: http://www.ses-wa.asn.au/about.htm Accessed on 01/08/2006.
- xxii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
“State Emergency Service” Initially established during the 1950’s as an arm of the civil defence infrastructure to prepare for and respond to the threat of nuclear and other war, the SES has evolved as a consequence of community need, now responding to a number of life threatening emergencies including:
§ Land search;
§ Storm damage;
§ Cyclone;
§ Tsunami;
§ Cliff rescue;
§ Cave rescue;
§ Land slide; and
§ Earthquake.
The SES are provided for legislatively via amendments to the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998 in 2001, with the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia being assigned general responsibility, including the ability to establish and cancel units.25
“The Board” Governing body of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority, established under Section 6 of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998 whose membership comprises representatives of emergency services organisations.
“Unallocated Crown Land” Crown land in which no interest is known to exist, but in which native title within the meaning of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) may or may not exist; and which is not reserved, declared or otherwise dedicated under the Land Administration Act 1997 or any other written law.26
“Unexploded Ordnance” One of a number of emergency services organisations amalgamated to form the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia when it was formally established as a statutory Government Authority on 1 January 1999.
“Volunteer Marine Rescue One of a number of emergency services organisations amalgamated to form the Service” Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia when it was formally established as a statutory Government Authority on 1 January 1999. Functions and powers of the Authority with respect to the Volunteer Marine Rescue Service and functions of Volunteer Marine Rescue groups are as per Part 3B of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998.
24 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/default.aspx?MenuID=25&ContentID=313 Accessed on 01/08/2006. 25 Submission No 16 from the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p14/15. 26 Section 3(1) Land Administration Act 1997.
- xxiii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
“Westplan Wildfire” The State Wildfire Emergency Management Plan, first issued in 1999 jointly by the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia and the Department of Conservation and Land Management on behalf of the State Emergency Management Committee. The plan applies to all wildfire burning in all areas for which local government, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, and the Department of Conservation and Land Management have responsibilities under the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998, Bush Fires Act 1954, the Fire Brigades Act 1942 and the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984.27 Westplan Wildfire was superseded in November 2005 by the State Bushfire Emergency Management Plan or “Westplan Bushfire”. 28
27 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia and the Department of Conservation and Land Management on behalf of the State Emergency Management Committee, State Wildfire Emergency Management Plan; Westplan- Wildfire, State Government, Perth, November 2003, p7. 28 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/upload/shared/docs/WESTPLAN_-_BUSHFIRE__Web_version_.pdf Accessed on 10/10/2006.
- xxiv - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the Report of the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee on the Inquiry into Fire and Emergency Services Legislation. The Committee resolved to conduct the Inquiry on 24 August 2005 principally on request from the Hon. Michelle Roberts, MLA, then Minister for Police and Emergency Services.
Chapter One outlines the Committee resolution for the conduct of the Inquiry, the scope of the review and the process pursued in the gathering of evidence. It highlights the valuable contribution of volunteers in the delivery of emergency services in this State.
Chapter Two examines the means by which legislation puts in place effective and efficient measures to prevent, prepare for, respond to and ensure recovery from emergency services.
Section 2.1 considers the request for amalgamation of the Fire Brigades Act 1942, the Bush Fires Act 1954 and the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998 into one consolidated emergency services Act. The Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia (FESA) cites that the Acts do not provide for the roles that emergency services units now perform, lack interoperability and that the earlier Acts are dated and too detailed. FESA essentially argue that one Act would provide a strategic legislative framework for the operation of emergency services. The majority of stakeholders to the Inquiry agreed with this premise, a few on the proviso that the new Act clearly provides for the individual emergency services entities. The Committee supports the majority view on this issue similarly on this proviso.
Section 2.2 discusses whether the emergency services Act should bind the Crown. The more contemporary Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998 binds the Crown whereas the Fire Brigades Act 1942 and Bush Fires Act 1954 do not. FESA argues that the lack of consistency between the Acts promotes confusion, misinterpretation of the legislation and that non-compliance places the community, property and the environment at risk. FESA therefore recommend that provision be made to bind the Crown. This will mean that Government agencies with Hazard Management Agency (HMA) and support roles in emergency services will be required to comply with the emergency services legislation, despite the existence of agency specific legislation that might contradict the Act’s intent, functions or powers. Personnel not covered by the emergency services legislation will be required to recognise and comply with the intent and authority of the legislation.
The greatest impact for the community in regional and remote Western Australia will be ensuring a consistent approach to fire management planning across the State. Currently under the Bush Fires Act 1954 the State is exempt from having to undertake fire-break and/or other fire mitigation works on its land. The main comment by stakeholders was the lack of equity or accountability of the State in this regard and the resultant impact on neighbouring properties. The Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM)29 and Main Roads Western Australia highlighted concerns about the potential financial, practical and environmental implications of fire-break and
29 Renamed the Department of Environment and Conservation on 1 July 2006.
- xxv - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
hazard reduction notices on their land. CALM were also worried about the impact on their prescribed burning program of existing provisions which prevent the lighting, or enforce the extinguishment, of a fire.
The Committee supports the emergency services Act binding the Crown for reasons of equity and consistency, however is aware that if, for instance, the Bush Fires Act 1954 is amended to bind the Crown, there would be a risk of it becoming unworkable. It is suggested however that the Acts be repealed and re-drafted, allowing the State the opportunity to develop flexible legislation that enables land owners and land managers to use fire prevention tools in addition to, or as an alternative to, fire-breaks.
Section 2.3 outlines, in brief, agency accountability for building safety. The Department of Housing and Works (DHW) holds responsibility for building control legislation, although a number of agencies including FESA and local government hold support roles to ensure compliance with the Building Code of Australia. Described is the process by which DHW, FESA and the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) arrived at a degree of consensus about building safety provisions in the emergency services legislation and Building Regulations.
Section 2.4 discusses FESA’s request to approve building plans and specifications to ensure compliance with the fire requirements of the Building Code of Australia and FESA’s operational firefighting needs. Under the Building Regulations 1989 plans and specifications for Class 2 to Class 9 Buildings (as per the Building Code of Australia) are required to be submitted to FESA for assessment but the legislation does not prescribe what action FESA is required to take, nor does a developer have to comply with FESA’s advice. This raises concerns of liability. FESA requests the power to approve building plans and specifications, extension of the Class of buildings to which these provisions apply to include Class 1B buildings and the power to issue Certificates of Classification (Occupancy) in regard to those buildings which pose a ‘high risk to life’ or have ‘complex/complicated fire and emergency safety systems’. FESA view that the option for appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal should exist for a developer aggrieved with a decision of FESA in regard to non-approval of building plans and specifications. DHW, FESA and WALGA concur on these arrangements.
The Committee agrees with this proposal on the grounds that FESA needs to have certainty that they can work with complicated fire safety systems and ensure that duty of care obligations are met to firefighters and the general public. The Class of buildings to which these provisions apply should be extended to include Class 1B buildings which incorporate establishments such as backpacker hostels, bed and breakfasts and guest houses.
Section 2.5 discusses FESA’s request to retain existing powers under the Fire Brigades Act 1942 to inspect public buildings to ensure that there is no risk to life and property, order the owner to take remedial action, apply to a Magistrate to close the building until breaches are rectified, and remove people from the building, if there is a danger to life. The provisions currently apply to “public buildings” which is dated terminology, not clearly defined and open to interpretation regarding application of these powers. FESA has requested that this term be re-defined as Class 1B to Class 9 buildings.
- xxvi - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
DHW and WALGA concur that FESA should retain these powers but that they only apply to the operation of fire and emergency safety systems. DHW, WALGA and FESA agree that in instances where non-fire and non-emergency system related breaches are detected, building safety could be assured by establishing a referral mechanism to an “expert” agency to enable adequate assessment of risk and remedial action by a building owner, if required.
The Committee agrees with the proposal on the basis of FESA’s expertise, ability to provide consistency of approach, and carriage of resources, necessary to ensure fire safety in buildings. For reasons of clarity it views that the provisions should apply to Class 1B to Class 9 buildings. Establishment of a referral mechanism for assessment of non-fire and non-emergency safety systems breaches to a relevant “expert” authority is also deemed to be appropriate.
Section 2.6 outlines FESA’s request to retain the powers under Section 25A of the Fire Brigades Act 1942 to direct the owner of a premises to provide and install fire detection and suppression equipment necessary to prevent, detect, respond to, or extinguish fire. The provisions currently apply to Class 2 to Class 9 buildings although FESA requests these be extended to include Class 1B buildings.
On the basis of FESA’s expertise in fire safety and its duty of care obligations, the Committee views that the Authority should retain these powers and that for reasons of community safety and consistency, that the provisions apply to Class 1B to Class 9 Buildings.
Section 2.7 discusses FESA’s proposal to transfer the power to approve the establishment of Bushfire Brigades (BFBs), from local government to FESA. FESA contends that this is required given its management of the Emergency Services Levy (ESL), which now funds BFBs. In distributing funds, FESA conducts a resource-to-risk assessment to determine a locality’s requirements and views that applications from local governments for the establishment of brigades, surplus to a localities requirements, compromises the ESL.
Evidence indicates that some local governments have requested transfer of all or part of the responsibility for BFBs to FESA. Others oppose the recommendation arguing the need to balance local knowledge and community aspirations with financial considerations.
The Committee supports transfer of the power to approve the establishment of BFBs from local government to FESA. This is principally on the basis that the Authority administers and approves funding for these Brigades and because the ESL is a finite resource. The Committee view however that a local government dissatisfied with a decision of the Authority should have the right of appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal.
Section 2.8 deliberates on FESA’s request for the transfer of the administration of ESL applications for State Emergency Service Units (SES) from local government to FESA. FESA argues that this should occur because FESA now hold legislative responsibility for the administration of SES Units. FESA also suggests that in the event of transfer that local government should continue to accommodate SES Units until the building is replaced via the ESL Grant Scheme or an alternative position is negotiated with FESA.
- xxvii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Stakeholder opinion on this proposal was fairly evenly divided. Those opposed to change saw this role as integral to the emergency management responsibilities of local government or as providing the community with greater influence over SES ESL applications. One Shire expressed strong opposition to the notion of local government continuing to house SES Units, on the grounds of fairness. Those supporting the change did so on the basis of lack of expertise in SES matters and costs associated with administering the ESL. Either way, stakeholders were convinced of the requirement to keep local government apprised with regard to their local SES.
The Committee supports the proposal on the basis that FESA has administrative responsibility for SES Units and recognises that local government must be kept informed in relation to SES matters. Fairness would also dictate that FESA give priority to re-accommodating SES Units via the ESL.
Section 2.9 outlines concerns expressed by SES Units regarding management by non-SES trained FESA staff. It was intimated that at a corporate level, FESA needs to focus on employment of full time SES trained staff for liaison with SES Units. The Committee views that due attention needs to be given to the provision of adequate training for management personnel, relevant to the emergency services groups they are managing.
Chapter 3 examines the means by which legislation puts in place appropriate risk management strategies on land owned/managed by local governments or State Government departments or agencies.
Section 3.1 discusses FESA’s suggestion that it be empowered to request (and approve) fire management plans from land owners or managers for prescribed categories of land or land usage, including Crown land, land used for pastoral or grazier, or plantation purposes. Further, that land owners or managers aggrieved with a decision of the Authority be provided the option of appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal. The contention is that there is currently inadequate or inconsistent fire management planning on large tracts of land and existing fire management mechanisms such as fire-breaks are not always practical, however that all land (considered to be of high risk) in this State should be subject to appropriate risk assessment and mitigation.
The majority of stakeholders supported the concept of fire management planning, to assist in reducing and suppressing wildfires, as an alternative to fire-breaks (which in some terrain is environmentally damaging) and as a means of managing current high fuel loads. There was strong support for fire management planning to apply to Crown land and for stakeholder input into fire management planning to be assured. There was some debate as to whether planning should be voluntary or compulsory. CALM did not oppose fire management plans but did not support FESA having final veto given CALM’s expertise in biodiversity.
The Committee views that fire management plans must be a legislative requirement to ensure a degree of consistency and application Statewide. This is achievable through: compulsory fire management planning on prescribed categories of land; FESA providing assistance in fire management planning processes; the establishment of new or the utilisation of existing Committee representative structures to progress fire management planning; the conduct of sample audits of fire management plans at State level and the lodgement of CALM’s fire management plans with the local level committee for comment and integration with broader fire management planning.
- xxviii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The Committee agrees with the option of appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal for land owners or land managers aggrieved with a decision under a fire management plan.
The Committee views that the Conservation Commission of Western Australia should continue to develop management plans with a fire management component (where relevant) for CALM land vested in the Department under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. This should be extended to include all Department managed lands deemed to be of high risk, where a fire management plan would mitigate that risk. Under this arrangement, local government may still issue fire-break and hazard reduction notices on all land, apart from CALM’s land vested under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984, however, where a fire management plan exists, notices must be issued in accordance with those plans.
Chapter 4 examines the effectiveness of incident command and control systems in fire and emergency services including interoperability in multi-agency incidents.
Section 4.1 discusses Control Authority at major incidents. Under the Australasian Inter-Service Incident Management System, Control refers to the “overall direction of emergency management activities in an emergency situation” and involves “the responsibility for tasking and coordinating other organisations” according to the needs of the incident. It operates horizontally across organisations. Command, involves “the direction of members and resources of an organisation in the performance of the organisation’s role and tasks”. It operates vertically within an organisation. Western Australia’s Control arrangements are established in State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC) Policy Statement No.7. It dictates that: § FESA is the HMA for fire in the metropolitan area and within designated townsites, unless the fire is on or near CALM-managed land or allocated Crown land. § Local government is the HMA for fire within the local government area but outside of the designated townsite, unless the fire is on or near CALM-managed land or allocated Crown land. Local government is also the Hazard Management Agency for fire on Unallocated Crown Land. § CALM is the HMA for fire when it is on or near CALM-managed land or allocated Crown land, but only if a CALM Officer is present. If a CALM Officer is not present, CALM may refuse to take control of the fire. Essentially the HMA is responsible for control at multi-agency incidents. FESA cite that the current Control Authority arrangements place the organisation in a precarious position regarding liability and imply that they can expose the community to unnecessary risk. Essentially FESA contends that under the Bush Fires Act 1954 they cannot assume control from local government unless requested, are required to follow local government direction, are not necessarily included in planning and yet can be handed control of a fire at any time during an incident. Similar arrangements exist with CALM. However FESA imply that these arrangements are complicated by CALM being able to assume control of a fire “in” or “near” CALM land, which in the absence of a definition of “near”, means CALM can effectively assume control of a fire anywhere in the State. FESA imply that these arrangements raise concerns particularly with new housing developments abutting or in the vicinity of CALM-managed land.
- xxix - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
FESA proposes that it be able to assume control from CALM and/or local government under prescribed circumstances, principally where in the opinion of FESA, local government or CALM do not have the ability, experience and/or resources required to control a fire; or in the opinion of FESA, the fire or fires have escalated to a level whereby State level control is required. Control by FESA does not relieve CALM or local government of the command of its personnel, brigades and units.
CALM views that current Control Authority arrangements are effective and appropriate and that assumption of control by FESA is not appropriate given CALM’s expertise in biodiversity conservation. CALM support FESA being able to assume control from local government.
The acceptability of Control Authority arrangements varied amongst stakeholders according to whether “non-legislative” fire control arrangements had been negotiated at the local level, the degree of local government expertise to combat fire incidents, the extent by which local government, CALM and FESA interacted at the local level, and the personal experiences of emergency services personnel in relation to fire control. Despite stakeholder views, in most cases, a commonality existed in relation to the desire to work cooperatively on the ground and for any system of Control Authority to recognise local volunteer knowledge and agency expertise.
The Committee considered the recommendations of a number of recent (2004/05) State and Commonwealth Government reports which assert the need for one agency to assume control under prescribed circumstances. These included two reports of the State Coroner, a performance examination by the Auditor General of Western Australia and a report of the Council of Australian Governments. The Committee also examined Control Authority arrangements in New South Wales and Queensland and found that both jurisdictions have single agency control.
The Committee accepts that several major inquiries have indicated a need for one agency to assume control in a multi-agency incident given the inherent risks posed by the authority for bushfires being dispersed across multiple agencies when bushfires demand a coordinated response or when fires cross organisational boundaries. FESA as the Statutory Authority responsible for fire in the State of Western Australia is most appropriately placed to assume control in major incidents. The Committee has ensured a check on the use of this power by FESA by proposing that it may only be exercised under prescribed circumstances and that the decision to assume control is made at the Executive, not local, level. Further, it has been recommended at Section 5.1 that the Auditor General of Western Australia consider the impact of the Committee recommendations, including control, as and when determined.
Section 4.2 details concerns expressed by stakeholders regarding the incompatibility of radio communications and/or deficiencies in communications’ infrastructure which are currently being addressed via the Government’s Emergency Services Communications Strategy. The latter includes a new radio communications system. This section also discusses Government’s Shared Land Information Platform which will provide a single point of access for land information data and allow for the use of consistent and in some cases, real time data, for improved decision making. An area of focus of the Shared Land Information Platform is emergency management.
- xxx - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Chapter 5 examines the means by which State legislation establishes regulatory responsibility to ensure that appropriate prevention, preparedness and response measures are established for emergency services.
Section 5.1 explores whether or not there needs to exist a regulatory body to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of emergency services in Western Australia. It was viewed by various stakeholders that a regulatory agency would ensure greater policy coordination amongst agencies, provide independent assessment of agency performance, assess the efficiency of the legislation, review fire suppression by Crown agencies, be an appeal mechanism for fire management planning and manage the ESL.
The Committee sought advice from a range of relevant Government departments including the Department of Treasury and Finance, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Office of the Auditor General, CALM, the Conservation Commission of Western Australia and FESA. Where relevant, agencies did not support the concept of an independent regulator. Reasons primarily included:
§ that the responsible Minister or Auditor General could undertake reviews into agency compliance;
§ that the SEMC has a role in ensuring an efficient emergency management capability;
§ that an independent regulator consumes considerable resources;
§ that departments can deliver regulatory and service delivery roles provided they are structurally separated within the agency; and
§ that CALM’s management plans are already subject to adequate regulation by the Conservation Commission of Western Australia.
The Committee view that many of the concerns that have arisen prompting calls for an independent regulator will be addressed under the Emergency Management Act 2005 and via recommendations of this Report.
Although FESA does not support assuming a regulatory role for reasons of conflict of interest, the Committee views that the complexity of emergency services and number of service delivery agencies warrant ongoing monitoring and review of performance and can be performed within the agency provided the role is structurally separated. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that a regulatory role should be established within FESA and is convinced that operational matters will complement this role.
The Committee excludes CALM from the jurisdiction of the regulatory unit on the basis that CALM’s performance is satisfactorily audited by the Conservation Commission of Western Australia and in acknowledgment of the independence of the Commission. That said, it is recommended that CALM be required to undertake fire management planning in prescribed
- xxxi - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
circumstances and the Committee proposes in Section 3.1 for Government to make provision for the conduct of adhoc audits of fire management planning across the State.
Although the Committee views that there is no demonstrated need for a permanent regulatory agency for emergency services, it believes that there needs to be some independent assessment of performance under the legislation. The Committee would suggest that this role would most appropriately be assumed by the Office of the Auditor General given its recent Performance Examination - Responding to Major Bushfires and the fact that many of the recommendations of that report informed this Inquiry.
Chapter 6 examines the means by which legislation provides an appropriate balance between centralised control and community centred emergency management.
Section 6.1 discusses the option of local government transfer of administrative and operational responsibility for BFBs to FESA, under agreed terms and conditions. The Bush Fires Act 1954 empowers local governments to establish and maintain BFBs. FESA asserts that a number of local governments have approached the Authority requesting the transfer of emergency incident control in the local government area, the operations and administration of BFBs, and assumption of the administration of the ESL for capital and recurrent costs of such brigades. Requests have been made on the basis of lack of expertise by some local governments, the negative impact of rural adjustment on service delivery, the need for improved coordination, financial pressures of litigation and compliance with Occupational Health and Safety requirements, and lack of alignment of the views of local government and FESA. Some local governments in the south west of the State were opposed to transfer principally on the basis of local government control being integral to community centred emergency management. Others viewed that FESA should also assume responsibility for preparedness and recovery.
The Committee supports the concept of well resourced and capable local governments retaining their bushfire responsibilities while allowing less resourced and less capable local governments to access assistance from FESA. The Committee views that local government is more appropriately placed to perform emergency prevention functions given local knowledge and expertise. The Committee views however that there should be an avenue of appeal for a BFB member or local government aggrieved with a decision of FESA in regard to the management of that particular Brigade.
Chapter 7 details any major issues that emerge that the Committee considers should be included within the inquiry.
Section 7.1 discusses FESA’s proposal for re-establishment as the Department of Emergency Services. FESA was established as an Authority in 1998 on the basis that it carries out roles not traditionally aligned with corporate Government, the majority of its “staff” are volunteers, funding is received from a range of sources, local government has a significant role in strategic decision making of emergency services, two of its constituent agencies were statutory authorities and a board would be established with strategic decision-making powers.
Section 6 of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998 establishes the FESA Board as the governing body of FESA. FESA essentially argues that it be re-established
- xxxii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
as a department because a representative Board of Management raises issues of liability as members are required to perform roles that they are not necessarily qualified to perform, particularly in terms of corporate expertise and governance. FESA references a number of reports and a legal case in support of its re-establishment as a department and to highlight the difficulties inherent in representative boards of management.
FESA proposes re-establishment as a department with an advisory board whose composition would generally reflect that of the existing Board of Management. FESA views that this would provide emergency services volunteers with direct access to the Director General, greater proximity to the Minister for Emergency Services and allow members to legally represent the views of volunteers at meetings without being compelled to promote the corporate position. FESA has suggested that the new department be named the Department of Emergency Services to more appropriately reflect the amalgam of emergency services.
The Committee sought advice on the proposed changes from the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Neither supported re-establishment as a department and in doing so referenced the findings of a number of Government reports. In essence both contended that the concerns over a representative board governing a public sector agency could be addressed under the existing status of Authority. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet indicated that there were a considerable number of issues that needed to be considered in repealing FESA’s status and re-establishing it as a department.
Stakeholders were mainly concerned about the proposed name change. Fire related services were generally opposed to the loss of the word “fire” from the agency’s name because of the impact on their identity. Conversely, non-fire related services argued that inclusion of the word “fire” impacted negatively on their identity, and should be omitted from the new corporate name.
The Committee were of the opinion that the full implications of changing to a departmental structure needed to be identified and that the appropriate avenue for review would be the responsible Minister, or the Minister for Public Sector Management, with approval of any proposal by Cabinet. The Committee views however that notwithstanding FESA’s status, due consideration should be given to the corporate name and that in fairness the latter should reflect the amalgam of emergency services. This does not however negate the requirement for individual emergency services to retain their identity under the umbrella organisation. The Committee also views that there is also sufficient “expert” opinion to indicate that amendment to the existing board structure is required, however is mindful that this could occur within the existing authority structure. The decision is a matter for Government policy, although any Board structure should reflect the composition of emergency services in this State.
Section 7.2 discusses the perceived impact of the ESL, a property-based levy introduced by Government in July 2003 to fund the majority of emergency services administered by FESA. The ESL is the primary funding source for BFBs, the SES, career and volunteer Fire and Rescue Services Brigades, Fire Service Brigades, Emergency Service Units, FESA’s administrative costs and a number of other emergency services expenses.
The most critical debate in this Inquiry was raised by local government regarding whether the ESL had resulted in an increase in the effectiveness of emergency services in the State. Prior to the ESL
- xxxiii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
there were differing levels of commitment, funding, equipment and service of BFBs depending on a range of factors particular to the local government area. Local governments that provided a high level of support view that they are now disadvantaged given the ESL’s focus on ensuring less equipped local governments are brought up to an appropriate standard.
FESA intends to use a resource-to-risk assessment model to ensure that equipment provided is commensurate with the risk faced by the community. Currently FESA operates via four year asset replacement programs as well as providing operating grants.
Several requests were made by stakeholders regarding expansion of the Levy. This included requests by local governments for the ESL to cover prevention, preparedness and recovery costs for fires, fire management on unallocated Crown land, maintenance costs associated with equipment purchased separate to the ESL, local government administrative costs associated with collection and management of the ESL, training for administration of the ESL and funding for slip-on units. A number of solutions were proposed to address the perceived short-fall in the ESL including an injection of funds from consolidated revenue, increase in the levy charged, removing unnecessary equipment off emergency services vehicles or tailoring equipment to suit the terrain in which it is operated, greater transparency in management of the ESL (through placing the ESL with an independent body) and improved consultation with local government around equipment required.
FESA acknowledges that the vehicle replacement program has favoured local governments that have not previously provided sufficient funding for units, however notes the requirement for this to occur in order to ensure that the State has a roadworthy fleet. FESA details that overall there has been a reduction in the average age of the State’s fleet from 15 to 12 years.
The Committee is cognisant that it will take some time to ensure that a high standard of emergency service is achieved in every local government area, however views that in the interim, it is critical that less resourced local governments are provided with the equipment and expertise to ensure that emergency services personnel are protected while performing their duties. The Committee therefore sees the disparity in the short-term as inevitable.
Financial figures and data reviewed by the Committee show that the ESL has resulted in improvements in emergency services throughout the State. The Committee does not view expansion of the ESL to fund emergency services related costs external to the current ESL criteria as possible, to do so would increase rates and charges beyond the Consumer Price Index which is likely to be unacceptable to Government and the broader community. Further, the ESL was not intended to change the statutory obligations of local government in regard to the funding and management of a range of land management and community safety responsibilities under the Bush Fires Act 1954 and Local Government Act 1995, including the resources and infrastructure required to administer those responsibilities. The Committee does not support removal of the ESL from FESA. It does view that some attention needs to be given to reviewing the viability of slip-on units.
The Committee contends that it would be appropriate for the Auditor General to consider conducting an assessment of the effectiveness of the ESL, taking into consideration the impact of resource-to-risk assessment models employed in the distribution of the levy.
- xxxiv - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Section 7.3 discusses the proposal by FESA to establish Emergency Services Areas in place of existing ESL category boundaries and fire districts which currently govern the provision of emergency services by FESA. Essentially fire districts are no longer valid given that ESL category boundaries, which generally mirror fire districts, are now used to determine distribution of emergency services funding. Fire districts are now used only to demarcate operational boundaries and to stipulate fire hydrant ownership and responsibility arrangements. The Committee recommends at Section 7.4 transfer of hydrant ownership and responsibility to the relevant water supply authority which will negate the need for fire districts to demarcate fire hydrant boundaries. It is suggested that Emergency Services Areas would replace ESL category areas (and in turn fire districts) and would serve to define ESL boundaries, emergency services delivery boundaries and any other boundary that needs to be defined for the purpose of FESA performing its functions under the Act. This would provide a less confusing, more consistent and efficient approach to boundary definition.
Stakeholders generally viewed that the change would result in less confusion. Principal opposition came from the United Firefighter’s Union who were opposed on the grounds of loss of identity for fire service personnel. The Committee acknowledges the argument in relation to the preservation of the identity and role of fire brigades, however is satisfied that while fire districts are to be abolished, the proposed Emergency Services Areas boundaries will serve an equivalent function in demarcating operational jurisdictions. The Committee views that the establishment of Emergency Services Areas in place of fire districts and ESL category areas will resolve any present confusion arising from multiple boundaries.
Section 7.4 discusses FESA’s proposal for transfer of hydrant ownership and responsibility (apart from servicing and reinstatement of paving) to the relevant water supply authority and amendment of relevant organisational budgets to recognise costs associated with asset transfer.
There are principally three water supply authorities in this State, the largest being the Water Corporation, which covers the majority of Western Australia’s populated areas, Aqwest (Bunbury) and Busselton Water. The current hydrant arrangements are reasonably complex. In brief, FESA determines the establishment and removal of fire hydrants in fire districts and the water supply authority carries out hydrant related work and invoices FESA. Local government reinstates the paving. FESA receives ESL funding for hydrants. In the metropolitan area a shared payment arrangement has been negotiated between FESA and the Water Corporation in recognition of maintenance costs associated with third party use of hydrant infrastructure. In non-fire districts, local government is responsible for the capital and operating costs associated with fire hydrants. The water supply authority performs the work and local government meets associated costs. Local governments do not receive ESL funding for hydrants and do not have cost sharing arrangements with the water supply authority. Water supply authorities meet the cost of water.
FESA’s argument for transfer centred on billing arrangements, third party use of hydrants, non- competitive maintenance contracts, hydrants forming part of water supply infrastructure and this State being the only one with the existing arrangements. Local governments were concerned about billing arrangements and the non-competitive nature of contracts, however also viewed that hydrants were not core business and expressed dissatisfaction at costs not being met under the ESL. Local government debate centred on whether hydrant ownership and maintenance should
- xxxv - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
rest with FESA and the ESL, or the Water Corporation, given that hydrants form part of their infrastructure. The water supply authorities were opposed on the basis of hydrants being non- commercial, not part of core business, ageing hydrant infrastructure, liability issues and arrangements being in place to recognise third party usage.
Legal advice sought by the Committee indicated that the ownership of hydrants was of minimal, if any, relevance to the incidence of civil liability in negligence. The Water Corporation, in turn, sought it own legal advice which was contradictory to that accessed by the Committee.
One of the issues for consideration in relation to the transfer of hydrant infrastructure to water supply authorities was the substandard nature and insufficiency of hydrant numbers in some local government areas. It was suggested that local government rectify the latter prior to transfer. The same would apply to FESA if similar inadequacies were identified in fire districts.
In consideration of the evidence provided and with reference to interstate hydrant arrangements, the Committee is convinced that arrangements in this State are unnecessarily complex and inappropriate. The Committee views that the fact that hydrants form part of the water supply authority infrastructure does inhibit competitive price negotiations. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that fire hydrant ownership and responsibility, apart from the servicing, marking of hydrants and reinstatement of paving, should be transferred from FESA and local government to the respective water supply authority in the manner recommended by FESA. The Committee accepts that Government needs to provide appropriate recompense to the relevant water supply authority for running a non-commercial enterprise which is not part of their core business. Due consideration will also need to be given to the legal advice sought in the context of this Inquiry, in the drafting of the emergency services Act.
The Committee is concerned that fire hydrants have not been maintained in a satisfactory condition by some local governments however acknowledges that local authorities have not had the benefit of the ESL. The Committee views that the matter of funding for upgrade or replacement of existing or installation of new hydrant infrastructure for local government areas should be re-considered once an audit has been conducted and the financial implications determined. Coverage deficiencies in existing infrastructure in fire districts should be undertaken by FESA.
Section 7.5 discusses the provision of emergency services to Indigenous communities. This was not an issue that the Committee was able to consider in great detail. Essentially local government has held responsibility for bushfires in Indigenous communities since the enactment of the Bush Fires Act 1954, however Emergency Service Units and SES Units, established under the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998, operate within and external to fire districts. Road Rescue and hazardous materials response also have a broader ambit. FESA detailed that there were a number of impediments to service delivery to Indigenous communities, principally isolation and seasonal access. FESA cited that they do however provide a full response service to hazards. Little capital equipment is provided given the absence of registered brigades in communities.
Limited comment was made by stakeholders concerning varying degree of service to remote communities, the difficulties inherent in recruiting Indigenous people to volunteer units and the
- xxxvi - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
impact of landscape burning by Aboriginal people in the north of the State. The Committee is aware that considerable consultation has been undertaken at the Commonwealth level with Indigenous people, Government and community based services to underpin the development of a National Emergency Management Strategy for Remote Indigenous Communities. The Strategy is due to be released in late 2006. The priorities centre on decision making structures, communication and engagement, planning, and resourcing of remote communities for emergency management. The Strategy will provide an overarching framework from which the states and territories can develop their own emergency management approach and priorities for communities. The Committee is cognisant that policy development will take time and is mindful of the need to lend support to this process. Government should however assess, and ensure the commitment of, appropriate levels of resourcing and funding to ensure effective implementation of the National Strategy.
Section 7.6 explores in brief, heavy industry emergency response arrangements. Although not a core concern of the majority of stakeholders to this Inquiry, the Committee is mindful that such arrangements are critical to the safety of industry employees and the broader community. Several issues were raised in this regard. Firstly, FESA expressed concern about the reliance in remote areas of the State by some heavy industry on FESA’s capability to reduce industry created hazards. FESA view that a major incident in a regional area would significantly challenge FESA’s resources.
Secondly, FESA requested that provision be made to enable privately owned industry to enter into an agreement with the Authority to establish an Emergency Service Unit to provide an emergency service response for community members residing in predominantly industrial towns, of a comparable standard to that of other towns in the State. The concept is based on an individual industry’s ability to respond to Emergency Service Unit requirements and does not negate a company’s need to maintain a response capacity in accordance with its own risk assessment or risk profile.
Thirdly, the Department of Environment commented on the adequacy of legislative provisions for the removal of fire hazards. The Department viewed that FESA was not adequately enforcing these provisions and felt that there was a need for these provisions to be strengthened and clarified, particularly with respect to cost recovery. FESA has traditionally favoured a consultative approach however acknowledges that prosecution or penalties for which legislative provision already exists, may be appropriate where the consultative approach fails.
The Committee concurs that heavy industry must have the capacity to respond to incidents matched against identified risks of the operation. Although in many instances appropriate arrangements are in place, there must be a standardised approach. The Committee therefore views that Government should consider appointing FESA as the lead agency to facilitate a collaborative review with industry and other relevant stakeholders of heavy industry emergency response arrangements.
The Committee agrees with FESA’s recommendation in relation to the establishment of an Emergency Service Unit, where appropriate, in predominantly industrial towns. It appears that there are already moves in some centres involving the integration of industry and community emergency services. With respect to the Department of Environment’s concerns, the Committee
- xxxvii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
considers that FESA should consider prosecution or penalties in instances where consultation with industry to ensure the removal of hazardous substances is unsuccessful.
Section 7.7 outlines a number of issues peripheral to the Inquiry, including CALM’s request for a prescribed fire management function under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984, evidence of inadequate resourcing of St John Ambulance in regional areas, difficulties in recruiting and retaining volunteers across the emergency services, the inadequacy, inequity and lack of clarity in insurance cover for volunteers, and funding arrangements for the Volunteer Marine Rescue Services.
- xxxviii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 11
Recommendation 1
§ The Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998, the Bush Fires Act 1954 and the Fire Brigades Act 1942 are to be repealed.
Page 11
Recommendation 2
§ One comprehensive emergency services Act is to be developed.
Page 11
Recommendation 3
§ The consultation process, drafting process and resulting legislation is to recognise and provide for the unique and individual requirements of each emergency service.
Page 20
Recommendation 4
§ The emergency services Act is to bind the Crown.
Page 20
Recommendation 5
§ The emergency services legislation must provide for flexibility in terms of using fire prevention and response tools appropriate to the specific land tenures.
- xxxix - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 27
Recommendation 6
§ As provided for under the current emergency services legislation, building developers are to be required to submit building plans and specifications to FESA for assessment, as part of the building approval process.
Page 27
Recommendation 7
§ Congruent with the current emergency services legislation, FESA is to assess the plans in terms of FESA’s operational fire safety requirements.
Page 27
Recommendation 8
§ If FESA considers that the building plans and specifications meet FESA’s operational fire safety requirements, FESA is to issue the developer with a certificate of approval. The local government may then issue the developer with a building licence (assuming local government is satisfied that the building requirements outside of the fire safety requirements have also been met).
Page 27
Recommendation 9
§ If FESA considers that the building plans and specifications do not meet FESA’s operational fire safety requirements, FESA is not to issue the developer with a certificate of approval. Accordingly, the local government is not to issue the developer with a building licence.
- xl - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 28
Recommendation 10
§ If a building licence is not issued on the grounds that FESA considers the building plans and specifications do not meet FESA’s operational fire safety requirements, the developer is to be empowered to appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal.
Page 28
Recommendation 11
§ FESA to be empowered to conduct inspections with regard to Certificates of Occupancy.
Page 28
Recommendation 12
§ Inspections are to be limited to those conditions prescribed in the relevant building licence.
Page 28
Recommendation 13
§ Where inspections by FESA are a condition of licence, FESA must provide the developer with certification that a compliance inspection has been conducted which confirms that licence conditions have been met.
Page 28
Recommendation 14
§ FESA will not impose new licence conditions once the building licence has been issued provided the developer complies with the original plan approved by FESA.
- xli - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 28
Recommendation 15
§ The local government is not to issue a Certificate of Occupancy until a certificate of compliance has been issued.
Page 29
Recommendation 16
§ FESA’s involvement in the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy to be limited to buildings that pose ‘high risk to life’ and or have ‘complex/complicated fire and emergency safety systems’.
Page 29
Recommendation 17
§ FESA may conduct inspections of buildings prescribed at Recommendation 17 through the construction process and at completion.
Page 29
Recommendation 18
§ These provisions are to apply to buildings in Class 1B to Class 9, as defined in the Building Code of Australia.
- xlii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 33
Recommendation 19
§ FESA is to be empowered to:
• enter and inspect buildings to ensure that fire and other emergency safety systems are operating to specification and meet the operational needs of firefighters;
• direct the owner of a building to remedy any fire and emergency safety systems breaches considered to be a risk to life or property;
• apply to a stipendiary magistrate for an order to restrict the building’s use and/or close the building until those systems breaches are rectified;
• remove persons from a building if it is considered that there is risk to life.
Page 33
Recommendation 20
§ The above powers are to apply to Class 1B to Class 9 buildings, as defined by the Building Code of Australia.
Page 33
Recommendation 21
§ The above powers are not intended to require FESA to inspect every building in Class 1B to Class 9 in Western Australia. To do so would cost the State significantly in terms of both human and physical resources.
Page 34
Recommendation 22
§ A mechanism should be provided, within the Building Regulations 1989, enabling State and local government organisations, participating in building safety processes, to refer building safety concerns to an “expert authority” for appropriate action.
- xliii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 36
Recommendation 23
§ That FESA retain its power to direct the provision and installation of fire detection and suppression equipment as it is currently provided for under Section 25A of the Fire Brigades Act 1942.
Page 36
Recommendation 24
§ That the provision apply to Class 1B to Class 9 buildings as defined under the Building Code of Australia.
Page 43
Recommendation 25
§ The power to cancel Bushfire Brigades should remain with local government.
Page 43
Recommendation 26
§ The power to cancel Bushfire Brigades may be transferred from local government to FESA, but only at the local government’s request.
Page 43
Recommendation 27
§ The power to approve the establishment of Bushfire Brigades should be transferred from local government to FESA.
- xliv - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 43
Recommendation 28
§ Local government is required to approach FESA should it deem the establishment of a Bushfire Brigade necessary, for approval to establish that Bushfire Brigade.
Page 43
Recommendation 29
§ FESA is to consult with local government where it deems the establishment of a Bushfire Brigade to be necessary. FESA should consider the local government position in detail, placing a high priority on local knowledge, expertise and experience. Where FESA disagrees with a local government’s position with regard to the establishment of a Bushfire Brigade, FESA should provide detailed reasoning, in writing, to the local government.
Page 44
Recommendation 30
§ If a local government disagrees with a decision made by FESA, in relation to approving the establishment of a Bushfire Brigade, provision is to be made to enable the local government to appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal, in an attempt to have the decision reversed.
Page 55
Recommendation 31
§ The obligation for local government to complete and submit ESL Grant Scheme applications, on behalf of SES Units, is to be removed.
- xlv - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 55
Recommendation 32
§ FESA, in consultation with the SES Units, is to determine the capital and recurrent costs required for the effective operations of the SES Units and to fund these requirements via ESL funding.
Page 56
Recommendation 33
§ FESA is to prioritise replacement of SES accommodation under the Emergency Services Levy.
Page 56
Recommendation 34 § FESA is to ensure that local government is kept apprised, via a formal consultative mechanism, of matters associated with local State Emergency Service Units.
Page 56
Recommendation 35
§ FESA is to ensure adequate training for management personnel pertinent to the emergency services units they are managing.
Page 87
Recommendation 36
§ A Committee structure should be established or an existing Committee structure utilised for the purpose of determining, assessing, approving and monitoring (with the assistance of FESA) fire management plans. § The constitution of the Committee should include stakeholders with expertise in fire, and land management.
- xlvi - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 87
Recommendation 37
§ The Pastoralists and Graziers Association is to be consulted with respect to determining the minimum size of pastoral or grazier land to be subject to fire management plans, prior to the drafting of the legislation.
Page 88
Recommendation 38
§ The local level Committee should be empowered to request a fire management plan from a land owner or land manager in respect to prescribed areas or categories of land or land usage or land ownership/occupancy or management in circumstances where the Committee deems it necessary because:
- it is financially or practically inappropriate to install a fire-break on the land and a fire management plan will assist in mitigating the impact of a fire; or
- the land in question is of a high risk and a fire management plan will assist in mitigating the impact of a fire.
§ The local level Committee should be empowered to request the submission of a new or amended fire management plan in the event that the land-use or tenure changes.
§ The local level Committee should be empowered to determine the appropriate period for review of the submitted fire management plan.
§ The prescribed areas or categories of land or land usage or land ownership/occupancy or management are defined as Crown Land, land used for pastoral or grazier purposes and plantation land, unless otherwise determined by the Minister for Emergency Services.
- xlvii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 88
Recommendation 39
§ Where practicable, FESA is to assist land owners/land managers in the development of fire management plans and is required to monitor the implementation of those plans.
Page 88
Recommendation 40
§ FESA, in consultation with relevant stakeholders with expertise in fire and land management, are to develop guidelines for the determination, formulation, assessment, approval and monitoring of fire management plans.
Page 89
Recommendation 41
§ An audit process should be established at State level to conduct sample audits of performance under, and integration of, fire management plans as and when determined.
Page 89
Recommendation 42
§ CALM fire management plans should be submitted to appropriately designated Committees for comment and to enable integration of planning on a district, regional (and possibly State) level.
Page 89
Recommendation 43
§ The Conservation Commission of Western Australia is to develop and audit fire management plans pertaining to CALM-managed land.
- xlviii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 89
Recommendation 44
§ All approved fire management plans (including those prepared by the Conservation Commission of Western Australia) are to be lodged with the respective local government. § Local government should ensure that the agreed review period for fire management plans (apart from those prepared by the Conservation Commission of Western Australia) is observed and that new plans are lodged in the event of a change of land use or tenure.
Page 90
Recommendation 45
§ Local government should retain its ability to issue fire-break and hazard reduction notices, and exercise enforcement powers under the legislation (Section 33 Bush Fires Act 1954), but only where there is no procedure under any other Act or Regulation that is more appropriate in the circumstances to address that fire threat.
§ An exception should be made under the emergency services legislation for local government to issue and enforce such notices in accordance with an approved fire management plan, excluding those developed by CALM for lands under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984.
Page 90
Recommendation 46
§ Government should upload fire management plans to the Shared Land Information Platform thereby enabling access by key emergency services organisations.
Page 90
Recommendation 47
§ A land owner or land manager (for the prescribed categories of land to which fire management plans apply), dissatisfied with a decision in relation to a fire management plan, should have a right of appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal.
- xlix - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 118
Recommendation 48
§ The current fire control arrangements are to be retained, with the following exceptions:
- FESA is to be empowered to take control of a fire from local government or CALM in specific circumstances, as defined in legislation.
- CALM is to be in control of a fire when it is burning on CALM-managed land. The provision enabling CALM to be in control of a fire when it is “near” CALM- managed land is to be removed.
§ The power for FESA to take control of a fire from local government or CALM is to be restricted to when the fire:
- Is a multi-agency incident and State-level control is required; and/or
- Has escalated to a pre-determined, critical level; and/or
- Has moved from CALM-managed land and into FESA’s legislative jurisdiction; and/or
- Is threatening life and property.
Page 118
Recommendation 49
§ The decision for FESA to assume control is to be made by the Chief Executive Officer of FESA or through delegation from the Chief Executive Officer to an appropriate member of the Executive Team.
Page 138
Recommendation 50
§ A regulatory unit should be established within FESA tasked more broadly with monitoring and review of performance and compliance in emergency services and emergency management by FESA and local government.
- l - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 139
Recommendation 51
§ Appropriate reporting mechanisms for the regulatory unit are to be established.
Page 139
Recommendation 52
§ The Conservation Commission of Western Australia is to regulate CALM’s performance under fire management plans.
Page 139
Recommendation 53
§ FESA and CALM should ensure appropriate information sharing in relation to their respective regulatory roles.
Page 139
Recommendation 54
§ The Office of the Auditor General is to consider conducting a performance review of the impact of changes under the proposed new emergency services Act.
Page 149
Recommendation 55
§ The emergency services legislation is to provide for FESA and local government to enter into an agreement for the purpose of local government transferring the following responsibilities to FESA on a permanent basis:
• emergency incident control;
• Bushfire Brigade operations and administration; and
• the determination and administration of the ESL, in relation to the capital and recurring costs associated with the Bushfire Brigades.
- li - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 149
Recommendation 56
§ Such an agreement is only to be entered into if both FESA and the local government agree to terms and conditions.
Page 149
Recommendation 57
§ Local government is to retain emergency prevention functions as prescribed under the existing legislation.
Page 149
Recommendation 58
§ Any additional costs of transfer of Bushfire Brigades from local government to FESA, apart from those normally funded under the Emergency Services Levy, are to be borne by the State.
Page 150
Recommendation 59
§ A Bushfire Brigade member or local government aggrieved with a decision of FESA in regard to the management of a Bushfire Brigade of which they are a member or which falls within their jurisdiction, should be entitled, in the first instance, to: - request the Chief Executive Officer of FESA to review that decision; - appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal if dissatisfied with the decision of the Chief Executive Officer, FESA. § The review by the Chief Executive Officer of FESA is to occur within a timely manner.
- lii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 173
Recommendation 60
§ That the Minister for Police and Emergency Services or the Minister for Public Sector Management consider whether a review is warranted regarding FESA remaining as a statutory authority or re-structuring as a department.
Page 173
Recommendation 61
§ That an alternative organisational name for FESA be devised that equitably and appropriately reflects the amalgam of emergency services.
Page 173
Recommendation 62
§ That despite recommendation 60, FESA should ensure the individuality of emergency services entities (including badging reflective of their unit and locality) in its business practices.
Page 173
Recommendation 63
§ That notwithstanding the outcome of a review into FESA’s status, that the current representative FESA Board of Management be abolished and an advisory board established in its place.
- liii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 192
Recommendation 64
§ That the Emergency Services Levy be used to fund the capital and recurrent costs associated with administering and operating:
- Bushfire Brigades;
- Emergency Service Units;
- Fire and Rescue Services Brigades;
- Fire Service Brigades;
- State Emergency Service Units; and
- Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services Brigades.
Page 192
Recommendation 65
§ That additional funding sources (e.g. Commonwealth, State Government and private funding) for these brigades and units are not to be affected or altered by the previous recommendation.
Page 192
Recommendation 66
§ That FESA devise an engineering solution to ensure that slip-on units meet occupational health and safety requirements, satisfy the standards for insurance and in the instance of a registered brigade, are eligible for ESL funding.
- liv - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 193
Recommendation 67
§ That the Auditor General consider reviewing the effectiveness of the Emergency Services Levy, including the impact of: • Capital and Operating Grants;
• Resource-to-risk processes; and
• Associated administrative requirements.
Page 196
Recommendation 68
§ Fire districts and Emergency Services Levy category areas are to be abolished.
Page 196
Recommendation 69
§ Emergency Services Areas are to be established.
Page 197
Recommendation 70
§ Emergency Services Areas are to be used to define:
- Emergency Services Levy boundaries;
- Emergency services delivery boundaries; and
- any other boundary that needs to be defined for the purpose of the Authority performing its functions under the Act.
- lv - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 197
Recommendation 71
§ Responsibility for fire hydrants (servicing and marking of hydrants only) will need to be reassigned on the basis of Emergency Service Areas as per Recommendation 73 of Section 7.4.
Page 214
Recommendation 72 § The responsibility for the installation, removal, maintenance (and all associated costs therein) of fire hydrants should rest with the water supply authority responsible for servicing the areas in which the hydrants reside.
Page 214
Recommendation 73
§ FESA and local government should retain their responsibilities in relation to the marking and servicing of fire hydrants in their respective areas.
Page 215
Recommendation 74
§ Local government should retain responsibilities and associated costs in relation to reinstatement of paving.
Page 215
Recommendation 75
§ That Government (in consultation with the Department of Treasury and Finance) give consideration to appropriate financial recompense to the relevant water supply authority on transfer of ownership and responsibility of fire hydrants. § That such financial recompense take into account revenue received as a consequence of third party hire of hydrant infrastructure.
- lvi - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 215
Recommendation 76
§ Coverage deficiencies (and any missing or faulty fire hydrants) in existing infrastructure in fire districts should be rectified by FESA, prior to transfer of ownership to the respective water supply authority.
Page 215
Recommendation 77
§ The matter of funding for upgrade or replacement of existing or installation of new hydrant infrastructure in non fire districts (where local government are currently responsible for fire hydrant ownership and maintenance costs) should be re-considered by Government once an audit has been conducted and the financial implications ascertained.
Page 216
Recommendation 78
§ That the Joint FESA/Water Corporation Agency Project Team continue in its present capacity or expand to incorporate other affected parties (such as Busselton Water Board and Aqwest) for the purpose of implementing the transfer of hydrant responsibilities and ensuring ongoing interagency communication with regard to matters such as standards and hydrant design.
Page 216
Recommendation 79
§ The Committee recommends repeal of S.55, Fire Brigades Act 1942 - Use of Pillar- Hydrants Instead of Fire Plugs.
- lvii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 216
Recommendation 80
§ The Committee recommends replacement of S.56, Fire Brigades Act 1942 with the following: 56. Water Supply Authority to attend fires
When so requested by the Authority the water supply authority will offer advice and attend fires or hazardous materials incident occurring within its area of operation to assist by all means in its power, the ensuring of a copious supply and service of water.
Page 216
Recommendation 81
§ That during drafting of the emergency services legislation due regard be given to whether Regulation 39C(1) of the Bush Fires Regulations 1954 reflects current practices under Australian Standard 1674 “Safety in Welding and Allied Processes”.
Page 225
Recommendation 82
§ FESA should examine the model developed by the Wyndham Emergency Service Unit in regard to its replication in other localities.
Page 225
Recommendation 83
§ Government should both assess, and ensure, the commitment of appropriate levels of resourcing and funding to ensure effective implementation of the National Emergency Management Strategy for Remote Indigenous Communities.
- lviii - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 236
Recommendation 84
§ That Government consider appointing FESA as lead agency to facilitate a collaborative review by relevant Government agencies, industry representatives and other parties of heavy industry emergency response arrangements. This is with a view to proposing amendments to existing legislation or developing other measures for the protection of the community, significant resources and assets in this State. § A central premise of this project should be ensuring uniformity of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery across heavy industry, including training competencies.
Page 236
Recommendation 85
§ That the review should give priority to the emergency response arrangements of the State’s Ports.
Page 237
Recommendation 86
§ That the legislation empowers FESA and privately owned industry to enter into an agreement to establish an Emergency Services Unit.
§ That where an agreement is entered into, FESA be empowered to approve and cancel the approval of the Emergency Services Unit.
§ That the relevant industry and FESA be empowered to negotiate the terms and conditions related to the establishment and operations of the Emergency Service Unit.
§ That if the industry and FESA do not agree to the terms and conditions, an Emergency Services Unit is not to be established.
- lix - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Page 237
Recommendation 87
§ FESA is to consider prosecution or penalties in instances where consultation with industry to ensure the removal of hazardous substances is unsuccessful.
Page 252
Recommendation 88
§ Government should conduct a detailed investigation of the adequacy of the Ambulance Service, principally in regional and rural Western Australia.
- lx - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
MINISTERIAL RESPONSE In accordance with Standing Order 277(1) of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly, the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee directs that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Hon. John Kobelke, MLA report to the Assembly as to the action, if any, proposed to be taken by the Government with respect to the recommendations of the Committee.
- lxi -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Community Development and Justice Standing Committee was appointed on 7 April 2005. On 24 August 2005 the Committee resolved to undertake an Inquiry into Fire and Emergency Services Legislation. Under Section 3 of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998, the emergency services Acts comprises the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998 (FESA Act), Bush Fires Act 1954 (Bush Fires Act) and the Fire Brigades Act 1942 (Fire Brigades Act). The Committee initially determined to report to the Legislative Assembly on 31 August 2006, however extended to 19 October 2006 in order to take additional evidence.
In accordance with Assembly Standing Order 249(4), Hon. Paul Omodei, MLA was co-opted to participate in the Inquiry. His co-option subsequently ceased on 13 April 2006.
As background to the Inquiry, the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee of the 36th Parliament, on reference from the Hon. Michelle Roberts, MLA, then Minister for Police and Emergency Services, resolved to conduct an Inquiry into Fire and Emergency Services Legislation. This Inquiry subsequently lapsed on dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. The current Committee on a further request from the same Minister, resolved to progress the Inquiry.
1.2 Conduct of the Inquiry
Advertisements calling for public submissions to the Inquiry were placed in the West Australian and Australian newspapers on 27/08/2005 and in 18 regional newspapers during the week commencing 5 September 2005. Submissions were also invited from State Government Departments, local governments, a range of peak representative bodies for local government, career and volunteer emergency services units and other relevant stakeholders.
The Committee received 56 submissions principally from those organisations detailed above. Appendix Three contains a list of submissions to the Inquiry.
The Committee held 65 public hearings and two closed hearings, taking evidence from 142 witnesses, between 19 October 2005 and 30 August 2006. Witnesses who gave evidence at the public hearings are listed at Appendix Two.
In addition to public hearings, the Committee was briefed by a number of key organisations and individuals, including relevant agencies in New South Wales and Queensland. These are listed in Appendix One of the Report.
- 1 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE CHAPTER 1
1.3 The contribution of volunteers to emergency services
Smaller regional centres and rural Western Australia (WA) are heavily dependent on the commitment of the State’s 33,700 volunteers for the delivery of emergency services. This includes:
§ 25,000 Bushfire Brigade (BFB) members with prevention and response roles, operating through 677 brigades, administered by local government and supported by the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia (FESA);
§ 2,825 Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service (VFRS) members operating principally in regional urban and outer metropolitan areas in combating fires, containing hazardous material spills, conducting rescues (principally road crash) and fire safety education;
§ 3,334 Volunteer Marine Rescue Service (VMRS) Members operating through 36 marine rescue groups and involved in assisting the Western Australia Police (WAPOL) to search for missing vessels or persons, towing drifting vessels and removing grounded or submerged vessels;
§ 2015 State Emergency Service (SES) Unit volunteers who provide support to assist with the effects of natural disasters;
§ 494 Members of multi-functional emergency service units (ESUs) which can combine the resources and expertise of an SES Unit, a BFB, VFRS Brigade and/or a VMRS; and
§ A smaller number of volunteers committed to the Volunteer Fire Service and FESA’s historical society. 30
The level of unpaid man hours in terms of training, administration and response activities of these volunteers has an enormous community safety and cost benefit to the State and should not be underestimated. The following comment by Mr Robert Fenn, Executive Director Development Services, City of Albany, perhaps best reflects the integral nature of community based volunteers to emergency services in Western Australia:
Local knowledge; without doubt, the volunteers hold that. There are no ifs, buts or maybes.31
The Committee has been cognisant of this fact in its deliberations during this Inquiry. Its recommendations in this review are aimed at providing a legislative framework that respects this
30 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/default.aspx?MenuID=8&ContentID=513 Accessed on 28/08/2006. 31 Mr Robert Fenn, Executive Director Development Services, City of Albany, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p8.
- 2 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE CHAPTER 1
knowledge base yet ensures necessary resource and technical expertise are available when deemed appropriate. 1.4 Scope of the Inquiry
The focus of the Inquiry is more broadly a review of the provisions of the emergency services Acts, including the interoperability of that legislation. More narrowly, the scope is defined by the Inquiry’s terms of reference.
Formal evidence hearings were held in identified localities throughout the State in order to capture the views of a cross section of career and volunteer emergency services units and other agencies integral to emergency services in this State. This approach also enabled the Committee to consider the applicability of the legislation to different terrain, climatic conditions and within the context of available resources. Where applicable, the Committee conducted a comparative review of this State’s emergency services legislation with other Australian jurisdictions. 1.5 A note concerning terminology
As at 1 July 2006, the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) amalgamated with the Department of Environment (DoE) to become the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC).32 While the Committee is cognisant of this, references to CALM and DoE have been maintained throughout this Report on the basis that the majority of evidence received during the course of this Inquiry preceded the name change. Evidence taken after 1 July 2006 is still attributed to CALM in order to avoid confusion. No evidence was given by the Department of Environment post that date.
32 Department of Environment and Conservation, Available at: www.dec.wa.gov.au Accessed on 01/09/2006.
- 3 -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
CHAPTER 2 THE MEANS BY WHICH LEGISLATION PUTS IN PLACE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT MEASURES TO PREVENT, PREPARE FOR, RESPOND TO AND ENSURE RECOVERY FROM FIRE AND EMERGENCIES
2.1 The establishment of one emergency services Act
FESA asserts that the Fire Brigades Act, the Bush Fires Act and the FESA Act reflect the prevailing socio-political influences of the times the Acts were developed. FESA states that the intervals between proclamations of the three Acts have:
…resulted in three pieces of legislation that lack interoperability and consistency in terms of:
§ defining stakeholder functions and powers;
§ legislative intent;
§ content;
§ level of detail;
§ financial provisions; and
§ structure, language and jargon.33
With regard to legislative intent, FESA contends that the Bush Fires Act and the Fire Brigades Act reflect the arrangements for emergency services organisations that existed prior to the establishment of FESA and which have changed markedly since.34 At the time their respective Acts were developed, BFBs were solely responsible for extinguishing bushfires, and the State operated fire service was responsible for extinguishing fires in the metropolitan area and designated town sites.35 FESA argue that a new comprehensive and consistent emergency services Act is required to reflect new arrangements with respect to jurisdictions, functions and powers of emergency services organisations.36
FESA states that the Bush Fires Act retains outdated provisions despite the Act having been amended on numerous occasions since proclamation. 37 For instance, the Bush Fires Act does not
33 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p3. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid., p1-2.
- 5 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
provide for many of the emergency services roles that BFB volunteers now perform. 38 As previously indicated, the BFB role was restricted to responding to bushfire. Today, many volunteers also perform search and rescue roles, as well as assisting at road accidents. Similarly, the Act does not provide for the interoperability of BFBs with the more recently created Emergency Service Units or Fire Services Brigades.39
In terms of content and level of detail, FESA also notes that as products of their times, the earlier Acts contain a much higher level of detail than is the norm for contemporary legislation:
When the Fire Brigades Act was developed the Western Australian fire service operated under a ‘military’ like structure. In 1942 it was considered necessary to document every rule, regulation and process in law to ensure compliance. The result is an Act that carries a level of detail higher than that contained in contemporary legislation. In fact, much of the detail within the Fire Brigades Act is today considered more appropriately placed in manuals and policy documents.
In contrast, the FESA Act is a contemporary piece of legislation. It establishes the corporate structure and corporate governance mechanisms of FESA and provides stakeholders with enabling functions and powers. The lower level of related detail is contained in underpinning documents, such as manuals, policies and procedures.40
FESA suggests that there are difficulties in reconciling the interaction of the three emergency services Acts. Specifically:
When the Fire Brigades Act and the Bush Fires Act were developed, it was intended that the Acts would operate as independent pieces of legislation. While this was the case for some 50 odd years, today there exist three emergency services Acts, intrinsically linked and interdependent. This often results in misinterpretations and misunderstandings, particularly when one Act is read in isolation of the remaining two.41
It is FESA’s position:
…that the establishment of one comprehensive and self contained emergency services Act would:
§ provide a strategic legislative framework within which emergency services in Western Australia would operate;
§ eliminate current legislative inconsistencies between existing emergency services Acts and Regulations;
38 Ibid., p20. 39 Ibid., p19-20. 40 Ibid., p4. 41 Ibid.
- 6 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ ensure the emergency services legislation is compatible with contemporary emergency services practices;
§ clearly define the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders to the emergency services legislation; and
§ provide consistency and uniformity in terms of the legislative structure, language and jargon. 42
FESA’s recommendation has been endorsed by the FESA Board of Management (the Board), which comprises representatives from the:
§ WA Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services Association (Inc.);
§ Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services Consultative Committee;
§ Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades (AVBFB) of WA (Inc.);
§ Bush Fire Service Consultative Committee;
§ State Emergency Service Volunteers Association of Western Australia;
§ State Emergency Service Consultative Committee;
§ Volunteer Marine Rescue Association Western Australia;
§ Volunteer Marine Rescue Services Consultative Committee; and a
§ Local Government representative.43
A number of other stakeholders to this Inquiry have also recommended the repeal of the Fire Brigades Act, the Bush Fires Act and the FESA Act, and the establishment of one comprehensive emergency services Act.
The Shire of Northam supports the development of a single piece of concise legislation on the grounds that terminology used in the Bush Fires Act and Fire Brigades Act requires updating and the Acts combining into a single statute.44
The United Firefighters Union of Australia - West Australian Branch (UFU) supports the establishment of a single Act conditional on the Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) being provided for in the Act.45 The existing emergency services legislation does not recognise the “Fire and Rescue
42 Ibid. 43 Email from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 09/08/2006, p1. 44 Submission No 39 from Shire of Northam, 30/11/2005, p4. 45 Submission No 17 from the United Firefighters Union of Australia - West Australian Branch, 2005, p2.
- 7 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Service”. Mr David Bowers, Secretary of the UFU argues the importance of acknowledging the identity of the FRS:
Not only is it the culture of Western Australia, but the community has formed a great deal of trust in the Fire and Rescue Service. Any erosion of that would undermine the community in the way they feel and think. We live in a liberal era where community values are being undermined and these sorts of institutions are very important, particularly in times of emergency.46
The AVBFB similarly supports a single piece of legislation while being mindful of retaining the identity of the bushfire service:
…one piece of legislation will be a good thing. However, given that the bush fire service is large and unique, and given it is community based, the legislation must retain the identity of the bush fire service so that it does not lose its link with the community because the community is the bush fire brigade. That is very important. Anything that any emergency services organisation does with the bush fire service must be done with careful consultation, otherwise we will lose that community input.47
The AVBFB also emphasises the need for any new Act to clearly specify the expectations and obligations of all agencies with a responsibility for the mitigation of emergencies.48
The Western Australian Farmers Federation (Inc) (WAFarmers) also promotes combining the Acts. The organisation represents Western Australian farmers from a range of primary industries, including meat, wool, horticulture, dairy farming and beekeeping. WAFarmers’ members own or manage millions of hectares of the State’s land mass. The majority of members are actively involved in emergency services in their own respective communities, and most are members of at least one local BFB. According to WAFarmers, the development of one emergency services Act will streamline the legislation, thereby improving the effectiveness of emergency services in regional and remote parts of the State.49
The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) cites specific recommendations from the Auditor General’s Performance Examination into the State’s response to major bushfires,50 particularly with reference to coordination across firefighting organisations for responding to major bushfires. WALGA contends that the recommendations provide a timely
46 Mr David Bowers, Secretary, United Firefighters Union of WA, Transcript of Evidence, 12/04/2006, p2. 47 Mr Edward van Rijnswoud, Honorary Secretary, Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA (Inc), Transcript of Evidence, 21/06/2006, p7. 48 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA (Inc), 21/06/2006, p2. 49 Submission No 20 from The Western Australian Farmers Federation (Inc), 2005, p1-3. 50 Refers to Pearson, D.D.R., Auditor General for Western Australia Performance Examination - Responding to Major Bushfires (Report 7), State of Western Australia, Perth, October 2004.
- 8 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
and appropriate impetus for the consolidation of the existing emergency services legislation into one Act.51
The WAPOL assert that the establishment of one consolidated emergency services Act will enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of measures used to “prevent, prepare for, respond to and ensure recovery from fires and other emergencies”.52 The Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) and Conservation Council of Western Australia (CCWA) view that this will reduce overlaps and increase efficiency.53
Mr Gordon Temby, Chief Bushfire Control Officer, Augusta Margaret River Shire, draws on 20 years experience to provide comment on this issue:
As a volunteer emergency services officer with over 20 years experience, I wish to comment on my experiences with the effectiveness of the current legislation. The Bushfires Act, when it was implemented in 1954, revolutionised the community awareness and organisational structure of our Bushfire Brigades. However, with the introduction of the FESA Act and the Emergency Services Levy, I feel it is time to reassess the situation and look at the “big picture” in regards to emergency service organisations.
I would, therefore, suggest the following:
Rescind the current Bushfire Act and regulations and incorporate relevant sections within the existing FESA Act…54
Despite wide-ranging support for the development of one comprehensive emergency services Act, some local governments have voiced objection. For instance, the Shire of Kojonup expresses concern at the workability of one large piece of emergency services legislation:
We believe the existing Bush Fires Act 1954 is an adequate instrument to meet the [emergency services effectiveness and efficiency] objectives above, and reflects an evolution of knowledge, custom and practice over the years. With the Inquiry reviewing several pieces of legislation, which may impact on community safety in relation to fire and emergency services in the State, we are concerned at the possibility of a single Act, which attempts to incorporate all agencies and types of emergencies.
Although we recognise the overlapping role of agencies in emergency situations, and the need to have some common understanding and seamless communication, we believe these are operational issues best addressed by collaboration and production of appropriate guidelines rather than legislation. Any legislation which attempts to combine all existing
51 Submission No 24 from the Western Australian Local Government Association, 2005, p5. 52 Submission No 33 from Western Australia Police, 2005, p5. 53 Submission No 38 from Conservation Council of WA (Inc) and the Environmental Defenders Office of WA (Inc), 2005, p3. 54 Submission No 29 from Mr Gordon Temby, 2005, p1.
- 9 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Acts would be at risk of being too large and potentially unworkable if it went into sufficient detail, or be too broad in its attempt to be all things to all people.55
The Shire of Cranbrook concurs that the existing legislation is adequate and needs only to be improved so that it is more user friendly:
The existing legislation in the Bush Fires Act provides the necessary powers and such things to facilitate prevention, recovery and all of those issues involved with firefighting and the whole thing. We think it is done well. What we would like to see with the Bush Fires Act is that it is probably rewritten - that it be put in plain English. It sort of speaks in legalese. If it were rewritten in plain English and better indexed, and some of its clauses put in a more logical sequence so it were easier to read and follow, it would be an improvement to the legislation. Overall it does a good job. It has the powers and the things in it that are necessary.56
Committee assessment
This Committee has given due consideration to the form and structure of the proposed new emergency services legislation. After careful assessment of stakeholder input into this issue, it is clear that there is a need to draft legislation that recognises and provides for the amalgam of emergency services groups that operate within Western Australia. The legislation must provide for these diverse groups to interact with each other where this is appropriate, as per operational procedures. It is evident that such interaction is common-place in the emergency services industry today.
This Committee concludes that the logical, reasonable and most appropriate format for the impending emergency services legislation is one comprehensive emergency services Act, primarily because:
§ The development of the emergency services legislation must incorporate a strategic and comprehensive approach. It is not unusual for multiple and different emergencies to occur simultaneously and, where this is so, resource and personnel availability must be considered from a regional or State perspective. It is no longer appropriate, nor efficient, to develop separate Acts of Parliament for individual types of emergencies.
§ Legislating for individual emergency services brigades or units to operate in isolation of others is no longer appropriate, nor does it conform to what is actually occurring in the field today. Interoperability appears to have become the norm, rather than the exception. It is clear to this Committee that the different emergency services groups frequently respond to incidents together and provide mutual support and assistance. The legislation must support, not hinder, this mode of operation.
55 Submission No 41 from Shire of Kojonup, 2005, p1. 56 Mr Graham Stanley, CEO, Shire of Cranbrook, Transcript of Evidence, 20/02/2006, p3.
- 10 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ It is unreasonable to expect volunteers to rely on multiple and inconsistent pieces of legislation in order to perform emergency services functions. Many emergency services personnel are registered members of multiple emergency services (i.e. it is not unusual for one person to be a registered member of a BFB, SES Unit and VMRS Group). The legislation guiding these volunteers must be clear, comprehensive and consistent.
§ The format of the current emergency services legislation, comprising three separate Acts of Parliament, is confusing and incongruous. These inconsistencies must be eradicated and more clearly defined legislation established. The Committee acknowledges the concerns raised in relation to amalgamating the Acts beyond practical implementation and basic, general comprehension. In order that these fears are not realised, it is imperative that each type of emergency service is afforded its own position within the new Act and that the unique requirements of each are addressed.
Recommendation 1
§ The Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998, the Bush Fires Act 1954 and the Fire Brigades Act 1942 are to be repealed.
Recommendation 2
§ One comprehensive emergency services Act is to be developed.
Recommendation 3
§ The consultation process, drafting process and resulting legislation is to recognise and provide for the unique and individual requirements of each emergency service.
2.2 The emergency services Act to bind the Crown
The FESA Act binds the Crown, whilst the more dated Fire Brigades Act and Bush Fires Act, do not, perhaps because of the less litigious era in which they were drafted. FESA cites that the lack
- 11 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
of consistency between the Acts promotes confusion, misinterpretation of the legislation and that non-compliance places the community, property and the environment at risk.57
Under State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC) Policy Statement No. 7 and the proposed Emergency Management Regulations 2006, FESA is identified as the Hazard Management Agency (HMA) for most emergency types in this State.58
There are however other key agencies with HMA and support roles in emergency services, including the WAPOL, CALM, the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI), the Department of Health, and local governments.59 FESA argue that in the main, these agencies work cooperatively to fulfil their emergency services obligations. However, on a number of occasions staff from these agencies have refused to comply with the emergency services Acts, there being a perception that these Acts apply only to FESA personnel. The FESA submission states:
Most State or local government agencies operate under agency specific legislation (e.g. Police Act 1892, Local Government Act 1995, Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 etc.). When there is conflict between the emergency services legislation and an agency specific Act (whether the conflict be perceived or real), anecdotal evidence suggests that it is not unusual for an officer to assume that the legislation regulating his or her own agency prevails. 60
FESA therefore proposes the following:
To ensure that Western Australia can effectively and efficiently prevent, prepare for and respond to emergencies, it is vital that:
§ the emergency services legislation clearly defines stakeholder functions and powers;
§ emergency services stakeholders be required to comply with the emergency services legislation, despite other agency level legislation;
§ personnel outside of the emergency services legislation be required to recognise and comply with the intent and authority of the legislation; and
§ the emergency services Act is not overridden and made ineffective by other State legislation that contradicts the Act’s intent, functions or powers.
57 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p6. 58 State Emergency Management Committee, Western Australian Emergency Management Arrangements - Policy Statement No. 7, Government of Western Australia, WA, Revised 2005, Annex F. 59 Ibid. 60 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p5-6.
- 12 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
It is, therefore, FESA’s recommendation that provision be made for the emergency services Act to bind the Crown.61
Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, FESA, reinforces the corporate view by emphasising the need for a consistent approach, particularly with respect to fire management planning:
…binding the Crown would give us a consistent approach right across the regions. Fire management does not stop on parcels of land. It is very hard if CALM has fire management plans, for instance, or activities that it does and a pastoralist does but the government does not, then there is no requirement for a fire management plan on those lands. When you look at the size of the Kimberley - even the shire here with 829 000 square kilometres - you have got to have a consistent approach to fire management. We believe that by binding the Crown to it, as it is in the FESA act at the present time, it will give us a whole range of abilities to manage fires and actually reduce fire.62
The AVBFB supports FESA’s recommendation that the legislation should bind the Crown believing that there should be no exemptions afforded.63 WAFarmers also considers binding the Crown necessary to ensure equity of fire prevention obligations between private and public land owners and managers.64 Mr John McDougall of the WAFarmers explains:
We have said all along that government land and CALM land should be treated like the private land that it joins onto. So if restrictions apply to me as a landholder, those restrictions should apply to unclaimed crown land - we used to call it VCL [UCL] - or CALM land, because the farmer carries a far greater burden by having these people as neighbours.65
The Pastoralists and Graziers Association (PGA) of Western Australia which represents agricultural and pastoral interests in the State, were also of the view that the Crown should be as accountable as members of the community in relation to fire prevention. 66
The Town of Victoria Park provides a local government perspective on the existing emergency services legislation, in relation to land that is owned or occupied by a State Government agency or instrumentality. The Town is critical of the legislative exemption provided to State Government agencies in relation to fire-break notice provisions:
Each year the Town of Victo ria Park gives notice to all owners and occupiers of land situated within the District, requiring them to remove all inflammable matter and clear
61 Ibid., p6. 62 Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director, Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p1. 63 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA Inc, 21/06/2006, p2. 64 Submission No 20 from Western Australian Farmers Federation (Inc), 2005, p3. 65 Mr John McDougall, General Executive Member, WA Farmers Federation, Transcript of Evidence, 03/05/2006, p8. 66 Dr Henry Esbenshade, Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA, Transcript of Evidence, 10/05/2006, p3.
- 13 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
fire-breaks on their land on or before the 30th day of November… This process is applied in a fair and equitable manner to all land located within the District, and to remain consistent to all property owners, no preferential consideration is given to properties owned by the various departments of the Public Service… During the 2004/2005 fire season, despite receiving both Statutory and individual notice, two State Government departments failed to comply with the Town’s fire control requirements and claimed immunity from compliance with the provisions of the Bush Fires Act 1954. The properties subject to these claims were not isolated in their location, and were situated adjacent to other residential properties that were exposed to an unnecessary risk.67
Mr Max Connor, representing the Shire of Manjimup as Chief Bush Fire Control Officer, also raises the issue of equity:
The power to bind the Crown is pretty important and would be a helpful lever for the prevention of fire. CALM need not throw up its hands in horror and think it will be the only organisation that will be subject to it. Other organisations are pretty tardy to deal with and have some fairly horrendous hazards within their areas. I would not have thought that it would have been a big issue for CALM. I would like to see the development of an independent joint fire management policy between local government, CALM and FESA. That would result in an overall statewide fire management plan that would probably be more cohesive and applicable across the shire rather than having a plan here and another plan there. It would develop more uniformity. If that were implemented and an agreement for the management plan was reached, as it would have to be, the binding of the Crown would work around that. I do not think it would be a big stick for CALM.68
Mr Simon Bowen, Manager Community Safety, Shire of Mundaring, concurs:
Some agencies are very good and say, “Yes, you get a contractor to do that work and we will pay you for that.” Other government agencies have said, “No, it is in your area, you look after it.” Even though we have infringed them, obviously they do not pay the infringement and we do not proceed with it any further. We think they should be responsible for their land if it is under their title and it is not under our care or management. We believe they should be held accountable and should make arrangements to get that work done.69
Mr Bowen indicated that local government has limited resources, which places the onus on Government agencies to take responsibility for their land. In particular, Mr Bowen highlighted road reserves for which the Shire takes on the majority of responsibility for reducing fire risk even though it should be a State Government responsibility. 70
Mrs Fiona Bentley, Director Community Development, City of Wanneroo, supports the legislation binding the Crown given the negative example currently being set by State Government agencies
67 Submission No 18 from Town of Victoria Park, 2005, p1-3. 68 Mr J. Maxwell Connor, Chief Bush Fire Control Officer, Shire of Manjimup, Transcript of Evidence, 22/02/2006, p9. 69 Mr Simon Bowen, Manager Community Safety, Shire of Mundaring, Transcript of Evidence, 30/08/2006, p3. 70 Ibid., p4.
- 14 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
with Crown land responsibility, to surrounding land owners. She cited that there has been a marked increase in the number of infringements issued annually by the City to State Government agencies for non-compliance with fire-break notices.71
Similarly, Mr John Kowal, Manager Law and Safety Services, City of Bunbury, summarises the issues relevant to his local area.
We cannot hope to achieve risk mitigation if we do not look at our own [local government] lands. I know that there are costs involved and those other types of things. We get that all the time at a local government level - “I have to clean up my land. I’ve had to install firebreaks but the bushland area next door has got nothing.” That attitude is certainly prevalent… What we must remember is that private landowners are sometimes fined for not installing firebreaks or taking adequate action in regard to fire management, and right next door is a crown reserve with nothing on it. There are a couple of crown reserves in Bunbury. Local government is responsible for vested land or vested reserves. We do everything in our power to do what we have to do on those vested lands to reduce the risk to the community by installing firebreaks, having a spraying program to reduce fuel and all those types of things. I believe the same should apply to crown land, because we cannot hope to mitigate the risk to all communities unless we make one rule for everyone. I know that has cost implications. With vast tracts of crown land it may not necessarily involve the installation of firebreaks. It would be done on a case-by-case basis. It may involve prescribed burning for fuel reduction. I am not sure. It would have to be done on a statewide basis. We are doing that at the moment with FESA through its community safety branch. We are looking at the different reserves and fire management plans for those reserves. In that regard I believe that, yes, the crown should be bound to comply with hazard reduction. No matter what it is, how it is planned or how it is managed, I believe that it should be bound.72
Mr Kowal’s comments mirror those from many other stakeholders in various jurisdictions throughout the State.
While supportive of State Government being bound by the same provisions as private land owners, Mr Stuart McIntyre, Area Manager, FESA, Esperance, draws attention to the difficulties inherent in imposing such requirements over a large expanse of Crown land:
I imagine funding such an operation would be huge in the Esperance and Ravensthorpe Shires. It would cost millions of dollars to get that to a point where it was even manageable. Basically, the fire mitigation work that is done at the moment is on a very low budget per hectare and consists of chaining strips along the interface and then a burning rotation between the chain strip and the standing bush. To get that across the whole shire on all tenures would be a massive task; it is not just a straight line across the top of the shire as there are literally hundreds of small reserves interfaced with that. I believe that the Crown needs to be held accountable for the reserves.73
71 Mrs Fiona Bentley, Director Community Development, City of Wanneroo, Transcript of Evidence, 30/08/2006, p4. 72 Mr John B. Kowal, Manager Law and Safety Services, City of Bunbury, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p5-6. 73 Mr Stuart McIntyre, Area Manager, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Transcript of Evidence, 08/06/2006, p3.
- 15 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Similarly, Mr Peter Stubbs of the Shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley supports binding the Crown but does not believe measures could be applied universally, its application being more applicable in some areas than others:
There probably is a need for a greater amount of fire protection on government lands. I do not think you could expect that to reasonably apply to every piece of government land. It is about where the interface occurs between private and public lands. Where that interface occurs, there is probably a strong need, and argument, for greater emphasis on the government matching what is expected of the private landowner.74
Mr John Lorantas, Captain, Dampier VFRS, views fire-breaks to be essential given the fires that occur in the Pilbara, and considers this should apply equally to Crown land.75 Mr Michael Booth of the neighbouring Karratha VFRS agrees there should be one rule for all but acknowledges that the logistics of fire-breaking all Crown land would be unreasonable, not to mention economically unviable.76
The scale at which fire-breaks might need to be established is of particular concern to CALM and as such, the agency opposes the Crown being bound by the emergency services legislation. It cites the following reasons:
§ the practical and financial implications of such direction would be onerous on the State, 77
§ the agency has adequate alternative fire prevention and response mechanisms in place; and
§ fire-breaks do not necessarily stop a fire or reduce the intensity of a fire, particularly where the fire is on forest land. Rather, fire-breaks tend to be used as access routes during firefighting activities. CALM installs access routes on CALM-managed lands for firefighting purposes, however, these routes are not necessarily “fire-breaks” as such. 78
Mr Kelly Gillen, Regional Manager for CALM’s Mid-West region, also details that fire-breaks are not appropriate in all circumstances:
Some of our reserves, for instance, are relatively small, so even the creation of firebreaks around a relatively small block of land has a lot of implications for us from a management point of view. It actually promotes weed invasion. It can also raise other issues that affect
74 Mr Peter Stubbs, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p13. 75 Mr John Lorantas, Captain, Dampier Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p4. 76 Mr Michael Booth, Captain, Karratha Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p4. 77 Mr Keiran J. McNamara, Executive Director, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 16/11/2005, p8-9. 78 Mr Robert J. Chandler, Regional Manager, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p12.
- 16 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
some of the values that we are trying to manage. Therefore, on some occasions we would argue against the need for a firebreak, because we could actually deal with the problem in a slightly different way - the fire issue, for instance. I am quite comfortable with the way we are doing things at the moment. When we have a difference of opinion, we go out and work through that, whether it be with FESA or the local landowner. I think most of the time we can actually deal with that through commonsense; that is, by working through the issues and coming up with the best solution. Flexibility and discretion are good things to have.79
Certainly CALM Esperance were concerned about the financial impost, practicality and environmental impact of fire-breaks in that region.80 They reflected on what they perceived to be other, more appropriate, mechanisms for hazard reduction.81
The environmental consequences and prohibitive costs of binding the Crown in the Kimberley were also noted by Mr Kevin White, Regional Fire Coordinator, CALM:
That would be a very retrograde step. We cannot just crisscross this country, particularly the pindan land and the very fragile soils, with firebreaks; they will just wash away…when you look at some of the land areas that the crown is responsible for, it would require a massive budget in the Kimberley alone to manage both crown land and unallocated land to the intensity that you would need to deal with the threatening processes of fire as opposed to the environmental management of fire. For the threatening processes alone, it would be a very expensive exercise to bind the crown to have to extinguish or manage fires.82
The CCWA and the EDO in a joint submission, express concern that the legislation governing the management of Crown land does not provide for a uniform policy regime for fire management across the State. Despite this view, the CCWA were not convinced in evidence that binding the Crown, particularly with regards to the fire-break provisions, was necessarily appropriate, suggesting that both the need for and effectiveness of the latter required review. 83 Dr Schultz supports the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) zoning proposal, discussed within the COAG report, National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management (2004), which supports strategic fire-breaks, rather than perimeter fire-breaks around specified plots of land:
Firebreaks as currently constructed are a threat to biodiversity. There are problems of erosion, weeds and access for foxes and cats. Do they really do much good?... As part of COAG’s zoning proposal, there would be strategic firebreaks rather than having them
79 Mr Kelly Gillen, Regional Manager, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p4. 80 Mr Klaus Tiedemann, Esperance District Manager, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p7. 81 Mr Gavin Wornes, Fire Coordinator, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p7. 82 Mr Kevin White, Regional Fire Coordinator, Kimberley, Department of Environment and Conservation, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p6. 83 Submission No 38 from Conservation Council of WA (Inc) and the Environmental Defender’s Office of WA (Inc), 2005, p3.
- 17 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
around every little plot, especially with two and a half hectare subdivisions. The amount of land that gets turned to wasteland by putting a firebreak on both sides of a fence is disastrous. A firebreak is not a good land use. It would not be much help anyway. Rather than imposing it on the Crown, I would like to see the whole issue of their effectiveness and their strategic use looked at from the point of view of both private landowners and the Crown.84
In a similar vein to CALM, Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) is opposed to the legislation binding the Crown on the basis of cost and potential environmental impact. MRWA is responsible for vacant land set aside for future road works (located predominantly within the Perth metropolitan area) and road reserves. MRWA views existing fire management strategies on its vacant land to be adequate. It is however concerned about the scale and expense of implementing fire management strategies along approximately 17,500km of roads and highways of varying widths (from 20m - 200m), especially in regional areas, viewing that it would subject the agency to unsustainable cost pressures.85 MRWA also purport that construction of fire-breaks within road reserves would have a negative environmental impact on remnant vegetation, particularly in regional areas:
Main Roads has had in place, for many years, a policy of enhancing and preserving this often last remaining remnant vegetation which has the support of the conservation community. The FESA proposal would require Main Roads to clear the majority, if not, all of the vegetation where narrow road reserves are involved to meet the fire breaking obligation.86
DPI contends that it is not strictly necessary for the State Government to be bound in all regions, for instance, in urban areas, planning for subdivisions already takes into account the interface between land uses thus making the establishment of fire-breaks redundant:
I do not think it would be necessary in all cases for there to be firebreaks on government land, because in some cases the planning provides for some appropriate interface between, for example, an urban area and an open space reserve. Flying from that comment, obviously the issue is much more important in relation to urban areas than rural areas and other areas throughout the state, and the state is very largely composed of government lands. I am not sure, from a planning perspective, that it would be appropriate to simply make it mandatory across the state.87
CALM’s concerns about binding the Crown are not limited to the requirement to install fire- breaks. They viewed that other provisions of the Bush Fires Act could negatively impact on their operations were the legislation to bind the Crown:
84 Dr Beth Schultz, Conservation Council of WA, Transcript of Evidence, 17/05/2006, p8. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid., p2. 87 Mr Vincent McMullen, Director Planning Reform, Department for Planning and Infrastructure, Transcript of Evidence, 14/06/2006, p6.
- 18 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ Section 28(1) of the Bush Fires Act requires land owners or occupiers to take all possible measures to extinguish a fire burning on their land. CALM undertakes hundreds of individual burns each year as part of its prescribed burning program. Extinguishing these fires would make prescribed burning cost prohibitive and/or ineffective.
§ Apart from clearing and maintaining fire-breaks, Section 33(1) of the Bush Fires Act also empowers local government to give notice to any owner or occupier to remove hazards. Certain areas on CALM-managed lands are deliberately kept in an unburnt condition and potentially CALM could be directed to remove these ‘hazards’.
§ Section 46(1) of the Bush Fires Act empowers a Bushfire Control Officer to prohibit the lighting of a fire and to require a fire to be extinguished, which again could have a significant impact on CALM’s prescribed burning program.88
CALM acknowledges that these issues relate to the current Bush Fires Act and that it is not possible to appreciate the full effects that future legislation may have with respect to binding the Crown until a draft Bill can be subjected to detailed analysis.89
Committee assessment
CALM is correct in its assertion, the matter of binding the Crown, in some ways, is redundant until the content of the new emergency services legislation is determined and the Crown understands the provisions to which it will be bound. For instance, if the Bush Fires Act, as it currently reads, was amended to ensure the binding of the Crown, there would be significant risk in terms of the legislation becoming impractical and unworkable (e.g. the practical and financial burden of installing fire-breaks on land in vast and remote areas of Western Australia). However, the Committee is recommending the repealing of the Bush Fires Act and the drafting of contemporary emergency services legislation. The State therefore has the opportunity to develop flexible legislation that enables land owners and land managers to use fire prevention tools in addition to, or as an alternative to, fire-breaks. For instance, FESA is recommending the new legislation empower FESA to request the development of fire management plans from land owners or land managers. Chapter 3 of this Report discusses this proposal in detail.
In States that have relatively new emergency services legislation, such as Queensland (QLD) and New South Wales (NSW), the emergency services Acts bind the Crown. Sections of the emergency services legislation in other States also bind the Crown. These Sections are predominantly related to the emergency response operations and associated activities.90
88 Letter from Mr Keiran McNamara, Executive Director, Department of Conservation and Land Management, 30/01/2006, p1-2. 89 Ibid., p2. 90 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p6.
- 19 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
It is the Committee’s view that the current legislative arrangements, in effect allowing State Government agencies to choose whether or not to implement measures on land owned or managed by the Crown, are inadequate and unjust. The Crown must be subject to the same legislative obligations as private land owners and land managers. This is fundamental to appropriate, equitable and safe emergency services.
Recommendation 4
§ The emergency services Act is to bind the Crown.
Recommendation 5
§ The emergency services legislation must provide for flexibility in terms of using fire prevention and response tools appropriate to the specific land tenures.
2.3 Building safety
Background
The Hon. Michelle Roberts MLA, Minister for Housing and Works, is responsible for building control legislation in Western Australia. The Department of Housing and Works (DHW) is the agency responsible for ensuring the development and implementation of the relevant building control legislation. This responsibility was defined and assigned in 2003, when applicable sections of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1998 were transferred from the Department of Local Government and Regional Development to DHW. The transfer in responsibility occurred in anticipation of the development of a new Western Australian building Act.91
There are a number of agencies that have building control functions or roles that impact on building standards, including local governments, who through the Building Regulations 1989 (Building Regulations), enforce compliance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA), and FESA, who provide a vital support role in relation to building safety. It should be noted that FESA does not dispute the appropriateness of DHW being designated accountability and
91 Mr Peter Gow, Executive Director - Office of Policy and Planning, Department of Housing and Works, Transcript of Evidence, 19/10/2005, p2.
- 20 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
responsibility for building control legislation in Western Australia, however the Authority iterates that this support role should be clearly defined in legislation. 92
The Committee acknowledges the complexity of building legislation and the requirement for involvement of a number of agencies with regulatory roles who hold particular expertise. At the commencement of the Inquiry there was considerable variation in opinion between DHW and FESA in relation to some aspects of how the legislation should operate with respect to building safety. DHW through the duration of the Inquiry has been immersed in a consultation process regarding the development of a proposed new building Act. Some of the initial variation in opinion, between DHW and FESA, can be attributed to a melding of what may occur under the proposed building Act, with what needs to occur under existing building legislation. The Committee notes that the process in relation to the proposed Act is in its formative stages and therefore it is critical that perceived deficits in the current legislation be addressed to ensure an appropriate level of building safety. Naturally on consideration of any proposed building Act, associated legislation would be identified, deliberated on and amended as appropriate.
During the course of the Inquiry DHW and FESA together with WALGA (as peak body for local government in Western Australia) were able to reach a higher degree of consensus on how they perceived building safety legislation should operate. This was principally as a consequence of the transfer of Mr Bob Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), FESA, to the position of Director General, DHW, and the subsequent assignment of Mr Ross Napier, Director, Corporate Development and Community Safety, WAPOL, to conduct an independent review of these matters. This involved consideration of related transcripts of evidence, interviews of relevant staff from FESA, DHW and WALGA and endorsement by FESA and WALGA of DHW’s final position paper, dated 17 May 2006.93
2.4 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia’s power in relation to inspecting building plans and specifications
Regulation 8(3) of the Building Regulations requires building surveyors to “liaise” with the “Fire Brigades Board” before issuing a building licence:
8. Notices to other authorities
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subregulation (2) the building surveyor shall before issuing a building licence liaise with the Fire Brigades Board for the purposes of the fire prevention and public safety requirements of the Building Code. 94
Regulation 11(2) of the Building Regulations requires every builder “making application for a building licence” to submit the building plans and specifications to the “Fire Brigades Board” for assessment, in terms of compliance with the fire requirements of the BCA:
92 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p9. 93 Submission No 9.1 from Department of Housing and Works, 2006, p2. 94 Regulation 8(3) Building Regulations 1989.
- 21 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
11. Particulars to accompany application
(2) Notwithstanding the provision of subregulation (1) every builder making application for a building licence, excluding Classes 1 and 10 of the Building Code, shall deposit with the Fire Brigades Board plans and specifications of sufficient detail to enable the Fire Brigades Board to assess their compliance with the Fire Requirements of the Building Code of Australia.95
Transitional provisions pursuant to the FESA Act provide for the transfer of all legislative power afforded to the now dissolved “Fire Brigades Board” to be transferred to FESA.
FESA contends that the intent of the Building Regulations 8(3) and 11(2) is ambiguous in terms of defining the agency’s legislative responsibilities and subsequent actions. The Building Regulations demand that all building plans and specifications for Class 2 to Class 9 buildings (refer to Table 1.1 below for these classification descriptions, as per the BCA) be submitted to FESA for assessment. However, the legislation does not indicate what FESA is to do with the documents thereafter, nor does it compel building developers to abide by FESA’s advice.96
The FESA submission states:
…legal advice received has indicated the following:
§ if FESA takes action after receiving the building plans (for instance, if FESA offers advice or requests modifications to the plans) and there is a negative consequence as a result, FESA may be deemed liable because it acted without legislative authority; and
§ if FESA takes no action after receiving the building plans (for instance, FESA takes no action to ensure building plans are amended to comply with the fire requirements of the Building Code of Australia) and there is a negative consequence as a result, FESA may be deemed liable if a Court interprets the legislation to mean that FESA should have taken action in relation to the building plans, by virtue of having accepted them in the first place.97
FESA imply that their involvement in the building licence approval process is heightened by virtue of the BCA being performance-based. In simple terms, a performance-based BCA provides a designer with flexibility in the use of materials, forms of construction or design, provided that the intent of, or performance required by the BCA is met.98 Although not critical of the performance based nature of the code, FESA notes that it provides developers with a number of options in relation to the features of buildings which could impact on the safety of both building
95 Ibid., Regulation 11(2). 96 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p7. 97 Ibid. 98 Australian Building Codes Board, Available at: http://www.abcb.gov.au/index.cfm?fuseaction=DocumentView&DocumentID=86. Accessed on 30/05/2006.
- 22 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
occupants and firefighters.99 Although detailing that in most cases building surveyors responsible for the issuing of building licences, accept FESA’s advice regarding the operational firefighting requirements of a building, FESA has no redress in instances where they choose not to do so. FESA cited in evidence that instances have therefore arisen, for example, where retail outlets “with a full fire load in the building have been opened without an operational firefighting system”, placing the community at significant risk.100
Classification of Buildings as per Part A3 of the Building Code of Australia.
CLASS
Class 1 Class 1A A single dwelling being a detached house or one or more attached dwellings.
Class 1B Boarding/guest house or hostel not exceeding 300m2 and not more than 12 people reside.
Which is not located above or below another dwelling or another Class of building other than a private garage.
Class 2 A building containing 2 or more sole occupancy units each being a separate dwelling.
Class 3 A resident building, other than a Class 1 or 2, which is common place of long term or transient living for a number of unrelated persons.
Class 4 A dwelling in a building that is Class 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 if it is the only dwelling in the building.
Class 5 An office building used for professional or commercial purposes, excluding buildings of Class 6, 7, 8 or 9.
Class 6 A shop or other building for the sale of goods by retail or the supply of services direct to the public.
Class 7 A building which is a car-park or for storage, or display of goods or produce for sale by wholesale.
Class 8 A laboratory, or a building in which a handicraft or process for the production, assembling, altering, repairing, packing, finishing, or cleaning of goods or produce is carried on for trade, sale or gain.
Class 9 A building of a public nature.
99 Mr Colin L. Williams, Manager Fire Safety Branch, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/05, p6-7. 100 Ibid.
- 23 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Class 9A A health care building.
Class 9B An assembly building in a primary or secondary school, but excluding any other parts of the building that are of another class.
Class 10 A non habitable building or structure.
Class 10A A private garage, car-port, shed or the like.
Class 10B A structure being a fence, mast, antenna, retaining or free standing wall, swimming pool or the like.
In an attempt to resolve the potentially litigious arrangements outlined above, FESA contends that prior to the commencement of the Inquiry, DHW and FESA lent in-principle support to the following proposed arrangements, deemed necessary to ensure the safety of buildings in Western Australia:
As already provided for under the current emergency services legislation, building developers are to be required to submit building plans and specifications to FESA for assessment, as part of the building approval process.
Also congruent with current legislation, FESA is to assess the plans in terms of FESA’s operational fire safety requirements.
If FESA considers that the building plans and specifications meet FESA’s operational fire safety requirements, FESA is to issue the developer with a certificate of approval. The local government may then issue the developer with a building licence (assuming local government is satisfied that the building requirements outside of the fire safety requirements have also been met).
If FESA considers that the building plans and specifications do not meet FESA’s operational fire safety requirements, FESA is not to issue the developer with a certificate of approval. Accordingly, the local government is not to issue the developer with a building licence.
If a building licence is not issued on the grounds that FESA considers the building plans and specifications do not meet FESA’s operational fire safety requirements, the developer is to be empowered to appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal.
This provision is to apply to buildings in Class 1B to Class 9, as defined in the Building Code of Australia.101 102
The above proposal is supported by the UFU. The UFU states:
101 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p8. 102 Submission No 9 from Department of Housing and Works, 2005, p2.
- 24 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
…these powers [to vet building plans] have significant importance in the prevention and suppression of fires. Particularly in the safety of our members entering building(s) in the performance of fire fighting operations. 103
As mentioned above, FESA’s current powers in relation to inspecting building plans and specifications only apply to Class 2 to Class 9 buildings. FESA recommends in its submission that this power be extended to include Class 1B buildings. By definition, the maximum size of a Class 1B building is 300m2 and occupancy must not exceed 12 people (e.g. backpacker hostels, bed and breakfast establishments, guest houses).104
In correspondence dated 17 May 2006, Mr Bob Mitchell, Director General, DHW, informed the Committee that following reassessment of matters related to fire safety in buildings, that WALGA, DHW and FESA were essentially in agreement with the above proposed arrangements in relation to FESA’s involvement in the building licence approval process and the option for developers, dissatisfied with the outcome, to appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).105
Certificates of Classification (Occupancy)
Regulation 20 of the Building Regulations empowers local government to issue a Certificate of Classification (occupancy) on completion of Class 2 to Class 9 buildings, the subject of a building licence. The classification ensures that the building meets the requirements of the category of building for which the licence was issued, as outlined in Part A3 of Volume One of the BCA.
WALGA, DHW and FESA concur that FESA has a role in the issue of Certificates of Classification. They do however qualify that the conditions required, including inspections, form part of the building licence and that certification that inspections have occurred be provided before issue of the Certificate of Classification. They suggest that the inspection phase be limited to FESA confirming that licence conditions imposed by FESA have been met. In other words, that FESA should not be empowered to impose new requirements once the building licence has been issued. Further, that ‘inspections of targeted building types occur in a staged way through the construction process and at completion’.
According to Mr Bob Mitchell, DHW, FESA wish to limit their involvement in the occupancy certification process to those buildings that pose:
‘high risk to life’ and or have ‘complex/complicated fire and emergency safety systems’…106
103 Submission No 17 from United Firefighters Union of Australia - West Australia Branch, 2005, p2. 104 Mr Colin L. Williams, Manager Fire Safety Branch, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/05, p8-9. 105 Submission No 9.1 from Department of Housing and Works, 2006, p2. 106 Ibid., p3.
- 25 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr Colin Williams, Manager, Fire Safety Branch, FESA, implied at hearing that it would be impractical and costly for FESA to conduct final inspections on all relevant buildings, hence the suggested limitation outlined above.107
The three agencies endorse this arrangement.
Committee assessment
The Committee view that the safety of the Western Australian community must be the foremost consideration in the determination of building provisions. As cited in evidence, matters relating to fire comprise a large percentage of the BCA.108 FESA, DHW and WALGA concur that FESA’s expertise is of utmost importance in the assessment of building fire safety requirements. The Committee accepts that fire systems can be quite complicated by virtue of enhancements in technology, thereby posing particular challenges for fire authorities who need to have a degree of certainty that they can work with those systems and ensure that their duty of care obligations are met to firefighters and the general public. This being the case, it would be illogical to provide local governments and in turn, building developers, with the option of complying with FESA’s advice in relation to building plans and specifications.
It would seem logical that if FESA are to participate in the building licence approval process on the basis of relevant expertise, that they would also be involved in the certification process for building occupancy. The Committee accepts however that resource and financial implications mean it would be impractical for FESA to conduct compliance inspections on all relevant classes of buildings. Therefore, the need to limit such inspections to those buildings that pose a ‘high risk to life’ and/or have ‘complex/complicated fire and emergency safety systems’ seems reasonable. This would essentially mean that in instances in which FESA does not conduct such inspections, local government would ensure compliance with any conditions imposed by FESA on a building licence. The Committee believes that due process would suggest that FESA not alter conditions on a building licence on the point of inspection of compliance, provided the developer complies with the original design approved by FESA.
The Committee concurs with the proposal to extend the class of buildings for which FESA may inspect building plans and specifications in relation to compliance with operational fire safety requirements to include Class 1B buildings. The Committee views this recommendation to be appropriate, particularly in the context of the re-opening of the coronial inquest into the Childers Backpackers Hostel fire in Queensland in February 2006 that killed 15 young Australian, British, Dutch, Irish, Japanese and Korean tourists in June 2000.109 The inquest includes investigation into the legislative and other responsibilities of local and State Government authorities. Again, it
107 Mr Colin L. Williams, Manager Fire Safety Branch, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/05, p9. 108 Ibid., p6. 109 The Australian, Available at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18255228%255E2702,00.html Accessed on 03/03/2006.
- 26 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
would follow that FESA’s involvement in relation to Certificates of Occupancy also incorporate this class of building.
Recommendation 6
§ As provided for under the current emergency services legislation, building developers are to be required to submit building plans and specifications to FESA for assessment, as part of the building approval process.
Recommendation 7
§ Congruent with the current emergency services legislation, FESA is to assess the plans in terms of FESA’s operational fire safety requirements.
Recommendation 8
§ If FESA considers that the building plans and specifications meet FESA’s operational fire safety requirements, FESA is to issue the developer with a certificate of approval. The local government may then issue the developer with a building licence (assuming local government is satisfied that the building requirements outside of the fire safety requirements have also been met).
Recommendation 9
§ If FESA considers that the building plans and specifications do not meet FESA’s operational fire safety requirements, FESA is not to issue the developer with a certificate of approval. Accordingly, the local government is not to issue the developer with a building licence.
- 27 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 10
§ If a building licence is not issued on the grounds that FESA considers the building plans and specifications do not meet FESA’s operational fire safety requirements, the developer is to be empowered to appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal.
Recommendation 11
§ FESA to be empowered to conduct inspections with regard to Certificates of Occupancy.
Recommendation 12
§ Inspections are to be limited to those conditions prescribed in the relevant building licence.
Recommendation 13
§ Where inspections by FESA are a condition of licence, FESA must provide the developer with certification that a compliance inspection has been conducted which confirms that licence conditions have been met.
Recommendation 14
§ FESA will not impose new licence conditions once the building licence has been issued provided the developer complies with the original plan approved by FESA.
Recommendation 15
§ The local government is not to issue a Certificate of Occupancy until a certificate of compliance has been issued.
- 28 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 16
§ FESA’s involvement in the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy to be limited to buildings that pose ‘high risk to life’ and or have ‘complex/complicated fire and emergency safety systems’.
Recommendation 17
§ FESA may conduct inspections of buildings prescribed at Recommendation 17 through the construction process and at completion.
Recommendation 18
§ These provisions are to apply to buildings in Class 1B to Class 9, as defined in the Building Code of Australia.
2.5 The power to inspect, evacuate and apply for an order to close down buildings
For just over 60 years the Fire Brigades Act has empowered FESA (or its predecessors) to inspect public buildings for the purpose of ensuring that there is no risk to life or property. FESA cites that these powers are extensive and enable the Authority to:
§ enter and inspect a public building to ensure that there is no risk to life or property;
§ direct the owner of a public building to remedy any part of the building that is considered to be a risk to life or property;
§ apply to a stipendiary magistrate for an order to have a building closed down for as long as it takes to have the risk remedied; and
§ remove persons from a public building, using as much force as is reasonably necessary, if it is considered that there is risk to life.110
110 Section 33 Fire Brigades Act 1942.
- 29 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
FESA considers it important that these powers be retained and that the category of building to which the powers apply be expanded to include all buildings in Class 1B to Class 9, as defined in the BCA. The powers currently apply to “public buildings”. 111 FESA contends that in 1942 the Fire Brigades Act intended that the Authority only inspect “public buildings”, however that the definition of “public building” at that time was less specific, encompassing any building within which people congregated,112 excluding single residential dwellings. FESA argue that today, various interpretations of the legislation instil doubt as to whether it has the authority to request the owner of a privately owned, part privately owned or Government owned building to remedy a fault in the building. FESA is concerned that this may increase the level of risk to the general public entering the building or firefighters fighting a fire in the building. 113
DHW initially argued in its submission to the Inquiry, dated 4 October 2005, that FESA should only be empowered to request the closure of a building:
“…in extreme situations, if there is imminent danger to the safety of the building’s occupants.” 114
They cited that when the danger to the building’s occupants was not “imminent”, that FESA should act as an advisory body only, with local government being empowered to determine whether or not a building be subject to closure. DHW proposed that FESA be empowered to determine whether or not the danger within the building was imminent.115
DHW detailed at hearing on 19 October 2006 that fire safety requirements within buildings were adequately addressed within the BCA. According to DHW:
Building regulations give local governments the auth ority to enforce compliance with the Building Code, which includes all the fire safety measures in buildings such as sprinklers, hydrants and hose reels. That is all contained in the Building Code, which local governments enforce. A building that complie s with the Building Code should meet all the requirements of FESA. There should be no other requirements.116
DHW also argued that because FESA derives its authority for inspections from the Fire Brigades Act and not the Building Regulations, that there is potential for FESA to require remedial work to buildings contrary to the BCA. They cited that this is because the Building Regulations and not the Fire Brigades Act adopts the requirements of the BCA. They imply therefore that any modifications or enhancements to the fabric of buildings, which by implication would be governed
111 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p9. 112 Section 173 Health Act 1911. 113 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p9. 114 Submission No 9 from Department of Housing and Works, 2005, p2. 115 Mr Peter Gow, Executive Director Office of Policy and Planning, Department of Housing and Works, Transcript of Evidence, 19/10/2005, p6. 116 Mr Nabil Yazdani, Principal Policy and Technical Officer, Department of Housing and Works, Transcript of Evidence, 19/10/2005, p4.
- 30 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
under the BCA and building regulation process, should go through the building regulation process under the authority of the relevant local government.117
FESA refutes the claim that it would ever require remedial work that would contravene the BCA. However, the organisation states that there are rare instances where FESA has operational fire safety requirements in addition to those required under the BCA. 118
In correspondence dated 17 May 2006, Mr Bob Mitchell, Director General, DHW, noted that after further negotiations, DHW, WALGA and FESA were in agreement regarding FESA having the power to enter and inspect buildings to ensure that fire and other emergency safety systems were operating to specification and met the operational needs of firefighters. Further, that if FESA determined, during such an inspection, that systems were not working to acceptable operational standards, that FESA should be empowered to place restrictions on the building’s use and/or close the building until those systems are rectified.119 FESA and DHW have not agreed that FESA should have the power to restrict the use of buildings or shut down buildings where FESA detects non-fire and/or non-emergency systems related breaches. Essentially DHW argues that FESA has the expertise in relation to fire and emergency safety systems but not in relation to non-fire and/or non-emergency system related breaches which although posing a fire risk, fall within the domain of other specialist agencies.
As a means of compromise, WALGA, FESA and DHW have recommended that a mechanism be provided, (i.e. an Order to Inspect), within the Building Regulations, enabling Government organisations participating in building safety processes, to refer concerns to an “expert authority” to validate or quash the “Order to Inspect”.
An example would be a Worksafe Inspector, whilst conducting their normal business, discovering a fire safety system in a building that appears inadequate or deficient in some way.
In this instance the Worksafe Inspector could advise the building owner or operator of the concerns held regarding the fire safety system and then issue an ‘Order to Inspect’ to FESA, the competent authority for this matter, requiring FESA to make a full and detailed inspection. The inspection completed, FESA could then either restrict the use of the building until any necessary repair work or modifications were completed or on finding that the systems are working satisfactorily, rescind the order.120
117 Mr Peter Gow, Executive Director Office of Policy and Planning, Department of Housing and Works, Transcript of Evidence, 19/10/2005, p6. 118 Email from Mr Barry Hamilton, Executive Director, Community Safety, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 22/06/2006, p1-2. 119 Submission No 9.1 from Department of Housing and Works, 2006, p2. 120 Ibid., p4.
- 31 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Committee assessment
The Committee is reminded of FESA’s evidence detailing occasions when local governments have granted building licences when the building does not meet FESA’s fire safety requirements. FESA’s argument in relation to the performance-based nature of the BCA allowing building developers and owners to achieve an outcome using a variety of alternative methods that may in fact not meet FESA’s operational requirements is also relevant to this review of Section 33 of the Fire Brigades Act. The Childers Backpackers Hostel fire in QLD is also a harsh reminder of the need to ensure ongoing compliance with operational firefighting requirements. Details have been released alleging that emergency exits at the hostel were blocked, doors and windows nailed closed or barred, fire alarms disabled and the premises over-occupied.121
The Committee supports FESA’s contention that the performance-based system must be supported by agencies with expertise and specialist intelligence.122 Further, it agrees with FESA’s position that only persons qualified and experienced in fire safety be designated the responsibility of inspecting and ordering the closure of buildings (on the grounds of fire safety). FESA (and its predecessors) have been performing building inspections in relation to fire safety compliance since 1942. The agency contends therefore that it is most appropriately placed to inspect buildings for fire safety compliance and to order the closure of non-compliant buildings. FESA already has in place the necessary infrastructure to carry out the role, including appropriately qualified and experienced personnel and the necessary physical resources including vehicles, equipment and technology. FESA assert that local government, in the main, do not have the human and physical resources necessary to carry out the role. 123
The Committee accepts that many local governments have considerable expertise in fire and emergency safety systems. The Committee is of the view however that consistency in expertise across the board can be maintained if the power to inspect, evacuate and order the closure of buildings remain with one “expert authority”, FESA, rather than 142 mainland local governments.
The Committee supports DHW’s view that FESA’s expertise lies in fire and emergency safety systems with other agencies designated responsibility for non-fire/non-emergency system related breaches on the grounds of proficiency. It is the Committee’s view however that this does not negate the responsibility of those agencies to inform “expert authorities” of concerns that impact on public safety in buildings. The concept of a mechanism, such as an “Order to Inspect”, to ensure adequate assessment of safety concerns is one the Committee would endorse.
The Committee views that the current definition of “public buildings” leaves grounds for debate in relation to FESA’s capacity to inspect, evacuate and close particular classes of public buildings. The Committee recommends that FESA’s power to inspect, evacuate and order the closure of
121 The Australian, Available at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18255228%255E2702,00.html Accessed on 03/03/2006. 122 Mr Colin L. Williams, Manager Fire Safety Branch, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p6-8. 123 Ibid., p7.
- 32 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
buildings apply to Class 1B to Class 9 buildings as defined in the BCA. This would be consistent with previous recommendations at Section 2.4 of this Report.
Recommendation 19
§ FESA is to be empowered to:
• enter and inspect buildings to ensure that fire and other emergency safety systems are operating to specification and meet the operational needs of firefighters;
• direct the owner of a building to remedy any fire and emergency safety systems breaches considered to be a risk to life or property;
• apply to a stipendiary magistrate for an order to restrict the building’s use and/or close the building until those systems breaches are rectified;
• remove persons from a building if it is considered that there is risk to life.
Recommendation 20
§ The above powers are to apply to Class 1B to Class 9 buildings, as defined by the Building Code of Australia.
Recommendation 21
§ The above powers are not intended to require FESA to inspect every building in Class 1B to Class 9 in Western Australia. To do so would cost the State significantly in terms of both human and physical resources.
- 33 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 22
§ A mechanism should be provided, within the Building Regulations 1989, enabling State and local government organisations, participating in building safety processes, to refer building safety concerns to an “expert authority” for appropriate action.
2.6 Installation of Fire Prevention Apparatus
FESA is requesting retention of the power to direct the owner of a premise to provide and install fire detection and suppression equipment (including fire hydrant services, fire alarms, sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers and fire hose reels) considered necessary to prevent, detect, respond to or extinguish fire. This provision currently applies to Class 2 to Class 9 buildings, as defined in the BCA. FESA has requested that it be extended to include buildings in Class 1B. 124
Under current legislation FESA is already empowered to direct the provision and installation of fire detection and suppression equipment. Section 25A of the Fire Brigades Act states:
(1) The Authority may by notice in writing addressed to the owner or occupier of any premises direct him to install and provide within the time specified in the notice, such-
(a) water taps, water pipes, connections, fittings and equipment in respect thereof; and
(b) equipment, apparatus or appliances for the purpose of-
(i) preventing the outbreak of or extinguishing fire; or
(ii) preventing injury or damage to persons or property by fire
in or upon the premises and in such positions as the Authority directs in the notice.
(2) In this section the expression, “premises” does not include premises which consist of a private dwelling house designed for the use and occupation of one family.
(3) The occupier of the premises shall keep and maintain in good working order and fit for immediate use any equipment, apparatus, appliances, taps, pipes or connections installed on the premises under the provisions of this section.
(4) A person who is aggrieved by a direction of the Authority may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the direction on the ground that the things
124 Submission No 16 from the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, Proposed Drafting Instructions, p46.
- 34 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
directed to be installed and provided in or upon the premises are not reasonably required by the Authority for any of the purposes referred to in subsection (1)(b)125
In line with comment made in the previous section, DHW in its submission to the Inquiry, recommends that the above power be removed from FESA and instead provided to local government. The DHW submission to the Committee states:
Although these proposed provisions reflect the existing section 25A of the Fire Brigades Act 1942 they do not reflect the current approach to control of building standards reviewed in 2004 by the Productivity Commission and included in a draft inter-government agreement on the operation of the Australian Building Codes Board approved by Cabinet in April 2005. Under the proposed ESL [Emergency Services Legislation], FESA could require building work that contravenes the Building Code of Australia. This could occur despite the fact the plans and specifications for the building would have previously been approved, at the point of issuing a building licence.126
DHW propose as a means of ensuring the provision and installation of fire detection and suppression equipment:
It is suggested the process should instead provide that FESA may make recommendations to the relevant local government regarding fire detection and suppressant equipment. The local government… may then require the builder or owner of the building to alter the building so as to address the problem.127
Reiterating FESA’s earlier comments, the Authority do not believe that local government have the expertise and resources necessary to ensure the provision and installation of fire detection and suppression equipment, congruous with FESA’s fire safety requirements.128 Further, they strongly disagree with the notion that they require remedial work contrary to the BCA. 129
Committee assessment
As indicated in Section 2.4 of this Report, WALGA, DHW and FESA have reached agreement on FESA’s involvement in the building licence approval process and building inspections for Certificates of Classification/Occupancy. The Committee has principally supported the recommendations raised by DHW (following consultation with WALGA and FESA) in its letter of 17 May 2006 on the basis of FESA’s obvious expertise in fire and emergency safety systems and in turn, duty of care issues. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that FESA should retain this power, currently provided for under Section 25A of the Fire Brigades Act. For reasons
125 Section 25A Fire Brigades Act 1942. 126 Submission No 9 from the Department of Housing and Works, 2005, p3. 127 Ibid. 128 Mr Colin L. Williams, Manager Fire Safety Branch, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p6-8. 129 Email from Mr Barry Hamilton, Executive Director, Community Safety, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 22/06/2006, p1-2.
- 35 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
of community safety and consistency, it is recommended that this provision apply to Class 1B to Class 9 buildings as defined under the BCA.
Recommendation 23
§ That FESA retain its power to direct the provision and installation of fire detection and suppression equipment as it is currently provided for under Section 25A of the Fire Brigades Act 1942.
Recommendation 24
§ That the provision apply to Class 1B to Class 9 buildings as defined under the Building Code of Australia.
2.7 The power to approve and cancel the approval to establish Bushfire Brigades
Local government is empowered under Section 41(1) of the Bush Fires Act to establish, maintain and equip BFBs and under Section 41(3) to “cancel the registration” of those brigades.130
Until the introduction of the Emergency Services Levy (ESL) in 2003, local government provided and administered funding for the establishment and operations of BFBs in accordance with Section 41(1) of the Bush Fires Act. The statutory provisions however do not provide criteria in relation to the standard or quality of these brigades.131
FESA contend that until 2003, the “level of operational and financial support” by local governments for BFBs, was dependent on:
§ the priority the local government placed on emergency services in the area;
§ the size and wealth of the local government;
§ the location of the local government;
§ existing emergency services resources in the local government;
130 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p10. 131 Ibid., p11.
- 36 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ effective long-term emergency services planning by the local government;
§ the emergency risks to the local government area (i.e. in terms of susceptibility to bushfire);
§ community expectation of the local government role in emergency services;
§ the availability and sustainability of the Bushfire Brigade volunteer members; and
§ community contribution in terms of fundraising, donation and volunteerism.132
FESA views that “reliance on a localised system” to administer a Statewide resource has resulted in an inadequate, inappropriate and unfair distribution of BFBs across Western Australia.133
In 2003, the State Government introduced the ESL, a replacement funding system intended to finance defined aspects of emergency services. The ESL was aimed at ensuring greater equity and improved levels of funding for emergency services groups, including BFBs. Although local government collect the ESL through rates, FESA administers the distribution of the funds.134 Local government applications for capital grants are assessed by a Capital Grants Committee. Operating grants are authorised by the CEO of the Authority. 135
FESA notes that each year, local government applications to the ESL Grant Scheme exceed the funds available. The Authority uses a resource-to-risk model in an attempt to ensure the intent of the ESL Grant Scheme is fulfilled and all emergency services units and brigades are adequately and equitably resourced.136 The intent of the model is to ensure:
§ consistency in the establishment/allocation of emergency services resources across the State (including Bushfire Brigades);
§ resources are allocated according to the types and frequencies of emergencies in a community and the potential risk to community members; and
§ emergency services units and brigades are established according to the risks in the community, the availability of resources in surrounding areas and emergency management planning in the area, region and State .137
FESA’s opinion is that a local government’s power to establish BFBs undermines the ESL Grant Scheme approval process and has the potential to unduly influence outcomes:
132 Ibid. 133 Ibid., p13. 134 Ibid. 135 Emergency Services Levy: A Fairer System for All, Local Government Manual for Capital and Operating Grants 2006- 07, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Perth, November 2005, p7. 136 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p12. 137 Ibid.
- 37 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
…once a local government approves the establishment of a Bushfire Brigade pursuant to Section 41(1) of the Bushfires Act, and the members of the community have been advised of this approval, it is extremely difficult, often politically impossible, for the [ESL] Committee to reject the local government’s application to fund the establishment of the new Brigade. This difficulty applies even when the Committee does not consider the establishment of the Brigade to be necessary in terms of resource-to-risk. Similarly, it is politically problematic for the Committee to deny funding for the operations of an existing Bushfire Brigade, even when the Committee considers the Brigade should never have been established in the first place.138
The Authority cites that there are substantial costs associated with the establishment and maintenance of a BFB. FESA’s submission details the following:
§ the construction, maintenance and insurance of the fire station;
§ the purchase, maintenance and replacement of at least one firefighting appliance;
§ the purchase, maintenance and replacement of all firefighting equipment;
§ the delivery of emergency services training;
§ the purchase, maintenance and replacement of the personal protective clothing;
§ emergency incident attendance;
§ liability insurance for Bushfire Brigade members;
§ utilities; and
§ administration costs.139
FESA state that the cost for a BFB to be appropriately equipped and to meet occupational health and safety requirements is in the order of $500,000 to $2 million. The actual outlay being dependent on where the BFB is located, the roles it performs and use of existing community resources. Maintenance and operational expenditure is said to rely on similar variables.140
FESA imply in its submission that its recommendation on this issue does not minimise or negate the fact that many local governments throughout the State have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the provision of emergency services in their respective communities. They detail that prior to the introduction of the ESL, these local governments:
§ retained personnel with the experience, qualifications and ability necessary to provide for emergency services in the local government area;
138 Ibid., p12-13. 139 Ibid., p11. 140 Ibid., p10.
- 38 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ initiated and ensured the provision of emergency services training for career and volunteer personnel; and
§ provided emergency services resources necessary to combat emergency incidents.141
This fact has been evident to the Committee throughout the conduct of this Inquiry. Shires with a limited rate base, such as Kojonup and Cranbrook, provided an emergency service of a professional calibre for many years before FESA was established. For the most part, these Shires worked independently, without State Government intervention. Mr Stephen Gash, CEO, summarises the Shire of Kojonup’s position in relation to the dissolution of control at a local level:
The current legislation provides an adequate balance between centralised control and community centred emergency management for bushfires, through the ability of the local government authority to invite FESA to be involved in the management of the emergency. The Shire of Kojonup appreciates the support of FESA, however, strongly urges against any further change to legislation to remove control from the local level.142
The Shire of Kojonup has a valid argument. Clearly there are local governments within the State that have the expertise and experience to determine where a BFB would be most appropriately established.
FESA cites however that many local governments, as a result of transient populations and a loss of emergency services expertise, reduction in population size and volunteerism and a low rate base, have not been able to provide for emergency services in their respective communities.143 FESA discusses the impact of the latter and proposes legislative amendment:
…many local governments did not fulfil their emergency services obligations under the Bush Fires Act. Prior to the introduction of the ESL Grant Scheme, a significant number of Bushfire Brigades in Western Australia were under resourced and operating outside of acceptable occupational health and safety standards. The local governments were either unwilling or unable to fund the operations and maintenance of the Bushfire Brigades, and the Brigade members lacked the necessary resources and training to perform their roles effectively and safely. Bushfire Brigades in these local government areas were often established without any risk assessment of the area or emergency management planning. In fact, often Bushfire Brigades were established by farmers, using the farmer’s private funds, to provide a resource for the farming community th at the local government was not providing…
In summary, FESA requests that the power to approve the establishment of Bushfire Brigades, and the power to cancel such approval, be transferred from local government to FESA because:
141 Ibid., p11. 142 Submission No 41 from Shire of Kojonup, 2005, p3. 143 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p30.
- 39 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ the ESL Grants Scheme Committee is currently responsible for approving or rejecting local government ESL applications for funding to establish Bushfire Brigades. There appears to be little point in a local government approving the establishment of a new Bushfire Brigade if the Committee does not approve the funding required to establish the Brigade;
§ the ESL Grants Scheme Committee is currently responsible for approving or rejecting local government ESL applications for funding to maintain and operate both existing and new brigades;
§ FESA has developed a State-wide resource-to-risk model, used to ensure emergency services resources, including brigades and units, are distributed across the State, based on fair and equitable principles and according to a comprehensive resource-to-risk analysis of the area; and
§ the reliance on a localised system, in place now for over 50 years, has resulted in enormous disparity between local governments with regards to the establishment and resourcing of Bushfire Brigades across the State.144
At hearing, Mr Bob Mitchell, then CEO, FESA, amended the Authority’s position on the power to cancel the establishment of BFBs. Mr Mitchell advised that he was prepared to concede on this recommendation and to accept local government retention of this role. However, Mr Mitchell reiterated FESA’s preference that it be empowered to establish BFBs. He cited that the financial implications to the State, particularly in terms of the ESL, would be significant if local government is empowered to continue establishing BFBs.145 FESA provided additional comment on this issue via a supplementary submission dated 23 November 2005. The Authority proposes that where local government disagrees with a decision made by FESA, that the option for appeal to the SAT be provided.146
According to the UFU there is a need for a standardised and uniform approach to establishing new fire brigades and disbanding such brigades.147 The UFU considers FESA to be the most appropriate and qualified body to perform these roles:
Once again, FESA, as the - for want of a better word - supreme authority, ought to have the power. We are not saying that we should completely do away with local government. There should be some sort of liaison there.148
Mr Mitchell is certainly of a similar opinion in relation to ongoing liaison with local government.149
144 Ibid., p12-13. 145 Mr Robert Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p12. 146 Submission No 16.1 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p4. 147 Submission No 17 from United Firefighters Union of Australia - West Australian Branch, 2005, p2. 148 Mr David Bowers, Secretary, United Firefighters Union of WA, Transcript of Evidence, 12/04/2006, p6.
- 40 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
It should be noted in the context of this section that a proportion of local governments during this Inquiry have suggested that FESA assume either part or all of the responsibility for Bushfire Brigades. Assumption of complete responsibility has been mooted by the Northern Country Zone of WALGA (Northern Country Zone)150 and separately by several of its member councils. 151 152 The local government authorities of Wanneroo and Mandurah have suggested amendment to the legislation to enable the transfer of bushfire responsibility from local government to FESA.153 154 The Shire of Toodyay suggests the legislation compel the State to support and assist local governments unable to meet their current emergency services obligations. The Shire recommends legislating for a consultative mechanism to ensure a clear obligation by Government in this regard.155 More information on the latter is available in Chapter 6 of this Report.
Support for FESA to assume responsibility for BFBs is not unanimous. The PGA reject the proposal on the basis that it fails to recognise the work of local government and the community:
…the power to establish bushfire brigades and cancel such approvals - no, we would not support it. The local community and local government have been very much at the fore there.156
The AVBFB are similarly minded:
The AVBFB recognises and accepts that the establishment of new Bush Fire Brigades can have significant financial implications on the emergency services budget. FESA however should also continue to recognise that the Bush Fire Service is a community based volunteer service which has very strong connectivity with the community from which it operates. Local knowledge and aspirations must be balanced with financial, statutory obligations and constraints.157
The AVBFB states that FESA should be required by legislation to establish a set of criteria to assist local government with the establishment and cancellation of BFBs,158 implying that the responsibility for brigades should remain with local government. The AVBFB acknowledge that
149 Mr Robert J. Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p10. 150 Submission No 32 from Northern Country Zone of the Western Australian Local Government Association, 2005, p1. 151 Submission No 3 from Shire of Three Springs, 2005, p2. 152 Submission No 31 from Shire of Coorow, 2005, p1. 153 Submission No 23 from City of Wanneroo, 2005, p3. 154 Submission No 21 from City of Mandurah, 2005, p2. 155 Submission No 30 from Shire of Toodyay, 2005, p1. 156 Dr Henry Esbenshade, Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA, Transcript of Evidence, 10/05/2006, p3. 157 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA Incorporated, 21/06/2006, p2. 158 Ibid., p3.
- 41 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
while the FESA resource-to-risk model already provides a framework, sentiment among volunteers suggests it is not understood and its application appears variable and inconsistent.159
Committee assessment
The Committee acknowledges FESA’s assertion that although a number of local governments established an appropriate number of BFBs, in suitable locations, pertinent to the risks in the local government area, some established more BFBs than were necessary to combat the risks to the community. 160 A perusal of ESL data reveals that many local governments, for a variety of reasons, were under-resourced.
It appears therefore that prior to the introduction of the ESL there was a disproportionate and inappropriate distribution of BFBs across the State. At what level this has occurred is unclear and in the context of the Committee’s recommendations on this issue, is irrelevant. Firstly because the ESL is a finite resource and even if one additional brigade was established unnecessarily then the cost to both the community and other shires with higher levels of risk is unacceptable. Secondly the Committee does not support empowering FESA to disband any existing BFB.
On this last point, the Committee recognises the commitment that BFB members have to their local Brigade. Many of these Brigades are long-established and located in areas convenient to members. In addition, the experience and knowledge of countless BFB members is not only invaluable but, quite possibly, irreplaceable. This Inquiry respects the contribution of these volunteer members and will not support moves to provide a third party (e.g. FESA) with the power to disband any existing BFBs.
However, it is fairly clear that if FESA is to retain the power to approve and administer the funds necessary to establish BFBs, it is nonsensical for local government to be empowered to approve such establishment. In short, if the funds are not available to establish the BFB, the Brigade should not be established, despite local government approval or lack of approval.
Despite the need for a Statewide strategic approach to bushfire resource allocation, it is imperative that local knowledge, expertise and experience are not diluted or ignored in the deliberative process. In this sense, it is essential that FESA be compelled to consider local government input in relation to the establishment of BFBs and that the option for appeal to SAT be provided to a local government dissatisfied with FESA’s decision.
159 Ibid. 160 This statement excludes those Brigades established by farmers and commonly referred to as “Farmers’ Brigades.” Farmers’ Brigades are established on land owned by the farmers to protect agricultural interests in the community.
- 42 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 25
§ The power to cancel Bushfire Brigades should remain with local government.
Recommendation 26
§ The power to cancel Bushfire Brigades may be transferred from local government to FESA, but only at the local government’s request.
Recommendation 27
§ The power to approve the establishment of Bushfire Brigades should be transferred from local government to FESA.
Recommendation 28
§ Local government is required to approach FESA should it deem the establishment of a Bushfire Brigade necessary, for approval to establish that Bushfire Brigade.
Recommendation 29
§ FESA is to consult with local government where it deems the establishment of a Bushfire Brigade to be necessary. FESA should consider the local government position in detail, placing a high priority on local knowledge, expertise and experience. Where FESA disagrees with a local government’s position with regard to the establishment of a Bushfire Brigade, FESA should provide detailed reasoning, in writing, to the local government.
- 43 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 30
§ If a local government disagrees with a decision made by FESA, in relation to approving the establishment of a Bushfire Brigade, provision is to be made to enable the local government to appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal, in an attempt to have the decision reversed.
2.8 Responsibility for the operation and administration of State Emergency Service Units
The SES has operated under the umbrella of FESA since the Authority was formally established in 1999.161
FESA describes the origins of the SES as dating back to the 1950’s when as part of the civil defence infrastructure, it was established to internally prepare for and respond to what was considered an imminent threat of nuclear and other war.162 Over time the organisational structure of the SES has changed, as has the responsible authority. 163 According to FESA, in the last decade alone, the SES has operated as part of WAPOL, was then established as an independent corporate body, before becoming a division of FESA as a consequence of formation of the Authority.164 FESA is now responsible for the administration of the 71 SES Units located throughout the State.165
In line with evolving community need, the role of the SES has undergone significant change over time. The role of the SES now involves responding to a number of life-threatening emergencies, including land search, storm damage, cyclone, tsunami, cliff rescue, cave rescue, land slide and earthquake.166
According to FESA, local government traditionally supported the establishment and operation of SES Units via the provision of financial, physical and human resources.167 FESA explains:
161 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/?MenuID=216&ContentID=394 Accessed on 16/08/2006. 162 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p14. 163 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/?MenuID=216&ContentID=394 Accessed on 16/08/2006. 164 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p14. 165 Ibid. 166 Ibid. 167 Ibid.
- 44 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
…the level of support provided to a SES Unit depended upon:
§ the priority the local government placed on emergency services in the area;
§ the size and wealth of the local government;
§ the location of the local government;
§ existing emergency services resources in the local government;
§ effective long-term emergency services planning by the local government;
§ the emergency risks to the local government area (i.e. in terms of susceptibility to flood, cyclone, land slide etc.);
§ community expectation of the local government role in emergency services;
§ the availability and sustainability of SES Unit volunteer members; and
§ community contribution in terms of fundraising, donation and volunteerism.168
In 2001, the FESA Act was amended to legislate for the SES. The FESA Act:
§ establishes FESA’s functions and powers with regard to SES Units;169
§ prescribes the functions of registered SES members;170 and
§ provides registered SES members with legislative protection from liability.171
FESA has summarised its responsibilities in relation to the SES as follows:
§ the administration of the SES;
§ the legislative authority and obligation to have “general responsibility for SES Units”;
§ the legislative authority and obligation to approve the establishment of SES Units and to cancel such approval;
§ the provision of FESA employees to manage, support and administer the SES Unit and the members;
168 Ibid., p14-15. 169 Section 18A and Section 18B Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998. 170 Ibid., Section 18E. 171 Ibid., Section 37(1)(c).
- 45 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ the provision and delivery of emergency services training for SES members;
§ peer support services for SES members; and
§ the provision of policy, administration and training information.172
FESA has also advised that local government’s role in relation to the SES includes:
§ the provision of a building to house the SES Unit and SES operations (this does not apply where the SES Unit building has been replaced via the Emergency Services Levy (ESL) Grant Scheme); and
§ minimal physical, financial and human resource support, the level of which is dependent upon the specific local government.173
The ESL provides funding for capital and recurrent costs associated with the establishment and operation of an SES Unit. Local governments compile and submit SES operating and capital grants submissions to FESA for buildings, building works, vehicles and major items of equipment. The SES Capital Grant Committee assesses applications for capital items, and then approves or rejects the local government submission. The CEO of FESA approves recurrent operational funding and the SES Capital Grants Committee considers any formal appeals against the CEO's determinations.174 175
FESA cites that in recent times a number of local governments have negotiated agreements with FESA, whereby FESA works directly with the SES Unit to complete the ESL application form, in addition to performing existing roles. The local governments have little interaction with the SES Units under such circumstances.
Mr Greg McKay, Regional Director South West, explains:
At the moment we currently spend a lot of time with the [SES] units and put a lot of those programs together. That is the intent of the legislation. There are only 15 units in the south west, and we spend a lot of time with those units now in training, resourcing, talking ESL budgets and what they need to put into local government. We are doing the work now, but, as I said, that comes back to local government and whether they wish to do that. As I said before, there are four or five who will write to us and ask to take them over at the end of the financial year.176
172 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p15. 173 Ibid. 174 Ibid. 175 Email from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 03/08/2006, p1. 176 Mr Greg McKay, Regional Director South West, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p11.
- 46 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
However, these agreements are voluntary mechanisms, the terms of which vary depending on the region and local government. FESA is recommending a Statewide approach, whereby local government is legislatively removed from the ESL Grant Scheme process, in relation to SES Units. FESA’s preference is to deal directly with the SES Units and to determine the necessary capital and recurrent funding requirements in consultation with the SES Unit members.177 The basis for this request is as follows:
§ FESA holds legislative responsibility for SES Units;
§ FESA holds administrative responsibility for SES Units;
§ FESA employees provide administrative and operational support to SES Units at the local level. This includes the provision of training and incident attendance support;
§ FESA employees are experienced, qualified and knowledgeable in the roles that the SES perform, the vehicles and equipment required to perform the roles and the training needed to fulfil an SES Unit profile;
§ whilst local government once contributed significant support to SES Units, this level of support has diminished in recent years in most local government areas; and
§ given the above, FESA is more appropriately placed to assist the SES Unit members in determining the capital and recurrent funds required for the effective operations of the SES Units.178
FESA also propose that where local government owns a building that houses an SES Unit, that they be required to continue to provide that building to the Unit, free of charge, until the building is replaced via the ESL grant scheme or an alternative position is negotiated with FESA.179
FESA cites that its position on this issue has been endorsed by the FESA Board, the composition of which includes an SES Consultative Committee representative member and an SES Volunteers Association of Western Australia representative. It is also understood that prior to the commencement of this review, the SES Volunteers Association of Western Australia, the volunteer body established to support and represent the views of SES Units in Western Australia, were also provided opportunity by FESA to lodge objection to the Authority’s overall recommendations to this review. 180 It is understood that no concerns were raised by this group in relation to this proposal.181
177 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p15. 178 Ibid., p15-16. 179 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 12/10/2005, p16. 180 Email from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 09/08/2006, p1. 181 Ibid.
- 47 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Although some stakeholders submitting to the Inquiry were clearly for or against this recommendation, many were undecided, citing that such a decision was largely dependent on the relationship between the SES Unit and the respective local government.
Despite the SES Volunteers Association endorsing FESA’s proposal via the FESA Board and not lodging an independent objection, it appears to remain undecided. The comments of Mr Phillip Petersen, President of the Association, although reflective of the broader concerns of a number of stakeholders opposed to the proposal, ultimately support the maintenance of the relationship between local government and SES Units, in circumstances where a positive relationship exists:
Whether we should go directly to FESA or through local government has generated two schools of thought. One school of thought is, if there is a good relationship between the local unit and the local government, then we should maintain that because local government should be an integral part of emergency management for the area. My observations have been that some local governments would like to shirk that responsibility and have done so quite successfully in the past. From that point of view, I would prefer local government to be involved because of the wholeness of emergency response and there is a good relationship between units and local government. That could be broken down if we went holus-bolus the oth er way where FESA was to manage all the funds. By having local government as an ally of the volunteers, if there is an issue, they can use local government as an ally to discuss issues with FESA. Some volunteers feel that dealing directly only with FESA might not give them enough strength to negotiate any issues. This is where I have been accused of a bit of fence-sitting, because I also support units that do not have that relationship with local government. As I said, some of them have shirked their responsibilities, from my perspective, and either they do not understand or they do not choose to understand the process, and they are not being helpful to the operation of the local unit. Local governments should realise that the State Emergency Service is an integral part of their responsibility for emergency management, as are the other emergency services. That is why I see that that relationship should stay. However, if that relationship has broken down and is irretrievable, as it is in some cases, then the opportunity should be available to deal directly with FESA because of its understanding of and relationship with the organisation. As I said, it is a bit of fence-sitting, but there are two schools of thought… I would prefer it if we went through local government, because that is where emergency management should be, working from that level upwards. However, there tends to be a tendency in the current generation of local governments to try to avoid being involved in emergency management.182
Mr Gary Logan, District Manager, Great Southern, FESA, discusses his view on FESA working directly with an SES Unit to determine funding requirements:
In some areas where the relationship between local government and the SES units is not that strong, then that would be a good move at the end of the day because of the fact that the units themselves come not to us, but basically we are administering them anyway and we deal with them all the time, so that financial step would not be huge. From my point of view, we go out and actually deal with their units and assist them through the ESL process - and also the local governments if they need a hand. Some are really good and some do
182 Mr Phillip Petersen, President, State Emergency Service Volunteers Association, Transcript of Evidence, 10/05/2006, p2.
- 48 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
not necessarily have a full understanding of what the roles of the SES are. So from that point of vie w, having the ability for the units to apply direct to FESA and then managing the money is a better option for some of the units.183
This view is supported by Mr Stuart McIntyre, Area Manager, FESA, Esperance, who also highlights the relationship between the SES Unit and the relevant local government as being particularly important:
I think it depends on the SES unit and its administrative procedures. Some have very little involvement with local government and others have a lot…It would be one less agency involved in the process, but it does depend on the particular unit.184
Mr Craig Chadwick, Unit Manager, Morawa SES, elaborates on this quandary:
My answer to this question would have been completely different four years ago because we had a horrendous local government experience dealing with the first three years of ESL. We had a very uncooperative local government who made it very difficult for us to get any money whatsoever and we did not see a lot of change…Having spoken to a lot of units about this issue, I think you would probably get 50-50 answers. It depends on how good the relationship is between the local unit and the local government.185
Mr Ian Axell of the Bunbury SES is undecided, again because of the existence of a positive relationship with local government:
Yes it might be easier. Mind you, our shire is really good. They work well with us, but it is a sort of catch-22.186
The Karratha SES views that the completion of funding applications by local government enables the local authority to keep apprised of matters associated with the Unit:
We are an SES unit within the Shire of Roebourne. We would like to keep it on side. By keeping it as part of the ESL with us helps us, and it helps the shire because it does not feel as it is being left out. We like to keep it informed and in the loop about the funding.187
WALGA view that this process provides local government with an improved understanding of the role of the SES:
If I talk about local government and the SES, local government, because of the changes to the funding arrangements, are now more cognisant of the role of the State Emergency
183 Mr Gary Logan, District Manager, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 20/02/2006, p6. 184 Mr Stuart McIntyre, Area Manager, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Transcript of Evidence, 08/06/2006, p6. 185 Mr Craig Chadwick, Unit Manager, Morawa State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p3. 186 Mr Ian Axell, Local Manager, Bunbury State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p5. 187 Mr Terrance Swetman, Team Leader, Karratha State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p2.
- 49 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Service. With incidents such as tsunamis, acts of terrorism and those sorts of things, local governments see themselves playing a more important role within the SES .188
Mr Kevin Forbes, President, Shire of Plantagenet and President, Great Southern Zone of WALGA, views that omitting local government from the administration of funding could be detrimental because it could distance the SES from the local community:
I think, yes, SES units could probably operate direct, but is there merit in that and are they getting further away from their own communities? There are a lot of issues involved… also local government will not know what the SES unit is doing or what assets they are accumulating. Some other sources of contact will need to be developed if that happens.189
This view is shared by Mr Kenneth Pech, Councillor, Shire of Gnowangerup:
On that particular issue about whether the funding goes direct to the SES, our council in particular would have a problem with that. The strength of our SES unit is the fact that it actually works with the shire and we are aware of what they are doing. They are aware of what our thinking is and they are reasonable about their requests.190
The Shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley views that the current status quo provides the community with greater capacity to influence SES Unit funding applications:
One of the advantages of the current system is that the submission goes before the elected members of local government; therefore, the community is seen to have a much greater influence. We are very happy with the process for the ESL submissions and the liaison that occurs between local government and FESA. I do not think it is essential or necessary that FESA prepare it. There would be a real danger of the community becoming less engaged in the process. We are happy with the process as it is.191
Mr Matthew Scott, Acting CEO, Town of Port Hedland, although non-specific, views that local government has a genuine role in assisting the development and progression of the SES ESL application.192
The Shire of Cranbrook cites that although they do not have an SES Unit they are opposed to the concept of SES Units, housed by local government, continuing to be accommodated at the expense of local government, on transfer of responsibility to FESA:
FESA also makes the point that applications from SES units should go direct to FESA rather than through the local authority. This is not a situation that affects Cranbrook, but
188 Mr Bruce Wittber, Policy Manager Governance, Western Australian Local Government Association, Transcript of Evidence, 19/10/2005, p12. 189 Mr Kevin Forbes, President, Shire of Plantagenet and President, Great Southern Zone of the Western Australian Local Government Association , Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p5. 190 Mr Kenneth Pech, Councillor, Shire of Gnowangerup, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p5. 191 Mr Peter Stubbs, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p13. 192 Mr Matthew Scott, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Town of Port Hedland, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/2006, p7.
- 50 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
we are opposed to it, because we do not believe it is fair. We believe all negotiations about the use of local government property should be completed prior to the implementation of any changes. To compel local governments to provide ongoing use of local government- owned buildings free of charge may conflict with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995. Also, if agreement is not reached prior to the implementation of any changes, what would compel FESA to ever reach an agreement? It does not seem equitable to us.193
A number of local governments submitting to the Inquiry supported removing the requirement for local government to complete an ESL submission on behalf of SES Units. Reasons cited were that some local governments do not retain personnel with SES expertise and that local government costs associated with administering the ESL funding process are significant with no avenue for reimbursement.
Despite Karratha SES indicating a preference for the Shire of Roebourne to remain involved in the SES application process, the Shire itself did not view it as necessary, citing limited resources and expertise for determining Unit requirements.194 Mr Guy Thompson, Director Technical and Development Services, suggests that the Shire currently plays a minor role, does not make any assessment of SES submissions and simply passes on the paperwork from the SES Unit to FESA for assessment. Mr Thompson does however see merit in the Shire being kept informed of SES capabilities:
It would certainly be useful to stay in the loop. It is probably not critical but, given that that would only be an information flow, yes, I think that is sensible.195
Mr John Kowal, Manager Law and Safety Services, City of Bunbury, essentially views the administration of SES Units as another unfunded mandate of local government:
At the moment, I manage the local bush fire brigades and the SES. I do not know where the legislative power comes from for us to manage the SES. The biggest bugbear with managing the brigade and the SES, although not so much the brigade as we have traditionally always managed the brigade and we have the structures in place to do that, is that all of a sudden, when the management of an organisation such as the SES is thrust on you, you have to step up to the plate and say, “Well, jeez, I’ve now got to put these resources into here and do these types of things, with no compensation.” There is no compensation for the work required for administration, for the drafting and submitting of budgets, for equipment and all those types of things. It just has to be done.196
The City of Mandurah concurs with the City of Bunbury’s position:
In relation to local government responsibility for administering Emergency Services Levy funding to local State Emergency Services, this activity requires considerable local
193 Mr Graham Stanley, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Cranbrook, Transcript of Evidence, 20/02/2006, p6. 194 Mr Guy Thompson, Director, Technical and Development Services, Shire of Roebourne, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p7. 195 Ibid., p8. 196 Mr John B. Kowal, Manager Law and Safety Services, City of Bunbury, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p7.
- 51 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
government resourcing due to the current structure of local government role as a third party. Further to this, the logistics of local government financial management and accountability requirements also make it difficult to manage the issue and it is clear that the situation would be improved through FESA being directly responsible for allocating and managing ESL funding.197
Mr Simon Bowen, Manager Community Safety, Shire of Mundaring similarly believes that FESA should manage the entire process:
We sat down with FESA’s financial people and the directors and said, “Why do we go through this process for bushfire brigades and SES when in fact you are giving us the money and we are acquitting it back to you? Why doesn’t FESA manage the whole process? Why, for instance, doesn’t the community fire manager, being a FESA officer, prepare the ESL and then either he or FESA’s district office…look after the expenditure of the funds? Therefore, you can control it and manage and monitor it.”198
Whether for or against the concept of transfer of legislative responsibility for SES ESL applications, relevant stakeholders submitting to this Inquiry were steadfast about information sharing with local government on local SES matters.
Mr John Kowal, City of Bunbury again elaborates:
From a resource perspective, I believe that it is important for the local government, through LEMAC [Local Emergency Management Committee] and those types of organisations, to have an understanding and knowledge of what is in their local government area. Again, it is important that the link is maintained.199
The importance of keeping local government informed in the context of its omission from the SES ESL application process is also highlighted by Mr John McDougall of the WAFarmers:
If the local authority is taken out of it, FESA then has a credibility problem. If a government agency funds an organisation within a shire and the shire council does not know anything about it, or it finds that it is not being funded but does not know that until it goes to a local government week, it feels disfranchised. This causes the anger and resentment to build up. I can see FESA’s point of view that if it funded in that way, it could spread it out on a needs basis. Some shire councils might believe that they have a greater need than do the ones next door to them. I can see where FESA is coming from, but I do not think it is a good idea. If FESA does not keep the local authority informed, we will finish up with what is starting to build in the country now; that is, distrust… I think we need communication. If FESA deals directly with emergency services, we must at least make sure that the local authority is somehow in the loop.200
197 Submission No 21 from City of Mandurah, 2005, p3. 198 Mr Simon Bowen, Manager Community Safety, Shire of Mundaring, Transcript of Evidence, 30/08/2006, p5. 199 Mr John Kowal, Manager Law and Safety Services, City of Bunbury, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p7. 200 Mr John McDougall, General Executive Member, WA Farmers Federation, Transcript of Evidence, 03/05/2006, p9-10.
- 52 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mrs Fiona Bentley, Director Community Development, City of Wanneroo, whilst considering it more sensible for SES Units to deal directly with FESA as the funding body, is of the opinion that the Local Area Emergency Management Committee (LEMC) is an appropriate mechanism for keeping local government informed:
I do not see a problem with that because the SES, volunteers, police and the city are all involved through the local emergency management process. That seems to be a much better coordination point than through the grant funding, which is an almost artificial point of control.201
FESA also comments in relation to the latter:
If the FESA recommendation in relation to SES Units was implemented, FESA would consider the LEMCs to be the ideal forum for SES Unit activities to be discussed…However, if the CDJSC [Community Development and Justice Standing Committee] does not consider that LEMCs are an adequate forum for briefing local government on SES Unit activities, FESA is open to considering an alternate formal communications mechanism.202
Committee assessment
Although the Committee acknowledge that on the basis of evidence submitted to the Inquiry, opinion on this issue is fairly evenly divided, it is of the view that the current arrangements in relation to the ESL application process for SES Units are inappropriate and illogical. The local government requirement to complete ESL application forms on behalf of SES Units is, at best, unnecessary.
In the words of Ms Joanne Weekes, Albany SES Unit Leader:
[Local government involvement] is probably not a necessary step, but it just came with the evolution of the ESL because [local government] take care of all the local bush fire brigades. 203
The Committee therefore views that funding determination most appropriately rests with FESA. FESA holds legislative responsibility for SES Units and, as such, must have the ability to assess and determine the working requirements of these Units. FESA is the HMA for most SES emergency roles (e.g. storm, cyclone, cliff rescue) and is, therefore, responsible for ensuring that SES Units are operable and that all SES volunteers are trained and equipped in accordance with national standards.
It appears to the Committee that FESA is afforded all legislative, operational and administrative responsibility for SES Units and that local government has very little responsibility in this regard.
201 Mrs Fiona Bentley, Director Community Development, City of Wanneroo, Transcript of Evidence, 30/08/2006, p5. 202 Letter from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 29/08/2006, p7. 203 Ms Joanne Weekes, Unit Leader, Albany State Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p8.
- 53 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Contribution by some local governments in relation to SES Units is minimal, with assistance provided voluntarily at each local government’s discretion. Many local governments, particularly in regional and remote areas of the State, simply lack the necessary human resources, SES expertise and supplementary funding to offer significant support to SES Units. It is logical, reasonable and appropriate, therefore, for FESA to work directly with SES Units to determine capital and recurrent funding.
As to the issue of the local government providing accommodation at no cost to the SES Unit pending the provision of accommodation through the ESL, the Committee is of the opinion that this should be a priority of FESA.
The Committee is mindful of preserving the link between the SES and local government and in this regard is of the opinion that local government should be kept aware of SES capabilities via an appropriate reporting mechanism. Local government is required to establish one or more LEMCs for the local government district,204 membership of which includes local government and SES representatives.205 One of the key functions of the LEMC is to advise and assist the local government in ensuring that local emergency management arrangements are established for its district.206 Given this role, the Committee is of the opinion that the existing framework of LEMCs are sufficient for information exchange between the SES and the relevant local government authority, provided this exchange occurs with sufficient regularity to ensure currency of information. 2.9 Management of State Emergency Service Units
In a separate but related matter, a number of SES Units either in evidence or informally, via briefings, expressed concern about management of SES Unit personnel by what they perceived to be non-SES staff, generally fire officers. The core concern is perhaps best exemplified by Mr Keith Rowe, Local Manager, SES, Ravensthorpe. Although extremely complimentary about the work being undertaken by the designated FESA officer in the region, he cites:
…we have enough trouble training our own unit members without training fire brigade people who are trying to be our managers. It is a crazy situation. I am sure this is not only Ravensthorpe. To get down to the nitty -gritty, this is happening all over the south of the state. I do not know about the northern part of the state. There are more and more fire- trained people trying to run SES units, and they just do not have the expertise to do it. Sure, they can learn, but who is teaching them?207
204 Section 38(1) Emergency Management Act 2005. 205 State Emergency Management Committee, Policy Statement No. 7, The Government of Western Australia, Perth, Revised 2005, Annex E. 206 Section 39(a) Emergency Management Act 2005. 207 Mr Keith Rowe, Local Manager, State Emergency Service, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p23.
- 54 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr Craig Chadwick, Unit Manager of the Morawa SES is similarly complimentary about the designated FESA officer for the local area but questions the level of search expertise available and suggests that ultimately:
SES personnel should be directing SES personnel what to do; fire brigade directing fire brigade; volunteer marine rescue directing volunteer marine rescue. The volunteers and the staff see that as important.208
Mr Peter Angel, Local Manager, Port Hedland SES, conveyed broader concerns about the management of different emergency divisions by those who lacked the relevant experience, leading to what he perceived to be an erosion of the quality of service being delivered to communities:
In particular situations frequently arise where people in senior positions have little to no background experience and are not willing to even liaise with the appropriate people who do have the experience, in making decisions that impact on whole communities.209 Concern was also raised about an increased number of positions in FESA being filled by career firefighters, resulting in a diminished link with SES volunteers.210 Mr Terrance Swetman, Karratha SES, explains: ...we want to talk to a State Emergency Service person who knows and understands us, particularly as a volunteer; that is, someone who has come through the ranks, so to speak, and understands our language or how we talk. I would like to see that happen. It used to happen in the past. It now seems to have gone.211
Recommendation 31
§ The obligation for local government to complete and submit ESL Grant Scheme applications, on behalf of SES Units, is to be removed.
Recommendation 32
§ FESA, in consultation with the SES Units, is to determine the capital and recurrent costs required for the effective operations of the SES Units and to fund these requirements via ESL funding.
208 Mr Craig Chadwick, Unit Manager, Morawa State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p6-7. 209 Letter from Mr Peter Angel, Local Manager, Hedland State Emergency Service, 10/08/2006, p1-2. 210 Mr Terrance Swetman, Team Leader, Karratha State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p3-4. 211 Ibid., p7-8.
- 55 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 33
§ FESA is to prioritise replacement of SES accommodation under the Emergency Services Levy.
Recommendation 34 § FESA is to ensure that local government is kept apprised, via a formal consultative mechanism, of matters associated with local State Emergency Service Units.
Recommendation 35
§ FESA is to ensure adequate training for management personnel pertinent to the emergency services units they are managing.
- 56 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
CHAPTER 3 THE MEANS BY WHICH LEGISLATION PUTS IN PLACE APPROPRIATE RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ON LAND OWNED/MANAGED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OR BY STATE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES
3.1 The power to request land owners, land occupiers or land managers to develop fire management plans
FESA requests the power to compel the development of fire management plans
The Committee views that it is appropriate to preface this section with comment that several submissions or correspondence were received through the course of the Inquiry from FESA in regard to the issue of fire management plans. The Committee understands from dialogue with the Authority that changes in approach were the result of additional discussion with stakeholders, particularly local government authorities.
In summary, FESA’s primary submission dated 12 October 2005 recommends that FESA be empowered to request the development of fire management plans, provides context for the latter and outlines their initial proposed limitations in regard to that power.
FESA details information outlined at Section 2.2 of this Report in relation to local governments’ power to issue and enforce the implementation of fire-break notices under the Bush Fires Act, except on Crown land. 212 213 FESA reiterates the fact that this has caused frustration for some members of the public given the requirement for them to implement fire-breaks when State owned land in a similar location is not subject to the same fire control measures.214
FESA notes that it originally intended, prior to the lodgement of its submission, to recommend that local government be empowered and required to issue fire-break notices to all land owners or land managers, regardless of land tenure. They note that they changed this position given concerns raised by some local governments with regard to the financial and practical implications of installing fire-beaks on:
§ land that covers an extraordinarily large amount of area, such as the vast properties located in the Pilbara and Kimberley Regions; or
§ land that is difficult to access with large machinery.215
212 Section 33 Bush Fires Act 1954. 213 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p16. 214 Ibid., p17. 215 Ibid.
- 57 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
FESA details that whilst they acknowledge the difficulties inherent in installing fire-breaks on such land, they view it as essential that all land in the State be subject to appropriate emergency risk assessment and mitigation measures. FESA therefore proposed that it be granted the power to require land owners or land managers to develop a fire management plan in circumstances when a plan is deemed necessary because:
§ it is financially or practically inappropriate to install a fire-break on the land and a fire management plan will assist in mitigating the impact of a fire; or
§ FESA considers that the land in question is of a high risk and a fire management plan will assist in mitigating the impact of a fire.216
A fire management plan is a strategic risk management tool for the purpose of mitigating the impact of fire. Basic content generally comprises the identification of local assets, the identification and evaluation of fire risks and the identification (and often scheduling) of strategies and/or actions for mitigating fire over the lifetime of the plan. 217
In line with the above, FESA proposes that:
§ it be granted the power to exempt land owners or land managers from the obligation to install a fire-break on land provided the land owner or land developer has a fire management plan approved by the Authority;
§ it have the power to request the development of such plans if the land owner or land manager does not wish to install fire-breaks on the land;
§ that the plan be based on the present land use and submitted to FESA for approval;
§ that the land owner or developer be required to submit a new or amended plan to FESA in the event of change to land use or tenure;
§ that FESA be required to gazette approved fire management plans;
§ that the land owner or land manager be granted the right of appeal to the SAT if dissatisfied with a decision related to a fire management plan; and
§ that this request apply to all land, regardless of tenure.218
216 Ibid. 217 New South Wales Rural Fire Service, Available at: www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/file_system/attachments/State/Attachment_20051115_C86D1C7E.pdf Accessed on 21/06/2006; Australian Capital Territory Emergency Services Authority, Available at: www.esa.act.gov.au/Fire_Safety/SBMP/Version-1/contents.html Accessed on 23/06/2006; State Fire Management Council of Tasmania, Available at: www.sfmc.tas.gov.au Accessed on 26/06/2006; Department of Natural Resources and Mines Queensland, Available at: www.nrm.qld.gov.au/land/state/pdf/fire_management_guide.pdf Accessed on 27/06/2006. 218 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p16.
- 58 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The Committee received a secondary submission from FESA dated 23 November 2005 in which FESA cites that many local governments have allowed land owners or occupiers to implement, with the local authority’s permission, alternative solutions to meet mitigation requirements in line with provisions of the current legislation allowing for hazard reduction. FESA details however that despite the latter, some local governments still struggle to determine and implement such arrangements on larger tracts of land with specific risks, for instance pastoral leases and plantations.219
FESA also detail that the situation will be exacerbated if the Authority’s proposal that the legislation binds the Crown is implemented, particularly for those local governments that lack expertise or resources to manage these matters. Further, FESA views that it would create disparity in approach by different local governments. The Authority therefore cites that to ensure “an appropriate, consistent and equitable” approach across the State it is necessary that the roles of local government and FESA be clearly defined.
In this secondary submission, FESA limits the application of the power to request the development of fire management plans to “prescribed areas or categories of land or land usage or land ownership/occupancy/management.” They elaborate that these prescribed land types would include Crown land, pastoral leases and plantations.220 It was FESA’s intention that this also apply to land used for grazier purposes.221 FESA detailed that the criteria for determining whether a plan was necessary would still relate to the cost and practicality of installing fire-breaks on the land, whether the land is deemed to be of high risk, and ultimately, whether a fire management plan would mitigate the impact of a fire in these circumstances.
FESA provided additional information in this submission in relation to planning and risk assessment processes for the preparation of fire management plans. This is discussed later in this section. 222
On request for further clarification by the Committee, FESA has confirmed that it is their intention under their proposal that local government retain the current legislative fire-break notice powers however, that these powers not apply to the prescribed categories of land detailed above.223
It should be noted that the Committee principally queried stakeholders on the proposals as outlined in FESA’s primary and secondary submissions.
Mr Bob Mitchell, then CEO, FESA, discussed the requirement for fire management planning at hearing, with reference to the township of Newdegate and the Shire of Ravensthorpe:
219 Submission No 16.1 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p1-2. 220 Ibid., p2. 221 Email from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 04/09/2006, p1. 222 Submission No 16.1 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p1-2. 223 Email from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 04/09/2006, p1-2.
- 59 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
…there is an obligation for the farmer to do the right thing, but there is still no obligation for the Government to do the right thing. I think it is just a matter of equity that it is applied. We need to apply fire management plans in a sensible way. We need a really sound fire management plan in place for when properties and people’s livelihoods are at risk. If you are running in that national park that backs onto all those farms on the Ravensthorpe strip, there needs to be a sensible fire management plan, and a strict one… In the high-risk areas you do need a really sound fire management plan, but the further you go away the risk is lower, and obviously the amount of effort that needs to go into a fire management plan is less.224
FESA have also indicated that fire protection should be recognised in the early stages of development of plantations in order to reduce future risks and costly fire protection measures. FESA has developed Guidelines for Plantation Fire Protection in consultation with relevant Government agencies, local government and peak bodies representing plantation growers.225 The guidelines are currently tailored to the South West, and more specifically pine plantations, but are being reviewed for the purposes of wider application. Although some local governments have readily adopted these guidelines in land use planning, compliance with the latter is not compulsory and it is understood that their application has therefore not been consistent.226 FESA view that given the relative simplicity of the guidelines they would not pose a significant burden on plantation owners. They believe compliance with the guidelines should be mandatory. 227
The local government perspective
A number of local governments have independently called for legislative provision to compel the development and implementation of fire management strategies and/or plans. In its submission to the Inquiry, the City of Bunbury discusses the need for all governments to have risk management strategies in place:
…[the current emergency services legislation] does not instigate or promote risk management strategies to be in pla ce. This is seen as an anomaly as large tracts of reserve land vested in State and local governments are not compelled by legislation to develop comprehensive risk mitigation plans to ensure the overall protection of the community and environment from large scale fire.
Legislation should be enacted to ensure governments take on responsibilities and are compelled to best practise risk management strategies. The current ad hoc arrangements are simply not conducive for the protection of our communities.228
224 Mr Robert J. Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p5. 225 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Guidelines for Plantation Fire Protection, 2nd edition, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Perth, 2001, p2. 226 Informal briefing with Mr Craig Hynes, Director Country Operations and Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 13/04/2006. 227 Mr Craig Hynes, Director Country Operations, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence,09/11/2006, p3-4. 228 Submission No 25 from City of Bunbury, 2005, p1-2.
- 60 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr John Kowal, Manager Law and Safety Services, City of Bunbury and Captain, Bunbury VFRS reinforced this view at hearing, particularly with respect to Crown land being bound by the same fire prevention measures as other landholders, and indicated that the City of Bunbury is already working with FESA to develop fire management plans for reserves.229
The Shire of Toodyay similarly advocates the need for the emergency services legislation to compel the development of risk management strategies, particularly in terms of Crown land:
Current legislation is not effective in requiring risk management strategies on land owned/managed by government agencies. In most cases a generic plan is formulated with minimal consultation with stakeholders.
The focus is too much from the view of the agency concerned. Broader consultation and a wider scope are required to compile risk management strategies that protect the community as a whole.230
The township of Manjimup is the regional centre for the largest shire in the South West of Western Australia. Over eighty percent of the Shire is comprised of National Parks and forestry. Mr Vernon McKay, CEO, Shire of Manjimup, was asked for his view on FESA’s recommendation in relation to fire management plans:
I would support the requirement to have in place fire management plans - the more of them the better. If the council is approving a major development from a town planning aspect, the council in many cases requires a fire management plan, particularly if remnant bushland is involved. I do not see that as being an issue.231
Mr Rod Daw, Chief Bushfire Control Officer, Shire of Ravensthorpe, states the following in relation to fire management plans:
Of course there should be fire management plans. I very strongly believe, as I have said at state consultative committee meetings and at DOACs and wherever else, every piece of bush in Western Australia should have a management plan. Those management plans should have a name and a number and they should be visited at least every 10 years to see what the build -up of fuel is, whether it is being properly managed and so on. If that were in place, many of these wild fires would be done away with. 232
Mr Daw likewise espouses that a level of cooperation and input in fire management planning is required from various fire management organisations and that such cooperation should occur Statewide.233
229 Mr John Kowal, Manager Law and Safety Services, City of Bunbury, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p5. 230 Submission No 30 from Shire of Toodyay, 2005, p2. 231 Mr Vernon L. McKay, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Manjimup, Transcript of Evidence, 22/02/2006, p8. 232 Mr Rod Daw, Chief Fire Control Officer, Shire of Ravensthorpe, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p12-13. 233 Ibid., p13.
- 61 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr Peter Stubbs, Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, comments on the utility of fire management plans for pastoralists managing vast tracts of land with high fuel loads:
I think that fire management plans for pastoralists, as I said before, are a very useful tool, and a good idea for pastoralists managing vast tracts of land often with high fuel loads. particularly, I think, since there is much better management of animals and stock and therefore there is more vegetation covered than there was, say, in the 1970s. The amount of fuel load has probably increased, so we are more predisposed to fire because of that. We have some concerns about firebreaks - the adequacy of them and the techniques used to create them. Graders, in particular, bare the ground and expose it to erosion. We are seeing evidence of quite a bit of erosion. That is causing a lot of other impacts - silting of drains and flooding, and things lik e that.234
Mr Guy Thompson, Director Technical and Development Services, Shire of Roebourne supports fire management planning, and considers that the pastoral stations in the region would be capable of producing and maintaining plans.235 Mr Thompson prefers the notion of voluntary plans although concedes that there are those who may not participate in which case a legislative requirement for plans might be a suitable fallback position. 236
A Statewide requirement for fire management plans is supported by Mr Peter Wilden, Coordinator Ranger Services of the Town of Port Hedland:
In order to suppress a fire, it has to be able to be managed. If it cannot be managed, it cannot be suppressed. It is very, very important that whether it be pastoral leases, stations, whatever the case may be, they should have a plan in place which should be ongoing. It should be a live document.237
The Shire of Derby West Kimberley supports greater inter-agency cooperation (between local government FESA and CALM) with respect to fire management planning, for example, in determining the location of strategic breaks.238
The Shire of Kojonup however maintains that the Bush Fires Act adequately provides for local governments to implement appropriate risk management strategies on land under local government control:
The ability to review and modify fire-break orders and local laws are examples of essential requirements to ensure that these risk management strategies can adapt to changing local conditions, including seasonal variations and previously identified risks. We are concerned at the possibility of centralised control or standardisation of risk management
234 Mr Peter Stubbs, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p4. 235 Mr Guy Thompson, Director, Technical and Development Services, Shire of Roebourne, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p4. 236 Ibid., p5. 237 Mr Peter Wilden, Coordinator, Ranger Services, Town of Port Hedland, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/2006, p3. 238 Mr Steven Martin, Chief Bush Fire Control Officer, Shire of Derby West Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 07/07/2006, p6.
- 62 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
strategies, including fire-break orders, and believe this would seriously limit the ability to manage risk at a local level.239
The Shire of Cranbrook essentially supports the Shire of Kojonup’s position however iterates that removal of the responsibility from local government for the management of fire-breaks and the ability to grant exemptions would also seriously undermine the local government’s authority.240
The Shire of Northam similarly considers existing provisions under the Bush Fires Act to be adequate and is wary of FESA being empowered to exempt land owners or land managers from installing fire-breaks:
The Shire of Northam maintains the installation of physical firebreaks is essential for the prevention of the spread of fire. Firebreaks are often the only last chance for firefighters to protect life and property in their efforts to control and contain a runaway wildfire. Fire Management plans no matter how good will never replace the effectiveness of physical installed firebreak in the reality of fighting a fire on the fire ground.241
Department of Conservation and Land Management perspective
It is CALM’s view that fire management plans are an essential fire mitigation tool. The agency is not opposed to the development of such plans, however, argues against empowering FESA with final veto:
…It is our view that CALM has the expertise and experience to make the necessary decisions on fire management plans and fire mitigation measures in respect of land it manages. If FESA is the decision maker, CALM could be required to implement excessively onerous works to comply with FESA’s requirements, where these may not represent best value for money.242
Management plans are currently prepared for all vested land as required by the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 (CALM Act). For terrestrial conservation areas such as national parks, conservation parks, nature reserves, state forests and timber reserves, management plans must be prepared by the Conservation Commission of Western Australia through the agency of CALM.243 The CALM Act states that a management plan shall contain “a statement of the policies or guidelines proposed to be followed and a summary of the operations proposed to be undertaken”.244 This encompasses fire management and while there is no legal requirement for a management plan to have a fire management component, unless it does so, no fire management can occur. Each region of the state has a regional plan, which addresses fire management in a
239 Submission No 41 from Shire of Kojonup, 2005, p2. 240 Mr Graham Stanley, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Cranbrook, Transcript of Evidence, 20/02/2006, p6. 241 Submission No 39 from Shire of Northam, 2005, p9. 242 Letter from Keiran McNamara, Executive Director, Department of Conservation and Land Management, 30/01/2006, p2. 243 Section 54 Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. 244 Ibid., Section 55(1).
- 63 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
general sense whereas many parks and reserves within regions have individual area management plans, which provide managers with guidance on fire management in the context of required outcomes for the area.245 More detailed fire management planning is contained within rolling 3- year indicative prescribed burning plans, prepared in accordance with CALM Policy Statement No. 19 ‘Fire Management Policy’ (2005). CALM has a number of indicative prescribed burning plans in relation to south west regions whereas other regions produce an annual prescribed fire plan only. This is because climate and the occurrence of wildfires that are extensive and not actively suppressed (in the Pilbara, Kimberley and Goldfields in particular) make longer term planning difficult.246
Even where an area is not covered by a management plan per se, CALM has methods in place for ensuring that fire management is addressed. According to Mr Kelly Gillen, Regional Manager, CALM, Midwest Region:
If we do not have a management plan, we can use a provision of the [CALM] act that enables us to prepare what we call interim management guidelines. It is a lighter form of plan, if you like. Those guidelines provide guidance and a framework to undertake fire management and fire suppression on lands. When we do not have that in place, we actually have a mechanism that we work through called a necessary operations checklist. That enables us to do work on reserves when we do not have a management plan. The act requires us to have a management plan. However, we have the capacity to work through the necessary operations process, which then becomes a default management plan. In those instances we have prescribed actions for fire suppression and fire management operations.247
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between CALM and DPI transferred management responsibility for non-townsite Unallocated Crown Land (UCL) and Unmanaged Reserves (UMR) to CALM in July 2003. CALM is responsible for fire preparedness and must ensure fire prevention works are prioritised to cater for the protection needs of neighbours and local communities, and integrate the management of UCL and UMR with the management of other neighbouring Crown and freehold lands.248
Mr John Watson, Manager, CALM, South Coast Region, discusses both the legislative requirement for CALM to develop management plans for national parks and reserves and the expertise held by the agency in regard to development of the latter:
Certainly, the CALM Act requires CALM to ensure that management plans are written for all national parks and nature reserves. They are written in a transparent, public input manner, and they are statutory documents under the CALM Act. They address all the issues relating to the land in question, and the requirements of the CALM Act and Wildlife
245 Mr Denam Bennetts (CALM), 2006, pers. comm., 26 June. 246 Ibid. 247 Mr Kelly Gillen, Regional Manager, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p5. 248 Mr Denam Bennetts (CALM), 2006, pers. comm., 26 June.
- 64 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Conservation Act. Clearly, part of that is neighbour interaction; obviously, because any management plan that is written for a particular area really has to look outside that area to set the context. In terms of another organisation writing management plans determining how fire will or will not be used, I do not see that anyone would have the range of expertise required to address recreational matters, and landscape and particularly biodiversity issues.249 Mr Gregory Broomhall, Regional Fire Coordinator, South Coast Region, CALM, concurs: A fire management plan, particularly for areas of our state, is not a simple issue. As John indicated, a raft of values and inputs need to be considered. It is not what some people may view as a simple matter of putting some strategies in place to protect the risk to life and property. Obviously, they are the key values that we are looking at protecting, but there are other values associated with that as well. When we look at developing or implementing some form of fire management plan, and we have a number of those in place across this region already, we look at a whole raft of issues before we consider what sort of action will be taken. In some areas that may be going down the pathway of the use of fire in fuel reduction burning or something else; or, it may be one of not using fire, but of using other mitigation techniques, such as strategic slashing, firebreak development and all those other access developments and the rest of it. A fire management plan does not necessarily mean only the use of fire; a whole raft of other options are part of a fire management plan.250
Mr Klaus Tiedemann, District Manager and Mr Gavin Wornes, Fire Coordinator, CALM, Esperance District Office, implied that greater levels of fire prevention planning were required in the region particularly given CALM’s recent assumption of responsibility for fire prevention planning on UCL, comprising approximately 6 million hectares. They commented that CALM Fire Management Services Branch had recently been examining larger scale fire planning issues. Indicative of the level of cooperation evident to the Committee in the Esperance/Ravensthorpe Shires, Mr Wornes detailed that he sees planning as a group approach, incorporating local government and FESA.251
Mr Peter Keppel, Manager, CALM, Warren Region, stated that he was a “great supporter” of fire management plans, citing that public involvement in the development of the latter was vital.252
Mr Kevin White, Regional Fire Coordinator, CALM, Kimberley region, supports fire management planning. 253 He views that fire management plans are dynamic documents, should not be lodged
249 Mr John R. Watson, Regional Manager, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p9. 250 Mr Gregory G. Broomhall, Regional Fire Coordinator, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p9. 251 Mr Klaus Tiedemann, District Manager and Mr Gavin Wornes, Fire Coordinator, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p.6. 252 Mr Peter Keppel, Regional Manager, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 22/02/2006, p5. 253 Mr Kevin White, Regional Fire Coordinator, Kimberley, Department of Environment and Conservation, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p5.
- 65 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
with an agency and that land owners/land managers should not be concerned about liability for failing to strictly comply with such plans:
It has to be dynamic, because there are so many seasonal variables. We may get an unplanned wildfire, or whatever. There are a lot of places that I have prescribed and predicted to neighbours that I am going to burn, but because of events that have happened before we get to do that, such as it has been burnt by a wildfire, or we have not had rain, or other issues, we have had to change our mind. There are two elements. Firstly, there is a fear that if it is documented, someone is going to hold it up as something they have to do. That does not necessarily need to be the case. I do not believe the document should have to be lodged with anyone. It should remain their property…they should be able to say last year this is what we did, and this year this is where we are thinking we will go - indicative.254
There appears to be varying opinion within CALM as to whether fire management planning should be provided for in legislation as opposed to policy. In CALM’s submission to the Inquiry, it considers that the new legislation should:
…make provision for the preparation of “fire prevention” and “fire response plans” by all local authorities and land management agencies.255
Mr Robert Chandler, Regional Manager, CALM, South West Region, views that it sits appropriately within a policy framework:
I do not think there is any question that HMAs must have fire management plans, and they must meet acceptable standards that the government and the state set. I think that is currently the case with CALM. As I said before, personally, I think it could be made to work at a policy level, as it does now, and I think if we implement the existing processes, SEMC 7 and Westplan-Bushfire, it enshrines the sorts of standards and state -of-the-art wisdom nationally that you need. I agree that an organisation like CALM needs to have all those things in place... All I can say is that if it is run presently through those policy instruments or guidelines, it works on a daily and weekly basis. It worked this week.256
An explanatory note is required here. The State Emergency Management Policies prepared under the new Emergency Management Act 2005 (Emergency Management Act) will eventually supersede the pre-Act policy statements, among them SEMC Policy Statement No. 7, however this will only take effect after any newly prepared policies have been approved by the SEMC.257 In the interim until pre-Act policy statements have been reviewed by the SEMC, existing arrangements such as those within Policy Statement No. 7 stand. Further, Section 18 of the Emergency Management Act provides for the preparation of State Emergency Management Plans. While Westplan Bushfire 2005 predates the Emergency Management Act, in accordance with that
254 Ibid. 255 Submission No 27 from Department of Conservation and Land Management, 17/10/2005, p3. 256 Mr Robert J. Chandler, Regional Manager, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p6. 257 Section 17 Emergency Management Act 2005.
- 66 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Act it is consistent with State Emergency Management Policies (namely SEMC Policy Statement No. 7), and has been approved by the SEMC and is therefore current.
The view of other organisations
The UFU is supportive of FESA’s recommendation in relation to the development of fire management plans:
The UFU supports the Authority’s Recommendation 7 for the introduction and development of appropriate emergency management plans as a preventative measure on land owned or managed by local governments or by State government departments or agencies.258
The AVBFB represents approximately 30,000 volunteer BFB members, comprising a significant proportion of the State’s emergency service contingent. The Association supports the concept of fire management plans in addition to binding the Crown, viewing that the absence of related provisions in legislation causes concern and frustration for volunteer bushfire fighters. They note that endorsement of plans should be undertaken by local government and that an independent regulator should be established as an alternative to the SAT, for appeals. They believe that the latter would have the “technical knowledge and expertise to adjudicate and rule on a particular fire related safety issue”.259
WAFarmers, the State’s largest agricultural lobby group, represents a range of agricultural members, including wool producers, grain growers, meat producers, horticulturalists, pastoralists, dairy farmers and beekeepers. The organisation supports the need for legislation compelling the development of fire management plans, however, specifically request that FESA consult the organisation prior to the introduction of such plans:260
I guess as far as drawing up fire management plans is concerned, if there is a template for fire management plans, that template should be drawn up with some consultation with farmers groups. Therefore, there will not be restrictions in those fire management plans that do not apply to the circumstances.261
The Bushfire Front view fire management plans to be critical, believing that everyone who owns fuel should be required to undertake the latter. They cite however that the local government authority should be responsible for taking the initiative to establish a process that draws together the necessary expertise for the development of those plans.262
258 Submission No 17 from United Firefighters Union of Australia - West Australian Branch, 2005, p2-3. 259 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA Incorporated, 21/06/2006, p4. 260 Submission No 20 from Western Australian Farmers Federation (Inc), 2005, p4. 261 Mr Julian Breheny, Grains Executive Officer, WA Farmers Federation, Transcript of Evidence, 03/05/2006, p9. 262 Mr Roger Underwood, Chairman, Bushfire Front, Transcript of Evidence, 23/11/2005, p4.
- 67 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Ms Lynette Craig, Councillor and pastoralist, Shire of Halls Creek, suggests that pastoralists are aware of fire risk and already undertake their own fire management, such as installing fire-breaks on their properties.263 According to Ms Craig, pastoralists would object to having to submit a plan, particularly if the directive came from Perth, given the adequacy of both existing planning processes and local expertise.264
The PGA consider the current legislative requirements in relation to the fire-break orders on pastoral stations to be impractical, however do not support legislative prescription for fire management plans. They recommend instead that these be developed by pastoralists and graziers on a voluntary basis, as it currently occurs at some level, in cooperation with FESA:265
Fire Management Planning, like any form of planning, will only be successful if the landholders themselves are driving the planning process. Once landholders feel like they are being directed into a government moulded planning exercise, they will resist, regardless of whether or not the program has an element of compulsion.266
The PGA also express concern that “compulsory” or “mandatory” fire management plans would result in increased litigation were land owners to fail to meet the requirements of that plan. They view that the development of codes of practice in relation to fire management planning by pastoralists and pastoral neighbours, including Government agencies, would be appropriate.
They are also of the opinion that an increase in subsidies for FESA’s Aerial Controlled Burning (ACB) Program would enable greater access by pastoralists, keen to embrace fire management planning into their operations. They believe that FESA could take a more strategic role in consultation with landholders in ensuring that individual efforts in fire use planning are part of a wider coordinated effort.267
The North Kimberley Land Conservation District Committee (NK LCDC) is of the opinion that existing prevention measures do not appear coordinated or adequate.268 They cite ACB as an example, the problem being the short time periods during which the firebombing plane is available, coupled with inefficient ignition and burning of vegetation, lack of coordinated ground support activities to ensure burns join up, and difficulty planning ahead for when the plane is available, resulting in ineffective fire-breaks.269 Whilst endorsing the concept of a coordinated approach to fire management, the NK LCDC did not support prescriptive fire management plans per se. Ms Anne Koeyers, Chairperson, NK LCDC implies that such plans are unworkable in the Kimberley given seasonal variations:
263 Ms Lynette Craig, Councillor, Shire of Halls Creek, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p5. 264 Ibid. 265 Mrs Ruth Webb-Smith, Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA, Transcript of Evidence, 10/05/2006, p11. 266 Submission No 37 from Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA, 2005, p3-4. 267 Ibid. 268 Submission No 36 from North Kimberley Land Conservation District Committee, 2005, p3. 269 Ibid., p4.
- 68 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
We have to burn. We have to burn for several reasons, and the plan is often formulated as you go along. That is the problem. The plan has now changed. The plan has changed this week because it did not work. It was not our fault that it did not work; it did not work because it is too wet and because there is not enough dead litter to carry the fire. What scares me about having a concrete plan is the lack of flexibility. If we are going to have any form of planning out there, it has to be on the understanding that the plan may have to change, depending on the conditions and the amount of grass available, and whether it will or will not burn.270
Ms Koeyers is likewise concerned about the implications of not being able to meet the requirements of a submitted plan:
If we fill in a line here, a line there and say this is our plan and put our plan in, and it does not happen th e way it should, what is going to happen then? Is everybody going to be jumping up and down and saying, ‘Oh, you didn’t follow the plan’?271
FESA do not support the concept of voluntary fire management planning. Although the following comments pertain to pastoral stations, they are more broadly applied:
I respectfully understand the pastoralists’ position. They have made comments to us that they are too busy running the stations to participate in fire management planning. One of the key issues here is the total cost of fire. From the PGA’s, or the pastoralists’, point of view, fire in these regions is part of their business; it is a part of their landholdings. However, we must consider the total cost of fire. We respond for a week or two with 20 or 30 volunteers. Those volunteers give up their work to aid and assist the protection of our assets, biodiversity and the pastoral sector. When you add up all the elements of how much support they get, I do not think it is a very big impost on the pastoralists. However, as I have said, the strategy for the pastoralists is for FESA to assist them to do it… From FESA’s point of view, if fire management plans were successfully introduced, we would be there to help them through the issues and to work with them. It has to be a cooperative approach. A piece of paper containing a pile of information will be worthless unless we have buy-in from the pastoralists and they feel a part of it and can see the benefit of preventing the huge amount of fire that spreads through the Pilbara and Kimberley regions in particular.272
Integrated Tree Cropping (ITC) is one of Australia’s largest hardwood plantation managers with more than 140,000 hectares under management across mainland states.273 Following a commendation from the Shire of Esperance in relation to ITC’s fire management planning, the Committee was briefed by the company’s Fire Control Manager, Mr Gordon Robson. 274 Mr
270 Ms Anne Koeyers, Chairperson, North Kimberley Land Conservation District Committee, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p7. 271 Ibid. 272 Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p7. 273 Integrated Tree Cropping. Available at: http://www.treecrop.com.au/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=784 Accessed on 21/06/2006. 274 Mr Gordon Robson, Fire Control Manager, Integrated Tree Cropping, Briefing, 08/06/2006.
- 69 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Robson viewed that fire management plans for plantations should be a standard requirement across the State and that the Guidelines for Plantation Fire Protection, developed by FESA, should be observed by Councils. Further, he implied that good fire planning has positive ramifications with respect to insurance premiums. The company has opted for a comprehensive fire suppression and management system for the purpose of protection of assets, in the interests of good neighbourly relations and community participation, and to ensure the safety of staff through the provision of adequate equipment and training. Individual plantation fire management plans are supported by broader policy documents and other measures. These include the company’s fire policy, fire strategy, Fire Response Manual, training for staff, Fuel Hazard Reduction Guideline, property management plans and an annual fire-break audit, fire-break maintenance and hazard reduction programs.275 The fire management plans are produced prior to planting and seek the input of the Shire and in turn, the general public.
Mr Lincoln Heading, in addition to his role as Manager, Kununurra SES, manages a sandalwood plantation in the Kimberley. He detailed that a formal fire management plan had been completed for that plantation, however noted that plans naturally vary according to the tree crop.276 Mr Heading indicated that the plan for the Sandalwood plantation accommodates irrigation channels and access infrastructure,277 implying that fire management plans need to be sufficiently flexible to account for local conditions.
This view was shared by FESA in the Kimberley, which acknowledged the need for flexibility in planning, while still maintaining some level of uniformity of approach:
We want the plantations to be protected in a uniform way that applies across the state, bearing in mind that the plantations in the south are a lot different from the plantations up north, such as the plantations at Packsaddle. There is a lot of water around those plantations and they are well protected and have good plans. It is a matter of taking the best of both worlds and making sure we have standards…The plans and the standards must be flexible to ensure the safety of those products and the environment, which is what we are trying to achieve.278
Dr Roy Green, Chair, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Committee for the Review into Fire in the Kimberley and Inland Regions of Western Australia, made the following comment in response to Committee questioning about a requirement for fire management plans: To make a general comment in response, the committee found that fire management planning was very spasmodic. It was not done in any consistent or coherent basis across the whole region. The concern we have is that doing it at a pastoral base or even a regional base is not sufficient. It really needs to be done in a comprehensive way, almost like a pyramid where you have a build-up from the bottom end, the pastoralists’ end, and
275 Integrated Tree Cropping, Fire Response Manual 2005/2006 Western Australia, Integrated Tree Cropping, 01/12/2005, p3. 276 Mr Lincoln Heading, Manager, Kununurra State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p7. 277 Ibid. 278 Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director, Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p8.
- 70 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
you build that into a regional plan that is therefore coherent and consistent and can be managed by an authority across the whole thing. The view we have at the moment is that that is not actually occurring.279 Dr Green indicated that because FESA’s principal focus is on the protection of “property and assets generally” and not biodiversity or environmental issues, it is important in fire management planning that CALM be included as an equal partner. This did not negate the input of pastoralists in the development of their own plans.280
Mr Peter Cann, Director Country North, FESA agrees that CALM is an important stakeholder in the Kimberley region and should have input into fire management planning with respect to the sharing of biodiversity information. A process to make this happen is already underway although Mr Cann believes that biodiversity issues should extend further than CALM:
…we have recently written to CALM seeking cooperation from CALM to, through a formal MOU, share this biodiversity information. We think that will become a key for us. The second way will be through the shared land information platform. This information will be recorded and be available for fire managers per se in the region. Thirdly, it must be clear that the environment and the biodiversity issues are large enough for all agencies to actively participate in their solution. We need the willingness to share the information we get through research and to implement it into fire management practices once we move on to those.281
As discussed at Section 2.2 of this Report, the CCWA and the EDO in their joint submission expressed concern regarding the absence of an explicit provision for fire management or risk management across Crown land. They believed that the prevalence of fires starting on Crown land meant the issue needed to be given due attention. 282
The CCWA and EDO endorsed the concept of fire management plans, however, recommended the following:
…There ought to be a provision in the main fire management statute that requires those making fire management plans (at every level of government including local government) to do so in a particular manner, namely in accordance with the Clearing Principles in the EP [Environmental Protection] Act and consistently with the State policies that protect land and native flora and fauna from clearing by burning… This would be more effective and efficient than the current regime because it would achieve some consistency in
279 Dr Roy Green, Chair, Environmental Protection Authority Committee for the Review into Fire in the Kimberley and Inland Regions of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 14/06/2006, p1. 280 Ibid., p4. 281 Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p6. 282 Submission No 38 from Conservation Council of WA (Inc) and the Environmental Defenders Office of WA (Inc), 2005, p3.
- 71 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
approach across regions. It should also provide for fire management practices that are flexible enough to reflect different bioregional issues.283
Currently in this State, the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) requires a permit for the clearing of native vegetation unless the clearing is of a kind specified in Schedule 6 of that Act.284 Under Schedule 6, CALM does not require a permit provided it acts in accordance with Section 33(3) of the CALM Act. Bushfire related clearing and fire management works by local government bushfire control officers and officers of brigades are also exempt in accordance with Schedule 6. The EDO and CCWA argue that this enables clearing on pastoral lands, which together with CALM land means that large areas of the State can be cleared without reference to the EP Act’s Clearing Principles.285 The Clearing Principles are established in Schedule 5 of the EP Act against which the clearing of native vegetation is to be assessed. The CCWA and EDO are concerned that clearing without any reference to the Clearing Principles by exempted parties has potential consequences for loss of biodiversity and land degradation. 286 287
The CCWA and EDO promote the development of a set of State principles relating to fire mitigation and management which would provide a framework within which agencies with land management responsibilities could develop policies for risk management. The notion of a set of State principles arises from the Federal Government’s response to the COAG report, National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management (2004), which endorsed the concept of a set of national principles. The CCWA and EDO believe that State principles would result in consistency of approach to fire management regimes across agencies and the protection of human life and community assets, including biodiversity. 288
The submission notes that despite agencies having different land management responsibilities, the State principles should mandate the adoption of a risk assessment and risk management approach. They suggest that this Inquiry consider:
… whether the Bushfires Act and/or planning and building legislation should provide for fire management policies that take a zoning approach, as recommended in the COAG report, as follows:
Recommendation 6.3 [from “National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management (2004)”]
All states and territories should have a zoning approach to the classification of fuel management areas, with clear objectives for each zone. The process should be
283 Ibid., p4-5. 284 Section 51C(b) Environmental Protection Act 1986. 285 Submission No 38 from Conservation Council of WA (Inc) and the Environmental Defenders Office of WA (Inc), 2005, p4. 286 Ibid., p4. 287 Ibid., p7. 288 Ibid., p4.
- 72 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
applied at the landscape scale, and all land managers and the community should be involved.
This may mean zoning areas around settlements for fire mitigation for protection of people and property and creating different zones further away from settlements for fire mitigation mainly for protection of biodiversity. This may also need to be reflected in local planning schemes and in subdivision conditions.289
Dr Beth Schultz, CCWA, in evidence, reiterated the concept of the incorporation of zoning in fire management planning.290
With regard to fire risk management for new developments, the CCWA and EDO have expressed concern at the non-binding nature of the Planning for Bush Fire Protection guidelines developed by FESA in consultation with DPI.291 The document “forms the foundation for fire risk management planning within Western Australia at a community and land development level”, and provides “performance criteria and acceptable solutions to minimise the impact of fire on communities”.292 As a policy document however, it is not binding and the CCWA and EDO argue that as such, individual decision-makers can lawfully give little or no weight to its bushfire protection requirements.293
The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) released its own fire protection policy for new subdivisions and related developments in conjunction with FESA in 2001, namely Development Control Policy 3.7: Fire Planning. This policy references the Planning for Bush Fire Protection guidelines. According to the WAPC:
Development Control Policy 3.7: Fire Planning... introduces policy measures for all development which has the potential to be exposed to bush fire risk, and contains a set of statutory planning provisions which are designed to be incorporated into local government planning schemes to manage the use and development of bush fire prone land.294
While both the WAPC policies and FESA guidelines have no statutory basis, Mr Vincent McMullen, Director Planning Reform, DPI, is confident that the policies are generally observed in decision-making for new developments. He does however concede that this is not always the case external to the Metropolitan and Peel regions:
289 Ibid., p5. 290 Dr Beth Schultz, Conservation Council of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 17/05/2006, p8. 291 Submission No 38 from Conservation Council of WA (Inc) and the Environmental Defenders Office of WA (Inc), 2005, p5-6. 292 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Planning for Bush Fire Protection, Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth, December 2001, p2. 293 Submission No 38 from Conservation Council of WA (Inc) and the Environmental Defenders Office of WA (Inc), 2005, p6. 294 Submission No 28 from Western Australian Planning Commission, 18/10/2005, p3.
- 73 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
In relation to subdivision proposals where the assessment of bushfire risk is a particular issue that looms large, we can be confident that the policies are properly regarded. The other category of decisions that are of interest include development decisions and building applications, which are dealt with, especially outside the metropolitan and Peel regions, by local government. In that case there may be issues that arise as to whether or not there is adequate attention given the full contents of the policies.295
Further to the issue of the adequacy of planning and development controls, the CCWA and EDO view that there should be a prohibition on subdivisions without a wildfire risk assessment or issuance of a building licence without compliance with that assessment.296
Mr Cameron Poustie, representing the EDO at hearing, viewed that the requirement for fire management plans could pose a significant imposition on land owners and if required by statute, the Act should provide for appeal to the SAT.297 This relates to criticism by the CCWA and EDO directed at the empowerment of the local government to enter a property and install a fire-break by burning the land, if a land owner fails to comply with a fire-break notice. In that instance, the organisations recommend the right of appeal against a fire-break order by land owners who are able to manage fire hazards on their properties without recourse to burning, or where it would be hazardous to biodiversity.298
The CCWA and EDO imply that the CCWA should participate in the development of fire management plans in a similar manner to the Nature Conservation Council (NCC) of NSW whose representatives sit on Bush Fire Management Committees, which prepare Draft Bushfire Management Plans. Plans are approved by a Bush Fire Coordinating Committee, comprising officers or representatives of key relevant agencies, including the NCC.299 300
The development of fire management plans
FESA envisages that a land owner or land manager would develop a fire management plan based on the present land use and submit it to FESA, which would then either approve the plan with or without amendment or reject the plan. 301 The Committee queried FESA regarding how a land owner would develop a fire management plan. Mr Craig Hynes, Director, Country Operations, responded with the following:
295 Mr Vincent McMullen, Director Planning Reform, Department for Planning and Infrastructure, Transcript of Evidence, 14/06/2006, p4. 296 Submission No 38 from Conservation Council of WA (Inc) and the Environmental Defenders Office of WA (Inc), 2005, p6. 297 Mr Cameron Poustie , Environmental Defenders Office, Transcript of Evidence, 17/5/2006, p8. 298 Submission No 38 from Conservation Council of WA (Inc) and the Environmental Defenders Office of WA (Inc), 2005, p12. 299 Ibid., p31. 300 Section 47 Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW) 301 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, Proposed Drafting Instructions, p37.
- 74 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
…as FESA is an emergency service we are quite keen to work with all landowners and local governments. Our staff would be available to provide examples of fire management plans. We would encourage them to develop them. Obviously, we would have to do that on a priority basis, but certainly that is what we are available to do now and we would certainly like that opportunity taken. For instance, in the north west we already do those types of activities with pastoralists. We would give them an easier template framework to use…Obviously there would be a cost for landowners who undertake the bushfire management plan, but we see FESA as providing an assistance in doing that as part of our normal activities in providing a safer community.302
Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director, Country North, FESA, emphasised that the focus of fire management plans would be on identifying appropriate preventative measures rather than the level of response necessary to protect significant assets.303 Mr Cann believed that a fire management plan should include a map of the area in question, and should indicate major assets including commercial, cultural and natural assets as well as landform and land tenure.304 He envisaged that the actual development of fire management plans would involve information sharing at three different levels, that of land owners developing the plans, local government, and on a regional scale, via the state emergency management system. 305 While Mr Cann conceded that consultation would be necessary to determine the appropriate format of fire management plans, he was of the opinion that a simple and concise document would ensure the plan was simple, easily referenced and yet sufficiently informative to make it worthwhile.306
In its secondary submission to the Committee dated 23 November 2005, FESA detailed that they have a range of planning and risk assessment processes to assist land managers or owners to comply with any requirement imposed in relation to the development of fire management plans. Although they note that there are numerous ways to reduce the risk of unplanned bushfires occurring and causing damage, they outline several tools that could, where relevant, be employed in this process:
The Australian Standard AS/NZS 4360:2004 [Standard for Risk Management], the WA Emergency Risk Management Framework and FESA’s Rural Urban Bushfire Threat Analysis (RUBTA) tools can also be used for establishing the context, analysis, evaluation, treatment, monitoring and communication of the risk. Additionally, FESA is currently developing a Statewide Bushfire Threat Analysis in partnership with the Department of Conservation and Land Management and Western Power.307
302 Mr Craig Hynes, Director Country Operations, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p4. 303 Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p3. 304 Ibid. 305 Ibid., p2. 306 Ibid., p8. 307 Submission No 16.1 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p2.
- 75 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
It should be noted that FESA have also intimated that the Statewide Bushfire Threat Analysis Tool will, where possible, incorporate the zoning approach suggested by the CCWA and EDO.308
FESA also contend that the SEMC, established under the Emergency Management Act will, either directly or via a sub-committee, assist Government agencies to develop strategies to mitigate the risk of a range of hazards, including those related to bushfire.309 FESA cites that this could be one of the options for implementing a whole-of-Government and whole-of-community approach to bushfire mitigation. Another option initially proposed by FESA to ensure compliance by Government agencies was the establishment of an independent “regulator” of emergency services.310 FESA in later correspondence viewed that the OAG would more appropriately serve this role. This is discussed further at Chapter 5.
Liability
In response to a Committee query regarding potential liability arising from fire management plans approved by FESA, the Authority detailed that ultimately it would be for the courts to decide liability in a given set of circumstances but that it considered it had significant expertise in fire management planning and would assist on a “best efforts basis”. Further, FESA stated that it is their perception that fire management plans are a cohesive strategy designed to draw together elements of fire prevention planning already in existence.311 In its second submission to the Inquiry, dated 23 November 2005, FESA expanded on this response:
§ In the event of legal action arising from the escape of fire from one property to another, the primary matter likely to be considered by a court would be whether or not there existed any negligence on the part of the owner/occupier/manager of the property on which the fire initiated.
§ In that regard, it would be relevant to mention that there can be no guarantees that any fire prevention/mitigation measures taken on a property (including fire-breaks or any measures undertaken as part of a fire management plan) will ensure that a fire will not spread to another property.
§ Clearly there are community safety, moral, equity and (potentially) legal obligations upon FESA to ensure that any fire management plans it authorizes (sic) are appropriate and reasonable.
§ Any actions by FESA in relation to the development, approval or implementation of fire management plans would be undertaken in the utmost ‘good faith’.
308 Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p5. 309 Submission No 16.1 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p3. 310 Ibid. 311 Mr Ian Bowden, Legal and Legislation Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p5.
- 76 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ In the event that legal action was initiated against FESA in relation to an alleged deficiency etc of a fire management plan approved by FESA, FESA would be represented in court by solicitors acting for its liability insurer.
§ The solicitors would attempt to demonstrate to the court that FESA had acted in good faith, and therefore fell within the ‘protection from liability’ provisions of the legislation.312
Interstate arrangements
Fire management plans are commonly used tools, developed to aid in the prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (PPRR) of emergencies. The legal requirement to develop such plans is not uncommon in Australia. All States and Territories have either a legislative or non-legislative requirement to develop plans at both local and State level. 313 The interstate arrangements with regard to fire management plans have been reviewed and reveal that the existence of dedicated bushfire advisory committees is common across a number of states. The committees generally carry out a strategic planning and advisory function with regard to fire and are characterised by a membership reflecting various interests.
In NSW, the Bush Fire Coordinating Committee (BFCC) is responsible for approving and monitoring Bush Fire Risk Management Plans.314 The BFCC comprises 13 members reflecting the interests of local and State Government, fire and emergency operations, conservation, rural, urban, and agricultural sectors315 thereby ensuring a comprehensive input into fire management planning. Bush Fire Management Committees (BFMC) are required to draft a Bush Fire Risk Management Plan for their particular area. Plans must be reviewed every 5 years and the BFMC must report annually to the BFCC on the performance of the Plan.316 Membership is similarly representative of a broad range of interests but designed to capitalise on local expertise and may comprise members/nominees from local government, fire brigades, police, utilities, rail authorities, rural land holders, and conservation-based organisations such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and NCC.317 While the BFCC has a Statewide interest in the prevention, mitigation and suppression of bushfires, BFMC in comparison are the primary forum for determining bushfire risk management at the local level. Draft plans are agreed to by all participating agencies and advertised for public comment before being signed off by the responsible BFMC and the BFCC.318
312 Submission No 16.1 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p3. 313 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p17. 314 Sections 46, 51, 58 Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW). 315 Ibid., Section 47(1). 316 Ibid., Sections 51 and 52. 317 Regulation 15 Rural Fires Regulation 2002 (NSW). 318 NSW Rural Fire Service (2005). ‘Bush Fire Risk Management Planning Guidelines for Bush Fire Management Committees’. Available at: www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/file_system/attachments/State/Attachment_20051115_C86D1C7E.pdf Accessed on 21/06/2006.
- 77 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Local governments are empowered to issue notices to land owners/occupiers to undertake bushfire hazard reduction works, including fire-breaks and controlled burning.319 While local governments must serve a notice as required by a fire management plan applicable to the land that is in force,320 it also has the discretion to independently issue a notice. This is presumably over and above what is required in a fire management plan if deemed necessary or where no fire management plan applies.
Victoria similarly operates a two-tier system of advisory committees in the form of Regional and Municipal Fire Prevention Committees (MFPC).321 Membership of advisory committees is again reflective of the diverse interests involved in fire management planning at the regional or local scale. Municipal Committees for example comprise representatives of local government, brigades, Department of Sustainability and Environment (where the area includes or is adjacent to forest/national park), local interest groups, and public statutory corporations.322 The MFPCs’ role is to plan fire-breaks, identify fire hazards and provide advice to local fire prevention officers regarding fire prevention within the local authority area.323 Municipal Councils are required to prepare for their district, in accordance with the advice and recommendations of the MFPC, a Municipal Fire Prevention Plan, which identifies fire risks, treatments and responsibilities.324
Separate requirements exist for fire management planning in National Parks and other protected land. In parallel with Western Australia, the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) has statutory obligations for fire prevention and suppression in all protected public land.325 There is no legal requirement for fire management plans but DSE operates under a Code of Practice, which details the preparation of fire management plans. Significantly, draft fire management plans prepared by the DSE are tabled and discussed at Regional and Municipal Fire Prevention Committee meetings to ensure integration with broader country fire management planning before being finally adopted by DSE.326
Local government has the power to issue fire prevention notices to land owners/occupiers requiring them to remove or minimise the threat of fire on their land.327 This is done on the advice of the MFPC in accordance with the municipal fire prevention plan but the Act suggests it can also
319 Section 66(1) Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW). 320 Ibid., Section 66(2). 321 Sections 52 and 54 Country Fire Authority Act 1958 (Vic). 322 Ibid., Section 54. 323 Ibid., Section 55. 324 Ibid., Section 55A. 325 Section 62(2) Forests Act 1958 (Vic). 326 Department of Sustainability and Environment Victoria (1995). ‘Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land’, section 2. Available at: www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/nrenfoe.nsf/LinkView/8D9507CD764EAA3D4A256823000529DE065947154164141D4A256 DEA0013F7A3 Accessed on 26/06/2006. 327 Section 41 Country Fire Authority Act 1958 (Vic)
- 78 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
be undertaken independently if the local government is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so to protect life/property.328
In the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), the Emergency Services Authority must prepare a Strategic Bush Fire Management Plan, which covers the whole ACT. Preparation of the plan requires consultation with the Bushfire Council and consideration of likely impacts on land management agreements and land managers.329 Similar to other states, the Bushfire Council is a group constituted to reflect the various bushfire interests. Members must possess skills and/or experience in each of the areas of fire sciences, land management, firefighting in built-up areas, fire-fighting in rural areas, Indigenous land management and must also include members who represent the interests of rural lessees, the community’s interest in the environment, and the community’s interests generally.330 Land owners and managers must as far as practicable ensure that land is managed in accordance with the strategic plan and must comply with any bushfire management requirement.331
The preparation of fire management plans in South Australia is similarly prescribed by legislation. At the district level in non-metropolitan (‘country’) areas, District Bushfire Prevention Committees are responsible for the preparation of bushfire prevention plans for their district and must consult other committees in adjacent areas and cooperate with the relevant regional committee.332 At the regional scale, Regional Bushfire Prevention Committees are responsible for coordinating bushfire prevention in the region and advising the Bushfire Prevention Advisory Committee (BPAC).333 The BPAC once again comprises a diverse membership covering rural fire operations, local government, agricultural, conservation, pastoral, forestry, utility, and meteorological interests334 and is intended to provide a forum for discussion of bushfire prevention issues throughout the country area.335
Like the ACT, the State Fire Management Council in Tasmania takes a Statewide approach to fire management. The Council, comprising representatives of the fire service, Parks and Wildlife Service, Forestry Tasmania, Local Government Association, Farmers and Graziers Association, and Forest Industries Association, is responsible for developing a State vegetation fire management policy to be used as the basis for all fire management planning. 336 The implementation of fire management policy is carried out by Fire Management Area Committees (FMAC), the Parks and Wildlife Service (on reserved land), and Forestry Tasmania (in State
328 Ibid., Section 41(2). 329 Section 72 Emergencies Act 2004 (ACT). 330 Ibid., Section 129. 331 Ibid., Section 77. 332 Section 76 Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 (SA). 333 Ibid., Section 74. 334 Ibid., Section 71. 335 Ibid., Section 72. 336 Section 14 and Section 15(a) Fire Service Act 1979 (Tas).
- 79 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
forest).337 FMAC membership is similarly representative of various interests but at a municipal level. FMACs are required to develop fire protection plans, which are strategic documents identifying tenure responsibilities, assets, hazards and hazard management strategies in terms of capital works and recurrent annual projects.338
While there is no statutory requirement for fire management plans in the Northern Territory, fire management planning features in the Bushfire Council’s policy guidelines. In common with other states, the Bushfire Council is a statutory body339 with a strategic responsibility to consider policy and issues regarding fire management throughout the Territory. 340 The policy guidelines highlight the need for individual landholders (both public and private) to have fire management plans in place and in particular emphasises pre-suppression (risk management) of large and intense fires.341 The Bushfire Council’s policy approach is in keeping with broader legislative requirements, whereby the fundamental responsibility for fire prevention and mitigation (e.g. implementing fire- breaks and fuel reduction on properties) rests with landholders.342
In common with WA, QLD does not have a legislative requirement for fire management plans as such. The Minister for Environment has statutory obligations to prepare a management plan for protected areas such as national parks, conservation parks, resources reserves, nature refuges, coordinated conservation or wilderness areas.343 While fire management is not specifically identified for incorporation into management plans, a review of some management plans indicates that fire management is commonly a consideration. Separate requirements exist for Unallocated State Land and UMRs, the maintenance of which is the responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. The Department’s corporate strategy is to implement fire management plans on all high risk Unallocated State Land 344 and a comprehensive manual has been developed to this effect. While an integrated approach to fire management is encouraged including consultation with other agencies where high risk Unallocated State Land abuts other land uses,345 as a policy document the main emphasis is on guiding and influencing fire management practice within the Department.
337 State Fire Management Council of Tasmania. Available at: www.sfmc.tas.gov.au Accessed on 26/06/2006. 338 Ibid. 339 Section 6 Bushfires Act 2004 (NT). 340 Bushfires Council Northern Territory. Available at: www.nt.gov.au/nreta/naturalresources/bushfires/aboutus/#fms Accessed on 27/06/2006. 341 Ibid. 342 Ibid. 343 Section 111 Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld). 344 [Queensland Department of] Natural Resources and Mines Strategic Plan 2005-2010. Available at: www.nrm.qld.gov.au/about/documents/strategic_plan/pdf/strategic_plan.pdf Accessed on 27/06/2006. 345 Department of Natural Resources and Mines Queensland (May 2000). ‘A Guide to Fire Management in Queensland’. Available at: www.nrm.qld.gov.au/land/state/pdf/fire_management_guide.pdf Accessed on 27/06/2006.
- 80 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Interstate compliance arrangements
A cursory review of compliance arrangements in NSW and Victoria suggests that both States adopt a similar approach by not legislating for non-compliance with a fire management plan per se. Rather, penalties exist for non-compliance with local government issued fire prevention/ hazard reduction notices, and by default, fire management plans.346 347 The legislation in both States also provides for hazard reduction works to be implemented in accordance with the local government issued notice (and by default, the fire management plan) by someone other than the owner/occupier and for costs to be recovered.348 349
In addition to local government notices in NSW, the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service has the power to carry out hazard reduction works and recover costs on land if work has not been undertaken by a public authority or owner/occupier when, or in the manner, required by a fire management plan. 350
Multi-agency advisory committees on fire management planning
The existence of multi-agency advisory committees in most other States and their role in fire management planning suggests the arrangement is successful at representing various interests and ensuring that fire management plans address the dual objectives of conservation of the natural environment as well as protection of human life and property. Where membership of committees is legislated, it reflects a high level of technical expertise combined with local knowledge thereby ensuring that fire management planning is conducted by those with the necessary qualifications and experience. In comparison, under current WA legislation, while the Bush Fires Act provides for bushfire advisory committees, these are not compulsory, are limited to advising local government regarding bushfire prevention and control,351 and composition is at the discretion of the local government.
A particular advantage of the advisory committees operating in other States is that it overcomes the issue of one agency assuming control for fire management plans at the expense of another. While most interstate committees are chaired by a fire or emergency services executive, as already discussed, the overall membership covers a broad spectrum of interests in bushfire risk management. CALM has argued that it is the most suitable authority for fire management planning on its own estate and is wary of the final power of veto being awarded to FESA. Reinforcing CALM’s own arguments, the importance of involving CALM in fire management
346 Section 66(7) Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW). 347 Section 41D Country Fire Authority Act 1958 (Vic). 348 Section 70 Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW). 349 Section 42 Country Fire Authority Act 1958 (Vic). 350 Section 73 Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW). 351 Section 67 Bush Fires Act 1954.
- 81 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
planning due to its expertise was also highlighted by Dr Roy Green, Chair, EPA Committee for the Review into Fire in the Kimberley and Inland Regions of Western Australia.352
The CCWA and EDO have highlighted the NSW system in particular whereby through BFMCs and the BFCC, the NCC of NSW (equivalent to the Conservation Commission of WA) can participate fully in planning in relation to wildfire prevention and coordinated wildfire fighting, and advising on wildfire prevention, mitigation and coordinated wildfire suppression. 353 In a further submission from the CCWA, a letter was enclosed from Mr Rob Rogers, Assistant Commissioner, Community Safety, NSW Rural Fire Service, commenting on the contribution of the NCC of NSW to fire management in that State. According to Mr Rogers, through its participation in the BFCC and BFMCs, the NCC of NSW “makes a significant and valuable contribution to debate on the development of fire management policies and practices that ensure the safety of life, property and the environment, at both state and local level”.354
The Victorian model could also hold some relevance for WA in so much as the DSE (equivalent to CALM) retains fire management planning responsibility for protected lands, but integrates this function with the broader fire management planning conducted by Municipal and Regional Fire Prevention Committees.
When queried whether something similar to the committee system operating in NSW and Victoria might be viable for fire management planning in Western Australia, Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, FESA, responded:
I believe that a model similar to that would be the model that would work. I have said before that we cannot do this unless there is a cooperative approach. This is a big state with lots of different regions. The secret of it all is to engage people. I do not think we will ever get consensus, because there are too many different opinions; however, we have to engage with all the stakeholders in the development of these plans. It will be a big task at the start, but if you look at fire management planning in 10 or 15 years, you will see the benefit of models similar to what they have in New South Wales. I would not be prepared to say that we would use the exact model that is used in New South Wales or Victoria, because I think that the tenures and distances that we have in our state are different. However, key elements of those models will be used in our fire management process.355
Mr Cann clearly cites that he would envisage this including local government 356 and those with expertise in biodiversity. 357
352 Dr Roy Green, Chair, Environmental Protection Authority Committee for the Review into Fire in the Kimberley and Inland Regions of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 14/06/2006, p4. 353 Submission No 38 from Conservation Council of WA (Inc) and the Environmental Defenders Office of WA (Inc), 2005, p10. 354 Submission No 51 from Conservation Council of Western Australia Inc., 11/08/2006, p2 (attachment). 355 Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p6. 356 Ibid., p2.
- 82 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr Kevin White, Regional Fire Coordinator, CALM Kimberley, also sees merit in adopting a committee system for fire management planning in this State, however has some reservations about the depth of knowledge across the community. He views however, that if the committee is comprised of Government bodies as it is in Victoria, then the suggestion has merit.358
The Shire of Roebourne considers that the LEMC already has the capacity to function in a similar way to the committees operating in the Eastern States.359
Committee assessment
The issue of whether or not to use the emergency services legislation to compel the development of fire management plans in Western Australia is complex, primarily because opinion diverges at so many levels. However, after comprehensive assessment and due consideration, the Committee is clear on the following:
§ WA contains vast amounts of land which prove difficult to fire-break, particularly where this land is remote, of considerable area and/or is inaccessible by large machinery.
§ The current emergency services legislation enables local government to use local government bylaws to exempt land owners and land managers from installing fire- breaks. However, the legislation does not provide for local government to direct land owners or managers to implement alternate fire prevention measures on the land. In effect, this means that an owner or manager of land subject to high fire risk may not be obliged to implement any fire prevention initiatives at all. This arrangement is unacceptable in terms of its potential impact on the safety of the Western Australian community.
§ Land owners and land managers of land that is subject to high fire risk, such as plantation land or forest land, are not legislatively bound to develop fire management plans or to perform fire prevention activities of an alternate type. This Committee is concerned at the possible ramifications of such a lapse in legislation, particularly with regard to areas where high fire risk land abuts housing developments.
§ If fire management plans are to become a legislative requirement in WA, there must be a Statewide approach to ensure a logical, uniform and reasoned methodology and result. Such an approach is achievable through:
357 Ibid., p6. 358 Mr Kevin White, Regional Fire Coordinator, Kimberley, Department of Environment and Conservation, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p7. 359 Mr Guy Thompson, Director Technical and Development Services, Shire of Roebourne, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p6.
- 83 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ Compulsory fire management planning by land owners or land managers on Crown, pastoral or grazier and plantation land, and other categories of land determined as appropriate by the Minister for Emergency Services;
§ Provision of adequate levels of resourcing by FESA to support fire management planning processes, including the monitoring of fire management plans;
§ The establishment of, or utilisation of existing, local, regional (and possibly State) level Committee structures tasked with the determination, assessment, approval and monitoring (with FESA’s assistance) of fire management plans (except on CALM-managed land); and
§ The development of policy guidelines to ensure consistency in the performance of that role;
§ Establishment of an audit process at State level to conduct sample audits of performance under, and integration of, fire management plans as and when determined;
§ Ensuring that CALM lodge fire management plans with appropriately designated committees for comment and to enable integration of planning on a district, regional (and possibly State) level; and
§ Ensuring auditing of all CALM fire management plans by the Conservation Commission of Western Australia.
§ The content and complexity of a fire management plan must be appropriate to the land, the land use and the level of associated fire risk. It is neither reasonable nor necessary to request the development of fire management plans from land owners or managers when the land is of low to moderate fire risk.
§ Local government should retain its ability to issue fire-break and hazard reduction notices, and exercise enforcement powers under the legislation, but only where there is no procedure under any other Act or Regulation that is more appropriate in the circumstances to address that fire threat. An exception should be made under the emergency services legislation for local government to issue and enforce such notices in accordance with an approved fire management plan, excluding those developed by CALM under the CALM Act.
§ Land owners/land managers aggrieved with a decision under a fire management plan must have the option of appeal. The Committee is satisfied that the SAT is the appropriate avenue in regard to fire management plans. The concept behind the SAT’s establishment was to provide a streamlined system of administrative review.
- 84 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
In elaborating on the above, the Committee is of the opinion that the LEMC (or a sub-committee of the latter) may be an appropriate forum for the determination, assessment, approval and monitoring of fire management plans for a locality. However, as indicated, there will be a need for information sharing at a regional and possibly a State level. The exact structure adopted would be a policy decision of Government. The regulatory unit recommended in Chapter 5 may be the appropriate body to conduct sample audits of fire management plans, excluding those plans developed by CALM, which are currently audited by the Conservation Commission of Western Australia.
The Committee views that the limitation on local governments’ ability to issue fire-break or hazard reduction notices in circumstances where the threat is more appropriately addressed by the provisions of another Act or Regulation may need further assessment. The intention is to enable CALM to continue current fire management practices under the CALM Act. It is not intended to exclude CALM from hazard reduction measures on managed land such as UCL (which is subject to an MOU not legislation), in circumstances where it is deemed to be of a high fire risk and where a fire management plan is likely to mitigate that risk.
It is the Committee’s expectation that the SEMC will ensure the workability of the following proposed framework for fire management planning in this State, in line with its overarching role in emergency management:
- 85 -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 36
§ A Committee structure should be established or an existing Committee structure utilised for the purpose of determining, assessing, approving and monitoring (with the assistance of FESA) fire management plans. § The constitution of the Committee should include stakeholders with expertise in fire, and land management.
Recommendation 37
§ The Pastoralists and Graziers Association is to be consulted with respect to determining the minimum size of pastoral or grazier land to be subject to fire management plans, prior to the drafting of the legislation.
- 87 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 38
§ The local level Committee should be empowered to request a fire management plan from a land owner or land manager in respect to prescribed areas or categories of land or land usage or land ownership/occupancy or management in circumstances where the Committee deems it necessary because:
- it is financially or practically inappropriate to install a fire-break on the land and a fire management plan will assist in mitigating the impact of a fire; or
- the land in question is of a high risk and a fire management plan will assist in mitigating the impact of a fire.
§ The local level Committee should be empowered to request the submission of a new or amended fire management plan in the event that the land-use or tenure changes.
§ The local level Committee should be empowered to determine the appropriate period for review of the submitted fire management plan.
§ The prescribed areas or categories of land or land usage or land ownership/occupancy or management are defined as Crown Land, land used for pastoral or grazier purposes and plantation land, unless otherwise determined by the Minister for Emergency Services.
Recommendation 39
§ Where practicable, FESA is to assist land owners/land managers in the development of fire management plans and is required to monitor the implementation of those plans.
Recommendation 40
§ FESA, in consultation with relevant stakeholders with expertise in fire and land management, are to develop guidelines for the determination, formulation, assessment, approval and monitoring of fire management plans.
- 88 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 41
§ An audit process should be established at State level to conduct sample audits of performance under, and integration of, fire management plans as and when determined.
Recommendation 42
§ CALM fire management plans should be submitted to appropriately designated Committees for comment and to enable integration of planning on a district, regional (and possibly State) level.
Recommendation 43
§ The Conservation Commission of Western Australia is to develop and audit fire management plans pertaining to CALM-managed land.
Recommendation 44
§ All approved fire management plans (including those prepared by the Conservation Commission of Western Australia) are to be lodged with the respective local government. § Local government should ensure that the agreed review period for fire management plans (apart from those prepared by the Conservation Commission of Western Australia) is observed and that new plans are lodged in the event of a change of land use or tenure.
- 89 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 45
§ Local government should retain its ability to issue fire-break and hazard reduction notices, and exercise enforcement powers under the legislation (Section 33 Bush Fires Act 1954), but only where there is no procedure under any other Act or Regulation that is more appropriate in the circumstances to address that fire threat.
§ An exception should be made under the emergency services legislation for local government to issue and enforce such notices in accordance with an approved fire management plan, excluding those developed by CALM for lands under the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984.
Recommendation 46
§ Government should upload fire management plans to the Shared Land Information Platform thereby enabling access by key emergency services organisations.
Recommendation 47
§ A land owner or land manager (for the prescribed categories of land to which fire management plans apply), dissatisfied with a decision in relation to a fire management plan, should have a right of appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal.
- 90 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
CHAPTER 4 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INCIDENT COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS IN FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES INCLUDING INTEROPERABILITY IN MULTI-AGENCY INCIDENTS
4.1 Fire Control
The terms “control” and “command” have defined and specific meanings under the Australasian Inter-service Incident Management System (AIIMS). This Committee acknowledges that the following definitions are unanimously accepted by emergency services organisations across Australia:
Control - Control refers to the overall direction of emergency management activities in an emergency situation. The authority for control is established in legislation or in an emergency plan and carries with it the responsibility for tasking and coordinating other organisations in accordance with the needs of the situation.
Control relates to situations and operates horizontally across organisations.
Command - Command is the direction of members and resources of an organisation in the performance of the organisation’s role and tasks. Authority to command is established in legislation or by agreement with an organisation.
Command relates to organisations and operates vertically within an organisation.360
Control
Background
The emergency services legislation has tended to reflect the prevailing operational conditions and conventions existent at the time of enactment. An examination of the three current emergency services Acts reveals that they provide a legislative framework suited to the prevailing practices at the time they were developed. Whilst this is perhaps not inherently problematic when considering each Act in isolation, when the combined effect of the three Acts is considered, operational difficulties arise. There is a 56-year gap between the creation of the first Act - the Fire Brigades Act - and the passage of the most recent piece of legislation - the FESA Act. Additionally, there is a 44-year gap between the FESA Act and the Bush Fires Act.361
For example, the Fire Brigades Act was based upon the contemporary operational conditions in 1942, and regulated the operations of the WA Fire Brigades Board (WAFBB). The WAFBB was
360 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p19. 361 Ibid.
- 91 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
responsible for fire control prior to the passage of the FESA Act, and the brigades under its jurisdiction were restricted to servicing the Perth metropolitan area and designated townsites. The 1954 Bush Fires Act, placed control of BFBs in the hands of local government. The authority to control fire became dependent upon the legislative jurisdiction authorising the activities of the two differently controlled and constituted brigades, empowered under acts influenced by different circumstances.362
Today, the legislation in relation to the operational area of FRS Brigades (formerly WAFBB Brigades) and BFBs remains unchanged. FESA contends that regardless of this, the two types of brigades now frequently operate in areas outside of their legislative jurisdiction, interact with each other on a regular basis, and often work in unison, to combat incidents. Where life or property is threatened, FESA cites that a brigade will act outside of the dated provisions of the legislation, in the interests of a safer community. 363
FESA details that added complications arise in that the recently introduced ESUs and Fire Services Brigades have the legislative authority to combat fire anywhere in the State. Further, that the operational jurisdiction of these new services is not restricted by the provisions in the Fire Brigades Act and Bush Fires Act that define the operational areas for FRS Brigades and BFBs.364
Control authority at fire incidents is governed by SEMC Policy Statement No. 7. Policy Statement No. 7 documents the HMA responsibilities for most emergencies in Western Australia. Essentially, the HMA is the agency responsible for control at multi-agency incidents.365
Policy Statement No. 7 has a strategic focus and while the document provides for the State’s over- arching emergency management arrangements, it does not detail the mechanics involved in implementing the arrangements. As mentioned in Chapter 3, policies prepared under the new Emergency Management Act will eventually supersede pre-Act policy statements including Policy Statement No. 7, however until the policy is reviewed, the existing provisions stand. The Fire Brigades Act, the Bush Fires Act and the FESA Act govern the delivery of emergency services. These services ensure the successful implementation of Policy Statement No. 7 provisions. However, the Fire Brigades Act and the Bush Fires Act were developed many years prior to the introduction of the Policy. According to FESA, the staged development of the emergency services Acts, and the dependence on these Acts to realise the intent of Policy Statement No. 7, has resulted in an ambiguous and incongruous designation of control responsibilities at fire incidents.366
FESA details that numerous amendments to the emergency services legislation have been initiated by the Authority in an attempt to align the legislation with the provisions of both the Policy
362 Ibid. 363 Ibid., p19-20. 364 Ibid., p20. 365 State Emergency Management Committee, Policy Statement No. 7, The Government of Western Australia, Perth, Revised 2005, p1. 366 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p20.
- 92 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Statement and current emergency services practice. However, they detail that success has been limited with the more recently inserted sections of the legislation continuing to operate within the constraints of the dated and often incompatible over-arching provisions of the Fire Brigades Act and Bush Fires Act.367
FESA cites Section 45 of the Bush Fires Act as an example of a dated and incongruous provision. This section provides CALM with the authority to take control of a fire when it is in or near CALM-managed land,368 however, the Act does not define “near”. FESA assert that technically, CALM has the legal ability to take control of a fire almost anywhere in the State. However, that neither FESA nor local government have the authority to take control of a fire burning in or near CALM-managed land, even when it directly threatens residential areas. FESA argue that this issue is becoming more contentious as many new housing developments either abut or are in the vicinity of CALM-managed land.369
Conversely, CALM argues that the provisions of Section 45 are an appropriate and effective mechanism for the control of fire on, and in the vicinity of, CALM-managed land. Mr John Tillman, Regional Fire Coordinator, CALM, succinctly expresses a view shared by the majority of CALM employees from whom the Committee heard evidence:
…In the south west we have a fantastic relationship with the 14 local government authorities that we interact with, and a huge amount of interface with CALM land and private property. We deal with fires on a daily basis, which is one of my key roles. I cannot think of one example where we had any sort of confrontation about who would assume control of a fire, regardless of tenure. In fact, in most cases it falls very naturally, depending on the point of origin, which direction the fire is heading in and what sort of assets are threatened etc. We very quickly come to agreement on who is going to assume and even maintain control.370
FESA notes that CALM’s responsibilities in relation to fire response date back to the Forests Act 1918 (Forests Act). The Forests Act empowered a Forests Department Officer to direct persons residing within five miles of the outbreak of a fire to extinguish the fire. FESA asserts that while firefighting functions were not afforded to the Forests Department Officer, certainly the Act acknowledged the Officer as a resource that could potentially be used to assist in the prevention of and response to fire. The Forests Act was repealed upon the enactment of the CALM Act. The CALM Act does not establish CALM as a firefighting agency. As detailed above, CALM’s current power to take control of a fire on CALM-managed land is derived from Section 45 of the Bush Fires Act.371
367 Ibid. 368 Section 45 Bush Fires Act 1954. 369 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p20. 370 Mr John C. J. Tillman, Regional Fire Coordinator, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p8. 371 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p20-21.
- 93 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Assignment of control authority during fire incidents
Throughout the course of this Inquiry, the authority to control fire incidents has proved to be the most contentious issue. Many stakeholders are passionate, resolute and often unwavering in opinion. Others have approached the matter from a more flexible viewpoint. Regardless of position, it is clear to this Committee that the perspective of most stakeholders has been developed and refined over a period of many years, often through extensive practical experience in fire control and management. Contention arises where various stakeholders have experienced different situations and outcomes, resulting in diverse perceptions and attitudes.
The authority to control a fire incident in Western Australia is designated according to the tenure of the land on which the fire burns. At present, Policy Statement No. 7 continues to dictate fire control responsibility:372
§ FESA is the HMA for fire in the metropolitan area and within designated townsites, unless the fire is on or near CALM-managed land or allocated Crown land.
§ Local government is the HMA for fire within the local government area but outside of the designated townsite, unless the fire is on or near CALM-managed land or allocated Crown land. Local government is also the HMA for fire on UCL.
§ CALM is the HMA for fire when it is on or near CALM-managed land or allocated Crown land, but only if a CALM Officer is present. If a CALM Officer is not present, CALM may refuse to take control of the fire.373
The acceptability of the current arrangements differs considerably amongst stakeholders. Variables contributing to this difference of opinion include:
§ In some regions of the State, local government, CALM and FESA personnel operating at the local level have negotiated additional, “non-legislative” fire control arrangements. Where this has occurred, these arrangements appear to operate effectively. In other areas of the State, a level of angst appears to exist between organisations.
§ Some local governments do not have the necessary expertise to combat fire incidents within the local government area.
§ The probability and frequency of interaction between local government, CALM and FESA personnel, in terms of emergency services, varies at the local level. Where the interaction is frequent, the issue of fire control is more prevalent. Where the interaction is infrequent, the issue of fire control becomes almost superfluous.
372 State Emergency Management Committee, Policy Statement No. 7, The Government of Western Australia, Perth, Revised 2005, Annex F. 373 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p21.
- 94 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ Emergency services personnel, whether career or volunteer, have been exposed to their own set of experiences in relation to fire control. These personal experiences have impacted on individual perceptions and preferences.
FESA contends that the current arrangements, in relation to the authority to control fire, place the organisation in a precarious position with respect to liability:
…FESA does not have the authority to control a fire burning outside a designated townsite, unless the local government formally requests that FESA assume this authority. If the local government does not ask FESA to control the fire, FESA is required to follow the direction of local government and may only offer advice if the local government is receptive to advice. Local government is not required to involve FESA in the fire planning, strategising or resource allocation related to the suppression of the fire. Nor is there a requirement for local government to include a FESA Officer on the incident management team. Despite this, local government can transfer the control responsibility for the fire over to FESA at any juncture, for the duration of the fire. This transfer of responsibility may occur when the fire has escalated to a level that the local government considers is beyond the expertise of their own agency personnel…
In addition, FES A does not have the legislative authority to control fire on CALM- managed land…The Bush Fires Act provides CALM with extensive powers to control fire on or “near” forest land or Crown land…. The Act offers no definition of “near,” legislatively enabling CALM to take control of a fire almost anywhere in the State. CALM is not required to include FESA in any of the firefighting planning or activity, nor is it a requirement to include a FESA Officer on the incident management team. Despite this, it is possible for the control of a fire to be transferred from CALM to FESA at any point in time over the duration of the fire. Again, FESA is potentially placed in a precarious position where it must assume control of a fire that has perhaps escalated to a hazardous level, having had no input into the initial stages of planning, operations and activity.374
To remove the potentially liable arrangements detailed above, FESA recommends that FESA be empowered to assume control of a fire from local government or CALM when FESA considers this to be necessary.375
CALM supports FESA’s recommendation in relation to empowering FESA to assume control of fire from local governments. However, CALM is opposed to FESA being provided with the same power in relation to fires on CALM-managed land:
Our recommendation is that legislative change is needed to allow FESA to take control of the wildfire incidents that are burning on private property or lands other than CALM- managed lands that pose a significant threat to life and property. We still support the retention of the current provisions of the Bush Fires Act that allow an authorised CALM Officer to take control of a fire that is burning on or threatening CALM-managed land… Potentially, there would be some occasional instances where there might be some grey
374 Ibid., p21-22. 375 Mr Robert J Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p14.
- 95 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
about where the fire is burning and what it is threatening. In the past there have been few, if any, instances when that uncertainty has resulted in any delay or ineffective incident control operations being mounted.376
The polarised positions of FESA and CALM, in relation to fire control, would be difficult to reconcile without significant input from emergency services personnel at State, regional and local level. Thus, in an attempt to broaden the understanding and knowledge-base of this Committee, extensive investigation has been conducted throughout the metropolitan and regional areas of Western Australia. Committee hearings have been held from as far north as Kununurra to the southern reaches of Albany, with additional hearings conducted throughout the mid-west and Esperance. In relation to the issue of fire control, witnesses have included representatives from:
§ local government;
§ CALM;
§ FESA;
§ WAPOL;
§ FRS Brigades;
§ Volunteer FRS;
§ BFBs;
§ ESUs;
§ SES Units;
§ volunteer emergency services associations;
§ the Bushfire Front;
§ the PGA;
§ the UFU;
§ WAFarmers; and
§ a range of other relevant stakeholders.
This “hands on” methodology proved particularly useful in terms of ascertaining the validity of concern over current fire control arrangements.
376 Mr Keiran J. McNamara, Executive Director, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 16/11/2005, p4.
- 96 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Great Southern/ South West Regions of the State
As is the case with evidence collected from most regions of Western Australia, opinion varies considerably in the south of the State. However, to the credit of most witnesses appearing before the Committee, a commonality appears to be the desire for local government, CALM and FESA to work cooperatively for a common outcome - a safer community.
The Committee commends the City of Albany, not only for the City’s commitment and dedication to the provision of a high level of emergency services, but also for the proactive approach taken in relation to multi-agency relations. Mr Robert Fenn, Executive Director Development Services, City of Albany, speaks on behalf of the City:
…we have a very close working relationship with the other agencies in this region. We have developed and cultured that over the past two to three years… We would prefer to look at who is best equipped and who is best positioned to put the fire out, because from a community perspective that is the important bit. Whether it be a red truck, a white truck or a blue truck that arrives to put the fire out is irrelevant. Let us put the fire out, but, more importantly, let us have an appropriate management regime in place so that we can manage the hazard and the fire. We have been working on that end of the process over the past two years.
Local knowledge; without doubt, the volunteers hold that. There are no ifs, buts or maybes. Where those agencies have the skills is in terms of managing a hazard. At the moment we have not matched those skills. We are certainly not even close to matching those skills, but what we are doing is trying to set up teams that can assist in that. Certainly, I think if you look at a CALM fire - and there have been several recently in the Stirling Range - CALM within a matter of hours was able to bring in a complete relief team to do the operational side of it. We do not have those resources at the moment. That is where we are reliant upon those organisations to basically give us the operational support behind the scenes until we can build up that capability.377
Mr Charlie Butcher, Chief Bush Fire Control Officer, City of Albany and Albany BFB member, supports Mr Fenn’s position:
Our volunteers have an interest with cooperation all the way through as far as we are concerned, especially with FESA and other agencies. We have been working very hard trying to improve that relationship. I am not actually sure that what is being said about takeover of FESA’s area - we have no problems with that. Anyone in their right mind in a life-threatening situation would not want to be the top bunny in control and argue to keep that control when there are professional bodies like FESA and professional people employed by the City of Albany.378
377 Mr Robert J. Fenn, Executive Director Development Services, City of Albany, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p7-8. 378 Mr Charlie Butcher, Chief Bush Fire Control Officer, Albany Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p7.
- 97 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The City of Bunbury is also an advocate of multi-agency cooperation during fire incidents. Mr John Kowal, Manager Law and Safety Services, presents the view of both the City and the Bunbury VFRS:
From my experience, it has never been an issue within this area. All agencies have always worked cooperatively together when it came to emergencies, whether it be in the incident management structure, with liaison officers representing each agency working together, or whether it be on the fire ground, with CALM officers looking after CALM crews, local government people looking after bushfire crews and so on. It has never really, I would say, been a significant issue in the past. I suppose where it breaks down to some degree, from what has been my experience, is that there may be some conflict, if you like, between those agencies at a higher level whereby there has been a breakdown in structure basically, either at the incident management level or at the ground level.379
Some local governments in the grasslands are opposed to increasing FESA’s legislative power in relation to fire control. It is this Committee’s view that some of the objections raised by these local governments are valid. For instance, the Shire of Kojonup has, for many years, operated as an independent and community-based bushfire service. Prior to the establishment of FESA, the local government, in conjunction with private land-owners, established and maintained a comprehensive and effective network of BFBs. These Brigades were (and continue to be) well- resourced units, operated by highly skilled and experienced volunteer members. Mr Stephen Gash, CEO, Shire of Kojonup, relays community concerns in relation to empowering FESA to assume control of a fire in Kojonup:
Our issue to date [in relation to FESA bein g empowered to assume control of a fire from local government] has been that there has not been a lot of solid information not only about those trigger points [the measurement or mechanism used to determine when FESA assumes control of a fire from local government], because it is difficult to agree as one size does not fit all… if FESA is going to take control, what does that mean? Does that mean it is going to have everything centrally controlled from Perth? Does that mean that we wait two hours while someone drives from Albany? Does that mean that a FESA officer will be employed and sitting in Kojonup? Does that mean, for instance, FESA is proposing to remove the current volunteer fire control officers and replace them with paid people? They are all questions that we are not sure of. However, the answers to them will impact on the suggestion of the continuing support of volunteers, in that the local fire control officers know the capabilities of their people, their units and their response times; and, more importantly, they have local knowledge of the terrain. If the current legislation provides that we already can sign agreements to look at the trigger points for any control, and as well the minister has the ability to intervene in a disaster situation, then it is difficult for me to see the benefit in the change... 380
The Shire of Murray is an example of a local authority which has negotiated a ‘non-legislative’ fire control arrangement in the form of an MOU between the Shire and CALM. Ms Christine Thompson, Deputy President of the Shire explained that the MOU permits a change in control
379 Mr John B. Kowal, Manager Law and Safety Services, City of Bunbury, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p3. 380 Mr Stephen Gash, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Kojonup, Transcript of Evidence, 20/02/2006, p5.
- 98 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
from the Shire to CALM or to FESA if an incident escalates to a size where a change in the lead agency is required.381 Mr James Camplin, Chief Bushfire Control Officer, Shire of Murray, considers the existing arrangements work well and explains in the context of a multi-agency fire that occurred in the area:
From my experience it is normally better if the lead agency that started work with the fire stays with it and the others tag along in an advisory capacity if necessary. It is also better if FESA is liaising between the bush fire brigades and the town brigades and is acting as a liaison officer to the main controllers rather than just trying to take over…It would probably be dangerous for FESA to come along and actually take over. One of the things that came up about the fire down there was a lack of local knowledge because it was being run from a remoter area. Local knowledge is very important in controlling a fire. By all means use the expertise and the resources that are available from other areas, but I think it would be dangerous to actually come in and take over without consultation.382
The Shire of Esperance acknowledges that while there are certain ‘trigger points’ to be met before FESA might assume control of a fire, two significant impediments to this occurring in the Esperance region are a lack of human resources and isolation. The Shire contends that on a bad fire day, if several fires are handed over simultaneously to FESA, it would overwhelm the sole Area Manager and the remoteness of the location would significantly impede the sourcing of additional trained staff. The Shire also notes that:
There is also the difficulty of having local volunteer fire fighters with valuable local knowledge being directed by trained FESA staff with no broad acre fire experience whatsoever.383
CALM in Esperance mentioned the good operational relationship that exists between agencies in the district.384 Should FESA take control however, CALM echoes the Shire’s concern about resourcing constraints and also contends that FESA may lack some of the necessary experience in handling environmental issues when dealing with fires on CALM estate:
In Esperance we would possibly have difficulties because there is only one officer, who has no backup here anyway. While not trying to put the local person down, I think that officer would also lack some of the experience when starting to deal with environmental issues out in the parks and so on. We would have some concerns, but I guess we would have input via the planning phase. It just has not arisen down here before.385
The view that control has not been an issue is shared by Mr David Green of the Esperance VFRS, and is further evidence of the strength of inter-agency cooperation in the district:
381 Ms Christine Thompson, Deputy President, Shire of Murray, Transcript of Evidence, 24/02/2006, p2. 382 Mr James Camplin, Chief Bushfire Control Officer, Shire of Murray, Transcript of Evidence, 24/02/2006, p2-3. 383 Submission No 46 from the Shire of Esperance, 15/05/2006, p2. 384 Mr Klaus Tiedemann, Esperance District Manager, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p3. 385 Ibid., p4-5.
- 99 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Fire control is restricted to attending Esperance fires. Down here, everyone works together, so it is not really a problem. It is a case of more of a group discussion than somebody standing there with a big stick saying, “This is the way we’re going to run the fire.” I would find it very hard to comment on that strongly, because I have never encountered the problems that I have heard about in other areas.386
Mr Stuart McIntyre, Area Manager, FESA, Esperance, similarly refers to the strength of inter- agency cooperation within the Esperance District, which has developed as a result of isolation and a reliance on shared resources.387 He also acknowledges that agencies have different areas of expertise and says that control arrangements should be flexible enough to capitalise on this:
Anything that did not include flexibility in the management structure would be very dangerous or risky because there are certain issues that CALM manage better than we can…To exclude CALM from the management structure would be very dangerous, likewise with local government. While we maintain a good relationship with local government and volunteers now, we would need to move very carefully if we were looking at taking greater control in these shires…A lot of it probably comes back to personality. FESA staff from the great southern may be able to slip into a management team very comfortably because that familiarity is there and is born over many years of working together. We would need to be very careful in bringing in external management teams and saying, “Here we are, boys; let’s take over.” I see our role as to assist in the management structure, which is what we have done for many years in this region. Having said that, if it was managed carefully, we could possibly provide more input in the management side of the operation.388
Cooperation between FESA, CALM and local government is also praised by the Shire of Ravensthorpe.389 Their preference however is that CALM and local government retain control of a fire even though the Shire detailed that it has an agreement in place with FESA for handover of control once a fire reaches a pre-determined level:
In my view, CALM is responsible on CALM or crown land. That is fine. It uses us as a resource… I do not think FESA can control a fire. It is a resource, an advisory. That is all it has ever been. At the end of the day, if a fire is in a shire, on private property, it falls within the domain of local government. If we want to call in FESA and hand over incident control or whatever, we have that option. The shire has been approached and has agreed, although I do not think all fire control officers agreed, to hand over control at a designated point.390
The Shire’s Chief Bushfire Control Officer stresses that FESA should have a support role rather than assume control:
386 Mr David Green, Captain, Esperance Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/06/2006, p3-4. 387 Mr Stuart McIntyre, Area Manager, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Transcript of Evidence, 08/06/2006, p2. 388 Ibid. 389 Mr Stuart Taylor, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Ravensthorpe, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p7. 390 Ibid., p7-8.
- 100 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
As much as possible, local governments should have control, with maximum legislative support from CALM and FESA.391
Mid-West/ Gascoyne Regions of the State
In Geraldton, the positions of FESA and CALM with respect to fire control tend to reflect the broader corporate view. Mr Gordon Purvis supports FESA taking control of an incident to avoid current confusion whereby there is potential for multiple incident control systems to be simultaneously established by different agencies on different tenures:
…the control of the fire at any given time, whether it is by land tenure or happens to be a house, should lie with one agency or one power…I believe FESA should hold an umbrella situation. CALM can set up an incident control management system, but it should notify FESA, being the authority, that it has done so. If the fire escapes onto other tenure, I think FESA would have enough commonsense to maintain that control function that CALM has set up to transfer across and manage that incident. There is no reason, because it has jumped over a line in the sand, to set up another incident management system when one is currently operating unless there are problems with it.392
CALM defends its role in fire suppression especially with regard to possessing the necessary skills and knowledge required for managing biodiversity:
Therefore, we need to be heavily involved in fire from a land management point of view. The value set and the skills that overlay the work that we do are pretty much owned by CALM in a sense, because the FESA skills are quite different. FESA provides for the protection of the community and its assets, and not necessarily for the biodiversity values that we manage. It would be very difficult for FESA to take on the full management of fire control and to manage the land under CALM’s control while fulfilling the broader fire function... If the fire was directly affecting or was actually burning CALM -managed land, we would be best placed to manage that scenario. Our people would know the area involved and would have worked on it. They would know the biodiversity values of the land and would have the motivation to make sure that the biodiversity values were considered as part of the mix of what needed to be thought about in the suppression operation.393
Kimberley/ Pilbara Regions of the State
Dr Roy Green, reflecting community feedback from the EPA’s review of fire in the Kimberley, cites that FESA is the most obvious choice for a single control authority but that consideration needs to be given to deficiencies:
I think there is an agreement that there should be one body that has that sort of responsibility and capability. Having said that, I must confess that there was a great deal
391 Mr Rod Daw, Chief Bushfire Control Officer, Shire of Ravensthorpe, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p7. 392 Mr Gordon Purvis, Fire Services District Manager, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p3-4. 393 Mr Kelly Gillen, Regional Manager, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p6-7.
- 101 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
of criticism of FESA in the local community in the Kimberley - in particular, that they were not terribly close to the community and not necessarily doing a good job. I have to be careful to not express a personal view. It looks to me that FESA is the obvious body, given that there may be need for improvements in both the way it behaves and the resources available to it.394
This view was echoed by Ms Lynette Craig, a pastoralist and Councillor of the Shire of Halls Creek who also believed that control should be given to a regional body:
The general perception is that FESA does not do a lot…that is the general perception certainly from the pastoralists’ point of view. FESA seems to focus more on the town or on emergencies such as missing people, flooding and things like that. The pastoralists in the Kimberley would like to see one central body responsible for fire other than local government that could coordinate. That might be FESA, but it should be a regional body not someone from Perth.395
Mr Robert Smillie, Acting CEO of the Shire of Halls Creek explained that in his experience of rural fires in the south west, FESA was able to mobilise resources more effectively than local government. However, he viewed that given the isolation of the Kimberley, FESA’s effectiveness would depend entirely on the quality of incident control that could be flown in at short notice.396 He did however qualify that a city based response may also be perceived negatively by the locals:
I suspect there would be a lack of confidence in what might be perceived to be a “townie” trying to tell people how to control the fires that might burn up here; someone who is perceived not to know the Kimberley way and have experience of the particular fire circumstances here. The south west is much easier where there is much more commonality.397
Mr Peter Stubbs of the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley believes that FESA is the most appropriate control authority given its superior access to resources:
The council supports the notion that FESA should be able to assume control of a fire. In fact, council would go further and suggest that, certainly in this environment and rangelands, FESA ought to be in control of a fire…The council’s view is that local government is not well resourced to deal with fires in rangelands. We do not have access immediately to satellite imagery; the state does through FESA. We do not have access to aircraft and things of that nature, whereas the state does. Because of the vastness of the area and the strategies that might be needed to get intelligence around fires and things like that, it best sits with the state, and for the state to request assistance from local government when it needs it.398
394 Dr Roy Green, Chair, Environmental Protection Authority Committee for the Review into Fire in the Kimberley and Inland Regions of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 14/06/2006, p3. 395 Ms Lynette Craig, Councillor, Shire of Halls Creek, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p4. 396 Mr Robert Smillie, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Halls Creek, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p4. 397 Ibid. 398 Mr Peter Stubbs, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p2.
- 102 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr Stubbs does not believe that local government has more local knowledge than FESA and that it is therefore appropriately placed to assume control of fires. He indicates that a high staff turnover prevents this occurring and that FESA district staff would be able to tap into local knowledge in the same manner as the Shire.399
The Shire of Roebourne already hands over control of fires to FESA under an MOU, given its limited resources.400
Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland VFRS, views that a single agency in control is appropriate although does not proffer which agency. He believes that such an arrangement would eliminate the current ‘passing of the buck’ which occurs in multi-agency incidents.401
The Kununurra VFRS is of the view that CALM should retain control of fire on CALM-managed lands given CALM’s knowledge of that land.402 This is a view shared by Ms Lynn Carter of the Wyndham ESU:
Obviously we bow to CALM on CALM -owned land because it knows the roads, the conditions and everything else, so when we are there, we do as the Romans do. We are happy to assist CALM.403
Mr Michael Booth, Captain, Karratha VFRS, concurs that CALM should retain control on CALM- managed land:
CALM have a lot of knowledge for their own areas same as we have for ours. Would it not be acceptable for FESA to take over the local government but leave CALM to manage their incidents and FESA only gets involved only when they are asked to help.404
CALM, Kimberley region, defends its expertise in dealing with rangelands fire, for which “the criteria, the management techniques and the resourcing are very different”.405 CALM view that FESA has limited expertise to handle such fires. Regardless of which authority is in control, Mr Kevin White, Regional Fire Coordinator, Kimberley, views that a strong land management background is essential for minimising environmental damage as a result of fire suppression:
I do believe that whoever picks it up, if it is a single authority, will need to ensure that the decision-making people have a very strong land management background for dealing with
399 Ibid., p3. 400 Mr Guy Thompson, Director, Technical and Development Services, Shire of Roebourne, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p4. 401 Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/2006, p2. 402 Mr Andrew Ogilvie, Captain, Kununurra Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p6. 403 Ms Lynn Carter, Officer in Charge, Wyndham Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p6. 404 Mr Michael Booth, Captain, Karratha Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p3. 405 Mr Kevin White, Regional Fire Coordinator, Kimberley, Department of Environment and Conservation, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p9.
- 103 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
wildfires. I say that because one of the most significant things that we need to be conscious of now is the degradation that unplanned fire is having, particularly in environments such as those we have here in the desert country. We can lumber in bulldozers and graders and leave behind us more damage than the fire itself would cause.406
Mr John Abbott, Senior Ranger, CALM, Fitzroy Crossing, viewed that in practice, commonsense prevails and that all parties work together. In terms of fire control, Mr Abbott conceded that once a fire was off CALM land, he would leave control to FESA as they are currently the more experienced authority in that area.407
Some local governments do not have the resources to meet bushfire responsibilities under the emergency services legislation
Throughout the course of this Inquiry, a number of local governments have indicated that they do not have the resources to adequately operate and maintain the bushfire service for the community. Specifically, it appears that some local governments have difficulty recruiting and retaining emergency services personnel with relevant expertise. FESA supports this local government assertion:
The ability for a local government to obtain and retain personnel with emergency services expertise is extremely difficult in some regional and remote local government areas. This is particularly so in small towns with transient communities.
Where local governments are not able to obtain and retain personnel with the necessary emergency management qualifications and experience, FESA considers it inappropriate and potentially litigious for the local government to retain the power to control fire.408
In recent years local government has been exposed to:
§ significant change in emergency services policy and legislation;
§ an increase in expectation, in terms of standards for emergency services training, equipment and operations; and
§ coronial and other criticisms of actions taken by a minority of local governments during emergencies.
Submissions to this Inquiry make it clear that some local governments are no longer comfortable with the level of responsibility designated to local government through the Bush Fires Act.
406 Ibid. 407 Mr John-Kym Abbott, Senior Ranger, Department of Environment and Conservation, Transcript of Evidence, 07/07/2006, p4. 408 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p24.
- 104 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
It is mentioned at Section 2.7 and Section 6.1 of this Report that the Northern Country Zone and several of its member councils have suggested that FESA assume all or part of the responsibility for BFBs. A range of reasons were cited and are discussed at Section 6.1. Principally it appears to be the result of concerns over the financial implications of litigation and both the economic and practical impact of occupational health and safety legislation on local governments with a low rate base. In brief, the Northern Country Zone unanimously endorsed that the responsibility for fire and emergency services should be under the control of FESA with local government having no further responsibility under the Bush Fires Act.409
The Shire of Coorow in addition to endorsing the Northern Country Zone submission, noted that they had delegated responsibility to FESA to assume control of any significant fire emergency in the Shire given lack of sufficiently trained Council staff, the associated potential for exposure to litigation and an overall belief that the responsibility of volunteer BFBs was exceeding the capacity of local government. 410
The Shire of Three Springs viewed that current practices were unsustainable due to advancements in technology, the increased size of farming populations, reduced populations, environmental awareness, litigation and reduction in volunteerism. They viewed that BFBs should be placed with FESA given the agency’s role, and the lack of fire related skill at the local authority level. 411 The Shire of Chapman Valley recommends a variation in arrangements, whereby local government would act as agents for FESA carrying out lower level support functions for BFBs, whilst FESA holds ultimate control and legal responsibility under the Bush Fires Act. 412
Local government submissions to this Committee, requesting the transfer of bushfire responsibilities from local government to FESA, are not restricted to those submitted by small or regional local governments. Similar recommendations have been forwarded by larger local governments, located on the fringes of the metropolitan area. For instance, the City of Wanneroo is explicit in recommending:
These issues [of bushfire coordination] can be addressed with the transfer of administration and operation of the volunteer Bushfire Brigades to FESA… Local government staff do not have fire fighting as a primary role, so the expertise to manage volunteer brigades, is more appropriately located with FESA.413
This point was reinforced at hearing. Mr Michael Barry, Manager, Ranger and Safety Services of the City of Wanneroo indicated that in its working relationship with FESA, the City will take control of a fire if it is first on the scene but if the City’s Chief Fire Control Officer in consultation
409 Submission No 32 from Northern Country Zone of the Western Australian Local Government Association, 2005, p1. 410 Submission No 31 from Shire of Coorow, 2005, p2. 411 Submission No 3 from Three Springs Shire Council, 2005, p5-6. 412 Submission No 13 from Shire of Chapman Valley, 2005, p1. 413 Submission No 23 from City of Wanneroo, 2005, p4.
- 105 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
with FESA believes the incident has escalated beyond the City’s capacity then control is passed over to FESA. 414
The Shire of Mundaring has an MOU with FESA under which the Shire part funds a FESA officer as the Shire Community Fire Manager. The Shire benefits from the arrangement insomuch as when a fire being controlled by the Shire escalates, the Community Fire Manager has direct access to FESA resources and in effect, FESA is in control from the start.415 In terms of control authorities, the Shire acknowledges that CALM is very capable of fire suppression but questions whether CALM would hand over control to FESA. 416
Similarly, the City of Mandurah proposes the:
Creation of a single authority which has legislative authority and the expertise necessary to combat fires and emergencies rather than the multi-agency system that currently applies.417
It must be noted that there are many local governments across the State that have the necessary resources, experience and expertise to fulfil local government bushfire responsibilities. It is clear to this Committee that a significant number of local governments fulfil their emergency services obligations under the Bush Fires Act with great commitment, an appropriate allocation of funding and the provision of emergency services expertise. FESA has also noted that these local governments provide their communities with well-resourced BFBs, provide Brigade members with appropriate emergency services training, employ local government personnel with emergency services expertise, and conduct emergency management planning for the area (via the establishment of Bushfire Advisory Committees, the implementation of emergency management plans, etc.).418
The community of Kojonup is to be commended for a history of commitment and dedication to emergency services. Mr Stephen Gash, CEO, Shire of Kojonup, discusses the Shire’s emergency services capacity:
…FESA already controls a local town fire brigade that also has a fire and rescue component, it is not under the control of the local government. Within the Shire of Kojonup there is also a local emergency management committee that encompasses all the hazard management authorities, such as the police, the fire and rescue service, the bush fire brigades and also the ambulance and hospital. We try to take a coordinated approach to the overall emergency management.419
414 Mr Michael Barry, Manager Ranger and Safety Services, City of Wanneroo, Transcript of Evidence, 30/08/2006, p4. 415 Mr Simon Bowen, Manager Community Safety, Shire of Mundaring, Transcript of Evidence, 30/08/2006, p3. 416 Ibid. 417 Submission No 21 from City of Mandurah, 2005, p4. 418 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p11. 419 Mr Stephen Gash, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Kojonup, Transcript of Evidence, 20/02/2006, p3.
- 106 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr Steve Magini, Kojonup Bushfire Association, provides further detail:
[Kojonup] has developed its own fire protection system over many years and generations, based on volunteers and experience. Kojonup was one of the first shires in WA to pioneer and embrace the radio controls network to support its volunteer firefighters. It now has some 631 registered members and more than 12 brigades. Today’s volunteers own and maintain 100 medium to heavy-duty firefighting units and a further 100 to 110 light fast- attack units…420
Mr Barry Jones, Regional Director Great Southern, FESA, supports the Shire’s bushfire capacity:
…we know that Kojonup is a very independent and well organised local authority. It has always been. I taught in the area in 1960 and it was then. It had fire maps in 1960 that would have left the rest of the state for dead because of their efficiency. Those fire maps had windmills, dams and telephone numbers - the whole lot - without the technical expertise that is available now.421
Mr Tim Johnston, Kojonup Bushfire Association, states:
In my experience of fires in this district, we have never had a fire go past eight o’clock at night. The biggest fire we ever had was stopped by eight o’clock at night. What happens is that the sea breeze stops it anyway. We have never had a fire burn for more than about eight hours, and none has ever got away the next day. We have a pretty good management record. A fire may burn for an hour and FESA may then decide that it is starting to get out of control. It would take FESA two hours minimum to get here, so we would have been going for three hours on our own… Once it is put into legislation that FESA is allowed to take over control of a fire, the lower echelons of FESA in Albany, who manage us, will have to come and take control… It is a very big question. We are not, in this document [FESA recommendations], getting any answers about how it is meant to work and how we are meant to make an informed decision about it.422
Views expressed by the Shire of Cranbrook are aligned with the Shire of Kojonup. Mr Graham Stanley, CEO, is adamant that the Shire of Cranbrook retain control of fire, as per the current arrangements:
With regard to the setting up of incident control teams, certainly in the case of Cranbrook CALM would be involved if there was any risk to CALM land, and FESA would certainly be part of that incident control team. However, if FESA is already on the team to give advice, it does not need to then come in and take control of the fire without consultation and without the fire controller saying we really need FESA to take over because we cannot handle it, or whatever. If we have a competent person in charge of a fire, we do not see
420 Mr Steve Magini, Member, Kojonup Bushfire Association, Transcript of Evidence, 20/02/2006, p4. 421 Mr A. Barry Jones, Regional Director Great Southern, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 20/02/2006, p7. 422 Mr Tim Johnston, Member, Kojonup Bushfire Association, Transcript of Evidence, 20/02/2006, p8.
- 107 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
why we should run the risk of having someone come in who is not au fait with the local situation and local knowledge.423
However, it cannot be denied that some local governments have difficulty providing adequate emergency services to their respective communities. Submissions and witness statements obtained throughout the course of this Inquiry have made this abundantly clear. In the interests of ensuring all communities within WA are provided with a high level of emergency service, the issue of local government capability must be addressed.
FESA to be empowered to assume control of fire from local government and CALM, but only under specific and pre-determined circumstances
FESA asserts that the need for one agency to assume control of fire, in certain circumstances, is supported by a number of Western Australian emergency services investigations undertaken by Government and non-Government bodies over a period of 40 years. The most recent of these investigations are as follows.
Mr Alastair Hope, State Coroner, conducted two emergency services coronial investigations in less than a 9 month period. The July 2004 coronial investigated the death of Craig Dee Sandy, a volunteer firefighter who was, at the time of his death, responding to an emergency incident. As a result of extensive investigation, the Coroner recommended a more precise determination of:
…how and when a change in control should take place in the circumstances where a relatively small fire develops into a larger fire requiring increased resources, particularly when lives and property are threatened, and there is an increasing need for control by a full-time professional officer and one is available.424
The March 2005 coronial inquest into the deaths of Judith Lesley Ward and Lorraine Melia, who died in the highly publicised Tenterden fires (December 2003), resulted in more specific recommendations in relation to fire control:
In order to ensure a seamless transfer of control from local personnel, particularly FESA personnel with relevant experience, I recommend that the Bush Fires Act 1954 be reviewed with a view to amending section 13(4) to provide FESA with the power to take control of a bushfire in appropriate circumstances.425
The Auditor General for Western Australia Performance Examination - Responding to Major Bushfires also criticised arrangements regarding Statewide control of fire in Western Australia. The Auditor General (AG) concludes:
423 Mr Graham P. Stanley, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Cranbrook, Transcript of Evidence, 20/02/2006, p6. 424 Hope, Alastair, State Coroner Western Australia Record of Investigation into Death - Inquest into the Death of Craig Dee Sandy, State of Western Australia, Perth, 8th July 2004, p39. 425 Hope, Alastair, State Coroner Western Australia Record of Investigation into Death - Inquest into the Death of Judith Lesley Ward and Lorraine Melia, State of Western Australia, Perth, 11th March 2005, p82.
- 108 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The organisational arrangements for managing bushfires has not changed since their introduction over 50 years ago. System level changes are necessary to establish a clear authoritative basis and a more cohesive structure for controlling major bushfires.426
A key finding of the same report recommends that:
The organisational arrangements for fighting major bushfires need to be better coordinated:
§ the authority for fighting bushfires being dispersed across 124 organisations poses inherent risks when multiple bushfires demand a coordinated response, or when major bushfires cross organisational boundaries;
§ the absence of a State-wide command structure across volunteer Bushfire Brigades weakens the capacity for managing major bushfires effectively, particularly when there are multiple bushfires burning simultaneously; and
§ the State’s bushfire Emergency Management Plan (Westplan Wildfire) lacks supporting legislation and is not part of an actively supported planning framework, which undermines its effective implementation in major bushfire emergencies.427
The AG’s recommendations include:
Government should:
§ establish a State -wide command structure across Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades for fighting major bushfires, to more effectively manage the coordination of personnel and resources;
§ establish emergency management legislation which clarifies State and local government responsibilities, and which rectifies the deficiencies in the State’s bushfire Emergency Management Plan, Westplan Wildfire.428
It should be noted that while the Committee is aware Westplan Wildfire has since been superseded by Westplan Bushfire, the former term is still employed in this Report to reflect comments that predate the change and/or for purposes of maintaining consistency since most references in submissions have been to Westplan Wildfire.
FESA informs that WA is the only State or Territory that empowers local government to control fire and that apart from WA, all States and Territories designate this power to the State.429
426 Pearson, D.D.R., Auditor General for Western Australia Performance Examination - Responding to Major Bushfires (Report 7), State of Western Australia, Perth, October 2004, p4. 427 Ibid., p5. 428 Ibid., p6. 429 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p26.
- 109 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Until relatively recently, the NSW fire control model was aligned with Western Australia’s. That is, the power to control fire was assigned, in part, to local government. However, according to Mr Phil Koperberg, Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service, these arrangements were changed when several independent and Government reports highlighted inadequacies in a system that demands multiple agencies share fire control responsibility. Mr Koperberg, in conversations held with this Committee, expressed the view that one agency must be designated responsibility for fire control, and that to dilute and disperse such responsibility would inevitably increase the risk to life and property.430
Queensland’s Department of Emergency Services is an equally vocal advocate of single agency control during fire incidents. Mr Ian Mitchell, Assistant Commissioner (Brisbane Region), Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, intimated to the Committee that Western Australia’s fire control arrangements, where agency jurisdiction is dependent upon land tenure, is somewhat confusing. He stated that such arrangements would not be acceptable in QLD.431
FESA contend the following:
It is FESA’s position that one body must assume accountability and responsibility for the control of fire across the State of Western Australia. The agency claims that without clear direction in this regard, confusion and angst during multi-agency operations will continue and the threat to life and property will increase.432
FESA proposes that FESA be empowered to assume control of fire on all land in Western Australia, regardless of the tenure, but only under the following circumstances:
§ in the opinion of FESA, local government or CALM do not have the ability, experience and/or resources required to control the fire; or
§ in the opinion of FESA, the fire or fires have escalated to a level whereby State- level control is required.433
FESA is neither proposing a State-operated fire service, nor relieving local government or CALM of their respective fire suppression obligations under normal circumstances. At hearing, Mr Bob Mitchell, then CEO of FESA stated:
Under our proposal, FESA would have the capacity to take control…we are talking about five to 10 incidents a year that we believe need some intervention in the process. The Auditor General has been very clear in his report that it needs to occur. The Coroner, who looked at the Tenterden and Lancelin fires, where unfortunately there were deaths, made the very same observation and the very same recommendation. It is not an issue of me
430 Mr Phil Koperberg, Commissioner, New South Wales Rural Fire Service, Briefing, 22/03/2006. 431 Mr Ian Mitchell, Assistant Commissioner (Brisbane Region), Queensland Department of Emergency Services, Briefing, 23/03/2006. 432 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p24. 433 Ibid.
- 110 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
wanting our agency running around the State taking control of every fire. That is not what this is about. This is about having a capacity to do it, if necessary, and only when necessary.434
FESA’s model proposes that under normal circumstances, local government will continue to be responsible for controlling fire on:
§ land that is within the local government area;
§ land that is outside of the designated townsite;
§ UCL; and
§ land that is outside of CALM-managed land, allocated Crown land and land managed by the Forest Products Commission.435
CALM will be responsible for controlling fire on:
§ CALM-managed land; and
§ allocated Crown land.436
The Committee is appreciative of FESA’s expertise in relation to emergency services and, in particular, incident control. However, consideration must be given to the views of other stakeholders of the legislation, particularly those with a role in fire prevention and suppression. In many instances, these stakeholders also possess an extremely high level of skill, ability and proficiency.
Without doubt, CALM currently retains a significant number of personnel with knowledge specific to fire burning on forest land. As such, CALM recommends that the intent of Section 45 of the Bush Fires Act be retained. CALM consider it imperative that CALM be empowered to take control and coordinate incident management of bushfires that are burning on or threatening CALM-managed lands:
In assessing the options for designating the control of bushfires the Standing Committee should note that CALM has the breadth and depth of skills and experience to take on wider Statewide roles in the management of critical fire incidents. CALM’s decentralised and regional structure, and availability of large numbers of accredited and senior fire controllers - who can be mobilised at short notice to command significant fire incidents - provide for effective and efficient delivery of these essential Government services.
434 Mr Robert J Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p14. 435 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p24. 436 Ibid.
- 111 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
CALM’s position is further enhanced due to its knowledge of terrain, fuel conditions and fire behaviour in all regions of Western Australia.437
The Bushfire Front praises CALM’s expertise and rejects the concept of one State-operated fire service:
There has been a suggestion that CALM’s fire operations should be incorporated into FESA, with the outcome being one fire service. We strongly reject this suggestion. The situation is already complicated enough with FESA and private property, without FESA wanting to carry out burns in National parks (for example)…We also believe strongly that CALM should retain control of firefighting operations for fires on or th reatening CALM- managed land.438
The CCWA did not develop a precise position on fire control, however from a biodiversity perspective also favour CALM retaining control on CALM-managed land:
I would not like to see FESA in control of a fire on CALM -managed land. CALM’s legislative responsibility is to protect biodiversity. FESA does not have that legislative responsibility. If we are looking at CALM -managed land, it should be CALM in control.439
The Shire of Kojonup contends that removing the power to control fire from the local level will negatively impact upon volunteerism within the community:
…The Shire of Kojonup appreciates the support of FESA, however, strongly urges against any further change in the legislation to remove control from the local level…If ownership is taken away from the volunteers at the local level it will erode the organisation and system we have in place, through the volunteers being disenfranchised and reducing their level of support. If our ability to respond to bushfire situations is reduced due to legislative requirements for the involvement of external agencies then we would expect that those external agencies would provide adequate resources to cover any shortfall, and accept any liability arising from their capacity to deal with emergency situations.440
Conversely, the WAPOL calls for one HMA for fire:
For all hazards there should be one Hazard Management Agency (HMA). Depending on geographic locality, fires have three possible HMAs and WAPOL consider it logical to move towards a situation where fires, as a distinct hazard, have a single HMA.441
WAFarmers similarly advocates the need for one agency to assume responsibility for fire:
437 Submission No 27 from Department of Conservation and Land Management, 2005, p20. 438 Submission No 34 from The Bushfire Front Inc., 2005, p7. 439 Dr Beth Schultz, Conservation Council of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 17/05/2006, p12. 440 Submission No 41 from Shire of Kojonup, 2005, p3. 441 Submission No 33 from Western Australia Police, 2005, p17.
- 112 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The stated need for better cooperation and coordination between agencies…coordinated early response will result in less danger to life, less destruction of property, and less environmental destruction which benefits everybody…
The diminishing resources of local governments in rural areas, due to the continuing process of rural adjustment, will mean service provision and delivery will suffer, and emergency services cannot be allowed to decline. However we strongly support the recommendation that local government retains the current emergency prevention functions.442
Mr John McDougall of the WAFarmers explained further at hearing that it is important for local knowledge and local experience to be protected and utilised, but at the same time this needs to be balanced with FESA taking control in certain instances:
It is a fine line...I have been involved in probably 40 or 50 very big fires throughout my career. When a fire gets beyond the capability of two shifts of firefighters, the local people start running out of legs, physically, then they need someone there who can go a bit further afield.443
The UFU recommends that the State Government designate the responsibility for incident command, control and suppression of fire to FESA. In effect, the UFU is advocating the establishment of one fire service.444 If FESA is to assume control for incidents however, it must be more realistic about resourcing, a view which echoes concerns raised within the Esperance district and cited above:
If FESA expands - if it does take control and the organisation grows - it will have district managers, area managers, who will be in the area, and that would be part of an overall strategic plan. It is one thing to say that you want to be the lead authority and not put anyone down there. It seems to me that if you are going to be the lead authority, you would want to have somebody in the area who can readily respond.445
In an operational context, it is the view of the UFU that things will not really change except that there would be an understanding that ultimately, FESA has responsibility. 446
Mr Peter Kneebone, Councillor for the Shire of Derby West Kimberley and Board member for the Kimberley Development Commission, made a submission independently of these organisations. Mr Kneebone also advocates the establishment of one fire service, with a strong focus on the Kimberley region of Western Australia:
442 Submission No 20 from Western Australian Farmers Federation (Inc), 2005, p3. 443 Mr John McDougall, General Executive Member, WA Farmers Federation, Transcript of Evidence, 03/05/2006, p4. 444 Submission No 17 from United Firefighters Union of Australia - West Australian Branch, 2005, p3. 445 Mr David Bowers, Secretary, United Firefighters Union of WA, Transcript of Evidence, 12/04/2006, p8. 446 Ibid.
- 113 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Under the current management regime [thousands of] square kilometres of native vegetation is burnt annually, many bushfires are simply not reported and there is an inadequate system for early warning and detection and, therefore, rapid response action is wanting. To save the Kimberley biodiversity from irreversible damage there is an urgent need for a professional, well-planned, coordinated and consistent approach to fire management… Seasonal factors accepted, the Kimberley has experienced up to 43% of country burnt on an annual basis.
With this legacy we need to question whether local government is the appropriate organisation to carry out the bushfire management function in the Kimberley. Shires have neither the specialised expertise, training programmes, time, equipment or other significant resources to offer the kind of management action now required to do justice to this complicated task over such a large and diversified area.447
The AVBFB supports a single agency assuming responsibility for a major incident in order to overcome confusion over multiple people reporting back on the same event. They do not specifically nominate FESA for the task.448 They view that the handover of control should occur once an incident reaches a pre-determined scale but emphasise the importance of continued use of local knowledge:
We accept that there must be a point in the management of any emergency incident where state control becomes obligatory. How and when this control is transferred or assumed is vital in the eyes of volunteers. The rules for the allocation and assumption of control must be clear and unambiguous. No matter what level an incident may have escalated to, there must always be a provision for the fullest utilisation of local knowledge and community opinion. The assumption of control must be proper and complete. There have been cases where career personnel from a number of agencies have assumed control, ignored local knowledge. This process is disrespectful to say the least and in some cases is dangerous.449
Mr Gordon Temby, Chief Bushfire Control Officer, Augusta Margaret River Shire, considers the establishment of one fire control authority:
It is inconceivable that 140 [local governments] can all agree on a uniformed approach to this [fire control] proble m. Recent incidents have high-lighted that there are problems with the initial phase of emergency service management and a central command authority is the obvious way to go. Fifty years ago it was felt that the communities and local governments could handle their own emergency situations. Today it’s a different story with complex equipment, work safe requirements, rapid communications, a greater volunteer commitment and potential legal requirements.450
447 Submission No 10 from Mr Peter Kneebone, 2005, p2. 448 Mr Terence Hunter, President, Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA (Inc), Transcript of Evidence, 21/06/2006, p6. 449 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA (Inc), 21/06/2006, p5. 450 Submission No 29 from Augusta Margaret River Shire, 2005, p2.
- 114 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The PGA support FESA taking control of a fire where FESA thinks that CALM or local government are struggling, or if CALM or local government request it.451 Even so, Mr Russell Thomson of the PGA stresses the importance of preserving local input:
Someone from outside, hopefully, has experience in handling a major, huge fire that is threatening life and all those things. That body can come in at that senior level and provide expertise that the locals do not have. However, as for on the ground operations, it has to be that local people who have the knowledge run the show. My concern is that one of FESA’s major roles is to encourage the locals to take responsibility and to be prepared. If you take away from the community that willingness to be involved with bureaucracy, red tape and the attitude of, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” they are going to say, “Oh no, I don’t care.” Perhaps not quite that, but I believe you have to keep those local people keen to be there.452
Command
FESA explains “command” in the context of the Authority having “control” of a fire:
AIIMS defines “command” as the “internal direction of the members and resources of an organisation’s roles and tasks by agreement or in accordance with relevant legislation.” In simple terms this means that one agency does not “command” another. The members and resources of an agency are commanded by personnel from within the agency. Applying the concept to Western Australian emergency services, FESA is responsible for commanding its own resources during an emergency incident, including the personnel, brigades and units. Likewise, local government and CALM are responsible for commanding their respective agency resources. This means that even when FESA has the power to control a fire, local government and CALM retain the power to command their own personnel, brigades and units.453
This Committee acknowledges that AIIMS is a nationally recognised and utilised system. It is also aware that AIIMS is compatible with the parallel American incident control system which has a similar definition of the concept of “command”.454
According to FESA, the organisation is often required to work alongside interstate emergency services agencies during emergencies. Less frequently, FESA may be asked to assist in training and/or aiding international emergency services agencies. To ensure that FESA’s command system is compatible with those of other agencies, it is FESA’s preference that the emergency services command structure in Western Australia remains unaltered.455
451 Dr Henry Esbenshade, Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA, Transcript of Evidence, 10/05/2006, p3. 452 Mr Russell Thomson, Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA, Transcript of Evidence, 10/05/2006, p7. 453 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 12/10/2005, p26-27. 454 Ibid., p26. 455 Ibid., p27.
- 115 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Committee assessment
After comprehensive, wide-spread and inclusive investigation, it is clear to the Committee that stakeholder opinion in relation to fire control will never align. Individual perceptions in relation to this issue are affected by multiple variables, including tradition, culture, community and personal experience. This Inquiry has been assisted immeasurably by both volunteer and career emergency services personnel across the State. The wealth of knowledge embodied by these individuals is immense and, without doubt, is to be valued, respected and admired.
It is this Committee’s role to:
§ investigate, collect and analyse information, witness submissions and witness statements in relation to fire control;
§ research, assess and draw conclusions from previous investigations and reports into fire control (at both National and State level); and
§ make recommendations in relation to the legislation most appropriate to ensure the safety of Western Australian communities.
The following has aided in the determination of this Committee’s recommendations in relation to the authority to control fire:
§ In 1998, FESA was established as the statutory authority responsible for fire in the State of Western Australia.
§ Following two emergency services coronial investigations, the State Coroner has concluded that the current fire control arrangements are inappropriate and increase the risk to life and property. The Coroner recommends the emergency services legislation be reviewed with a view to providing FESA with the power to take control of a bushfire in appropriate circumstances.
§ The Auditor General for Western Australia Performance Examination - Responding to Major Bushfires is critical of current arrangements in relation to Statewide control of fire in Western Australia. The AG believes that dispersing the authority to control bushfire across 124 organisations (local governments, CALM and FESA) poses inherent risks, when multiple bushfires demand a coordinated response, or when major bushfires cross organisational boundaries.
§ According to the COAG Report, National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management (2004), urban and rural fire agencies are:
…drawing closer together in each jurisdiction, and operational coordination within land management organisations is improving. This trend is desirable, and the culture of cooperation must be extended throughout the organisations.
- 116 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Regardless of the structures in place, there must be a single, unified command system for bushfire events and integrated operational planning and response.456
§ The contribution of firefighting volunteers to this State is immeasurable. The depth and breadth of knowledge of many fire brigade members is vital, so far as ensuring the safety of Western Australian communities.
§ Local knowledge, experience and expertise are imperative to Western Australia’s emergency services. Local government is a worthy and necessary force in mitigating the impact of fire and local input cannot be “replaced” with non-local resources.
§ CALM’s expertise in combating fire on CALM-managed land is well documented. The Committee deems it imperative that CALM continue to provide a firefighting service on CALM-managed land. The Committee does not support the need for CALM-Fire to be enveloped by the FESA organisation. Nor is it necessary to lessen or relinquish CALM’s power to control fire on CALM-managed land, except where that fire is deemed to threaten human life or private property.
§ It is clear that the “non-legislative” fire control arrangements negotiated by local government, FESA and CALM, and used to clarify the grey areas of the legislation, are extremely effective in some parts of the State. However, these arrangements:
- do not work in every instance;
- leave liability issues unclear and uncertain;
- are dependent upon “goodwill”; and
- are dependent upon the personalities of the day.
§ The number and size of housing developments abutting or located near CALM- managed land has increased significantly since 1954 and continues to mount. FESA is the only agency with structural firefighting capability.
456 Ellis, S, Kanowski, P and Whelan, R, National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2004, pxxxiii.
- 117 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 48
§ The current fire control arrangements are to be retained, with the following exceptions:
- FESA is to be empowered to take control of a fire from local government or CALM in specific circumstances, as defined in legislation.
- CALM is to be in control of a fire when it is burning on CALM-managed land. The provision enabling CALM to be in control of a fire when it is “near” CALM- managed land is to be removed.
§ The power for FESA to take control of a fire from local government or CALM is to be restricted to when the fire:
- Is a multi-agency incident and State-level control is required; and/or
- Has escalated to a pre-determined, critical level; and/or
- Has moved from CALM-managed land and into FESA’s legislative jurisdiction; and/or
- Is threatening life and property.
Recommendation 49
§ The decision for FESA to assume control is to be made by the Chief Executive Officer of FESA or through delegation from the Chief Executive Officer to an appropriate member of the Executive Team.
4.2 The Interoperability of Communications in Emergency Services
A range of State and Commonwealth Government reports and submissions to this Inquiry have raised concerns about the interoperability of communications in emergency services. Although evidence to this Inquiry principally raised concerns about incompatibility of radio communications or deficiencies in communications’ infrastructure, interoperability is defined more broadly as:
- 118 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
…the ability of emergency response groups’ and public utilities’ personnel to communicate with each other through the disciplined exchange of voice and/or data communications on demand and in real time.457 458
The 2003 Telecommunications Needs Assessment: the Communications Needs of Regional Western Australians, conducted by the Department of Industry and Resources and cited in the submission of the Office of e-Government, Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC), identified that:
The inability of the various organisations that are providing emergency services - police, fire, hospital, ambulance and local councils - to communicate with each other is a critical issue. A variety of incompatible systems are in use, and this restricts the ability to launch a coordinated response during a crisis.459
The frustration felt by volunteer emergency services personnel is embodied in the following comment by Mr Lincoln Heading, Kununurra SES:
It has been the bane of my life. Police can talk to the SES but not to the ambulance or fire services…Of course, we all look to the major emergency that might one day happen. Communication systems are most likely to fail when they are most needed. It would be really good to see a coordinated emergency services approach taken with communications.460
The State Coroner, Mr Alistair Hope, when investigating deaths in the Tenterden fire (2003) raised concerns about the incompatibility of the Western Australia Police UHF radio network with the VHF systems utilised by FESA, CALM and local governments. Mr Hope recommended that relevant authorities ensure the establishment of a compatible radio communications system. 461 He was also concerned about repeater failure and lack of contingency plans in the event of the latter.462 463
Similarly, the AG when analysing 12 post incident bushfire reports in line with the Performance Examination: Responding to Major Bushfires, October 2004, identified, amongst other issues, an inability to communicate with emergency services personnel given the absence of a single
457 Ms Karen Gee, Senior Policy Officer, Office of E-Government, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Transcript of Evidence, 23/11/2006, p8. 458 The definition is in the context of emergency and essential service organisations in Western Australia. 459 Submission No 26 from Office of e-Government, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 2005, p1. 460 Mr Lincoln Heading, Manager, Kununurra State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p6. 461 Hope, Alastair, State Coroner Western Australia Record of Investigation into Death - Inquest into the Death of Ms Judith Lesley Ward and Ms Lorraine Melia, State of Western Australia, Perth, 11th March 2005, p79/80. 462 Hope, Alastair, State Coroner Western Australia Record of Investigation into Death - Inquest into the Death of Mr Craig Dee Sandy, State of Western Australia, Perth, 8th July 2004, p 40/41. 463 Ibid, p79.
- 119 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
telecommunications system. 464 The AG was similarly concerned about other technical issues and failure to follow radio communications protocols, which essentially arose because of the absence of compatible systems.465
The AG asserted that planning at the local level, including communications, was critical to underpin the State level plan for dealing with major bushfires, Westplan Wildfire (now Westplan Bushfire). However the AG implied that local level planning was hampered by the absence of a State level telecommunications plan to inform Westplan Wildfire. The AG therefore viewed that in order to ensure preparedness for major emergencies, the issue needed to be addressed at the State level. 466
On a national level, the COAG National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management (2004) argued that the incompatibility of systems both within and across jurisdictions is an impediment to local, state, territory and national decision making.467 The report cited that there needed to be “a clear goal of establishing a single national emergency management communications approach…in the short to medium term”.468
A proportion of the evidence provided to the Committee was reflective of local attempts at improving communication being ultimately hamstrung by technical issues of incompatibility. The comment of the Albany VMRS is indicative of this:
…the SES does not share the same radio frequencies as us, nor the same radios for that matter, and neither do the police. It was only two or three weeks ago that we had an incident with a boat around The Gap area, and we could not talk to them simply because the radio relay facilities were not out there…That put our people at risk and put at risk the person in the water… The problem we have with it is that that situation has existed for 20 years, that we have known of, and we have never been able to resolve it…I think, certainly, there is not one single organisation that can resolve it. Even though we have tried, as we have filled in as many gaps as we can, we need some kind of common radio communications. .. that people are familiar with. We have trie d in the past to give police our radios, but, of course, they are not trained in our radios. So as soon as there is an incident, and a new policeman comes along, they have lost that… 469
464 Pearson, D.D.R., Auditor General for Western Australia Performance Examination - Responding to Major Bushfires (Report 7), State of Western Australia, Perth, October 2004, p33/35. 465 Ibid., p34. 466 Ibid., p33/35. 467 Ellis, S, Kanowski, P and Whelan, R, National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2004, p137. 468 Ibid., p140. 469 Mr Noel Francis, President, Albany Volunteer Marine Rescue, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p4/5.
- 120 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Albany VMRS also spoke about gaps in communication caused by lack of supporting telecommunications infrastructure such as relay stations.470 Similar comments were made by the Shire of Murray471 and Geraldton/Greenough VMRS.472
FESA acknowledges the inadequacy of the current communications system. In correspondence received by the Committee on 25 July 2006, the Authority states:
The current (primarily VHF Mid Band) FESA Emergency Radio Network consists of a number of conventional radio systems built by the respective emergency services that were amalgamated to form FESA.
These systems were built over time, in isolation, when funding was available. The systems served the purposes of emergency services operating in isolation. However, with the formation of FESA, and changes in operating requirements, these networks are now functionally limited.
FESA is upgrading its radio network to provide a state wide interoperable Western Australian Emergency Radio Network (WAERN).473
The majority of stakeholders who viewed the current communications system as problematic were aware of Government’s attempts to establish a radio communications network to address some of the shortfalls in communications in emergency services.
It should be noted that from Government’s perspective, radio communications and related infrastructure are but one communication requirement for a major incident. The Office of e- Government elaborates:
1. Intra-agency Communications: Effective two -way communications between all personnel on site and their respective headquarters/operations centre;
2. Control Communications: Telecommunications infrastructure and protocols to allow for unimpeded communications between the Incident Controller/Manager and the senior on-site representatives of any other participating agencies;
3. Broadband services at the Incident Control Centre, whether in a town or a remote location, capable of providing secure access to systems and databases in all the relevant agencies, utilities and private companies.474
470 Ibid., p5. 471 Mr James Camplin, Chief Bushfire Control Officer, Shire of Murray, Transcript of Evidence, 24/02/2006, p6. 472 Mr Rudolph Wille, Commander, Geraldton Volunteer Sea Rescue Group, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p6. 473 Email from Mr Keith Darbyshire, Manager Information Services, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia 25/07/2006, p1. 474 Submission No 26 from Office of e-Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2005, p1.
- 121 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
In light of this, the Office of e-Government has been charged with developing an Emergency Services Communications Strategy, in conjunction with independent consultants. This comprises the following:
…The Strategy will be a third tier strategy underpinned by the WA Public Sector Telecommunications Strategy and the e-Government strategy for the Western Australian Public Sector… The Strategy aims to provide a whole -of-government long-term strategic framework, taking into account technological trends, within which the future direction of data, voice and video applications for emergency services will be identified, including the impact of converged Internet Protocol (IP)-enabled networks. The Strategy therefore will consider all relevant communications technologies; including radiocommunications and mobile telecommunications as well as broadband data communications required to access bandwidth -hungry geospatial data. It will identify the required cross government standard infrastructure, protocols, tools and service arrangements for hazard and emergency management, combat and support agencies operating in regional and remote areas of Western Australia, including:
· existing systems and current capacities – strengths and weaknesses, how to fill any gaps identified
· standards and interoperability
· strategic directions: medium and long term
· incident management arrangements.475
It should be noted that within the tender for the consultancy to inform the Emergency Services Communications Strategy, the radio component was given priority. 476 This was essentially because FESA had secured a $20 million telecommunications contract and although there was a pressing need to address the radio issue, the Office of e-Government viewed that for reasons of interoperability and collaboration it needed to be examined in the context of an overall Emergency Services Communications Strategy. 477
Correspondence received from the Office of e-Government, dated 27 July 2006, indicates that the consultants have completed an independent evaluation of Emergency Services Telecommunications and have submitted a range of documentation which will be used to inform and develop the Emergency Services Strategy. The Office of e-Government notes that the strategy will provide a mid to longer-term (5-10 years) direction for the whole of Western Australia and will incorporate the technical requirements of the following agencies: Office of e-Government Department of Treasury and Finance
475 Ibid. 476 Submission No 26 from Office of e-Government, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 2005, p5. 477 Ms Veritas Bryson, Executive Director, Office of e-Government, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Transcript of Evidence, 23/11/2005, p2.
- 122 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
WA Police Conservation and Land Management Fire and Emergency Services Authority Royal Flying Doctor Service Western Power Water Corporation Public Transport Authority St John Ambulance Alinta Gas Health Department of WA Department of Justice WA Local Government Association.478 With respect to the radio solution, it is understood that a pilot will be conducted prior to implementation. The Shire of Esperance comments in relation to the latter:
The committee may be aware that FESA is introducing a new Western Australian emergency radio network which will couple together all the different frequencies and radio systems across various emergency services, ranging from police, SES and bush fires. That planning is pretty well advanced. The Shire of Esperance will be the first shire in the state to receive that. We are talking to the technicians from FESA about locations for new towers and how the new system will be modified into our system. We are expecting that to be introduced in the 2006-07 fire season. That may be a little ambitious, but we will pursue that end. Joint training exercises certainly are undertaken between all the groups. We hope the new radio system will make the communications issue more effective for everyone.479
The concern of volunteers naturally centred on the radio system and was generally positive in relation to the impending changes. The Shire of Kojonup however perceived their existing communications system to be adequate, particularly in relation to its ability to communicate with neighbouring shires. They were concerned about the range and capacity of the new radio system and the fact that it would render useless approximately 200 monitoring sets tuned to the bushfire frequency, located in farm houses throughout the district.480
The Committee sought comment from Information Services, FESA, regarding Kojonup’s concerns. The Authority advised that the use of monitoring or privately owned radios on the VHF Mid Band Spectrum (currently used by Kojonup) will continue for as long as the Shire wants this to occur. Further, that the expected range of radios will be identical to those currently in existence.481 It is understood that FESA is working with the Shire of Kojonup and other local governments to address any concerns about the new system.
478 Email from Ms Veritas Bryson, Executive Director, Office of e-Government, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 25/07/2006, p2. 479 Mr Ronald Scantlebury, Manager Administration Services, Shire of Esperance, Transcript of Evidence, 8/06/2006, p5. 480 Mr Tim Johnston, Farmer and Deputy Chief Fire Control Officer, Shire of Kojonup, Transcript of Evidence, 20/02/2006, p9-10. 481 Email from Keith Darbyshire, Manager, Information Services, 25/07/2006, p3.
- 123 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The Office of e-Government notes that the governance of whole-of-government emergency services communications requires further consideration, particularly where responsibility for interoperability solutions outside of individual agency networks should reside. They detail that the Public Sector Telecommunications Strategy recommends a centralised whole-of-government network manager function and that management of emergency services interoperability solutions could be a responsibility of that position. 482
The Committee does not feel it is necessary to elaborate on the technicalities of the communications initiatives, needless to say that the Emergency Services Communications Strategy is inherently complex. This is perhaps best summarised in the following comment by the Office of e-Government:
Requirements of all players are different and ways of working together cross- jurisdictionally vary with the nature, complexity and situation of each incident. Technological solutions therefore need to take into account emergency management issues such as responsibility not just for Preparedness and Response but also for Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery, land custodian issues, resource provisioning both human and physical including the use of volunteers, existing arrangements and communications patterns, incident command and so on. The technology solely exists to meet the business drivers and as such it needs to understand the nature of the business at a whole-of-government level.483
The Office of e-Government has established consultative mechanisms aimed at coordinating cross-jurisdictional emergency services. As already indicated in this section, the initiative under development has therefore included non-Government groups such as St John Ambulance and the Royal Flying Doctor Service.484
The Office of e-Government informed that they are represented on the National Coordinating Committee for Government Radio Communications. They detail “that this Committee, in collaboration with the Law Enforcement and Public Safety Radio Communications Committee, has commenced addressing spectrum issues for emergency services across Australia, including agreement on Channels for Mutual Aid purposes and multi-agency response interoperability”.485
Ms Veritas Bryson, Executive Director, Office of e-Government, in evidence, spoke of a current focus on broadband penetration in regional and remote areas of Western Australia to cater for transmission of spatial (land) information.486 She referenced the Shared Land Information Platform (SLIP), currently being developed by the Department of Land Information (DLI), from
482 Submission No 26 from Office of e-Government. Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 2005, p3. 483 Ibid., p4. 484 Ibid. 485 Email from Veritas Bryson, Executive Director, Office of e-Government, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 25/07/2006, p1. 486 Ms Veritas Bryson, Executive Director, Office of e-Government, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Transcript of Evidence, 23/11/2005, p4.
- 124 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
whom the Committee received a submission.487 SLIP builds on the collaboration of Government agencies established by the Office of e-Government strategy by recognising the need to continue integration across Government.488 SLIP essentially provides a single point of access for land information and allows for the use of consistent and in some cases, real time data, for improved decision making. 489
One of the focus areas for this data is emergency management which “includes the management of bushfire and natural disasters such as flooding and earthquakes, three characteristics of emergency services control”.490 DLI provides an example of the type of information that could be relevant to fire and emergency services:
· Transport - tracks, rail lines and airstrips;
· Utilities - gas, hydrants, electricity;
· Community - schools, hospitals, nursing homes;
· Topographic - storm surges and heights, townsite boundaries; and
· Imagery - satellite and aerial.491
The DLI view that the drawing together of this information will increase the effectiveness of incident command and control systems in emergency services. They elaborate:
…This information can be used to establish specific mitigation/protection plans, determine and monitor the scale of an emergency, estimate the rate of spread or progression and accelerate and direct rescue efforts.492
Ms Veritas Bryson, Office of e-Government, makes a pertinent point in evidence regarding the notion of the Emergency Services Communications Strategy addressing all the concerns of the Coroner and AG:
Currently many of the issues…identified are being covered in the risk management table. The full strategy will take that into consideration…It is important to point out that a number of those issues are about operational issues within the agency, and the Office of e- Government would not get involved at that level. It is not our role to get involved at that
487 Ibid., p5. 488 Department of Land Information, Shared Land Information Platform Implementation Plan Final Volume 1, State of Western Australia, 27/10/ 2004, p1. 489 Email from Department of Land Information, 25/07/2006, p1. 490 Submission No 22 from Department of Land Information, 2005, p3. 491 Ibid. 492 Ibid.
- 125 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
level. We would look at it much more strategically. For instance, we would make sure some recommendations were made about the maintenance of the equipment.493
She elaborates further:
…I think the bottom line is that technology can solve only so many problems. The bottom line is that it is a people issue. It is about instructions for people so that they know what they can do and when they can do it, and the command and control system. Technology is a tool. It is an assistant; it is not the ultimate solution…I made the comment earlier that even though we can get interoperability and the technical solutions in place, a lot of this will depend on operational management within organisations.494
In summary, the Committee is satisfied that many of the concerns raised by the Coroner, Auditor General and stakeholders relevant to this Inquiry, will be addressed via the Emergency Services Communications Strategy. However, as stated by Ms Bryson, this does not negate responsibility for operational planning and management at the local level to support technical communications capacity.
During the course of this Inquiry, the Committee received detailed evidence or briefings from the Office of e-Government, WAPOL, DLI and FESA on communications related issues. The Committee was impressed at the level of commitment from these agencies and their staff in progressing initiatives and doing so from a whole-of Government perspective. This will obviously have benefits in terms of interoperability and savings in capital investment. Finally, it was pleasing to hear comments that Western Australia is highly advanced in the management of spatial and land information.495
493 Ms Veritas Bryson, Executive Director, Office of e-Government, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Transcript of Evidence, 23/11/2005, p4. 494 Ibid., p8. 495 Ibid., p5.
- 126 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
CHAPTER 5 THE MEANS BY WHICH STATE LEGISLATION ESTABLISHES REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE PREVENTION, PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE MEASURES ARE ESTABLISHED FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES
5.1 Establishment of a Regulatory Body for Emergency Services
A limited number of submissions and evidence tendered at hearing cited the need to establish an independent regulatory body to oversee agency compliance with emergency services and emergency management legislation.
The Bushfire Front describes itself as an organisation of independent professionals with many years experience in bushfire operations, policy, legislation and research. 496 The Bushfire Front believes that the fire management system in Western Australia is not geared to deal with multiple and large scale fires nor is this the focus of Government or agencies.497 They argue that Western Australia currently sits within the complacency phase of the “Bushfire Cycle”, which essentially infers that the absence of a recent bushfire disaster has resulted in political complacency, community apathy and budgetary cut backs for bushfire prevention and mitigation. 498 They contend the following:
There are two serious problems:
1. When it comes to bushfire management in WA, there is no-one in charge. This allows a plethora of uncoordinated policies amongst state government agencies and LGAs [local government authorities]. It means that no-one is accountable for outcomes, nor responsible for inputs such as developing policy, legislation, performance standards, targets, template for best practice or for seeing that there is an effective program of community education.
2. On top of this, it is impossible for anyone to know how things are going. CALM and FESA report on themselves; there is no independent audit of systems, monitoring of performance against goals, nor any independent annual public reporting on outcomes…499
496 Submission No 34 from The Bushfire Front Inc, 2005, p1. 497 Ibid., p2. 498 Ibid., p3. 499 Submission No 34.1 from The Bushfire Front Inc, 2005, p1.
- 127 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
They view that the “Bushfire Cycle” “can only be derailed by strong leadership, intelligent action and adequate funding”.500 They propose a Best Practice system for bushfire management and recommend the following approach:
· A Ministerial Bushfire Council to be established (the Ministers responsible for FESA, Environment, Planning and Police) and made responsible for bushfire management in WA and truly accountable for outcomes. Their role would be to sort out Problem 1, above. The council would clearly need professional support, and this would need to be provided by CALM, FESA and the State Planning Commission.
· A new organisation (replacing the FESA Board) would be established to oversee the fire operations of CALM, FESA and Local Governments and also the performance of the Ministerial Council. This would be a small group of trained professionals and experienced administrators, and they would report to Parliament. Their role would be to tackle Problem 2, above.
The new organisation would sit within the Auditor General’s department. It need be no more than 8-10 staff, and it would be sensible if they were also able to audit and report on non-bushfire emergency management.501
The EDO, jointly with the CCWA, cite concern that apart from Section 17 of the FESA Act in which the responsible Minister may direct the Authority to undertake a particular course of action, there is no monitoring or performance review function under the emergency services legislation. They suggest that a performance management function be provided for as recommended in a set of national principles on fire mitigation and management proposed in the COAG National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management (2004).502 The reasons cited for a set of national principles are establishing shared goals and facilitating communication of those goals, providing a common framework for a national challenge, in recognition of fire knowing no borders or boundaries, and facilitating performance review and compliance. The concept of a set of national principles was agreed to in the Government’s response to the COAG report.503 The EDO and CCWA purport that for similar reasons Government should legislate for a set of State principles, binding on all agencies, which would encourage consistency of approach in fire management policy regimes.504 They submit that the State principles should mandate a risk assessment and risk management approach. 505 Further, that the latter focus on protecting people and community assets, including biodiversity. 506
500 Submission No 34 from The Bushfire Front Inc, 2005, p3. 501 Submission No 34.1 from The Bushfire Front Inc, 2005, p1. 502 Submission No 38 joint submission from Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Environmental Defender’s Office, 2005, p3. 503 Ibid., p2. 504 Ibid., p4. 505 Ibid., p5. 506 Ibid., p4.
- 128 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
In addition, they propose that audits be conducted by the AG in relation to fire suppression by Crown agencies, measured against the State principles and that the audits be supplemented by independent reviews of the efficiency of the legislation (possibly at five yearly intervals).507
At hearing on 17 May 2006, the EDO and CCWA, on reconsideration of the suggested audit process, recommended that the Conservation Commission of Western Australia would be more appropriately placed to conduct this task, although acknowledged a requirement for more audit staff. They cited that their key point of interest was the extent to which biodiversity featured in fire management.508 509
The Bushfire Front do not believe that the Conservation Commission of Western Australia is appropriately placed to conduct audits of CALM’s fire management plans because the plans are produced by the Commission and they perceive that they lack professional fire management expertise or experience.510
The Committee queried FESA in relation to regulation and monitoring of agency compliance with the legislation, particularly given the Authority’s suggested amendments relating to accountabilities and responsibilities under the Act.511 Mr Bob Mitchell, then CEO made the following comment:
…Although 124 agencies are involved in fire, I am not sure who should have the capacity to determine whether the system is operating effectively. In the power industry model, the Office of Energy ensures that the service providers are providing a service to the community of an appropriate standard. That is not a role for FESA to undertake because we are a major service provider and, therefore, we would run into conflict of interest. I do not want another bureaucracy established, but while there are 124 agencies involved in this business, somewhere along the line the government has to know that the whole thing is working, and working adequately, in the 124 locations. I think if I were the government of the day, I would want to know that the industry and all its players were performing at an appropriate standard.512
In response to an additional question relating to whether this was the province of the AG or another regulator, Mr Mitchell cited:
I do not think that the Auditor General would have the capacity or the inclination to get into the operational service delivery of 120 shires, FESA and CALM. It will do broad
507 Ibid., p12. 508 Mr Cameron Poustie, Principal Solicitor, Environmental Defender’s Office, Transcript of Evidence, 17/05/2006, p1. 509 Ibid., p14 510 Submission No 34.1 from The Bushfire Front Inc, 2005, p1. 511 Mr A.P O’Gorman, MLA, Chairman, Community Development and Justice Standing Committee, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p20. 512 Mr Robert Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p20.
- 129 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
overviews, as it did with the bushfire report. To get down to that level is a difficult issue…513
In a secondary submission dated 23 November 2005, Mr Mitchell advises that the Emergency Management Act makes provision for the establishment of an SEMC tasked with, amongst other duties, the preparation of State Emergency Management Plans, including those related to bushfire. Mr Mitchell asserts that this may be one model for ensuring a standardised, holistic approach across Government and community for bushfire mitigation, however that another could be an independent regulator of emergency services.514
The AVBFB also support the concept of an independent regulator, viewing that it should be assigned several roles including consideration of appeals in relation to fire management plans 515 and management of ESL funds.516 They view appeals to the SAT in relation to directives to develop fire management plans (as recommended by FESA) as limiting given that the Tribunal only considers a Government agency’s decision making process.517 In actual fact, the SAT is responsible for reviewing administrative decisions, which involves examining the merit of the decision made by the original decision maker.518 Even so, the AVBFB consider that an independent regulator would have the requisite technical knowledge and expertise to actually “adjudicate and rule” on a fire safety related situation. 519 They also view that the latter would provide transparency and equity in the collection and distribution of ESL funds, deemed to be of particular importance given FESA benefits from those funds.520 521 They suggest that the regulator be structured in a similar manner to the Office of Energy522 and that it facilitate input from volunteers, local government authorities and other relevant agencies.523 The Committee sought advice from appropriate agencies in relation to some of the above proposals. The Committee wrote to the Departments of Treasury and Finance (DTF) and DPC on 30 November 2005 citing the comments of the Bushfire Front and requesting a response on the feasibility of establishing an independent regulatory body in the Office of the Auditor General (OAG). The DTF did not support the proposal for the following reasons:
513 Ibid. 514 Submission No 16.1 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p3. 515 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bushfire Brigades (Inc), 21/06/2006, p4. 516 Ibid., p7. 517 Ibid., p4. 518 State Administrative Tribunal, Available at: http://www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au/portal/server.pt?in_hi_userid=2&space= CommunityPage&parentid=1&cached=false&control=SetCommunity&PageID=0&CommunityID=235&parentname=C ommunityPage Accessed on 23/08/2006. 519 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bushfire Brigades (Inc), 2006, p4. 520 Ibid., p7. 521 Mr Edward Van Rijnswoud, Honorary Secretary, Association of Volunteer Bushfire Brigades (Inc), Transcript of Evidence, 21/06/2006, p10. 522 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bushfire Brigades (Inc), 21/06/2006, p7. 523 Ibid., p4.
- 130 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
…opportunity already exists for the Minister, or OAG, to undertake reviews into agency compliance, utilising the services of trained professionals as and when required.
Generally, regulatory bodies are set up by statute, are independent and may be funded by either industry or government. This proposal would therefore be inconsistent with the creation of other regulatory bodies, with similar functions, that have been set up as separate independent entities.
It should be noted that the State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC) is responsible for ensuring an efficient emergency management capability, including Bushfire Management, for the State of Western Australia. This incorporates Emergency Management education and awareness, policy formulation, planning, operations and continuous improvement. The latter role has a significant on-going review and monitoring component, which if replicated on a permanent basis in the OAG, would result in duplication.
In terms of the Emergency Management Act 2005…the SEMC is required to table its annual report in both houses of Parliament each year and the OAG is required to audit and report on a regular basis.524
DPC also declined to support the proposal viewing that there was no demonstrated need for a permanent regulatory body. They cited significant administrative and operational costs in the establishment of such a body, and argued that placing the latter within the OAG would create a potential conflict of interest as the OAG would be required to audit the performance and finances of the regulatory body.
Further, they noted that:
…It is common for departments to undertake both regulatory and service delivery roles, with those roles structurally separated within Departments in order to retain appropriate levels of independence between service delivery and regulatory roles. For example, the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection delivers fair trading advisory services to the public and also regulates consumer protection. The Health Department operates public hospitals and also regulates public health issues. An important advantage of this approach is that it brings a better understanding of operational issues together thus ensuring that the regulatory role is better resourced and informed.
It should be noted that the Office of Energy is formally a department created under the Public Sector Management Act reporting to the Minister for Energy. It has no powers to report independently to the Parliament. It is the intention of Government as outlined by the Machinery of Government Taskforce that the Office of Energy should remain in its current form until structural reform of the electricity industry is completed at which time any successor entities should be considered.525
524 Letter from Mr Anthony Kannis, Executive Director Agency Resources, Department of Treasury and Finance, 25/01/2006, p2/3. 525 Letter from M C Wauchope, Director General, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 22/02/2006, p4 (attachment).
- 131 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
On 17 May 2006, the Committee requested comment from the OAG on the proposals raised by both the Bushfire Front and jointly by the EDO and CCWA. The AG was privy to the comments of the DTF and DPC. The OAG responded with the following:
…As the external auditor of Government, it is essential that the Office of the Auditor General remains independent from the sector it audits. Undertaking a regulatory function such as that proposed by the Environmental Defender’s Office [Bushfire Front] would place this independence at risk.
As the Department of Premier and Cabinet points out, there would be significant administrative and operational costs in the establishment and operation of such a new regulatory body, and these activities will therefore be subject to audit. The best role for the Office would be the external audit function and offering the potential for efficiency and effectiveness reviews at an appropriate time…526
On 18 May 2006 the Committee sought the advice of CALM on the recommendations of the Bushfire Front and the EDO and CCWA, the Conservation Commission on the EDO and CCWA proposal regarding the conduct of regular audits by the Commission, and FESA regarding the comments made by the DTF and DPC. FESA was asked specifically to comment on DTF’s remarks regarding the SEMC.
CALM responded as follows:
…The Auditor General currently has the discretion to conduct audits at various intervals and using a variety of methods, depending on the purposes of the audits. The Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) agrees generally with the advice provided to the inquiry by the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Department of Premier and Cabinet on this matter.
The Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 as amended provides for the establishment of an independent statutory authority, the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, that reports to the Parliament on CALM’s performance against management plans approved by the Commission. Each Management plan contains a section that outlines fire management objectives and strategies for the achievement of fire management conducted within the area of the management plan…527
The Hon. Mark McGowan, MLA, Minister for the Environment, Racing and Gaming, responded as the responsible Minister for the Conservation Commission of Western Australia:
…The Conservation Commission is responsible for management plan preparation for land vested in it through the agency of the Department of Conservation and Land Management (the Department). The Conservation Commission is also responsible for audits with respect to the implementation of those management plans. It also has policy advisory
526 Letter from Mr John Doyle, Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General, 08/06/2006, p1. 527 Letter from Mr Kieran McNamara, Executive Director, Department of Conservation and Land Management, 30/06/2006, p1.
- 132 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
functions in relation to vested lands and waters, and broader biodiversity conservation matters.
The Conservation Commission has five staff, two of whom are auditors, responsible for assessing and auditing the Department (and the Forest Products Commission in the case of State forest and timber reserves).
The Minister for the Environment, reflecting the EPA recommendations of Bulletin 1151 (October 2004) established that the Conservation Commission would have an ongoing role of auditing the prescribed burning and fire management regimes as part of the 2004-2013 Forest Management Plan…
…The Commission considers that the conducting of audits of biodiversity aspects of fire management by Crown agencies would fit with the current function, although it does not have sufficient resources for any expansion. If additional resources were available it may be possible to undertake such an expanded role…528
FESA detailed the following:
§ neither Department supports the establishment of a regulatory body to oversee agency compliance with legislative requirements;
§ opportunities already exist for the Minister or the Office of the Auditor General to undertake reviews into agency compliance; and
§ the establishment of a separate regulatory office would duplicate (at some cost) the responsibilities that already rest with the SEMC to ensure an efficient emergency management capability, including bushfire management, for the State of Western Australia.529
FESA are therefore of the opinion that it is neither appropriate nor necessary to establish an independent regulator for emergency services or emergency management.530
FESA cited the following in regard to the SEMC being assigned regulatory responsibility for emergency services:
FESA has further considered the role/s that might be undertaken by the SEMC. The functions of the SEMC, as prescribed in section 14 of the Emergency Management Act 2005, including the following:
§ to advise the Minister on emergency management and the preparedness of the State to combat emergencies;
528 Letter from Hon. Mark McGowan, MLA, Minister for the Environment, Racing and Gaming, 27/06/2006, p1/2. 529 Letter from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 29/08/2006, p8. 530 Ibid.,p8.
- 133 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ to provide direction, advice and support to public authorities, industry, commerce and the community in order to plan and prepare for an efficient emergency management capability for the State; and
§ to provide a forum for a whole of community coordination to ensure the minimisation of the effects of emergencies.
Whilst such functions are clearly indicative of a monitoring/review role, they are not necessarily supported by those of a regulatory nature. SEMC typically operates at a strategic level and does not involve itself in the day to day operations of emergency services; including those emergency incidents which do not require a significant and coordinated response.
Conversely, the Office of the Auditor General’s function and powers clearly provide for closer scrutiny of emergency management and emergency services, e.g. the ‘Performance Examination - Responding to Major Bushfires’, 20 October 2004.
FESA respects the capabilities of the Office of the Auditor General and sees no reason to undermine or duplicate the role of that office.531
Interstate arrangements
In Victoria, the Emergency Services Commissioner is established by Section 21B of the Emergency Management Act 1986 (Vic). The Commissioner is empowered by the legislation to “establish and monitor standards for the prevention and management of emergencies to be adopted by all emergency services agencies”, and “to advise, make recommendations and report to the Minister on any issue in relation to emergency management”. 532 The Emergency Services Performance Branch within the Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner assists in this function by establishing, maintaining and reviewing performance standards in relation to emergency services.533 This includes carrying out non-financial performance audits, investigating emergency service systems and processes, benchmarking and performance reporting, as well as developing projects to improve processes, standards, systems, strategies and infrastructure.534 Other divisions within the Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner have responsibility for different aspects of emergency management, namely Emergency Management and Security, Emergency Management Development, and Emergency Services Strategy and Finance.535
Unlike the independent authority provided for by legislation in Victoria, legislation in NSW provides for a limited degree of self-regulation by the fire services themselves. The Fire Brigades Act 1989 (NSW) establishes the Fire Brigades Advisory Council, comprising the Commissioner of NSW Fire Brigades, a representative of NSW insurance companies, a local government
531 Ibid. 532 Section 21C(1) Emergency Management Act 1986 (Vic) 533 Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner (Victoria). Available at: http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/emergency Accessed on 07/09/2006. 534 Ibid. 535 Ibid.
- 134 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
representative, and a person nominated by the Minister for Emergency Services with expertise in fire prevention and control.536 Under the Act, the Advisory Council is required to “advise the Minister on any matter relating to the development, co-ordination, administration and regulation through the State of fire brigade services” provided under the authority of the Act, which “may be given either at the request of the Minister or without any such request”.537
A similar advisory council for rural fire services is established under Section 122 of the Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW) comprising the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Service, a representative from each of the Insurance Council of Australia, Local Government Association of NSW, Shires Association, NSW Farmers Association, NCC of NSW, and 3 representatives of the NSW Rural Fire Service Association. 538 Among its functions, the Advisory Council is to “advise and report to the Minister and the Commissioner on any matter relating to the administration of rural fire services” under the Act, whether or not the advice or reports were requested.539
The broader responsibility however for determining compliance with the law, and whether activities are carried out effectively and economically, belongs to the Audit Office of NSW. A recent example is the Performance Audit of the Rural Fire Service (The Coordination of Bushfire Fighting Activities) conducted by the Auditor General of NSW in 1998.540
In a similar situation to NSW, in QLD, the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 (QLD) establishes the Emergency Services Advisory Council,541 the functions of which include but are not limited to advising the Emergency Services Minister about the extent to which service delivery by the Fire and Rescue Service, (and as separately legislated, the Ambulance Service) “satisfy community needs”, and “satisfies the performance targets mentioned in the service’s annual strategic plan”. 542 The Act also establishes a Rural Advisory Council responsible for advising the Minister on matters including but not limited to the extent to which the delivery of rural fire services in rural areas “meets community needs”. 543
QLD also has an internal audit section which suggests a minor role in operational regulation. The Internal Audit Section (IA) reports to the Director General of the Department. According to the Department of Emergency Services’ Annual Report "IA's charter is primarily focused on improving corporate governance and accountability across a wide range of disciplines including financial management, information technology, operational and risk management". The scope of activity includes but is not limited to: "identifying opportunities for business improvement with
536 Section 75 Fire Brigades Act 1989 (NSW). 537 Ibid., Section 76. 538 Section 123 Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW). 539 Ibid., Section 124. 540 NSW Audit Office. Available at: http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/publications/reports/performance/performance_reports. htm Accessed on 07/09/2006. 541 Section 34 Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 (Qld). 542 Ibid., Section 35. 543 Ibid., Section 48 and Section 49.
- 135 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
senior line managers, identifying and informing management regarding a broad range of issues pertaining to performance, efficiency and economy, risk and compliance, assessing the strength of controls within operational areas, and monitoring the implementation of agreed corrective action". 544
The QLD Audit Office provides independent audit services including the auditing of public sector performance management systems. A recent example is the 2004-05 Audit of the QLD Disaster Management System, which investigated the “performance management framework of the Queensland disaster management system from a governance and risk management perspective”.545
Committee assessment
The Committee accepts that the State has lacked a fully integrated and supported legislative framework for emergency services and that this has resulted in deficiencies in PPRR in emergencies at a local, regional and State level. The Committee views that this has, in part, underpinned requests for greater regulation. These deficiencies have been highlighted in recent State and Commonwealth Government reports and in the context of this review. These include, amongst other issues:
§ the perceived interoperability of the three emergency services Acts;
§ deficiencies in Westplan Wildfire (now Westplan Bushfire), the State’s Plan for managing bushfire emergencies, principally, the lack of legislative backing for the plan affecting implementation/planning at the local level and the variable uptake of AIIMS across firefighting organisations;
§ The absence of an emergency services telecommunications plan;
§ The authority for bushfires being dispersed across 124 organisations and the lack of a Statewide command structure across volunteer BFBs, weakening the capacity to respond to major bushfires;
§ Training and development needs of emergency service groups;
§ Resource constraints impacting on some local governments’ ability to effectively manage BFBs;
§ The Bush Fires Act and Fire Brigades Act not binding the Crown; and
§ The absence of alternative fire management tools to ensure a coordinated approach to risk assessment and risk mitigation on large tracts of land.
544 Department of Emergency Services, Available at: http://www.emergency.qld.gov.au/publications/ annreport/2004_05/pdf/DES_Annual_Report_2004_05.pdf) Accessed on 08/09/2006.
545 Auditor-General of Queensland Report No. 2 for 2004-05: Audit of the Queensland Disaster Management System. Available at: www.qao.qld.gov.au/publications/document/0405report2.htm Accessed on 07/09/2006.
- 136 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The Committee believes that Government has endeavoured to respond to many of these concerns, the majority of which were highlighted prior to the conduct of this Inquiry. It has however, in many instances, been hamstrung by the requirement for legislative change. The enactment of the Emergency Management Act in 2005 now ensures compliance with emergency management planning at a local, regional and State level. It also establishes an SEMC, which has legislative responsibility to plan, prepare and report on the efficiency of the State’s emergency management capability, albeit on a strategic level. The Committee understands that many of the underpinning policy documents for emergency management will be reviewed and re-drafted. These developments, will address, amongst other matters, many of the deficiencies identified in regard to the State’s bushfire planning. The Committee views that the proposed amendments in this report, if implemented, will address many of the outstanding concerns detailed above.
That said, apart from the accountability requirements associated with the Emergency Management Act and emergency services legislation, there are a number of options available to ensure the effective functioning of emergency services in this State.
As implied in this section, FESA does not have a formal regulatory role in relation to emergency services. The FESA Board is responsible for FESA functioning in accordance with the FESA Act, other relevant State and Commonwealth legislation and State Policy. However, as discussed at Section 7.1 of this Report, there are inherent problems with a representative board of management governing a public sector agency. FESA’s monitoring and review of other agencies occurs principally via MOU or a legally binding agreement. FESA’s operational services also maintain response plans with government agencies, local governments and the private sector to ensure roles and responsibilities for emergency response in different localities are understood.546
Despite FESA’s assertion that it is not appropriate for it to assume this role, given that it is a major service provider, DPC views that agencies can provide regulatory and service delivery roles provided those roles are structurally separated within the organisation. The Committee acknowledges that it proposes significant changes to the current modus operandi in emergency services which should result in a more cohesive approach to service delivery, particularly with respect to bushfires. That said there is the need for ongoing monitoring and review of performance, particularly in light of the number of service delivery agencies in this State. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that a separate internal regulatory function should be established in FESA (or its equivalent agency as discussed at Section 7.1). Proximity to operational matters will complement the regulatory role.
Although interstate models of regulation provide a useful reference, the framework in Western Australia varies significantly with local government empowered with responsibility for BFBs. The Committee views that it is not appropriate to comment on the form that a regulatory unit will take given the depth of consideration and consultation that will need to occur, particularly with local government, to ensure the development of appropriate structures. The Committee is aware that in some instances tension exists between local government and FESA, however views that on
546 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/upload/583444220/docs/FESA_Annual_Report_2004-5_final_audited.pdf Accessed on 08/09/2006.
- 137 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
the whole, relations have been positive and that stakeholders will accept that regulation across the board will have positive outcomes for the safety of the community, particularly in the event of a large scale emergency. Reporting mechanisms should entail consideration of the role of the SEMC.
The Committee excludes CALM from this process, on the basis that its performance is already audited satisfactorily by the Conservation Commission of Western Australia and in recognition of that Commission’s independence. It notes however that compulsory fire management planning on CALM land under prescribed circumstances may mean a requirement for additional auditing staff.
The CCWA jointly with the EDO are principally concerned about the absence of a single policy regime for fire or risk management across Crown land. The Committee acknowledges the latter however views that binding the Crown and compulsory fire management planning will go a considerable way to ensuring uniformity on Crown land. The Committee views that the Bushfire Threat Analysis Tool developed by CALM and FESA which it is understood will be used to underpin fire management planning, and inclusion of a range of stakeholders in such planning, will in many ways achieve the premise inherent in the State principles.
The Committee does not support the idea of a regulatory agency having responsibility for appeals on fire management plans and administration of the ESL. The reasons for this decision are discussed in Chapter 3 and Chapter 7 respectively.
The Committee notes that the DPC, whose Minister is responsible for Public Sector Management in this State, does not perceive that there is a demonstrated need for a permanent external regulatory body for emergency services. The Committee agrees. The reader may query why an external “regulator” exists for CALM and not for emergency services. It should be noted that the Conservation Commission of Western Australia was established with a broader mandate than purely regulation. The Committee believe however that there needs to be some independent assessment of how the legislation is operating, particularly if Government implements the Committee’s recommendations. Either the responsible Minister or OAG could conduct such a review. The Committee would suggest that this role is most appropriately placed with the OAG, given that this office has already scrutinised emergency services through the conduct of the Performance Examination - Responding to Major Bushfires. That report has informed a number of the Committee’s recommendations in this Inquiry. In stating the latter, the Committee respects the OAG’s independence in determining such matters.
Recommendation 50
§ A regulatory unit should be established within FESA tasked more broadly with monitoring and review of performance and compliance in emergency services and emergency management by FESA and local government.
- 138 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 51
§ Appropriate reporting mechanisms for the regulatory unit are to be established.
Recommendation 52
§ The Conservation Commission of Western Australia is to regulate CALM’s performance under fire management plans.
Recommendation 53
§ FESA and CALM should ensure appropriate information sharing in relation to their respective regulatory roles.
Recommendation 54
§ The Office of the Auditor General is to consider conducting a performance review of the impact of changes under the proposed new emergency services Act.
- 139 -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
CHAPTER 6 THE MEANS BY WHICH LEGISLATION PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN CENTRALISED CONTROL AND COMMUNITY CENTRED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
6.1 Administration and operations of Bushfire Brigades
Local government has legislative responsibility under the Bush Fires Act for the control of bushfires within the local government area, excluding fires on land managed by CALM.547 The Bush Fires Act also empowers local government to establish and maintain BFBs,548 which the local government is then responsible for insuring.549
FESA asserts that the organisation has been approached by numerous local governments wanting FESA to assume responsibility for:
§ emergency incident control in the local government area;
§ Bushfire Brigade operations and administration; and
§ the administration of the Emergency Services Levy (ESL), in relation to the capital and recurring costs associated with Bushfire Brigades.550
The comments of some local governments in the course of this Inquiry regarding difficulties in retaining personnel with emergency services qualifications and experience, particularly in remote and regional areas of the State, lends weight to this statement. The Committee considers it vital that all local governments have access to personnel capable of controlling emergency incidents and providing support to BFBs.
As raised in Section 4.1, support for the transfer of BFB responsibilities to FESA is not limited to the smaller shires and includes one metropolitan local government authority, as well as a number of regional local governments. For instance, the City of Wanneroo proposes the transfer of all bushfire responsibilities, including those related to BFBs, to FESA. In framing its debate, the City emphasises the AG’s findings in the report entitled Responding to Major Bushfires, Report 7 (October 2004) (as cited in Section 4.1, at page 108 - 109 of this report) and responds to these as follows:
547 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p29. 548 Section 41 Bush Fires Act 1954. 549 Ibid., Section 37. 550 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p29-30.
- 141 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
…consideration should be given to reviewing the (emergency services) Act to allow for the administration and operation of the volunteer Bushfire Brigades to be transferred to FESA to address these issues. This would resolve the coordination and support issues identified.
Normal preparedness and recovery roles as prescribed by legislation would remain with the local government, such as fire-break inspections…551
The City of Mandurah’s recommendations to the Committee are congruous with those of the City of Wanneroo. It proposes the:
Creation of a single Authority which has legislative authority and the expertise necessary to combat fires and emergencies rather than the multi-agency system that currently applies.
Minor amendments are made to the Bush Fires Act 1954 allowing FESA to take responsibility for the management and coordination of volunteer Bushfire Brigades throughout the State.
Legislative authority currently applicable to local governments for the implementation of the prevention measures, such as fire-breaks, restricted and prohibited burning times and the appointment of Fire Control Officers remain a local government responsibility.
Enforcement of the Bush Fires Act 1954 should remain under local government authority.552
The demand for FESA to assume responsibility for the management and operations of BFBs is significantly greater in some regions of the State than others.
For instance, according to Mr Peter Kneebone, elected member of the Shire of Derby West Kimberley albeit submitting in a personal capacity, current systemic failures in relation to bushfire management include:
§ no coordination of authority;
§ lack of a single and authoritative incident reporting centre;
§ lack of leadership and bushfire management skills;
§ the absence of an incorporated Kimberley-wide bushfire engagement/management plan;
§ multiplication and inconsistent decision making and resources…553
551 Submission No 23 from City of Wanneroo, 2005, p3-4. 552 Submission No 21 from City of Mandurah, 2005, p2. 553 Submission No 10 from Mr Peter Kneebone, 2005, p3.
- 142 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr Kneebone advocates the development of a single fire authority for the Kimberley region. This sole authority would be responsible for the administration and operations of BFBs.554
In evidence received from the Shire of Derby West Kimberley, it was viewed that if a single fire authority is established, local government responsibility, not only for Bushfire Brigades but also the checking and issuing of fire-break infringements should be transferred across in its entirety or not at all. 555 The same all or nothing philosophy was conveyed by Mr Vaughan Price, Captain of the South Hedland VFRS:
If local government is prepared to let it go in some areas but not others, there would be two sets of rules and it could get confusing and conflicting. We would probably want to keep it all in line.556
The mid-west region of the State also voiced strong opinion through submission and at hearing. The Northern Country Zone carried a resolution whereby:
…all responsibility for fire and emergency services should be under the control of FESA with local government having no further responsibility under the requirements of the Bush Fires Act 1954.557
They raise the following supporting argument:
Local government is currently responsible for the management of the volunteer Bushfire Brigades, however, due to the pressures of litigation and the recent developments within occupational health and safety legislation has meant that the financial responsibilities for management of fires is beyond the scope of many financially poor Councils…
It is proposed that regional FESA offices, such as that in Geraldton, could be expanded to incorporate the additional officers who would be able to assume the management control of brigades in smaller areas. Bushfire Brigades would certainly benefit from operating under the FESA organisation with direct involvement and assistance from an organisation whose core functions reflects their own. It is additionally clear that the chain of command in the event of fires would be more clearly defined with fewer organisations being involved in the management of fire situations.558
In addition to the above, the Northern Country Zone cited FESA’s “ultimate” control under the Bush Fires Act, FESA’s administration of the ESL, fire being the core business of the Authority,
554 Ibid., p2. 555 Mr Steven Martin, Chief Bush Fire Control Officer, Shire of Derby West Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 07/07/2006, p4. 556 Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/2006, p2. 557 Submission No 32 from Northern Country Zone of the Western Australian Local Government Association, 2005, p1. 558 Ibid., p2-3.
- 143 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
and lack of alignment of the views of local government and FESA since the introduction of the FESA Act, as reasons for transfer of responsibility.559
Member councils of the Northern Country Zone also provided a number of independent submissions in support of this proposal. The Shire of Chapman Valley’s cites:
Council believes the Bush Fires Act should be amended to reallocate the responsibilities of this Act away from local government to the Fire and Emergency Services of WA.
The concept of reallocation is based upon the retention of the volunteer services at a local government district level with the local government Authority acting as agents on behalf of FESA who will have ultimate control and responsibility for the Bush Fires Act.560
The Shire of Three Springs states:
We believe that the responsibility of Bushfire Brigades must be placed directly with the FESA Authority where it is a core activity as against the current situation where it is a low priority with most Local Authorities, with the majority of staff untrained, unskilled and inexperienced in fire management or fighting practises.561
Congruously, the Shire of Coorow reflects the emergency services concerns of a number of regional local governments in Western Australia:
Rural Western Australia is vastly different in 2005 than it was in 1954. The significant advancements in technology, the increase in size of farming properties, the significant reduction in population, the greater awareness of the environment and the world-wide phenomenon’s of litigation and reduction in volunteerism have all impacted negatively on both fire prevention and fire suppression within rural Western Australia. For these reasons it is considered that legislative arrangements are unsuitable.
The responsibility and management of volunteer Bushfire Brigades is increasing beyond the capacity of local government. Most significantly is the risks associated with current litigious practices and the penalties associated with modern occupational safety and health legislation. Local governments have been severely criticised in the findings of several Coronial enquiries. Council has subsequently adopted policy and delegation to allow FESA to take control of any significant fire emergency in the Shire, because Council staff and volunteers are not sufficiently trained to manage the incident without exposing Council and Council staff to huge risks of litigation.562
The Shire of Toodyay emphasises the need for the legislation to compel the State to support and assist those local governments unable to meet their current emergency services obligations. The
559 Ibid., p1-2. 560 Submission No 13 from Shire of Chapman Valley, 2005, p1. 561 Submission No 3 from Shire of Three Springs, 2005, p2. 562 Submission No 31 from Shire of Coorow, 2005, p1.
- 144 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Shire recommends the legislature of a consultative mechanism to ensure that the State’s obligation in this regard is clear.563
The Shire of Manjimup, while supportive of transferring BFB responsibility to FESA, is not convinced that the move would be unanimously supported by volunteers:
My view is that it would be appropriate. However, I do not think the volunteers would accept it because they are working with the local government. Certainly it could be left as an option. Some local governments and councils might want to do that. Our volunteers in Manjimup would not support it.564
Mr John Kowal from the City of Bunbury recognises that some local governments lack the necessary resources to administer BFBs and supports transfer of responsibility to FESA in these instances, however believes that more flexible arrangements such as an MOU would suffice:
There needs to be some avenue for local governments that do not have the resources to administer bush fire brigades, the SES and those types of things to transfer that administrative and management role to FESA. I do not see the need to legislate for that. I think that can be done between each organisation. For instance, if a council did not have the ability or resources to continue to manage the administration of brigades and those types of things, I believe that there should be an avenue whereby it could approach FESA as an organisation and negotiate an MOU or the like with it to manage the funds, administration and management of those brigades.565
The AVBFB is of the opinion that if FESA is to assume responsibility for BFBs from local government, FESA should do so in its entirety:
We need to be very careful of FESA taking over bush fire brigades. It would either need to take them over in their entirety or leave them with local government. At the moment, as we have said in our recommendations, FESA is taking over the emergency response side of it; that is, putting out the fires. That is probably the minimal cost in the fire side of things. The preparedness, recovery and the promotional side of it is the expensive side. Local government seems to be left carrying the cost of that.566
The AVBFB explains that incident management comprises four parts, namely PPRR and dividing responsibility for these four elements equitably is complex. 567 While the AVBFB acknowledges that agreements between individual local governments and FESA may have advantages, this is tempered with concern that it might not always be to the benefit of the BFB:
563 Submission No 30 from Shire of Toodyay, 2005, p1. 564 Mr Vernon McKay, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Manjimup, Transcript of Evidence, 22/02/2006, p9-10. 565 Mr John Kowal, Manager Law and Safety Services, City of Bunbury, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p7. 566 Mr Terence Hunter, President, Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA (Inc), Transcript of Evidence, 21/06/2006, p2. 567 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA Incorporated, 21/06/2006, p6.
- 145 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The entering into agreements with individual local governments has some advantages for FESA and possibly the local government. Such agreements give certain preferential treatments to the agreeing party but experience has shown that after time some of the preferential benefits disappear leaving behind disenfranchised brigades. The state cannot afford to fully take over the responsibility for all bush fire brigades. Entering into an agreement or a “Memorandum of Understanding” is a part assumption of control which could be seen by some parts of the BFS [Bush Fire Service] as being discriminatory.568
Countering the argument for the transfer of BFB responsibilities to FESA are a number of local governments, predominantly from the south west of the State.
The Committee has received evidence from an array of these local governments and is convinced, beyond doubt, that many local governments within the State are fully capable of providing administrative and operational support to their respective BFBs. Indeed, they have been doing so for many years. Likewise, the FESA submission readily recognises that a number of local governments have a high level of ability, expertise and experience in relation to fulfilling BFB responsibilities.569
The Shire of Kojonup provides succinct and reasonable argument for local government retaining BFB responsibilities:
The main advantage of community -centred-emergency-management is the local knowledge available and the passion of the response by people keen to help their other community members. With respect to bushfires, the local incident controller, fire control officers and brigades know the terrain, local climatic conditions, specific local risks and, most importantly, the capabilities of the local brigades and their members.
In Kojonup we believe there is no way that an external agency could provide the same service that currently exists…570
The Shire of Plantagenet questions FESA’s ability to fund the administration and operation of BFBs given the costs involved:
They are talking about taking over the operation and administration of bush fire brigades and all those types of issues. If you go to each local government and ask what the administration of the bush fire brigades costs each year, you are going to find an enormous sum when you go around Western Australia. All the recurrent costs and the administration of the levy … mean that there is a lot of money to be spent there, which has got to come from somewhere out here.571
568 Ibid. 569 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p30. 570 Submission No 41 from Shire of Kojonup, 2005, p4. 571 Mr Kevin Forbes, President, Shire of Plantagenet and President, Great Southern Zone of the Western Australian Local Government Association, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p6.
- 146 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The Shire of Esperance similarly has concerns about resourcing, namely that FESA will not commit the same level of resourcing to BFBs as the Shire:
It has been mentioned that FESA being the one organisation that would assume control of a fire, and we are talking about personnel for firefighting in those instances, it is also fair to say that the shire puts in a considerable amount of effort in our district in terms of the welfare and the organisation of the volunteers for the bush fire brigades in our own right. I would go so far as saying that that type of resourcing would not be put in place by FESA.572
Mr David Green of the Esperance VFRS also has doubts about FESA’s resourcing capabilities although he provides in principle support for the concept of transfer of BFB responsibilities from local government. With only one designated FESA officer for the region, Mr Green notes:
In administrative-type things, it is very hard to chase up that person. I wonder whether FESA might end up having the same sort of problems. The theory is sound; it is just a matter of how it will be implemented.573
Interestingly, FESA is opposed to the emergency services legislation compelling local government to surrender BFB responsibilities. Rather, FESA proposes that the legislation provide for flexible arrangements, enabling the Authority to enter into an agreement with an individual local government, for the purpose of transferring all bushfire responsibilities to FESA, if the local government so desires. Where a local government does not want to enter into such an agreement with FESA, there would be no compulsion to do so.574
WAFarmers supports FESA’s recommendation on the basis that:
…the diminishing resources of local governments in rural areas, due to the continuing process of rural adjustment, will mean service provision and delivery will suffer, and emergency services cannot be allowed to decline. However, we strongly support the recommendation that local government retains current emergency prevention functions.575
WAFarmers includes the following proviso:
…should a possible agreement between FESA and a local government be refused due to the conditions of the local government facilities not being up to standard, then WAFarmers considers that FESA must still work with the local government in question to develop a strategy to bring about an agreeable standard…576
572 Mr Ronald Scantlebury, Manager Administration Services, Shire of Esperance, Transcript of Evidence, 08/06/2006, p10. 573 Mr David Green, Captain, Esperance Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/06/2006, p3. 574 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p31. 575 Submission No 20 from Western Australian Farmers Federation (Inc), 2005, p2. 576 Ibid., p3.
- 147 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The UFU recommends that any new emergency services legislation clearly delineate roles and responsibilities. It is the view of the UFU that:
…local government is most appropriately positioned to have responsibility for fire prevention functions such as fire-break notices and for declaring prohibited and restricted burning times. Whereby any response measure to fire, rescue or other emergency should be overseen by appropriately trained and qualified Authority personnel.577
Committee assessment
The Committee finds merit in a proposal that would enable well-resourced and capable local governments to retain bushfire responsibilities, while at the same time allowing less-resourced and less-capable local governments to obtain more direct support from FESA.
In the event of transfer of BFBs to FESA, the Committee views that there should be an avenue of review and if required, subsequent appeal, by a BFB member or local government aggrieved with a decision of FESA in regard to the management of that unit. The Committee suggests that an internal review by FESA, in the first instance, is an appropriate use of resources and adoption of due process. However, a person or local government aggrieved with the decision of the agency should have an avenue of appeal to the SAT.
Further, the evidence received throughout the course of this Inquiry from BFB members, local government and FESA personnel has convinced the Committee of the need for a practical balance between centralised control and community-centred emergency management. In this regard, the Committee considers it vital that local government remain involved in the emergency services in the local community, so far as fire prevention initiatives are concerned. Local government is better positioned than FESA to perform emergency prevention functions, such as issuing fire- break notices and providing recommendations in relation to prohibited and restricted burning times. The local government officers have local knowledge and expertise in relation to weather patterns, agricultural practices, geography and other local variables that contribute to the determination and implementation of emergency prevention initiatives.
577 Submission No 17 from United Firefighters Union of Australia - West Australian Branch, 2005, p4.
- 148 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 55
§ The emergency services legislation is to provide for FESA and local government to enter into an agreement for the purpose of local government transferring the following responsibilities to FESA on a permanent basis:
• emergency incident control;
• Bushfire Brigade operations and administration; and
• the determination and administration of the ESL, in relation to the capital and recurring costs associated with the Bushfire Brigades.
Recommendation 56
§ Such an agreement is only to be entered into if both FESA and the local government agree to terms and conditions.
Recommendation 57
§ Local government is to retain emergency prevention functions as prescribed under the existing legislation.
Recommendation 58
§ Any additional costs of transfer of Bushfire Brigades from local government to FESA, apart from those normally funded under the Emergency Services Levy, are to be borne by the State.
- 149 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 59
§ A Bushfire Brigade member or local government aggrieved with a decision of FESA in regard to the management of a Bushfire Brigade of which they are a member or which falls within their jurisdiction, should be entitled, in the first instance, to: - request the Chief Executive Officer of FESA to review that decision; - appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal if dissatisfied with the decision of the Chief Executive Officer, FESA. § The review by the Chief Executive Officer of FESA is to occur within a timely manner.
- 150 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
CHAPTER 7 ANY MAJOR ISSUES THAT THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE INQUIRY
7.1 Whether the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia should be re-established as the Department of Emergency Services
FESA was established in 1998. The organisation came into being as a direct result of recommendations from the Emergency Services Taskforce review into the effectiveness and efficiency of emergency services in Western Australia.578
The Taskforce recommended the amalgamation of a number of existing emergency services organisations into one agency. 579 As a consequence the following groups were merged:
§ Bush Fires Board;
§ WAFBB;
§ SES;
§ VMRS (July 1999);
§ Emergency Management Services; and
§ Unexploded Ordnance (March 1999).
The combined entity was established as a body corporate under the FESA Act580 and, thereafter, was referred to as FESA.
The Taskforce recommended the establishment of an authority for the following reasons:
a. The agency will carry out service delivery functions which are not closely aligned to the traditional roles of corporate Government. A degree of autonomy from Government is appropriate;
b. the majority of the “staff” of the agency are volunteers not Government employees;
c. the Government has decided to appoint a Board with strategic decision-making powers;
578 Emergency Services Taskforce, Report to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Government of Western Australia, Perth, 1997, p11. 579 Ibid. 580 Section 4 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998.
- 151 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
d. the agency is not totally funded by the State. It will receive funding from several sources;
e. local government has a key and continuing role in fire and emergency services. This role is in part legislatively based and involves funding support. Local government expects to have a say in the strategic decision making of the State’s emergency services management; and
f. two of the current agencies [Western Australian Fire Brigades Board and the Bush Fires Board] operate as statutory authorities.581
FESA details that Government’s decision to establish FESA as an authority, rather than as a State Government department, included considering the diverse nature of the emergency services groups. The pre-existing organisations varied in terms of socio-political influence, culture and tradition. In addition, each body held specialist expertise, knowledge and abilities in specific and pre-determined areas of emergency services.582 For instance, the SES was the specialist organisation in relation to emergencies such as cliff rescue, cave rescue, land search, cyclone, flood, storm, and earthquake,583 while VMRS was the primary body responsible for marine search and rescue.584 The core focus of the Bushfire Service was fighting bushfire, and the FRS was the lead agency for structural fire and road accident rescue.585
FESA says that establishing FESA as a statutory authority, rather than as a department, ensured that the invaluable contribution of these groups was retained.586 The FESA Board of Management was appointed, with a membership comprising representatives from each of the pre-existing emergency services organisations. The members brought to the Board industry knowledge and expertise relevant to the area of emergency services each represented.
The Board has a 13 person membership comprising:
i. Chairperson;
ii. the FESA CEO (ex officio);
iii. WA Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services Association (Inc.) representative;
iv. Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services Consultative Committee representative;
581 Emergency Services Taskforce, Report to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Government of Western Australia, Perth, 1997, p10. 582 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p33. 583 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/default.aspx?MenuID=350&ContentID=329 Accessed on 02/11/2005. 584 Ibid. 585 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/default.aspx?MenuID=350&ContentID=330 Accessed on 15/08/2006. 586 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p33.
- 152 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
v. Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA (Inc.) representative;
vi. Bush Fire Service Consultative Committee representative;
vii. State Emergency Service Volunteers Association of Western Australia representative; viii. State Emergency Service Consultative Committee representative;
ix. Volunteer Marine Rescue Association Western Australia representative;
x. Volunteer Marine Rescue Services Consultative Committee representative;
xi. FESA staff (employee) representative;
xii. local government representative; and xiii. one other member.587
Section 6 of the FESA Act establishes the Board as the governing body of FESA. Under the FESA Act, the Board is responsible for performing the functions of the Authority under the emergency services Acts.588 The Board is directly accountable to the Minister and, as such, assumes indirect accountability to Parliament.589
FESA acknowledges that the Board has governed the Authority through an extremely difficult period of transition. 590 The FESA submission cites the Board’s success in terms of:
§ assisting in the successful amalgamation of four independent emergency services organisations into the one State Government authority;
§ providing expertise and advice in relation to the emergency services industry;
§ representing the views of the 27,000 emergency services volunteers now administered by FESA;
§ identifying and resolving disparities within and between emergency services, and working proactively to resolve such disparities; and
§ identifying and assisting FESA to implement contemporary emergency management practices and principles. 591
587 Ibid., p32. 588 Section 6(2) Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998. 589 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p31-32. 590 Ibid., p34. 591 Ibid., p33-34.
- 153 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
FESA details that as the governing body of the Authority, Board members have legal obligations in relation to:
§ liaising with and reporting to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services;
§ establishing, monitoring and reviewing FESA’s strategic direction;
§ monitoring and reviewing FESA’s strategic performance;
§ ensuring that strategic, operational and financial risks are defined and managed;
§ ensuring compliance with all legal and statutory obligations;
§ ensuring that adequate reporting systems are in place to comply with ethical and statutory requirements; and
§ monitoring and appraising the performance of FESA’s Chief Executive Officer.592
However, FESA informs that the criteria for appointment to the Board do not necessarily reflect the legislative responsibilities and accountabilities of governing boards in the public sector. The majority of members have been appointed to the FESA Board according to:
§ knowledge, expertise and experience in the emergency services industry;
§ the ability to articulately and accurately represent the views of the respective volunteer emergency services group; and
§ a commitment to and a belief in the principles and values of emergency services volunteerism.593
FESA is concerned that Members are legally compelled to perform roles that they are not necessarily qualified to perform, particularly in terms of corporate expertise and governance. The Authority views that this raises issues of liability.594
FESA references the following reports and legal case in support of re-establishment of the Authority as a department. Some of the concerns highlighted relate more generally to issues of efficiency and effectiveness of authorities, others to the difficulties inherent in representative boards of management. The Committee has elected to include additional commentary from cited sources and FESA, where relevant.
Bennetts v. Board of Fire Commissioners of New South Wales, 1967
The case involved a member of the Board elected by members of the NSW Firefighters' Union, who sought a copy of legal advice obtained by the Board. The Board was prepared to provide a
592 Ibid., p34. 593 Ibid. 594 Ibid., p32.
- 154 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
copy of the advice to the Board member, on the assurance that he would not disclose the content of the advice to the Union. 595
The Court's findings, in part, were:
§ in the case of a statutory Board such as the Board of Fire Commissioners, once a group has elected a member he assumes office as a member of the Board and becomes subject to the overriding and predominant duty to serve the interests of the Board, in preference, on every occasion upon which any conflict may arise, to serving the interests of the group which elected him; and
§ a member of such a Board must respect the confidential nature of Board affairs where the interests of the Board so require.596
FESA views that this case exemplifies the conceptual and legal ramifications that could arise in a representative board governing a public sector agency. 597
Performance Examination - Public Sector Boards, Auditor General of Western Australia, 1998
The report raises significant concerns in relation to the appointment of representative members on Boards of Management, particularly as this relates to statutory authorities. Specifically, the Report concludes:
There is clear potential for conflicts of interest to arise for such members; and
Representational members have a value on advisory boards, but their presence on governing boards is questionable.598
Government Structures for Better Results: The Report of the Taskforce Established to Review the Machinery of Western Australia’s Government, 2001
FESA cites the following comments from the Taskforce:
The Taskforce has found that the number of statutory authorities in Western Australia is excessive. Statutory authorities are inflexible, cumbersome and unresponsive to changing administrative needs. The greater independence of statutory authorities from Government can also compromise appropriate accountability.599
595 Ibid. 596 Bennetts v. Board of Fire Commissioners of NSW (1967) 87 WN pt 1 (NSW) 307. 597 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p32. 598 Pearson, D.D.R., Performance Examination - Public Sector Boards - Boards governing statutory authorities in Western Australia, Office of the Auditor General, Western Australia, 1998, p11. 599 Submission No 16.1 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 23/11/2005, p4.
- 155 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Although FESA and consultants Bandt Gatter & Associates in their review of the implications of FESA moving to a department,600 reject the applicability of the latter comment to the administration of FESA, the Authority notes Taskforce recommendation 8, as follows:
A statutory authority should be established only if its proposed functions cannot be performed by a department or it would be inappropriate for them to be performed by a department.601
FESA referenced two media statements issued by the former Hon. Geoff Gallop, Premier, Western Australia, in 2001. The relevant points made are as follows:
The taskforce [Machinery of Government Taskforce] found that the number of authorities in WA has grown from 131 eight years ago to 165 today. To check this growth, the Government will impose stringent controls on the establishment of new statutory authorities and will review functions of all existing bodies with a view to, where appropriate, incorporating those functions into departments.602 and
The review [Functional Review Taskforce] will adopt as its basic premise that the functions of statutory authorities should be absorbed into departments - unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary.603
The Review of Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders “Uhrig Report”, Commonwealth of Australia, 2003
FESA referred the Committee to the following comment in the Report’s Executive Summary:
In comparison to the direct relationship between a Minister and the portfolio department, statutory authorities often operate with a greater level of separation. It is this separation, or ‘independence’, that creates the need for robust governance structures. The need for governance increases when independence is combined with power. Consequently, statutory authorities should be created only where there is sufficient need for:
- efficiency: that is, a clear purpose is required to achieve objectives and it is considered beneficial to undertake functions outside the portfolio department; or
- independence: when functions require a level of separation from government to ensure objectivity.604
600 Bandt, Allan and Gatter, Barbara, Independent Review of the Implications of FESA moving from a Statutory Authority to Government Status, Perth, Western Australia, August 2002. 601 Ibid., p5. 602 The Hon. Geoff Gallop, Premier of Western Australia, ‘Radical Overhaul of Machinery of Government to Commence from July 1’, Media Statement, 21/06/2001. 603 The Hon. Geoff Gallop, Premier of Western Australia, ‘Government to Trim Statutory Authorities’, Media Statement, 24/10/2001. 604 Submission No 16.1 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p5.
- 156 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Other comments in this report are also relevant to this discussion:
…representational appointments to boards have the potential to place the success of the entity at risk... the review does not consider that this basis for appointments provides for the best governance arrangements. Representational boards will not provide effective governance and skills and expertise can be accessed as and when required, just as the interests of stakeholders can be addressed through other means. Consequently, consideration should be given to alternative forms of interaction with stakeholders; and
Consideration should be given to whether functions can be accommodated successfully within a departmental structure or an executive agency, reducing the need for the creation of a separate authority and the associated costs and demands placed on the public sector.
As government remains accountable for the performance of statutory authorities, careful thought needs to be given to any decision to create bodies that will operate with a higher level of independence than departments of state, as this will impact on ministerial ability to supervise directly the performance of such bodies; and finally
There are a number of circumstances in which Parliament and government may choose not to provide a wide-ranging power to act, instead, establishing a narrow set of outputs to be delivered by a statutory authority. In these circumstances a parallel can be drawn to closely held companies where a limited delegation of power, and the influence of a limited number of parties controlling the entity, indicate that an independent board may not provide the best governance. In circumstances where government is not providing a broad delegation it is likely that holding either chief executives or commissioners directly accountable for performance will produce better governance.605
The proposed new departmental model
FESA proposes the following departmental model developed by the current FESA Board:606
605 Uhrig, J, Review of Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2003, p5, 12, 50, 58. 606 Email from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 09/08/2006, p1.
- 157 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Proposed corporate structure for the Department of Emergency Services:
Minister for Emergency Services
Emergency Services Advisory Board
Membership Comprising:
Consultative Committee representatives Association representatives Local Government Director Department General Meeting Attendees Include: Divisions
Minister for Police and Emergency Services Director General
Emergency Services Volunteer Emergency Services Volunteer Consultative Committees Associations
FESA recommends the dissolution of the FESA Board of Management and the establishment of the Emergency Services Advisory Board.607 The composition of the Advisory Board would generally reflect that of the existing Board of Management.608
FESA believes that the model provides the emergency services volunteers with direct access to both the Director General and the Minister for Emergency Services (by virtue of the Minister attending the Emergency Services Advisory Board meetings). Further, the Advisory Board members are legally entitled to represent the views of the volunteers at these meetings, with no compulsion to promote the corporate position.609
FESA acknowledge that repealing its status as an authority and re-establishing the organisation as a department will involve some change management but consider the inconvenience and cost to be justified for the following reasons:
§ the Director General will become the person responsible for corporate adherence to Government policy and legislation, accountability in business practices and principles and the strategic direction of the organisation;
607 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p35-36. 608 Ibid., p35. 609 Ibid.
- 158 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ the establishment of the Emergency Services Advisory Board will enable Board members to fully utilise their experience, expertise and qualifications in emergency services, and to provide a true representation of the emergency services volunteer groups;
§ the establishment of an Advisory Board, as opposed to a Board of Management, will eliminate the conflict of interest issues that currently plague FESA’s representative Board of Management. The members of the Advisory Board will be empowered to represent their member associations and committees without restriction; and
§ the Minister for Police and Emergency Services will attend the meetings of the Emergency Services Advisory Board, and members will have direct access to the Minister outside of Committee time. This will increase the Minister’s exposure to current emergency services initiatives and provide a high level forum in which emergency services volunteer issues might be discussed.610
A new name for the department is recommended
FESA also suggest that the proposed department be named the “Department of Emergency Services”. 611 The Authority informed that the name was unanimously endorsed by the FESA Board.612 FESA cites that on the amalgamation of the WAFBB, the Bush Fires Board and the SES into one State Government agency when FESA was established, the corporate name “Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia” was chosen in an attempt to reflect the core functions of all organisations.613
Mr Bob Mitchell, former CEO, FESA, cites that despite the latter, he considers the choice of name inappropriate:
My preferred option at that stage was the Emergency Services Authority because that name would not focus on any individual within. The State Emergency Service has been unhappy ever since we started with the name Fire and Emergency Services Authority because of the way it emphasised the first word. My view is that we are an amalgam of emergency services agencies and that it would be more appropriate if we were known as the Emergency Services Department or the Department of Emergency Services…We are the Department of Fire and Rescue Service, Bushfire Service, State Emergency Service, Volunteer Marine Rescue Services and Emergency Management Services. That is the amalgam.614
610 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p35. 611 Ibid., p37. 612 Email from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 09/08/2006, p1. 613 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p36. 614 Mr Robert J. Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p18.
- 159 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
FESA contends that since its inception it has expanded and in addition to FRS Brigades, BFBs and SES Units (in existence at the time of establishment), it is now also the “umbrella agency” for VMRS, Helicopter Rescue Services and Unexploded Ordnance as well as a number of newly established emergency services units including, Fire Service Brigades, Dual Registered Brigades and ESUs.615
FESA asserts that it responds to 20 types of emergency hazards, however that only four or five of these are specifically responded to by FRS Brigades, BFBs and Fire Services Brigades. The remainder of the services are delivered by ESUs, SES Units and VMRS Groups.616
FESA considers it appropriate and necessary for the name of the organisation to reflect all emergency services volunteers equitably:
It is now no longer appropriate to pay particular homage to the role of “fire” in the name of the organisation. Nor is it considerate of or fair to the volunteer members of the brigades or units that perform the other emergency services roles in the organisation. Fire is but one of many emergencies for which the organisation is responsible. Fire is not any more or less important than any of the other life saving services that FESA provides...
The life-saving roles that these volunteers perform are equally onerous and dangerous and the performance of one role should not be subject to more acclaim than another. 617
Implications on the management of the Emergency Services Levy in the event of re-structure of FESA as a department
Pursuant to the FESA Act, FESA is responsible for the assessment of ESL applications and the administration of the ESL funds.618
FESA recommends that in the event of re-establishment as a department that it retain access to the ESL, and be empowered to administer the associated funds. The foundation for this support is:
§ the ESL was introduced on the basis that it would be administered by FESA (not through the Consolidated Fund) and utilised solely for emergency services delivery;
§ the ESL was marketed and introduced on the basis that it would be used to improve and strengthen emergency services in Western Australia;
§ the ESL is making steady progress towards the development and delivery of equitable emergency services across the State, as well as aiding the development of cyclical and sustainable asset replacement programs for FESA’s emergency services; and
615 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p36-37. 616 Ibid., p37. 617 Ibid. 618 Section 36B Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998.
- 160 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ FESA is the only organisation that employs officers with the qualifications, experience and abilities to make an accurate determination of where the ESL funds are best utilised within emergency services.619
Consultation on proposed changes
The Committee sought advice from the DTF and the DPC on the issue of FESA being re- established as a Department. DTF referenced the 2002 Independent Review of the Implications of FESA moving from Statutory Authority to Government Department Status620 conducted by Bandt Gatter & Associates, citing that the principal finding [concern] was that establishment as a Department would result in an adverse response from the emergency services volunteers. Unlike FESA, DTF view the creation of a new department as contrary to the recommendations of the Machinery of Government Taskforce and note Government’s decision post that Inquiry that FESA remain a statutory authority. 621 The DTF suggest that concerns over the ability of a representative board to effectively govern a State Government statutory organisation could be addressed in the following manner:
…the Board structure could be redressed along the lines of the TAB Act, which the Auditor General has previously reported as providing an effective model. As a further alternate example, the Board could also be constituted in a manner similar to the Commissioner for Main Roads, which is a body corporate constituted by a Commissioner rather than a board of management.
Essentially, the above examples involve introducing experience/skill based Board representation. In this respect, it should be noted that the DTF and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, in commenting on the October 2002 review, both recommended at that time, that the structure of the FESA Board be changed…622
The DTF concluded that:
As the Board structure can be changed over time within the existing Statutory Authority structure, this does not appear to be a sufficient reason to change to a Departmental structure.623
DTF also indicated that whilst the changes to the financial and governance provisions in the existing Act needed to support the shift to a department would not be significant, that the full implications of switching to a Departmental structure would need to be identified.624
619 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p37-38. 620 Bandt, Allan and Gatter, Barbara, Independent Review of the Implications of FESA moving from a Statutory Authority to Government Status, Perth, Western Australia, August 2002. 621 Letter from Mr Anthony Kannis, Executive Director Agency Resources, Department of Treasury and Finance, 25/01/2006, p1. 622 Ibid., p2. 623 Ibid., p3. 624 Ibid.
- 161 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
DPC stated that there was “no compelling technical case for FESA to have either a statutory authority or departmental form.” The agency did however suggest that the board structure be reviewed, as representational boards of management are not generally considered to be good practice.625
DPC suggested that there were a number of issues that needed to be considered in repealing FESA’s authority status and transferring it to a department:
§ Although restructuring FESA as a department would be consistent with the recommendations of the Machinery of Government Taskforce (2001), there was no recommendation in relation to FESA’s conversion to a department. DPC view machinery of Government change as consuming considerable resources and cite that “strong rationale” would be required were stakeholders to view that their role would be diminished in any way. DPC suggest that changing the status of the Authority without significantly altering its role and relationship to other entities would be difficult.
§ the Functional Review Taskforce [2002] [Review into the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities] made no recommendations about FESA in its final report;
§ change to a department would be in line with changes occurring at the Commonwealth level given the implementation of the recommendations of the Uhrig Report;
§ Although the total number of entities would not alter, the recommendation would be at odds with Government’s intention to reduce the number of departments;
§ A cursory examination of other models across Australia indicates that a variety of models exist across Australia;
§ FESA’s current size would suggest that it would have “sufficient critical mass to be a viable department assessed against indicators of efficiency and effectiveness”;
§ Transfer to a department would need to consider the impact on the relationship between FESA and its volunteers. DPC made reference that the Department of Fisheries and CALM both operate volunteer programs, although acknowledged that neither have former status as an authority; and
§ As a significantly self funding organisation an argument exists to have an authority with clear objectives and governance arrangements that reflect both the interests of those providing and those being served by that funding. The distinction is however made that FESA is not self funding in the sense of Government Trading Enterprises who receive income from commercial activities, FESA accesses its funding through levies and distributes this in accordance with legislation.
625 Letter from Mr M C Wauchope, Director General, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 22/02/2006, p1.
- 162 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
DPC also raised a number of employee related issues which although not perceived to be an impediment to change, would need to be assessed further.
DPC made considerable comment in relation to the composition and role of the Board. It is their view that the board structure introduces a variety of experience and skills, and draws together stakeholder groups with a resulting positive impact on consultation and decision-making.626 They also cite that it is generally good practice for boards to be appointed on the basis of expertise rather than on a representational basis. DPC also referenced the OAG’s Report as cited above regarding the potential conflicts of interest likely to arise for representational members on a management board and the questionable value of their presence on governing boards.627
DPC suggest amendment to the existing board structure but like the DTF, indicates that this does not necessarily require amendment to the current status of FESA as an Authority:
Whether or not FESA is retained as a statutory Authority, there is a strong case for amendments to the composition of the board, as either a management board or an advisory board. An advisory board can harness the skills and experience of representative groups without the conflict of interest which can arise for a board of management.
It should also be noted that conversion from a statutory authority to a department is not a pre-requisite for a conversion of a management board to an advisory board. The proposed Housing Authority, for example, will have an advisory board rather than a management board. A statutory authority need not have a board at all. The Public Transport Authority is an example of a statutory authority without a board.628
DPC cites that the following options are available with regard to the structure of the organisation:
· FESA as a statutory authority: - not having a board at all - having an advisory board, appointed on a representational basis - having an advisory board, appointed on an expertise basis - having a governing board, appointed on an expertise basis · FESA as a department: - not having a board at all - Having an advisory board, appointed on a representational basis - having an advisory board, appointed on an expertise basis.629 Legal advice provided to FESA by the State Solicitor’s Office in 2005 and accessed by this Committee provides a qualified opinion to the effect that FESA could function as a department. The State Solicitor’s Office has advised that in principle, there is no reason why the current ESL arrangements could not continue on re-restructure and that a department would have a similar
626 Ibid., p2 (attachment). 627 Ibid., p3. 628 Ibid. 629 Ibid., p1-2.
- 163 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
ability to enter into contractual arrangements as an authority, albeit with slightly different practical implications.630
The State Government guidelines for corporate governance of public sector board members state that board members should “act in the best interests of the agency”. This means:
§ board members should not represent any sectional interest at the expense of the interest of the agency as a whole; and
§ public servant board members’ duty as a board member prevails if a conflict arises with his or her other duties. 631
As discussed earlier DTF refers to an independent review undertaken in 2002 by Bandt Gatter & Associates, which identified certain issues associated with a move to departmental status, as a consequence of which the Government decided that FESA ought to remain as a statutory authority. 632 The review identified that a number of key issues required further exploration were FESA’s functions to move to a department. These included:
§ The challenge of managing organisational change with stakeholders who are satisfied with the status quo, including volunteers who are critical to the capacity of the agency to carry out its core business;
§ The degree to which a change of name would disrupt organisational culture, particularly amongst volunteers who strongly identify with the FESA brand;
§ The implications of moving from a management to advisory board and the associated reduction in capacity to directly influence decision making;
§ The extent to which FESA’s funding derives from sources other than State Government;
§ The perception of maintenance of financial autonomy by stakeholders, particularly in relation to overall levels of funding and transparency in relation to the manner in which funds are collected and expended; and
§ The impact on financial exemptions associated with FESA’s status as an authority and agent of the Crown.633
To some degree both the concerns of the DTF and the DPC reflect issues raised in the above report.
630 Facsimile from Adam Boyle, A/Legal and Legislation Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 07/08/2006, p2-3. 631 Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet, Corporate Governance Guidelines for Western Australian Public Sector Board Members , Government of Western Australia, Western Australia, 1999, p7. 632 Letter from Department of Treasury and Finance, 25/01/2006, p1-2. 633 Bandt, Allan and Gatter, Barbara, Independent Review of the Implications of FESA moving from Statutory Authority to Government Department Status, Perth, Western Australia, August 2002, pii.
- 164 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
In 2002 it was considered that a move to departmental status would elicit an adverse response from Western Australia’s emergency services volunteers. The establishment of FESA in 1998 was the result of considerable restructuring within emergency services, and at the time of the 2002 review it was uncertain what impact any further change would have on the volunteers.634
FESA argue that the view of emergency services volunteers has changed with regard to this issue, evidenced by the Authority’s proposal to re-establish the agency as a department being endorsed by the FESA Board of Management, which includes representation from peak emergency services associations and consultative committees. FESA detailed that these organisations were also approached independently in order to ascertain whether there were any objections to FESA’s overall recommendations to this Inquiry. Only one objection was raised by the UFU in relation to the proposed name change.635
Some comment was made by stakeholders, aware of this recommendation by FESA, in submission or at hearing, as a consequence of the Committee’s Inquiry.
The AVBFB is cautious in its support as there is some concern that volunteers might lose their representation on the board, which it believes could be restructured or eliminated entirely if FESA becomes a department.636 According to the AVBFB:
That could lead to us losing our ability to communicate our concerns and have some say about our direction, I suppose. That is because there would be a director who reports directly to the minister. Underneath that, he is accountable to nobody at that level. Even though a representative board or an advisory board may be put in place, the director would not necessarily have to take any notice of it. The current situation we have is that the board is supposed to be a management board. Therefore, the information is fed up through the different committees to the board and, if it is taken on board and agreed with, it should be implemented or at least it has the possibility of being implemented. If we go for a department, that ability completely disappears.637
Representation is also highlighted as an issue by the State Emergency Service Volunteers Association in that they perceive change from a statutory authority to a department to be unimportant provided volunteer input is assured:
I do not fully understand all the processes in government that changes an authority and a department and all the ins and outs of what that means. However, I support the concept that generates a change of name. Where the advisory board still exists for volunteers to input to the organisation, the name does not really matter in terms of “authority” or “department”.638
634 Letter from Department of Treasury and Finance, 25/01/2006, p1. 635 Email from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 09/08/2006, p1. 636 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA (Inc), 21/06/2006, p7. 637 Mr Terence Hunter, President, Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA (Inc), Transcript of Evidence, 21/06/2006, p6. 638 Mr Phillip Peterson, President, State Emergency Service Volunteers Association, Transcript of Evidence, 10/05/2006, p1.
- 165 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The Shire of Northam does not support FESA’s proposal for transfer to a department on the basis that it would ruin the effectiveness of its current firefighting arrangements as well as those of other shires in the south west land division. They were however non specific in relation to how this would occur.639
Mr Trevor Patton, Acting Local Manager, Karratha SES, also does not support FESA being re- established as a department as he views it could potentially destabilise the organisation:
…I don’t believe changing it back to a department would have any real advantages as it’s been quite a rocky road in the last 18 months. Changing back to a department would only undo all the good that has been achieved thus far.640
The Volunteer Marine Rescue Association does not have an issue regarding whether FESA is a statutory authority or a department, provided VMRS remains a part of the organisation:
Whether the overall structure is emergency management authority or an emergency management department, we would not have any further issue provided that it contained a VMRS unit.641
Interstate arrangements
In considering arrangements in other Australian jurisdictions, the Committee notes that QLD is the only State or Territory in Australia to bring together various emergency operations into a single agency structure, that of the Department of Emergency Services. The Department combines three operational arms, namely the QLD Ambulance Service, the QLD Fire and Rescue Service, and Emergency Management QLD (comprising Counter Disaster Operations and SES, and Community Safety and Sustainability).642
The Department is directly responsible to the Minister for Emergency Services. Two advisory councils also report to the Minister, providing community input and indirectly informing the provision of emergency services by the Department.643
Although the Department was formalised in 1996, the QLD Fire Service and QLD Ambulance Service were initially established as Authorities with their own boards in 1996 and 1997 respectively. The boards were subsequently dissolved in 1998 with the abolition of both Authorities and their absorption into the Department occurring in 2001.644
639 Submission No 39 from Shire of Northam, 2005, p13. 640 Submission No 57 from Mr Trevor Patton, Karratha State Emergency Service, 08/08/2006, p2. 641 Mr Keith Shadbolt, President, Volunteer Marine Rescue Association of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 12/04/2006, p4. 642 Queensland Department of Emergency Services. Available at: www.emergency.qld.gov.au/about/default.htm. Accessed on 17/08/2006. 643 Queensland Department of Emergency Services, Corporate Plan 2005-2009, Queensland Government, p4. Available at: www.emergency.qld.gov.au/publications/pdf/corp_plan_05_09.pdf Accessed on 18/08/2006. 644 Ibid.
- 166 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The QLD Department of Emergency Services is the closest model currently operating in Australia to that being proposed by FESA insomuch as the Department brings together various emergency services under the single responsibility of the Minister. While the QLD Department operates without a Board, there are some parallels between the role of the advisory councils in QLD and the proposed advisory Board to be created in the event that FESA becomes a Department. Some of the benefits of the single agency structure that have been noted by the QLD Department of Emergency Services include single-point ministerial responsibility for emergency services, and the improved coordination of emergency services personnel during emergencies.645
That said Bandt Gatter & Associates review of the implications of FESA becoming a department cites the following:
…The Consultants and the CEO were of the view that this recent exercise in Queensland might constructively inform this Western Australian exercise. In the event, the information was useful in a general sense, but the history, culture and circumstances of the arrangements in the two states were not sufficiently similar to enable direct application of the Queensland experience to WA.646
In regard to commentary on the proposed name change, the statements of the UFU (apart from those relating to the suggested name), perhaps best reflects the view of a significant proportion of fire related emergency services. The UFU view that it does not reflect the primary functions of the organisation and suggests that FESA is attempting to:
…break down the identity of the fire brigades, both Fire and Rescue Services and the Bushfire Brigades.647
The UFU proposes “Fire Rescue and Emergency Department” as an alternative organisational name, in recognition of the fire and rescue functions performed by the agency. 648 While defending the identity of fire and rescue in particular, the UFU also highlights the importance of retaining individual identities for each of the services that come under the agency umbrella, on the basis that the general community recognises and responds best to the individual services:
These sorts of institutions and the clothing are very important. People understand that certain competencies come with them and they are readily identified … No-one really knows what FESA means. If you ran a survey in shopping centres and asked 1 000 people what FESA means, they would not be able to tell you. If you asked them what fire and rescue means, they would tell you in a second. If you asked them what SES means, they would tell you in a second. With the establishment of the department, one of our main
645 Queensland Department of Emergency Services. Available at: www.emergency.qld.gov.au/about/default.htm Accessed on 18/08/2006. 646 Bandt, Allan and Gatter, Barbara, Independent Review of the Implications of FESA moving from Statutory Authority to Government Department Status, Perth, Western Australia, August 2002, p3. 647 Submission No 17 from United Firefighters Union of Australia - West Australian Branch, 2005, p5. 648 Ibid.
- 167 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
goals is that the identities of each of the services that comes under the department’s umbrella be maintained.649
Mr Matthew Merritt, Captain, Geraldton VFRS, is of a similar mindset:
The name should stay as it is, because it gives the Fire and Rescue Service its own identity. As I said, they want us to change our name from Geraldton Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service to a FESA unit, and we have told them straight-out that we are not happy to do that. FESA needs to have “fire and rescue” involved in its name.650
Mr David Green, Captain, Esperance VFRS, notes that if “fire” is removed from the corporate name, FESA risks becoming more homogeneous and hence it becomes more problematic representing all four emergency streams:
The problem is that when you drop “fire”, it does start rolling it all into one. Regarding having a department that says “emergency”, currently you effectively have four groups, taking into account sea, search and rescue, coming under the FESA wing. That is an awful lot of diversity to try to control and manage by one group.651
Mr Lincoln Heading, Manager, Kununurra SES, believes that if “fire” is removed, it may also prove too confusing for the local community who readily identify with the term:
I think that with fire - to this community anyway, be it bushfire or certainly residential-type fire - there needs to be a distinction between that and other emergency services that might be required.652
Mr Stuart Robertson, President of the West Pilbara Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue acknowledged the emotional argument by fire services with respect to loss of identity, however supported re-naming as he believed that the present dominance of “fire” in the name means the other organisations covered by FESA do not have an identity. 653
While it is felt that losing “fire” from the corporate name would be detrimental to the identity of firefighters, Mr Gordon Purvis, FESA Geraldton, considers that even if the name changed, this would not be an issue provided the fire role was clearly identified along with the name of the agency:
I think the majority of firefighters attached to the Fire and Rescue Service have a great pride in the badge they wear. I do not think they would like to lose that. I personally believe that if that is the badge I am wearing and I have a department of emergency
649 Mr David Bowers, Secretary, United Firefighters Union of WA, Transcript of Evidence, 12/04/2006, p2. 650 Mr Matthew Merritt, Captain, Geraldton Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p6. 651 Mr David Green, Captain, Esperance Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/06/2006, p4. 652 Mr Lincoln Heading, Manager, Kununurra State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p4. 653 Mr Stuart Robertson, President, West Pilbara Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p3.
- 168 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
services sitting at the top of it, that would not worry me as long as there is a clear identification of the service delivery that we provide.654
Mr Craig Chadwick, Unit Manager, Morawa SES, does not object to “fire” being removed from the corporate name. He perceives that the SES is suffering an identity crisis along with other non- fire related emergency services as a consequence of operating under the name of FESA:
We have strange situations in our towns where as soon as you say that you are with SES the response is, “Oh, that’s FESA, so you fight fires”. The Volunteer Marine Rescue Service has exactly the same identity crisis with coming under FESA. We are all emergency services. The fire brigades will never lose their identity.655
The Geraldton Volunteer Sea Rescue Group similarly draws attention to public misconceptions concerning their role because of the FESA name:
There is a bit of confusion among the local population about our role. I happened to be the guest speaker at the Rotary high tea function last Monday evening. I wore this shirt and people, mainly retired and serving businesspeople, asked me, “What are you doing with a FESA shirt on? I thought you were involved with volunteer sea rescue.” 656
The Wyndham ESU by virtue of its name, has already had some exposure to the “emergency services” title and supports the change:
People like to use the word “fire” and say that they are fireys. It is just a matter of getting used to the way things are said and what people’s expectations are. We are quite happy. We would like to stick with the one name - emergency services. That covers the whole span of services.657
Mr Andrew Twaddle, Officer in Charge, Fitzroy Crossing ESU, has not received any complaints from local volunteers following the adoption of the “emergency services” title although he admits this could be due to Fitzroy Crossing being a small, close community. Mr Twaddle views that there is greater resistance to amalgamation in larger population centres where people defend a clearer demarcation between the roles.658
As indicated, although FESA’s proposed name change was endorsed by the FESA Board, independent comment was also tendered by some of the member associations at hearing.
654 Mr Gordon Purvis, Fire Services District Manager, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p6. 655 Mr Craig Chadwick, Unit Manager, Morawa State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p4-5. 656 Mr Rudolph Wille, Deputy Commander, Geraldton Volunteer Sea Rescue Group, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p5. 657 Ms Lynn Carter, Officer in Charge, Wyndham Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p7. 658 Mr Andrew Twaddle, Officer in Charge, Fitzroy Crossing Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 07/07/2006, p3.
- 169 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service Association were of the opinion that re-structure as a department would have little impact but were opposed to the name change.659 Mr Max Osborn, Secretary for the Association elaborates:
We would argue strongly for the retention of “fire”. If we look at the FESA umbrella, the majority of people under FESA are firefighters, whether they be career, volunteer, FRS or volunteer bush fire brigade people. Numbers are being thrown around, like 25 000 BFS members and 2 500 of our members. Somewhere in the middle would probably be more realistic. We would feel very, very strongly about that being removed. We would take every step we could to ensure that “fire” is retained… We would argue that it be the department of fire and emergency services, rather than the department of emergency services, and that the identities of each organisation stay as they are, whether it be orange overalls, blue overalls or green overalls - whatever. It has been very positive from our point of view to see the SES all of a sudden going back to a recognisable identity. It is very difficult under the FESA umbrella to identify who is who.660
The Volunteer Marine Rescue Association indicated that removal of ‘fire’ from the corporate name would have little if any impact. As previously indicated, they are more concerned that a marine rescue element be retained within the agency:
In relation to a loss of identity with the removal of the word “fire” from the corporate name, it is not something that is reflected in sea rescue. There has never been a marine rescue part of FESA. I do not think it is an issue within our group. Whether it is called the department of emergency services or FESA, we would be very reluctant to lose a VMRS unit at the state level.661
Mr Terence Hunter, President, AVBFB, cites that BFB volunteers do not object to ‘fire’ being removed from the corporate name:
We have not heard anything that they would object to it as long as down the line they still keep their identity within the organisation and the structure.662
The State Emergency Service Volunteers Association details that SES volunteers feel that the current emphasis on fire in the name diminishes their role and that a change would more equitably reflect the duties of all emergency services volunteers within the organisation:
I guess the reason that it has been well supported is the “F” in FESA or the fire component. A lot of the SES volunteers felt that was causing a loss of identity to the State Emergency Service volunteers. It was masking their role and people were perceiving FESA
659 Mr Max Osborne, Secretary, WA Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service Association, Transcript of Evidence, 21/06/2006, p3. 660 Ibid., p3-4. 661 Mr Keith Shadbolt, President, Volunteer Marine Rescue Association of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 12/04/2006, p4. 662 Mr Terence Hunter, President, Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA (Inc), Transcript of Evidence, 21/06/2006, p7.
- 170 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
and fire to be the one organisation and they did not see the association was the State Emergency Service under the FESA role.663
Committee assessment
FESA has identified a number of reasons for re-structuring as a department, including:
§ That the concern raised in 2002 in the independent report by Bandt Gatter & Associates regarding a potential adverse response from volunteers to FESA becoming a department, is no longer valid. They cite this is evidenced by the endorsement of the proposal to re-structure FESA as a department by the FESA Board;
§ That the current representative board of management is an inappropriate model for governance of a public sector agency. Further, that transfer to an advisory board under a departmental structure, whereby board members can fully utilise their expertise and represent their respective emergency services groups effectively, without concern of conflict of interest, is appropriate;
§ That this approach will ensure that the Director General is responsible for governance of the organisation;
§ That volunteers will have improved access to the Minister;
§ That the Minister will have greater exposure to emergency services initiatives/issues;
§ That such a move would be in line with the recommendations of the Machinery of Government Taskforce; and
§ That the ESL would not be affected by such a proposal.
FESA also imply:
§ That holding the status of Authority is not warranted on either grounds of efficiency or independence; and
§ That at both a Commonwealth and State level, there is a clear move away from the appointment of statutory authorities.
Whilst FESA’s contention for change may well be valid, the Committee is cognisant of the following:
§ That the full implications of changing to a departmental structure remain to be identified. Although DTF consider that some of the financial implications of
663 Mr Phillip Peterson, President, State Emergency Service Volunteers Assocation, Transcript of Evidence, 10/05/2006, p1.
- 171 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
moving to a department are no longer significant, other issues were raised by DTF, DPC and Bandt Gatter & Associates that require more detailed examination;
§ Although there was not significant opposition to the proposal for re-structure, the Committee is mindful of the complexities inherent in organisational change and considers that it may be unrealistic to expect volunteer organisations to have such knowledge;
§ The Committee does not perceive that it is the appropriate avenue to recommend such change. Generally such a review would be initiated by the responsible Minister or the Minister for Public Sector Management and submitted to Cabinet for consideration;
§ Two recent Government inquiries have not recommended re-structure of FESA as a department, including the Machinery of Government Taskforce (2001) and the Functional Review Taskforce (2002);
§ Both DTF and DPC (whose Minister is responsible for Public Sector Management), in commenting on the independent review by Bandt Gatter & Associates in 2002, recommended change to the structure of the FESA Board, but did not recommend re-structure as a department;
§ Government change management is a costly exercise and in line with the comment by DPC, sufficient rationale would need to exist for the latter to occur.
Whether Government elects that FESA remains an Authority or adopts a departmental structure, the Committee views that due consideration should be given to the name of the Authority or Department. In the context of this Inquiry, it has become evident that the argument of emergency services volunteers and representative associations on this issue is essentially two fold. A significant proportion of fire related services are opposed to loss of the word “fire” from the agency’s name on the grounds of loss of identity and given that fire units comprise the majority of the emergency services. Non-fire related services on the other hand generally view inclusion of “fire” in any corporate name as detracting from their identity given community perception that they are a fire unit. The Committee firmly believe that all emergency services are of equal value in terms of the service they provide to the community and that the name of the organisation should appropriately reflect this. The name chosen is obviously a decision of Government however, that proposed by FESA, in so far as it is representative of all emergency services entities, is indicative of the Committee’s intent. That said the Committee respects the right of each emergency services group to maintain its own identity under the umbrella organisation for emergency services, currently known as FESA. Uniforms, badging (indicative of emergency service and locality) and a corporate administrative structure within the re-named organisation that reflect the individuality of those units should be maintained. The need for individuality was clearly conveyed throughout the Inquiry and should inform all recommendations in this Report, such as, local government transfer of the administration of BFBs to FESA and the conveyance of responsibility for the administration of ESL applications for SES Units.
- 172 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Despite the Committee’s view that it is not the appropriate body to recommend change in FESA’s status, it views that there is sufficient information to indicate that a change in the structure of the Board is warranted. Of particular import was the support for this change by DTF and DPC in commenting on the Bandt Gatter & Associates report. Both agencies are of the opinion that amendment to the existing board structure does not necessarily require amendment to the current status of FESA as an Authority and provide a number of alternative options. Again, what option is adopted is principally a matter for Government policy. The Committee is however mindful of the composition of FESA and its reliance on a significant volunteer component to conduct its core business. Whatever model is adopted, the input of the amalgam of volunteer organisations should be assured.
Recommendation 60
§ That the Minister for Police and Emergency Services or the Minister for Public Sector Management consider whether a review is warranted regarding FESA remaining as a statutory authority or re-structuring as a department.
Recommendation 61
§ That an alternative organisational name for FESA be devised that equitably and appropriately reflects the amalgam of emergency services.
Recommendation 62
§ That despite recommendation 60, FESA should ensure the individuality of emergency services entities (including badging reflective of their unit and locality) in its business practices.
Recommendation 63
§ That notwithstanding the outcome of a review into FESA’s status, that the current representative FESA Board of Management be abolished and an advisory board established in its place.
- 173 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
7.2 Application of the Emergency Services Levy
Background
The ESL was introduced by the State Government on 1 July 2003. A property-based levy, the ESL was established to fund the majority of emergency services administered by FESA.
The ESL was intended to replace the emergency services funding arrangements that existed prior to 2003.664 The Government considered these arrangements to be inconsistent, inequitable and unnecessarily complex. Before the introduction of the ESL:
§ Career FRS Brigades were funded through a property insurance based funding system (75%), with local government and State Government contribution (12.5% each sector).665 An insurance-based funding system meant that those community members who insured their properties paid for the majority of this service;666
§ VFRS Brigades were funded by the State Government (100%); and
§ BFBs and SES Units were funded by individual local governments, at the discretion of the latter. Additional funding was sourced from FESA’s capital grant assistance program and community donation. The level of funding for BFBs and SES Units was, therefore, dependent upon the degree of support demonstrated by the individual local government and the respective community, resulting in significant disparity across the State.667
FESA has stressed that the ESL was designed to replace the previous funding system by transferring funding responsibility for emergency services from property insurance and local governments (in the case of capital and recurrent costs of BFBs and SES Units) to the ESL. As such, the ESL is not an additional funding source.668
According to FESA, the ESL is now the principal funding source for:
§ Bushfire Brigades;
§ SES Units;
§ FRS Brigades;
§ VFRS Brigades;
664 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p38. 665 Ibid. 666 Mr J.C. Kobelke, Leader of the House, WA, Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 25/09/2002, p1572b - 1573a / 1. 667 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p38. 668 Ibid., p39.
- 174 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ Fire Service Brigades; and
§ Emergency Service Units.
The ESL also assists in funding the costs associated with training emergency services volunteer members, emergency services community safety programs, emergency management planning and FESA’s administrative costs.669
FESA believes the transition to the ESL has been successful and notes that it was achieved on a budget neutral basis to the State (Consolidated Fund). During the transition period, the State maintained its pre-ESL commitment to emergency services funding so as to avoid unnecessarily transferring costs from the public sector to the private sector.670 FESA also maintains that the State continues to be committed to emergency services funding both by meeting its obligations under Section 36L of the FESA Act with respect to paying the ESL on land owned by the State, and also by making significant discretionary contributions to emergency services costs. This is said to be in the form of funding for services and programs not deemed appropriate for ESL funding.671
Perceived success or otherwise of the Emergency Services Levy funding system
The success of the ESL, or lack thereof, has been debated through the duration of this Inquiry. In particular, there appears to be differing views amongst local government as to whether the ESL has resulted in an increase in the effectiveness of emergency services across the State. The following comments by Mr Wayne Scheggia, Director Policy, WALGA, perhaps best encapsulate this debate:
…the reality is that a better system of funding has been established state-wide in terms of the mechanism. As my colleague pointed out earlier, there has been a differing level of take-up and acceptance of responsibility for these (emergency services) issues at a local level, depending on the local government area. In some circumstances councils have been very proactive and strongly involved in the bushfire effort. Other councils have perhaps been far more reticent to be the key drivers and have stood back from that process. Therefore, there have been differing levels of commitment, funding, equipment and service, depending on the location.
From a global perspective, FESA’s challenge is to even out the effort across the State. What that means for each local council depends on the base it is coming from. In councils where the effort has been high there is certainly the view that the ESL has not delivered, in fact, it may well have been detrimental to their strategic effort. There is a perspective that some of those other local governments were not making such an effort or did not have the same capacity as some councils to make that effort. Their programme has been
669 Ibid. 670 Ibid. 671 Ibid.
- 175 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
accelerated and their service delivery probably expanded, so they stand to view the ESL from a different perspective.672
Comments from the AVBFB mirrored those of WALGA:
It [ESL] has impacted on the brigades. Some of the smaller shires, with very small rate bases, have benefited greatly from the levy in that they are getting appliances into their areas that they would not have dreamt of before the levy came in. Some of the bigger local governments - the outer metro local governments and the bigger towns - that have quite a reasonable rate base and that had in place under the grants scheme, before the levy came in, a plan for changing out equipment have probably been disadvantaged, because their equipment is actually being changed out at a longer duration. Whereas they were being changed out after eight years or even fewer under the grants scheme, now they are pushing it out to 16 years.673
The comments of Mr Greg McKay, Regional Director South West, FESA, also reflect the impact of the ESL on councils with a smaller rate base:
Particularly in the south west, I would say that it is probably the best thing since sliced bread that has happened to the volunteers and the brigades to be able to get decent equipment into the system. Prior to the ESL, there was the government grants scheme, which was on a 50-50 basis with local government. Limited funds were available under that. Also, local governments were reluctant to put up the 50 per cent. I guess from our perspective the ESL has put a lot more appliances into the system. Brigades have become more structured and, I suppose, in a lot of ways more professional as well with those resources. From my point of view, it has been excellent.674
This phenomenon is not just confined to the south west however. Mr Peter Stubbs, CEO, Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, explained that the Shire has a low rate base675 and that the ESL has improved resourcing with positive benefits for volunteers:
The introduction of the ESL has helped to provide better resources for volunteers, which is crucial to maintaining the enthusiasm of the volunteer network. Volunteerism in society generally is under pressure. If we are unable to resource people appropriately, that will drive volunteers away and be a disincentive. The ESL has been the major beneficiary to updating and improving response capability and in helping to assist in keeping an active volunteer engagement.676
672 Mr Wayne F. Scheggia, Director Policy, Western Australian Local Government Association, Transcript of Evidence, 19/10/2005, p5. 673 Mr Terence Hunter, President, Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 21/06/2006, p9. 674 Mr Greg McKay, Regional Director South West, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p5. 675 Mr Peter Stubbs, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p2. 676 Ibid., p6.
- 176 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The Shire of Derby West Kimberley similarly commended the ESL for facilitating the resourcing of local brigades, 677 as did the Shire of Roebourne.678
The City of Bunbury, a council that purports to have funded emergency services well prior to the introduction of the ESL, argues that the levy has had a detrimental impact in that region:
As far as finances are concerned, the ESL has had a significant impact on the city. You have probably been informed previously that certain local governments took their responsibility very seriously when it came to the management of brigades, equipment and training. We certainly did that here. The city, as with most other local governments, has a very good equipment changeover. We change over our emergency vehicles every eight years. Since the ESL was introduced, we have been told that vehicles will now be changed over every 15 or 16 years. Previous to the levy, instead of having (sic) supporting brigades and the SES through its general rating system, the city put forward its own levy to do with emergency services. When the ESL came in, that levy was dropped. From that previous levy, that is how the SES and the bushfire brigade were funded. Any funds that were unspent were basically held over until the next year. As a result, our bushfire brigade is well and truly well equipped. Through funding and our own funding, we used free-fall fire flights, which were state of the art. We then provided the city with a council-owned vehicle for a light unit. The previous funding set-up was always extremely well managed. Since the ESL has been introduced, we have struggled, discussed, negotiated and argued about the changeover of equipment with FESA. Local governments who have managed their affairs and taken their responsibility previously very seriously have been left to their own devices. This is reiterated down at the brigade level as well. When you are accustomed to receiving this level of PPE equipment and these ty pes of things then all of a sudden that is put out for another eight years, the brigade thinks to itself, “As volunteers, we were well looked after under the local government. Now that all these changes have come in, we are not being well looked after.” I know that FESA has to bring the equipment up to a standard and this has not been done in other local governments. I do not have a problem with that, but that should not be to the detriment of those local governments that have always done the right thing. That is what is occurring now. It is also occurring at the SES level. Originally, FESA asked us to submit five-year vehicle and equipment replacement strategies. We did that. I do not know why we did that, because it was a complete waste of time. What appeared in that document is no longer in the FESA replacement program.679
The Shire of Esperance, which also contends that it provided solid funding for its emergency services prior to the levy, is of a similar opinion:
With the introduction of the Emergency Services Levy (ESL) the allocation to the Shire of Esperance does not cover the operation costs for our brigades during an average or above fire season. There has been no allocation for grants for the various brigades to improve their service and equipment used by volunteers. This is not dealing with replacement vehicles, that issue is addressed later within this submission, but its funds for building
677 Mr Steven Martin, Chief Bush Fire Control Officer, Shire of Derby West Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 07/07/2006, p4. 678 Mr Guy Thompson, Director Technical and Development Services, Shire of Roebourne, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p8. 679 Mr John B Kowal, Manager Law and Safety Services, City of Bunbury, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p8.
- 177 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
improvements, training facilities, computer equipment for record keeping, GIS mapping, replacement of fire fig hting components such as pumps, engines and such like. The SES Unit is receiving similar treatment under the current ESL arrangements.680
The City of Albany, which also asserts that it was proactive in the provision of resources for emergency services, disagrees with the view that the ESL has disadvantaged the City’s brigades and units:
Mr Chairman, when the minister introduced the emergency services levy, she said that no- one would be disadvantaged. Now, it is fair to say that a lot of our brigades were conducting chook raffles and doing various other things, and using a lot of money that was not actually necessary for fire purposes. They were doing other community things. We in fact transfer the ESL funding direct to the brigades. We do not hold the money and ask the brigades to come to us; we transfer it to them so that they have their own independent budgets. We have been fortunate that we have been able to hold those budgets stagnant, and in some cases reduce those budgets, because the expenditure has not gone on fire requirements, as they are now required to duly account for that money. For the brigades themselves, there has been no net increase. In fact, there has probably been a slight decrease in the amount of money that has gone to brigades. The brigades are all saying that they are reasonably well equipped; the infrastructure is coming through for them. Where we have found the $900 000 being compensated is that the city is taking a proactive role with fire management, and that is getting into the fire prevention side of it. What we have done is transfer some of that funding into more preventive areas rather than simply responding to the outcomes of fire.681
Whilst the ESL does not fund CALM firefighting activities, Mr Greg Broomhall, Regional Fire Coordinator, CALM, contends that the indirect benefits to the organisation have been significant:
The support that the ESL has given to local government has been absolutely brilliant and tremendous. That has flowed on to us as we can operate with brigades that are better equipped, better trained and better facilitated. That has enabled local governments, particularly in this area - the City of Albany and places like Plantagenet as well - to develop their brigade structures in leaps and bounds. It has been tremendous. That has also assisted greatly in the unison between agencies. As I said, we work intimately with the brigade organisations. If those guys have better equipment, better training and better skills, it makes our job so much easier. I mean, it is never easy, but the working arrangement is so much better.682
Mr Phillip Petersen, President, State Emergency Service Volunteers Association, views the impact on the SES to have been noteworthy:
…We certainly appreciated the emergency services levy that was introduced by the government. That has made a difference financially to all the SES units across the state. Before the emergency services levy it was relying on the support of local governments to
680 Submission No 46 from Shire of Esperance, 15/05/2006, p2. 681 Mr Robert J Fenn, Executive Director Development Services, City of Albany, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p4-5. 682 Mr Gregory G Broomhall, Regional Fire Coordinator, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p7.
- 178 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
sponsor the units’ operation and there were certainly differences between local government support financially and physically. Therefore, the emergency services levy has given funding to all units whether they had good local government support or even local governments that did not have the finances to support a unit. For that part it has been great…683
Mr Terence Hunter, AVBFB was not convinced that equity would occur once the poorly resourced councils had been raised to standard:
No, unfortunately, I do not think it will even itself out, because I would suggest that, in real terms, the actual purchasing power since the levy has come in has probably dropped in the vicinity of 12 per cent. The amount of money set aside for bills for the bush fire brigade appliances has remained static over the period that it has been in place, but the cost of building those appliances has escalated, and possibly gone up a third or even more. Consequently, the number of appliances that we can build in a given year with that amount of money has halved. That is part of the reason that you cannot replace the appliances.684
The Shire of Toodyay is concerned at the impact of the ESL on public perception, particularly in terms of emergency services capacity:
The introduction of the Emergency Services Levy has created a perception in the community that they (the community) will receive an appropriate response to the emergencies they face.
The belief is that the resources are there to assist them and that the emergency services agencies are able to cope with any emergency that occurs. Research has not occurred in identifying all the issues that are faced by the community and emergency services agencies.
This has led to a poor resource allocation and being reactive and not proactive with an emergency.685
Capital and Operating Grants
Funding for BFBs and SES Units is allocated via a grants process whereby local governments apply for an operating and a capital grant for each service. These comprise the following:
Capital Grant Budget - relates to significant capital works initiatives, including the acquisition of facilities, appliances, vehicles and major items of equipment; and
Operating Grant Budget - relates to general operating costs and minor purchases, including such items as training, protective clothing, radios, furniture and other minor non-recurrent items.686
683 Mr Phillip Petersen, President State Emergency Service Volunteers Association, Transcript of Evidence, 10/05/2006, p2. 684 Mr Terence Hunter, President, Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 21/06/2006, p10. 685 Submission No 30 from Shire of Toodyay, 2005, p4. 686 Letter from Mr Robert Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 07/11/2005, p3.
- 179 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Resource-to-Risk assessment models
In an attempt to ensure a more equitable distribution of levy funds based on an assessment of level of emergency related risk faced by the community, FESA cites it has commenced development of a Statewide Resource Replacement Plan (SRRP) to underpin Capital Grants for volunteer emergency services in this State:
…In consultation with local Governments, the plan allows for the standardisation of assets, involves an ongoing review of asset suitability and provides equipment commensurate with the risk faced by local communities…The SRRP, which incorporates existing planning for BFBs and SES units, will be continually developed and updated. It will eventually include a risk assessment of all Local Government districts and identify the location of the BFBs, volunteers and assets required to match those needs. In the case of SES units, the process will be based on an assessment of the risk, the area of operation, the workload and operational capability of the units…687
FESA acknowledge that the development of the SRRP will take some time given the need to progressively reach agreement with local governments as each area is assessed. In the interim FESA notes that it will continue with the four year replacement program for appliances, vehicles, boats and trailers. Local Government has a right of reply in relation to these plans. FESA cites that replacement plans will not be provided for equipment or buildings, which will be replaced on a priority basis within the level of available funding.688
FESA cites that although Operating Grants are largely governed by history and prior levels of support, they also hope to move towards a resource-to-risk budget analysis for all brigades and units. FESA notes that its primary focus at present is bringing those formerly under-funded units up to a level appropriate to the risk to the community.689
WALGA comments positively in relation to the risk management approach being adopted by FESA:
… Of course, greater emphasis is being placed by FESA on risk management and the risk, and perhaps rightly so. In other words, why have a nice, bright $275 000 fire unit in a place that might have only one fire a year? It is far more practical for those units to perhaps be in the outer metropolitan area or high-risk areas…690
The Shire of Kojonup however raises the following concerns:
…We are also concerned about the risk to resource analysis. If the risk level changes because of the capacity or the number of units on the ground, then anyone who is involved
687 Ibid., p4. 688 Ibid., p4-5. 689 Ibid., p4. 690 Mr Wayne Scheggia, Director Policy, Western Australian Local Government Association, Transcript of Evidence, 19/10/2005, p3-4.
- 180 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
in the management of it will have a huge resource problem, because they will not physically be able to get units to the area. It may take two years to fund it…691
Grant allocation processes
FESA also intimated in evidence that some of the concerns about the ESL may be attributable to FESA’s processes. Mr Bob Mitchell, then CEO, FESA comments:
Our processes in the first year or so fell a bit short in the feedback process. This issue has been raised with me on a couple of occasions by WALGA and senio r people from local government. It is an issue that we will continue to work on. We are in the process of attempting to get better at providing feedback for why a grant is not acceptable this year, and what we fail to tell people today is that it may well be a year or two years out. Instead of just saying no, there must be context to an answer. We are getting better, but we still have a way to go. The allocation of grants is an emotional subject, especially when one considers the demand for grants and the size of the budget to meet those demands. It is a pretty emotional subject and not everybody likes to hear an answer in the negative. I accept that we could have done better in the first couple of years. I think last year was better and I think we will keep working on that process to get it better.692
Increased administration associated with Emergency Service Levy grant applications
Apart from concerns with disparity of funding, a number of stakeholders were also worried about increases in, or perceived problems with, administrative processes associated with the grant scheme.
Mr Ian Axell, Bunbury SES, not only raised the issue of progressive reductions in funding but also delays in payment of quarterly instalments, resulting in a reliance on social funds.693
The Shire of Plantagenet were dissatisfied with delays in the vehicle replacement program however also felt disquiet in relation to increased administration associated with the levy:
The levy is taking something like $90 000 odd out of our shire each year, but we believe that our administration in our shire offices has probably gone up to close to one FTE in employment with administering brigades, maintenance of equipment, submissions for funding and all the things that FESA require - five-year plans, resource to risk and all the issues that have had to be developed.694
The Shire of Manjimup noted that whilst the ESL had led to more investment in brigades, it tended to be limited to operational rather than equipment purchases. They too were concerned
691 Mr Stephen Gash, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Kojonup, Transcript of Evidence, 20/02/2006, p10. 692 Mr Robert Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p20. 693 Mr Ian Axell, Local Manager, Bunbury State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p5. 694 Mr Kevin Forbes, President, Shire of Plantagenet and President, Great Southern Zone of the Western Australian Local Government Association, Member, FESA Capital Grants Allocating Committee, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p6.
- 181 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
about a rise in administrative costs.695 Comments of a similar nature are reflected in requests detailed later in this section in relation to expansion of the ESL.
Requests for expansion of the Emergency Services Levy
A number of stakeholders either directly stated or intimated that the ESL should be expanded to cover other emergency services related costs.
The Northern Country Zone, although endorsing the ESL, consider it to be insufficient in terms of its contribution to emergency preparedness, prevention and recovery costs:
The introduction of the Emergency Services Levy (ESL) has provided an alternative and welcome injection of funds channeled toward the suppression of fires, however, the ESL has not been able to contribute to the financial cost and appropriate resourcing of preparedness, prevention and recovery for fires - this remains unfunded by local governments with no foreseeable outcome.696
As member Shires of the Northern Country Zone both the City of Geraldton and Shire of Three Springs reiterated the latter in evidence, with the City of Geraldton proposing that funding be made available to cover the costs of a disaster that does not meet requirements for State level disaster relief.697
Similarly, CALM asks this Committee to consider:
…allowing application of funds from the Emergency Services Levy to fire prevention on unallocated Crown land and unmanaged reserves.698
In a similar vein, Mr Stuart McIntyre, Area Manager, FESA, Esperance, requests the granting of additional funding to the Shires of Esperance and Ravensthorpe for fire management on UCL, although warrants that this should be funded separate to the ESL:
We also have the situation where some brigades are not equipped with a government- provided appliance, an ESL-provided appliance, but they have a huge expanse of UCL to protect or fires coming out of UCL onto private property. I really believe there is a special case for shires such as Esperance and Ravensthorpe to get funding outside of the ESL for those situations because it is just not fair on the landowners.699
Ms Christine Thompson, Deputy President, Shire of Murray, intimated that the ESL should be expanded to cover all costs associated with fire brigades. Her opinion reflects that of a number of stakeholders to the Inquiry:
695 Mr Vernon McKay, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Manjimup, Transcript of Evidence, 22/02/2006, p6. 696 Submission No 32 from the Northern Country Zone of the Western Australian Local Government Association, 2005, p3. 697 Mr Graham Little, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Three Springs and Mr Geoffrey Shoemark, Executive Manager Environmental and Infrastructure Services, City of Geraldton, , Transcript of Evidence, 29/05/2006, p3-4. 698 Submission No 27 from Department of Conservation and Land Management, 2005, p4. 699 Mr Stuart McIntyre, Area Manager, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Transcript of Evidence, 08/06/2006, p3.
- 182 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
It has got to the stage now that council as a whole thinks that anything to do with fire brigades should be provided by the ESL. We know that there are exceptions that do not apply, and the ESL was supposed to help the brigades with the operation side, the provision of units and stuff like that. However, even with the ESL and because a lot is not covered by the ESL, the majority of brigades or units still have to go out and fundraise. Equipment purchased from a donation or fundraising is not covered under the ESL for maintenance later on, which is an issue at the present time for a lot of brigades. It is all right if it is purchased under the ESL, but not if you fundraise for it. We have an example at the moment…700
The Shire of Northam recommends:
That the funding of staff positions and other emergency management administrative costs, being funded by local government and not currently permitted to be funded under the Emergency Services Levy, be considered for funding as costs in the normal course of operation of the Emergency Services Levy.701
Mr Craig Chadwick, Unit Manager, Morawa SES, similarly cited the option of the ESL covering administrative costs to deal with increased paperwork, a consequence of the introduction of the levy. 702
Mr Charlie Butcher, Chief Bushfire Control Officer, City of Albany, suggests funding be applied to training in administrative skills:
With the ESL going to the brigades, which is a good thing, you have to recognise that the brigades are managed by people who are elected at an annual meeting every year. That does not necessarily mean that the people with the jobs like treasurers, secretaries and things like that have the experience to actually handle government money or ratepayers’ money. The records have to be fairly right; we have to do it properly. The City of Albany assists where possible, but we see the need for maybe some of that money to be transferred - it was not before - into educating, say, secretaries, treasurers and things to be able to handle that. Whether that would be a training course set up by the shire or whether these people would be allowed to be sent to TAFE to do their training, as far as the volunteers are concerned, we think it is necessary to help them to make up their budgets and have people trained once they are put into these positions. You also have to remember that a lack of volunteers in some places dictates that some people take on these jobs simply because there is nobody else. Under those circumstances, for us to make sure that we are aboveboard, some sort of education has to be given to some of these people. Maybe some of the ESL needs to be transferred to an area like that.703
Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland VFRS, implied that the ESL has increased the level of responsibility and accountability of volunteers and that a portion should therefore be used to fund permanent staff in regional locations to absorb some of that burden:
700 Ms Christine Thompson, Deputy President, Shire of Murray, Transcript of Evidence, 24/02/2006, p3. 701 Submission No 39 from Shire of Northam, 2005, p11. 702 Mr Craig Chadwick, Unit Manager, Morawa State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p4. 703 Mr Charlie Butcher, Chief Bushfire Control Officer, City of Albany, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p5.
- 183 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
It has gone from “I am just a volunteer”, especially with the introduction of the ESL. There is a huge public image to uphold, which is fair enough, you expect that, but at the same time there is a lot of money coming in from across the state, and it should be put back into putting permanent people or responsible people into a lot of these regional locations to carry some of that workload and responsibility.704
A number of BFBs requested the re-instigation of funding for slip-on units under the ESL. Although broader than that, they were concerned about FESA district officers directing farmers not to have slip-on units present at fires because of the recommendation of the Coroner.
Mr Alistair Hope, State Coroner, in investigating the death of a BFB member in 2004 as a consequence of an inadequately secured slip-on unit, concluded:
This case has highlighted the importance of ensuring that slip -on water tanks are well secured to the trays of the vehicles on which they are secured. Such tanks must be secured by more than just bolts attached to the tray of the vehicle, there needs to be a substantial skid frame welded to the tray or a similar strong and reliable mechanism to prevent movement of the water tanks.705
The Shire of Manjimup comments on this issue:
…That is a bone of contention for us because of a couple of matters. It goes back to the findings of coronial inquiries and their outcomes and to decisions made by FESA. One particular issue is that the slip -on units would not be supported, funded and maintained. That is the basis of our firefighting equipment. A fire occurred yesterday that required a lot of slip-on units, but only one FESA-funded appliance was in attendance. Had the FESA funded appliance been the only appliance in attendance at the fire, we certainly would not have rounded up the fire in the time that we did. Instead, we were able to rely on the slip- on units, some of which had been funded through the shire previously. However, the bulk of the slip-on units are privately-owned equipment. Because it is privately -owned equipment, the ESL does not make any allowance for the running, operation or cost of those units…706
The importance of slip-on units for controlling fire by the local volunteer brigade in Kununurra was highlighted by the Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley. Mr Gary King, Chief Bushfire Control Officer, described the slip-on units in use as being predominantly hand assembled albeit with a safer water holding capacity and more firmly secured than that investigated by the State Coroner.707 It is Mr King’s view that slip-on units are an essential appliance for firefighting and without them the local emergency response capacity would be severely curtailed:
704 Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/2006, p5. 705 Hope, Alastair, State Coroner Western Australia Record of Investigation into Death - Inquest into the Death of Craig Dee Sandy, State of Western Australia, Perth, 8th July 2004, p42. 706 Mr Vernon McKay, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Manjimup, Transcript of Evidence, 22/02/2006, p6. 707 Mr Gary King, Ranger and Chief Bushfire Controller, Shire of Wyndham-East Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p8.
- 184 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
They will never, ever stop us using them in this country, no matter what the coroner says. That is all we have in this country to use. We would have better slip -on units if we could get them through the ESL…[Without them] Ten guys would turn up at the bush fire shed, and two would go in one unit and that would be it; the rest would sit back and watch the fire go.708
Mr Andrew Twaddle, Officer in Charge, Fitzroy Crossing ESU, also drew attention to the importance of slip-on units to pastoral fire-fighting efforts:
…out on the stations for their day-to -day work they have their tray-back vehicles, and in a situation like the fire today, if they have the slip-on units that they can throw on the back of the vehicle, that would be beneficial. When the grants scheme stopped, a lot of the stations stopped purchasing a lot of that gear. We are now getting back to the stage we were at about six or seven years ago where the station’s equipment is not up to scratch. They have broken-down pumps that are totally useless. They are sending their crew and station personnel into these situations with defective equipment.709
Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, FESA, acknowledged the importance of slip-on units to the region’s emergency response capability, citing that slip-on units probably constitute 80 per cent of the firefighting equipment pastoralists have available to them. 710 He viewed that there was a need to revisit the Coroner’s finding and determine an appropriate engineering solution for the units.711
A corporate response from FESA, dated 29 August 2006, in regard to this issue details the responsibility of land owners under Section 28 of the Bushfires Act to extinguish fires on their own land at their own cost, hence their ineligibility for ESL for that equipment. FESA reiterates the complexity of the issue of slip-on units for BFBs as a consequence of the potential dangers of heavy-weight slip-on units identified by the State Coroner. Referencing the Coronial, FESA cites the following:
…However, FESA does recognise the value of lighter-weight slip-on units to the pastoral regions of the State. While these units have not yet been endorsed as a component of the ESL, FESA is currently investigating the possibility of allocating slip-on units to brigades that respond to fire on pastoral land. These units would be allocated on a resource-to -risk basis.
It is important to note that while FESA is not currently supporting slip -on units, FESA does provide “Fast Attacks” to registered Bushfire Brigades according to a resource-to -risk assessment. “Fast Attacks” perform all the functions of a slip-on unit and more.712
708 Ibid., p7-8. 709 Mr Andrew Twaddle, Officer in Charge, Fitzroy Crossing Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 07/07/2006, p2. 710 Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director, Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p5. 711 Ibid. 712 Letter from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 29/08/2006, p5.
- 185 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Proposed solutions to address the perceived shortfall in Emergency Services Levy funding
A number of stakeholders suggest solutions to address or assist the perceived shortfall in ESL funding. The Shire of Northam proposes an injection of funds from consolidated revenue:
…The Shire of Northam understands that there is only so much funding each year that can be spread around. However, with the State Government running such a high surplus consideration should be given to increase the levels of funding to Local Government that require it…713
WALGA were of a similar sentiment.714
The Shire of Esperance views the levy rate to be too low:
Most of the funding [prior to the ESL] for brigades for their own operations was from voluntary levies on individual properties. I know this comment is not going to go down terribly well with a lot of people but it is interesting how the funding operates. As a volunteer, prior to this, I used to put in about $250 a year [Shire imposed], but my submission now is $30 due to the way my property is done. I do not think as much money comes out of the country as it probably should. To me, $30 for a total FESA coverage all across Western Australia is not a lot to pay.715
The Shire of Esperance is considering implementing an additional levy to meet the perceived shortfall.716
Mr Tom Brown, Member, Esperance BFB, spoke of substantial cost savings achieved by removing unnecessary equipment off fire trucks or tailoring equipment to suit the terrain in which the equipment is required to operate. The project was conducted in conjunction with FESA. 717 WALGA at hearing commended FESA on the latter:
…Certainly, the question that has been posed is the specification standards. It is pleasing that FESA responded very quickly to that and is progressing some of those concerns. Hopefully, that will reduce some of the capital that will be required and, at the same time, give a more appropriate vehicle to the services that are being delivered on the ground…718
The AVBFB expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency in relation to the collection and dispersal of ESL funds. They view that this could be achieved through placement of the ESL
713 Submission No 39 from Shire of Northam, 30/11/2005, p2. 714 Mr Wayne Scheggia, Director Policy, Western Australian Local Government Association, Transcript of Evidence, 19/10/2005, p5. 715 Mr Tom Brown, Member, Esperance Bushfire Brigade, Transcript of Evidence, 08/06/2006, p11. 716 Cr Ian Mickel, Shire President, Shire of Esperance, Transcript of Evidence, 08/06/2006, p12. 717 Mr Tom Brown, Member Esperance Bushfire Brigade, Transcript of Evidence, 08/06/2006, p13. 718 Mr Wayne Scheggia, Director Policy, Western Australian Local Government Association, Transcript of Evidence, 19/10/2005, p9.
- 186 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
with an independent body. 719 WAFarmers also thought there needed to be greater transparency, although suggested that this occur via improved availability of figures in relation to the collection and distribution of funds.720
Mr Kevin Forbes, Shire of Plantagenet, intimates that some cost savings will be achieved through appropriate consultation:
…Local knowledge is very important, particularly in relation to your plant replacement program. How will people in Perth know what plant should be replaced in the Shire of Plantagenet if they are not operational on the ground and taking instructions from local government on that issue? The oldest piece of equipment is not necessarily the worst. Some of the older trucks have done very little work and are in very good condition. You might have a newer truck that for some reason is not performing well, or has mechanical problems or whatever else. I think local government knowledge on the ground will be very important to the continuity of the emergency services levy…721
Impact of the Emergency Services Levy - FESA’s perspective
FESA argue that there has been a substantial injection of funds into emergency services since implementation of the ESL in 2003:
Since the inception of the ESL Grant Scheme, FESA and the respective Capital Grants Committees have worked towards maintaining the grants within a $17+ million commitment in 2003/04 and an annual $15.0 million allocation in 2004/05 and 2005/06 as follows:
§ BFB Capital - $6.0 million
§ BFB Operating - $6.0 million
§ SES Capital - $1.0 million
§ SES Operating - $2.0 million
Although the new ESL funding arrangements are not intended to match “collections” from a particular region to “expenditure” in a region, it should be noted that ESL collections from properties serviced by BFBs and SES units (located in ESL category 3 & 5 regions) are estimated to be $6.9 million in 2005/06 compared to the $15.0 million that has been allocated via grants alone. In addition, the ESL also funds the total cost of providing career and voluntary country fire and emergency services, and community education and emergency advisory programs, throughout the State. This includes a significant direct funding commitment from FESA to provide protective clothing for all volunteers and insurance costs for SES units
719 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA Incorporated, 21/06/2006, p7. 720 Submission No 20 from Western Australian Farmers Federation (Inc), 14/10/2005, p3. 721 Mr Kevin Forbes, President Shire of Plantagenet and President Great Southern Zone of the Western Australian Local Government Association, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p10.
- 187 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Capital and Operating Grant Allocations have been soundly structured and were originally based on the best available data from Local Governments for the three years prior to the introduction of the ESL. It should be noted that there were some initial scheduling problems encountered as old vehicles retrieved from the field that were earmarked for “refurbishment” and re-allocation were discovered not suitable and had to be replaced on a “new-for-old” basis. Accordingly, vehicle manufacturers had to gear up to meet FESA’s urgent production demands.
However, through the ESL there is now a much greater level of financial support to regional communities and considerable progress has been made in the past three years to develop and fund sustainable cyclical replacement programs for all necessary facilities, appliances and major items of equipment required by fire and emergency response units.
It is also apparent that under the new arrangements, which no longer require matching funding allocations from Local Governments, some Local Governments are understandably seeking funding for vehicle replacement schedules that they may have been unable to fund themselves (with or without FESA assistance) prior to the ESL’s introduction.722
FESA cite that as far as the vehicle replacement program is concerned, particularly with regard to BFBs, the levy has seen a drop in the average age of the appliance fleet from 15 years in 2003 to 12 years in 2005. FESA acknowledges that the replacement program has favoured local governments that have not previously provided sufficient funding for units, however notes the requirement to ensure that the State has a safe roadworthy fleet, something which they believe has been achieved.723
FESA has determined that the level of funding ($6.0 million) for the period 2003/04 - 2005/06 will need to be increased by $2.0 million, which will provide for a replacement program of 10 years for light tankers and 20 years for heavy tankers. The process of rotation will continue, involving refurbishment and relocation to less active areas. It is envisaged therefore that busier areas will have light and heavy tankers no older than 5 and 10 years respectively. 724 It is understood from correspondence received later in this Inquiry that an increase in the budget allocation for grants for 2006/07 has occurred.725
FESA in reflecting on the suggestion that a one-off injection of consolidated funds be apportioned to remedy the perceived inequity in funding, suggest that initial assessment reveals a figure of $41 million would be required to replace 160 older appliances. FESA suggests caution however:
In this context it should be noted that of the 650 BFBs, on average 66% turn out to less than 5 incidents a year with 48% turning out to 1 or less incident. Whilst a once off capital injection would undoubtedly improve the quality of the fleet and have an immediate impact
722 Letter from Mr Robert Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 09/11/2005, p5. 723 Ibid., p6-7. 724 Ibid. 725 Letter from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 29/08/2006, p5.
- 188 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
on the replacement turnover strategy employed by FESA in determining the SRRP, it would not necessarily improve the fire fighting capacity of all BFBs in all instances, especially the less active brigades where a roadworthy 20-25 year old appliance is still considered quite suitable. To provide a new appliance in every instance could therefore not be justified…726
FESA intimates however that this comment does not negate the need for additional State funding to provide extra or improved resources for emergency services.727
FESA counter the concerns of the AVBFB raised above regarding equity not being achieved once the less equipped local governments are brought up to standard. FESA detail that they regularly review the amount budgeted for BFB and SES Units and has, as indicated, increased allocation as a consequence of an improved understanding of operating and capital grant requirements due to better data collection processes.728
FESA provided the following response in relation to stakeholder requests for expansion of the ESL to cover local government costs associated with preparedness, prevention and recovery for fires, fire prevention on UCL and for administrative costs:
The ESL was introduced:
…On the understanding that the previous service management responsibilities were retained (i.e. FESA would remain directly responsible for the establishment and management of the career Fire and Rescue Services, in consultation with local governments and the community. Local Governments would remain responsible for the establishment and management of volunteer Bushfire Brigades and State Emergency Services (SES)Units, in consultation with their own communities and FESA)…
…a fundamental principle of the grants scheme was that there would be no transfer of local government indirect (overhead) costs to the ESL budget. This principle was established to ensure optimum use of ESL to support volunteer emergency service brigades/units, so that they would eventually obtain the protective clothing, equipment and appliances that they need to operate safely and effectively.
ESL was a funding system change only. It has not changed the infrastructure or operational matters as set out in the Bushfires Act 1954. Under the provisions of that Act, responsibility for fire prevention and fire suppression rests with local governments, including unallocated Crown land (outside of CALM designated areas).
In addition, FESA detail that responsibility and costs associated with recovery involve a range of State Government agencies and the community, were not intended to be an ESL responsibility,
726 Ibid., p7. 727 Ibid. 728 Ibid., p5.
- 189 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
and further, that there are State and Commonwealth funding sources for unpredictable and unbudgeted costs associated with major disasters.729
FESA also cite that Local Government Rates Officers have been trained by FESA in the required administrative skills to manage the ESL at the local level, including invoicing, collecting, remitting, advising of property owners and reporting on the ESL. They detail that how that is managed at the local level is a local government issue. FESA state that it tries to simplify processes, has initiated a Grant Audit Program for this purpose, regularly updates a Grants Manual and provides assistance with ESL related matters when required. 730
Committee assessment
The Committee views the ESL to be a fairer, more effective and less complex emergency services funding system than its predecessor. However, this Inquiry acknowledges the discrepancy between local governments, in terms of the net value of the ESL to each respective community. In general terms, local governments that appropriately funded their emergency services prior to the introduction of the ESL have not benefited significantly since its introduction. Conversely, those local governments that were unable or unwilling to provide a safe and effective emergency service prior to the introduction of the ESL have gained considerably through an injection of basic emergency services resources.
It will take some years to ensure the delivery and maintenance of the highest standard of emergency service in every local government area in the State. Whilst it is extremely important that the emergency services in the better-resourced local government areas be maintained, it is perhaps more imperative that the less-resourced local governments be provided with the emergency services equipment and expertise necessary to ensure emergency services personnel are protected whilst performing their core duties. As such, in the short-term the disparity between local governments, in terms of total benefit from the ESL, is inevitable.
Financial figures and other data reviewed by the Committee indicate that the ESL has resulted in direct and significant improvements in emergency services across the State. In 2003 FESA was tasked with the unenviable job of raising the standard of emergency services delivery across the State, primarily through the equitable distribution of equipment and other emergency services resources. Such delivery might only occur on a needs basis, given that the ESL is a finite resource.
In regard to expansion of the ESL to cover other emergency service related costs external to the current ESL grant funding criteria, the Committee is cautious. FESA states that:
During the 2005/2006 rates/charges determination process, the Treasurer and the Expenditure Review Committee paid particular attention to the quantum of the increase in
729 Letter from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 29/08/2006, p3-4. 730 Ibid., p4.
- 190 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
the ESL rates/charges from 2004/05 to 2005/06 to ensure that the ESL rates/charges did not increase beyond acceptable levels.731
The Committee understands that the inclusion of additional expenditure requirements in the ESL budget will increase ESL rates and charges beyond the Consumer Price Index, which would be deemed by Government to be unacceptable.732
In addition, the intent of the ESL was not to change the “statutory obligations of local government to fund and manage a range of land management and community safety responsibilities under the Bushfires Act 1954 and the Local Government Act 1995”.733 As detailed above, that includes the resources and infrastructure required to administer those responsibilities. In effect this means that expenses incurred in relation to those functions remain the responsibility of local government. The ESL is purely a replacement funding system, intended to “fund the approved capital and operating costs associated with the provision and maintenance of an effective bush firefighting service for Local Governments”.734
It is considered that staffing costs will continue to be incurred regardless of the existence of these emergency service groups. FESA has however indicated that it has, and will be, conducting audits to streamline administrative grant processes and will be increasing the level of assistance with regard to the completion of grant applications.735
The Committee recognises the significant contribution to fire suppression in regional areas afforded by slip-on units, and the reliance that many of these communities have on slip-on units to supplement firefighting efforts. In this regard the Committee supports further investigation by FESA into ensuring that requisite safety improvements are made and adequate funding is made available to registered brigades for slip-on units.
The Committee does not support removal of management of the ESL from FESA. The Committee considers that the grants are appropriately placed with FESA as the “expert” agency in emergency services. The Committee is satisfied that FESA has established appropriate and transparent grant committee processes with adequate external representation. FESA reports annually on its grant allocation via its website. The Authority is also able to provide administrative support to the grant process resulting in cost efficiencies.
Further, FESA has acknowledged that the processes and procedures used to assess and determine allocation of grants might also be improved however, the organisation claims that such refinement is currently being progressed.
731 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p40. 732 Letter from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 29/08/2006, p6. 733 Emergency Services Levy: A Fairer System for All, Local Government Manual for Capital and Operating Grants 2006- 07, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Perth, November 2005, p7. 734 Ibid., p8. 735 Ibid., p2.
- 191 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
In citing the above, the Committee acknowledges that the ESL is a significant pool of funds and that Government must ensure that it is effectively applied and that associated administrative processes are accountable but manageable. The ESL has been in place for approximately three years and processes associated with its application are being refined. The Committee is of the view that an assessment of the effectiveness of the application of the ESL by the Auditor General would be warranted in the near future. The timing of the latter should take into consideration a measure of the impact of the SRRP and other resource-to-risk assessment models employed in the distribution of the levy.
Recommendation 64
§ That the Emergency Services Levy be used to fund the capital and recurrent costs associated with administering and operating:
- Bushfire Brigades;
- Emergency Service Units;
- Fire and Rescue Services Brigades;
- Fire Service Brigades;
- State Emergency Service Units; and
- Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services Brigades.
Recommendation 65
§ That additional funding sources (e.g. Commonwealth, State Government and private funding) for these brigades and units are not to be affected or altered by the previous recommendation.
Recommendation 66
§ That FESA devise an engineering solution to ensure that slip-on units meet occupational health and safety requirements, satisfy the standards for insurance and in the instance of a registered brigade, are eligible for ESL funding.
- 192 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 67
§ That the Auditor General consider reviewing the effectiveness of the Emergency Services Levy, including the impact of: • Capital and Operating Grants;
• Resource-to-risk processes; and
• Associated administrative requirements.
7.3 Establishment of Emergency Services Areas
The provision of emergency services by FESA is currently governed by two different types of boundaries, namely ESL category boundaries and fire districts.736 FESA argues that the two forms of boundary were established at different times for different purposes, and that the original intent of fire districts is now no longer valid given that ESL category boundaries largely fulfil this role.737
FESA explains that fire districts, which are established by the Fire Brigades Act were originally intended to facilitate the distribution of emergency services funding and that funding was dependent on whether a brigade was located inside or outside of a fire district.738 The Authority cites that since ESL category areas were introduced in 2001 [2002] through amendments to the FESA Act for the purpose of distributing emergency services funds, this duplication has essentially rendered this aspect of fire districts redundant.739
Under ESL arrangements, there are five ESL categories depending on the type and level of emergency response available to a property. 740 The introduction of the ESL has superseded the previous emergency services funding system, which FESA considers was not as equitable or accountable a mechanism for allocating funding and equipment as the ESL. 741 According to
736 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p41. 737 Ibid. 738 Ibid. 739 Ibid. 740 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/upload/shared/docs/ESL_Q_and_A_Document_2006-07_FINAL.doc Accessed on 17/08/2006. 741 Ibid.
- 193 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
FESA, with the introduction of the ESL, fire districts are now used only to demarcate operational boundaries and as a means of determining fire hydrant ownership and responsibilities.742
FESA proposes:
…the abolition of the Fire Districts and Emergency Services Levy Category Areas and the establishment of Emergency Services Areas. The Emergency Services Areas would be used to define:
§ Emergency Services Levy boundaries;
§ Emergency services delivery boundaries; and
§ any other boundary that needs to be defined for the purpose of FESA performing its functions under the Act.743
FESA further recommends that the Emergency Services Area boundaries align with the current ESL category areas.744
The proposal by FESA to remove the existing fire districts and ESL category areas and to introduce Emergency Services Areas is aimed at providing a less confusing, more consistent and more efficient approach to boundary definition than the current arrangement.
Mr John Kowal, Manager, Law and Safety Services, City of Bunbury, supports the change for this very reason although views that there needs to be some clarity around who would be in charge of operations in established emergency services areas:
… I have been informed this morning in regard to the Bunbury area that there is a gazetted fire district that is looked after by careers, bushfire and those types of things. I do not have an issue with one boundary and I think that would clarify a lot of things; as long as the plans are put in place where, in case this happens, this will occur. I think that could be dealt with in response plans, MOUs and those types of things. Overall, I think it would just clarify a lot of things if there was one boundary and not three boundaries.745
Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland VFRS, similarly recognises the benefit of establishing a single boundary:
Getting rid of grey areas and putting one border in is obviously important and would save a lot of confusion.746
742 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, p41. 743 Ibid., p41-42. 744 Ibid., p42. 745 Mr John Kowal, Manager, Law and Safety Services, City of Bunbury, and Captain, Bunbury Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p13. 746 Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/2006, p3.
- 194 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
However, FESA’s recommendation to establish Emergency Services Areas has been rejected by the UFU. In its submission, the UFU contend that the removal of fire districts from the legislation represents an attempt by FESA to undermine the identity and role of career and volunteer fire brigades.747 Mr David Bowers, Secretary, UFU, reinforced this at hearing:
The Fire and Rescue Service has been around for a long time; we are the experts. We want to maintain that. Our identity is very dear to us; very important. Boundaries help establish that. If we got rid of boundaries, then we would have the fire district of Western Australia. That is massive.748 The FESA Board of Management approved this FESA recommendation without amendment. The Board membership includes representation from the: § UFU;
§ AVBFB; and
§ Volunteer Fire and Rescue Services Association of WA.
The Volunteer Emergency Services Association of WA, membership of which includes VFRS Brigades, BFBs, Fire Services Brigades and ESUs were consulted in relation to FESA’s overall recommendations to this Inquiry. The latter raised no objection regarding this proposal.749
The Shire of Northam does not support FESA’s recommendation to establish Emergency Services Areas on the basis that computer software programs would need to be updated to reflect the changes and that this would require considerable administrative time and cost. The Shire queries whether the ESL would cover costs associated with software upgrade, as it did on the introduction of the levy. 750
Of perhaps greater significance is that the Fire Brigades Act uses fire districts to define fire hydrant ownership and responsibilities. With the removal of fire districts from the emergency services legislation, fire hydrant ownership and responsibilities will need to be documented in an alternate medium and form. The consequences of transferring hydrant ownership and maintenance to water supply organisations, either completely, partially, or not at all, are discussed later in this Chapter. The potential transfer of responsibility for hydrants to the relevant water supply body in all areas negates the requirement for fire districts and therefore hydrant ownership and maintenance responsibility is no longer an impediment to the establishment of Emergency Services Areas. According to FESA, ESL category areas currently reflect gazetted fire districts.751 On this basis, even if some differentiation between areas is still required for allocating
747 Submission No 17 from United Firefighters Union of Australia - West Australian Branch, 2005, p5. 748 Mr David Bowers, Secretary, United Firefighters Union of Australia - West Australian Branch, Transcript of Evidence, 12/04/2006, p10. 749 Email from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 09/08/2006, p1. 750 Submission No 39 from Shire of Northam, 2005, p14. 751 Mr Kevin Cuneo (FESA), 2006, pers.comm., 19 July.
- 195 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
responsibility for the servicing and marking of hydrants, the proposed Emergency Services Areas (which will align with ESL category areas) should be sufficient for this purpose.
FESA has commented that ESL category areas have already been declared under the FESA Act.752 Since it is being proposed to align Emergency Services Areas with ESL category areas, in effect, it could be argued that Emergency Services Areas already exist in all but name in the form of ESL category areas already declared under the existing legislation.
Committee assessment
The importance of boundaries for the preservation of the identity and role of fire brigades is acknowledged by the Committee. It is satisfied however, that while fire districts are to be abolished, the proposed Emergency Services Areas boundaries will serve an equivalent function in demarcating operational jurisdictions. The Committee is also conscious of the benefit to be derived from Emergency Services Areas, primarily that these will resolve any present confusion arising from multiple boundaries.
The Committee is cognisant of the fact that establishing emergency services delivery boundaries would, undoubtedly, require careful change management by FESA, however is confident that with a heavy focus on information dissemination to both emergency services personnel and the general public, a smooth transition can be achieved.
The impact of the change on existing computer software packages has not been fully ascertained. However FESA views that as the Emergency Services Areas will align with the existing ESL category area boundaries, there should be minimal change, for the most part, probably a name change. It is understood that most of the existing fire districts in the State align with ESL category areas, apart from some sections at the rural/urban interface.753
Recommendation 68
§ Fire districts and Emergency Services Levy category areas are to be abolished.
Recommendation 69
§ Emergency Services Areas are to be established.
752 Ibid. 753 Email from Ms Nicole Gibbs, Acting Manager, Mitigation, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 14/08/2006, p1.
- 196 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 70
§ Emergency Services Areas are to be used to define:
- Emergency Services Levy boundaries;
- Emergency services delivery boundaries; and
- any other boundary that needs to be defined for the purpose of the Authority performing its functions under the Act.
Recommendation 71
§ Responsibility for fire hydrants (servicing and marking of hydrants only) will need to be reassigned on the basis of Emergency Service Areas as per Recommendation 73 of Section 7.4.
7.4 Fire hydrant ownership and maintenance
The Fire Brigades Act determines and details the fire hydrant ownership and maintenance arrangements in Western Australia. Section 54 of the Act defines areas of responsibility as follows:
Establishment and removal of fire hydrants in fire districts
FESA is empowered to determine the establishment and removal of fire hydrants within fire districts, as deemed necessary. FESA is further empowered to request that the appropriate water supply authority (be it the Water Corporation or Water Board constituted for a particular area) perform the physical installation or removal of the hydrants at FESA’s cost. This request can only be made to the relevant water supply authority if the location in question is within a ‘controlled area’ as defined by the Water Services Licensing Act 1995, for which the water supply authority is licenced to supply water services (s.54(3)(ca)). It should be noted that according to the Economic Regulation Authority, which oversees water licencing, ‘controlled areas’ include virtually all residential areas throughout the State.754
754 Economic Regulation Authority WA (August 2004). ‘Applying for a Water Services Operating License’. Available at: www.era.wa.gov.au/water/content/publications/WaterServicesOLApplicationGuide_finalAug2004.pdf Accessed on 14/06/2006.
- 197 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Maintenance of fire hydrants in fire districts
The water supply authority is required to maintain all fire hydrants within fire districts. FESA is compelled to reimburse the water supply authority for the labour and materials used to perform the maintenance, whilst local government is compelled to pay the costs associated with the re- instatement of the pavement around the hydrant.
In the Perth Metropolitan area, the Water Corporation derives its powers for the installation, abolition, maintenance, billing and reinstatement costs for hydrants from the Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage, and Drainage Act 1909.755
Ownership and maintenance of fire hydrants outside of fire districts
The Fire Brigades Act does not provide for the ownership and maintenance of fire hydrants outside of fire districts. By virtue of Section 45(8) of the Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage, and Drainage Act 1909, and Section 37(8) of the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947, in metropolitan and country water supply areas respectively, local government is responsible for the capital and operating costs associated with fire hydrants outside of fire districts. Similarly, under Section 63(8) of the Water Boards Act 1904, which covers areas where the water supply authority is other than the Water Corporation (ie: Aqwest [Bunbury Water Board] and Busselton Water Board), local government is to meet the costs of labour and materials resulting from the installation, maintenance and abolition of fire hydrants outside of fire districts.
It should be noted that both Hamersley Iron and the Rottnest Island Authority also own and maintain fire hydrants, however they were not considered in the context of this Inquiry as they operate private brigades.
Funding of fire hydrants
The ESL, introduced on 1 July 2003 funds FESA to respond to a range of emergencies and includes FESA’s costs in relation to fire hydrants. As detailed below, FESA has established a cost sharing arrangement with the Water Corporation to meet additional maintenance expenditure incurred by third party use of hydrant infrastructure.756 Although not entirely clear, it appears that Busselton Water meets the cost of minor hydrant repairs and invoices FESA for major maintenance,757 whilst FESA meets the full cost of repairs in Aqwest’s jurisdiction.758
755 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Hydrant Ownership Review, prepared for the joint FESA/Water Corp Agency Project Team, June 2006, p15. 756 Ibid., p30. 757 Mr Barry Jeffrey, Manager Client Services, Busselton Water Board, Transcript of Evidence, 28/06/2006, p19. 758 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Hydrant Ownership Review, prepared for the joint FESA/Water Corp Agency Project Team, June 2006, p22.
- 198 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Local Governments are not funded for hydrants under the ESL, nor have cost sharing arrangements been established with water supply authorities. Therefore Local Governments pay the full rate for hydrant repair.759
It is legislated that within fire districts, water is provided free of charge for firefighting or for training or volunteer competitions conducted under the authority of FESA. 760 Similar arrangements exist for local government.761
Under the Planning and Development Act 2005, the WAPC has the power to impose conditions on applications for approval to subdivide land.762 In circumstances where a plan of a subdivision may affect the functions of a local government, a public authority or a utility services provider, plans are forwarded to the affected party for objections or recommendations.763 The WAPC subsequently considers those objections and either approves, refuses, or approves subject to conditions the subdivision plan. 764 In this process consideration is given to WAPC policies, one of which is Development Control Policy 3.7: Fire Planning. Under this policy, the Commission can impose conditions addressing on-the-ground fire protection issues for a subdivision. This can include, amongst other measures, the provision of a firefighting water supply and fire hydrants and may include ongoing financial contribution for fire protection. 765 Local government may also impose conditions on development of land where such conditions have not previously been imposed on subdivision. 766
Concerns regarding the ownership and maintenance of fire hydrants in this State
WALGA has raised concerns regarding the ownership and maintenance of fire hydrants in this State. WALGA’s primary concern appears to be the process used to bill local governments for the maintenance of fire hydrants in fire districts. Mr Bruce Wittber, Policy Manager Governance, in representing the Association cites the following:
We believe section 54 is simply an anomaly. It [the process for funding water hydrant maintenance and seeking reimbursement] was not of any concern to us until a couple of years ago when the Water Corporation discovered that it had not been charging anybody for the reinstatements and so councils finished up with - I will not say significant - unexpected bills for it… The Water Corporation would fix a water hydrant and all of a
759 Ibid., p30. 760 Section 61 Fire Brigades Act 1942. 761 Section 63(13) Water Boards Act 1904. 762 Part 10 Planning and Development Act 2005. 763 Section 142 Planning and Development Act 2005. 764 Ibid., Section 143. 765 Development Control Policy 3.7: Fire Planning , Western Australian Planning Commission, p5, paragraph 5.3.2. 766 Ibid., p5, paragraph 5.3.3.
- 199 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
sudden the council would pay a portion of it. The issue of water hydrants in permanent brigade areas needs to be clearly streamlined and made consistent.767
WALGA also expresses concern in its submission about the inability of Councils to undertake the repair work themselves.768
Mr Wittber suggests that the current arrangements in relation to the ownership and maintenance of hydrants be amended. He recommends that the installation, maintenance and removal of hydrants (including the reinstatement of paving) be funded by the ESL and managed by FESA. 769 Under this model, local government would be removed from the process and therefore relieved of all responsibility in relation to hydrants.
The Shire of Greenough agrees with the notion of FESA assuming financial responsibility for fire hydrants from local government. Mr Richard Maslen, Chief Bush Fire Control Officer, elaborates on some of the difficulties currently faced by local government in maintaining hydrants:
Outside the fire district - I was trying to find out this morning how many we have; I think we have 500 hydrants - they are the total responsibility of the local government. We have to call on the Water Corporation and they are very expensive. A lot of them leak, so we now carry plugs with us so that if there [is] a fire on a weekend, we save on overtime by calling the Water Corporation out; we just put in a plug and seal the hydrant down, which is not a very satisfactory system and it is becoming very expensive.770
The City of Bunbury771 and the Shire of Manjimup both concur that FESA should be paying for fire hydrants out of the ESL. The Shire of Manjimup implies that the Water Corporation’s contribution is free water.772
The Shire of Roebourne considers hydrants should be the responsibility of one agency:
It would probably be better to have fire hydrants dealt with by a central agency - be that FESA or even the Water Corporation. I can mount an argument for either one taking responsibility for fire hydrants. The fire service is probably the better authority, given that it has an investment in knowing that they work; the Water Corporation potentially does not. It is not to say that it would not check them properly, but certainly the FESA units have a more vested interest…773
767 Mr Bruce H. Wittber, Policy Manager Governance, Western Australian Local Government Association, Transcript of Evidence, 19/10/2005, p10. 768 Submission No 24 from Western Australian Local Government Association, 2005, p8. 769 Mr Bruce H. Wittber, Policy Manager Governance, Western Australian Local Government Association, Transcript of Evidence, 19/10/2005, p11. 770 Mr Richard Maslen, Chief Bushfire Control Officer, Shire of Greenough, Transcript of Evidence, 29/05/2006, p12. 771 Mr John Kowal, Manager Law and Safety Services, City of Bunbury, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p10. 772 Mr Vernon McKay, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Manjimup, Transcript of Evidence, 22/02/2006, p10. 773 Mr Guy Thompson, Director, Technical and Development Services, Shire of Roebourne, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p9.
- 200 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The City of Albany believes responsibility falls to the Water Corporation:
We recently went through our budget and were horrified at the cost of maintenance of fire hydrants… it is not our core business to look after water supplies. We have to engage a plumber or someone who is qualified to physically go around and look at these things and repair them. Essentially, it is part of an overall fire management regime. Really, why has it been excised as a separate cost? We are a little disappointed that it is a cost that the community must bear when it is really part of the Water Corporation’s infrastructure.774
The Shire of Murray also argues for the Water Corporation to assume more responsibility.775 The Shire of Mundaring similarly questions why local government should bear the cost of hydrants when this should be done by the Water Corporation. 776
FESA recognises the inefficiencies of the current system for funding and maintaining fire hydrants. However, the agency opposes the remedy proposed by WALGA (and similarly by some individual local government authorities), instead recommending that fire hydrants be placed with the water authority responsible for servicing the area in which the hydrant is located.777
Mr Bob Mitchell, at the time CEO of FESA, states:
Water hydrants are a real issue, not only for us but also for local governments. FESA has responsibility for water hydrants within prescribed fire districts, and that goes back to the fire and rescue legislation under the Fire Brigades Act. As a result of that, whenever we have a declared fire district we pick up responsibility and ownership. When there is a Bushfire Brigade in a town, local government picks it up. We are the only state in Australia that still has that model. In every other state the water supply organisation owns, manages, maintains and wears the costs…
Not just firefighters use water hydrants; they are used by all sorts of people in the community for all sorts of reasons. Contractors also use them. In our view, we drive fire trucks on the roads but we do not own the roads and we do not have to maintain them. The analogy is the same.778
Mr Mitchell is correct in his assertion that Western Australia is the only state to designate fire hydrant responsibility to the respective firefighting organisation. In other states, it is commonly the case that water supply organisations assume this responsibility. In some instances, local government is responsible for hydrants although local government exercises this responsibility in its capacity as a water supply organisation. The interstate arrangements for fire hydrant responsibility are reviewed here in more detail.
774 Mr Robert Fenn, Executive Director Development Services, City of Albany, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p10. 775 Ms Christine Thompson, Deputy President/Chairperson Local Emergency Management Committee, Shire of Murray, Transcript of Evidence, 24/02/2006, p5. 776 Mr Simon Bowen, Manager Community Safety, Shire of Mundaring, Transcript of Evidence, 30/08/2006, p6. 777 Mr Robert J. Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 09/11/2005, p18. 778 Ibid., p17-18.
- 201 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Interstate arrangements relating to ownership and maintenance of fire hydrants
South Australia Water is responsible for the installation and maintenance of fire hydrants in that State. While the costs associated with installing and maintaining fireplugs are required in some instances to be defrayed by local government (where this is outside of the Adelaide water district), fireplugs are water supply authority assets.779
In Victoria, the water authority for a water district is required to install fire plugs780 and is also responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the fire plugs.781 Where the authority is required to carry out this function by a local government within its water district, all costs associated with providing, installing, marking and maintaining the fire plugs within the municipal area are met by the local government.782 The costs associated with the provision, installation, marking, and maintenance of any extra fire plugs deemed necessary by the authority are met by the authority, or by the benefiting land owner if extra fire plugs are requested by a land owner.783 Under the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 (Vic), certain local governments in country areas of Victoria may also be required by the Country Fire Authority to provide a pillar hydrant or hydrant(s) in or near a public street or road within the municipality. 784
Similarly, in NSW, the water supply authority is responsible for the installation, maintenance, and removal of fire hydrants. Where the Sydney Water Corporation785 or Hunter Water Corporation786 is the responsible water supply authority, the respective Corporation is the ‘owner’ of all water infrastructure. As such, the Corporation has the power to operate, repair, replace, maintain, remove, extend, expand, connect, disconnect, improve or do other things necessary or appropriate to any of its works to ensure that the works are used in an efficient manner for the purposes for which they were installed.787 Responsibility for hydrants is more explicit in the case of water supply authorities established under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW). The associated regulations state that the water supply authority must install hydrants, and may remove a hydrant if satisfied it is no longer needed.788 Where local government is the water supply authority under the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), the associated regulations specify that the local government, as water supply authority, must install hydrants and maintain the hydrants in effective working order, and may remove a hydrant if satisfied it is no longer needed.789
779 Section 28 Waterworks Act 1932 (South Australia). 780 Section 165(1) Water Act 1989 (Victoria). 781 Ibid., Section 165(4). 782 Ibid., Section 165(2). 783 Ibid., Section 165(3). 784 Section 36 Country Fire Authority Act 1958 (Victoria). 785 Section 37(1) Sydney Water Act 1994 (NSW). 786 Section 19(1) Hunter Water Act 1991 (NSW). 787 Section 37(2) Sydney Water Act 1994 (NSW) and Section 19(2) Hunter Water Act 1991 (NSW). 788 Regulation 27 Water Management (Water Supply Authorities) Regulation 2004 (NSW). 789 Regulation 142 Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW).
- 202 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
In the ACT, responsibility for fire hydrant installation, removal and maintenance rests with the water supply organisation. Under the Utilities Act 2000 (ACT), the water utility is responsible for installation and maintenance of water network infrastructure, which incorporates hydrants.790 Similarly, in the Northern Territory under the Power and Water Corporation Act 2002 (NT), the Power and Water Corporation, as water service provider is ‘to undertake, maintain and operate any works, system, facilities, apparatus or equipment required for any purpose’ associated with the distribution and supply of water.791
In QLD, the water service provider (predominantly local government) is the registered owner of infrastructure for supplying water or sewerage services under the Water Act 2000 (QLD) and is responsible for the supply and maintenance of fire hydrants, although this is not explicitly stated in the legislation. The exception is the City of Brisbane. Under the City of Brisbane Act 1924 (QLD), the Brisbane City Council is responsible for installing and maintaining public fire hydrants within the City of Brisbane district.792
In Tasmania, local government is responsible for the installation and maintenance of hydrants.793 The local government which controls and manages a water district is empowered under the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 (Tas) to construct waterworks, and is therefore also responsible for the provision and maintenance of hydrants.794 Where a water supply or irrigation district is controlled by other than a local government, the obligations for hydrant installation and maintenance shifts to the responsible water entity. 795
Previous reviews of fire hydrant ownership and maintenance
The Committee understands that both FESA and the Water Corporation have undertaken two previous reviews regarding the issue of ownership and maintenance of fire hydrants, with a third completed during the course of this Inquiry. An internal interagency report on the most recent review was submitted to the Committee prior to the conduct of a hearing with FESA, the Water Corporation, Busselton Water Board and Aqwest on 28 June 2006. FESA maintains its position that hydrant ownership should rest with the water supply authority rather than with the emergency services, whilst the Water Corporation supports retaining the status quo.796 FESA asserts that Busselton Water Board have provided written in-principle support to assume ownership of hydrants within their jurisdiction, however Aqwest oppose the proposed transfer.797
790 Section 105 Utilities Act 2000 (ACT). 791 Section 14A(1) Power and Water Corporation Act 2002 (NT). 792 Section 49 City of Brisbane Act 1924 (Qld). 793 Section 33/34 Waterworks Clauses Act 1952 (Tas). 794 Section 199 Local Government (Building Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 (Tas). 795 Section 191 Water Management Act 1999 (Tas). 796 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Hydrant Ownership Review, prepared for the joint FESA/Water Corp Agency Project Team, June 2006, p4. 797 Ibid., p32.
- 203 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
As detailed above, FESA is only responsible for hydrants within gazetted fire districts. Given that this incorporates a significant proportion of cities, towns and townsites, FESA is responsible for the majority of hydrants within Western Australia. In effect, FESA owns 49,239 and local government 3,923 of the fire hydrants serviced by the Water Corporation, approximately 650 hydrants serviced by Busselton Water Board and 1202 hydrants serviced by Aqwest. FESA estimates the value of their hydrants to be in the order of $45 million. 798
Proposal for transfer of ownership and responsibility for fire hydrants and associated debate
FESA recommends transfer of ownership and responsibility (apart from servicing) for all hydrants to the respective water supply authority. 799 Hydrant infrastructure would be transferred at nil cost.800 FESA also propose that in the event of transfer, that Government amend Water Corporation and FESA budgets to recognise the transfer of costs from FESA and local government to the Corporation. 801 The Committee would also assume that a similar financial arrangement would be envisaged in respect of Aqwest and Busselton Water Board.
FESA suggest that in the event of transfer of responsibility for fire hydrants to the relevant water body, FESA and the respective local government, in line with their preparedness function, continue to service hydrants and meet all associated costs. Servicing hydrants includes indicating and checking the workability of the hydrants.802 FESA also view that local government should continue to be responsible for reinstating paving.803 Further, FESA cite that in the event of transfer, an agreement would need to be reached in relation to a schedule of maintenance of hydrants.804
Currently in this State the water supply authorities install, repair and replace hydrants in line with a range of quality assurance and technical standards. Hence it is detailed that these arrangements would continue.805
FESA contend that transfer of responsibility should occur for the following reasons:
§ Hydrants are currently being used by third parties, including the Water Corporation and licenced standpipe hirers, without consultation with, or financial benefit to, FESA;
798 Ibid., p27. 799 Ibid., p17. 800 Ibid., p27. 801 Ibid., p37. 802 Ibid., p22/29. 803 Mr Kevin Cuneo (FESA), 2006, pers.comm., 19 July. 804 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Hydrant Ownership Review, prepared for the joint FESA/Water Corp Agency Project Team, June 2006, p29. 805 Ibid.
- 204 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ The Corporation’s alliance contracts (maintenance arrangements set up by the Water Corporation in relation to fire hydrants) are not conducive to competitive price negotiations;806
§ Billing arrangements between FESA and the Water Corporation in relation to maintenance of fire hydrants are time consuming, not cost effective and are being compounded by an increase in the number of hydrants requiring maintenance;807
§ FESA has limited input regarding standards and hydrant design;808
§ Fire hydrants are physically linked to Water Corporation infrastructure;809
§ Western Australia is the only State where fire hydrants are not owned by the water provider or local government [which in essence are generally the water providers];810
§ New vesting arrangements would allow for a “one stop shop” for the community and other stakeholders in terms of reporting faults and the conduct of hydrant repairs and maintenance.811
The Water Corporation attests the following:
§ Taking ownership of fire hydrants is non-commercial;812
§ Hydrants are a FESA requirement and not part of the Corporation’s core business;
§ Increasing maintenance costs should not be a reason for the Corporation to take ownership of hydrants, taking ownership would not impact on maintenance costs however would reduce administration costs;813
§ The fact that the ESL does not fund local governments for fire hydrants is not sufficient reason for transfer of ownership to the Water Corporation;814
806 Ibid., p5. 807 Ibid., p5/12. 808 Ibid., p25. 809 Ibid., p12. 810 Ibid., p13. 811 Ibid., p32. 812 Ibid., p4. 813 Ibid., p13. 814 Ibid.
- 205 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ The fact that Western Australia is the only State where the water supply authority does not have responsibility for hydrants is not sufficient reason for transfer of ownership;
§ Ageing hydrant infrastructure means incurring the cost of replacement of hydrants rather than repair;
§ The use of hydrants by the community is currently recognised via a satisfactory cost sharing arrangement, is minor subsidiary business and therefore not core business of the Corporation. 815 816
§ The Water Corporation does not have “Protection of the Crown” status and transfer of ownership of hydrants would substantially increase the Corporation’s exposure to public liability. 817 818
Similarly, Aqwest believe that the status quo in relation to hydrant ownership should remain, given they are non-commercial assets and outside of the Bunbury Water Board’s core business.819
Mr Geoff Oddy, CEO, Aqwest, although not negating the need for fire hydrants, stated in evidence:
In fact, in operating purely a water supply scheme for business with no regard for fire fighting, we would not put them in. We would have scour valves instead of fire hydrants for our flushing purposes. We would not install fire hydrants…. there is no commercial value in having hydrants in the ground. It is a non-commercial activity and COAG [Council of Australian Governments] says that if something is a non-commercial activity, it should be provided by those requiring that service.820
Busselton Water Board raised concerns about the financial and workforce implications of checking and maintaining hydrants.821
There is a need to clarify some of the above statements. Both FESA and the Water Corporation acknowledge that third parties require access to bulk water supplies via fire hydrants. In the metropolitan area, these include groups such as Councils, MRWA, construction companies and developers, and water contractors. Hydrants, although not the only option, are also used by the Water Corporation to flush water mains and bleed air from the reticulation system.
815 Letter from J.I. Gill, Chief Executive Officer, Water Corporation, 09/05/2006, p1-2. 816 Mr Peter Moore, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Water Corporation, Transcript of Evidence, 28/06/2006, p2. 817 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Hydrant Ownership Review, prepared for the joint FESA/Water Corp Agency Project Team, June 2006, p34. 818 Letter from Mr J.I. Gill, Chief Executive Officer, Water Corporation, 09/05/2006, p1. 819 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Hydrant Ownership Review, prepared for the joint FESA/Water Corp Agency Project Team, June 2006, p32. 820 Mr Geoff Oddy, Chief Executive Officer, Aqwest, Transcript of Evidence, 28/06/2006, p9. 821 Letter from Mr D G McCutcheon, Chief Executive Officer, Busselton Water Board, 13/04/2006, p2.
- 206 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The Water Corporation under a strict licencing system issues metered standpipes to businesses with a valid reason for drawing water from the mains, charges a monthly fee and invoices for water consumption. 822 In the 2004/05 financial year, the Water Corporation received $1.3 million from standpipe hire fees.823 Mr Sandro Piscicelli, Manager Commercial Pricing, comments on this figure:
The cost of water is aligned to our commercial by-law rate, so they will pay the same by- law rate. The standpipe hirers pay a monthly fee and as part of that fee there is a component in there for headworks charge… There is obviously an application fee. There is a component in there for damage… When you add those up that equates to the monthly hire fee. We are saying it is not about making a $1.3 million profit; it is about recovering our cost of providing the service.824
Both FESA and the Water Corporation accept that third party usage of hydrants adds an additional burden in terms of maintenance of infrastructure.825 As a consequence, FESA and the Water Corporation introduced a cost sharing arrangement in 1993, whereby FESA funds 40 per cent, and the Water Corporation 60 per cent of each repair invoice for leaking or damaged hydrants in the metropolitan area. FESA pays 100 per cent of cost for all other repairs.826 The administrative arrangements in relation to fire hydrants, including billing, require dedicated staff, and at least with respect to the Water Corporation, 0.5 FTE at a cost of $30,000 per annum. 827 Obviously similar invoice arrangements exist with respect to Busselton Water Board and Aqwest, although processing would occur at a lower volume in line with a smaller number of hydrants.
The table below details the cost of hydrant related repairs and replacement for the 2004/05 financial year in respect of the Water Corporation, FESA and local government: Water Corporation $808,518 FESA $665,714 Local Government $46,320 Sundry Hydrant Works $22,742 Total $1,543,294
It should be noted that the table is drawn from the recent review report of the Joint FESA/Water Corporation Agency Project Team and therefore does not include figures for Busselton Water or Aqwest.828
822 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Hydrant Ownership Review, prepared for the joint FESA/Water Corp Agency Project Team, June 2006, p23. 823 Ibid, p28. 824 Mr Sandro Piscicelli, Manager Commercial Pricing, Water Corporation, Transcript of Evidence, 28/06/2006, p19. 825 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Hydrant Ownership Review, prepared for the joint FESA/Water Corp Agency Project Team, June 2006, p12/23. 826 Ibid., p13/22. 827 Ibid., p13. 828 Ibid., p27.
- 207 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The Committee understands that the design of the majority of existing hydrants is problematic by virtue of their metal construction and moving parts. A significant proportion are old, fragile and nearing the end of their service life.829 This is resulting in a general requirement to replace rather than repair hydrants.830 The Water Corporation is of the opinion that the current cost sharing arrangements account for replacement.831 In the context of transfer of ownership, they are concerned about increased costs posed by ageing infrastructure and argue that were transfer to be recommended by the Committee and agreed to by Government, that repair and replacement be funded on a cost neutral basis.832
FESA acknowledge the age of hydrants and confirm that they will need to be replaced but cite that this is likely to occur over “many” years833 and that new hydrant design should provide for greater performance and life span. 834 Mr Bill Hewitt, at the time Acting CEO, FESA, comments on the issue of cost-neutral funding by Government:
… the community pays for this service no matter which agency is responsible for it. The customers that use the Water Corporation are usually the property owners that pay the emergency services levy…If it is a transfer to the community, there is no increase in costs. No matter what happens in the future, we are not trying to transfer a huge liability to the Water Corporation.835
FESA proposes that they collect $700,000 less in ESL funding and that the Water Corporation (and the Committee assumes, Busselton Water Board and Aqwest) either charge their customers or receive payment via a Government subsidy. 836
Mr Peter Moore, Acting CEO, Water Corporation, is opposed to the concept of Water Corporation customers picking up costs for a service which has not traditionally belonged to the Water Corporation. 837
A further issue is that of liability. The Water Corporation argues that when it was established on 1 January 1996, it lost the “Protection of the Crown” status afforded to its predecessor, the Water Authority. In essence such protection affords Government institutions immunity from prosecution
829 Ibid., p26. 830 Ibid., p28. 831 Mr Sandro Piscicelli, Manager Commercial Pricing, Water Corporation, Transcript of Evidence, 28/06/2006, p3. 832 Mr Peter Moore, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Water Corporation, Transcript of Evidence, 28/06/2006, p3/16. 833 Mr Kevin Cuneo, Director Operational Resourcing, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 28/06/2006, p3. 834 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Hydrant Ownership Review, prepared for the joint FESA/Water Corp Agency Project Team, June 2006, p30. 835 Mr Bill Hewitt, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 28/06/2006, p17. 836 Ibid. 837 Mr Peter Moore, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Water Corporation, Transcript of Evidence, 28/06/2006, p16.
- 208 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
in the event that an individual or company seeks damages for personal injury or lost income. The Joint FESA/Water Corporation Agency Project Team cites the following:
Should the transfer of hydrant ownership be approved and the required legislative changes completed, there are litigation difficulties which would impact organisations that use fire hydrants. Under common law, individuals and companies can be sued for damages arising from careless or negligent behaviour. This is applicable for circumstances where third parties such as FESA & external users use a hydrant and leave it in a dangerous state. Vicarious liability exists under current legal arrangements and should the complainant prove negligence, damages by a court of law could ensue… Should the transfer of hydrants occur, this corporate risk will be transferred to Water Corporation and minimally increase the Water Corporation’s public liability exposure.838
It is understood that FESA has provided the Water Corporation with figures relating to fire hydrant related insurance claims for the period 2005/06. The latest review report states:
The Corporatio n is of the opinion that the risk of public liability claims from fire hydrants is minimal.839
Despite the latter, Mr Moore remains concerned:
…the Water Corporation is not the Crown, and we do not have the indemnities of the Crown, provided that under legislation there was indemnification against claims through a hydrant not being usable, it is possible that we could take that on.840
He does however reiterate that he still views that “core business” accountability sits with FESA which has a key interest in hydrants being available and appropriately positioned.841
As a consequence of these concerns, the Committee sought legal advice from the State Solicitor’s Office on:
§ whether the Water Corporation can be indemnified from public liability claims in the event that the Corporation assumes legislative responsibility for hydrants in this State; and
§ whether given the Authority status of Busselton Water Board and Aqwest (Bunbury Water Board) they would be subject to the Government’s indemnity; in the event of transfer of the hydrant asset.842
838 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Hydrant Ownership Review, prepared for the joint FESA/Water Corp Agency Project Team, June 2006, p34. 839 Ibid., p7. 840 Mr Peter Moore, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Water Corporation, Transcript of Evidence, 28/06/2006, p7. 841 Ibid. 842 Letter from Mr A.P. O’Gorman, MLA, Chairman, Community Development and Justice Standing Committee, 03/07/2006, p1.
- 209 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
In advice from the State Solicitor’s Office dated 2 August 2006, the Committee was advised that the issue under scrutiny is in fact the Crown and its immunities, not “indemnity” from liability, the principle concern of the water bodies being immunity from civil litigation. 843
In essence, the State Solicitor’s Office advised of the following:
The matter of ownership of the hydrants, insofar as all four statutory corporations are concerned, is of minimal, if any, relevance to the incidence of civil liability in negligence…In essence, the concerns of the Water Corporation, in relation to the relatively minor matter of ownership of the hydrants, appear unjustified.844
In turn, the Water Corporation sought separate legal advice which they cite differs significantly from that of the State Solicitor. The following excerpt is taken from a letter from Mr Peter D. Moore, Acting Chief Operating Officer, accompanying that advice:
I note that the advice from [private legal firm] significantly differs from the State Solicitor in two material matters:
1) If the Water Corporation assumes ownership of the fire hydrants this will impose more onerous liabilities on the Water Corporation.
2) The Water Corporation does not currently enjoy the immunities that FES A and its employees do.
Under these circumstances, the Water Corporation maintains its position that it should not be vested with ownership of fire hydrants.
In the event the Committee forms the view that the ownership of fire hydrants should be transferred to the Water Corporation then the following matters need to be addressed:
§ the financial compensation to Water Corporation associated with ownership and maintenance and replacement of the hydrants.
§ The amendment of several Acts of Parliament to reflect th e new ownership arrangements. That is a transfer of hydrants from FESA and Local Government to Water Corporation. During the transfer process, the legislation should be amended to grant Water Corporation the indemnity which FESA currently has and which the State Solicitor advocates the Water Corporation currently has. 845
There are several other matters which require consideration in this debate on transfer of ownership:
§ FESA estimates that an additional 500 fire hydrants are required in local government areas at an approximate cost of $1 million;
843 Letter from Mr John Lyon, Deputy State Solicitor, State Solicitor’s Office, 2/08/2006, p3. 844 Ibid., p12. 845 Letter from Mr Peter D. Moore, Acting Chief Operating Officer, Water Corporation, 06/10/2006, p1.
- 210 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ It is understood that in some local government areas, hydrants have not been maintained adequately and require upgrade to FESA standards; and 846
§ Reducing hydrant vesting arrangements removes the requirement for FESA to gazette new fire districts and also negates the influence on current boundary definitions of the debate over whether FESA or local government should be responsible for the cost of hydrant installation and maintenance.847 Deferral will inhibit FESA’s ability to abolish fire district boundaries so that these may be more accurately aligned with operational boundaries and resources aligned against community, industrial, and other risks.848
The recent review report discussed the substandard condition of hydrants in some local government areas and the requirement for installation of additional hydrants at significant cost. In light of the latter, FESA proposes the conduct of a hydrant audit to determine the financial implications to upgrade and maintain hydrants in local government areas.849 The Joint FESA/Water Corporation Agency Project Team recommends (separate to the debate on ownership of hydrants) that any identified faulty or missing hydrants within local government areas be funded by the local government concerned. Local governments may be eligible for funding under Emergency Management Australia Local Grants Scheme.850 Further, the Project Team cites that any coverage deficiencies in existing infrastructure should be funded by FESA or the respective local government.851
In response to a Committee query over the requirement for local government to fund additional installation or upgrade of hydrants when FESA is funded through the ESL, FESA replied:
…from FESA’s point of view, when we established the emergency services levy there were certain responsibilities that we saw local governments would retain, and fire hydrants was one of those. They have always maintained their own hydrants and paid for them; so when we created the ESL we just naturally put that across to local government.852
Responsibility for hydrants impacts upon the future of fire districts. If responsibility for fire hydrants transfers to water supply organisations, there is no longer a need to distinguish between areas inside or outside of fire districts for the purpose of allocating costs to either FESA or local government. In effect, if the responsibility for hydrants in all areas is transferred, fire districts become redundant.853 FESA supports the abolition of fire district boundaries as it would facilitate
846 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Hydrant Ownership Review, prepared for the joint FESA/Water Corp Agency Project Team, June 2006, p4/31. 847 Ibid., p34. 848 Ibid., p35. 849 Ibid., p4. 850 Ibid., 31. 851 Ibid., p8. 852 Mr Kevin Cuneo, Director Operational Resourcing, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 28/06/2006, p4. 853 Mr Kevin Cuneo (FESA), 2006, pers.comm., 19 July.
- 211 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
the creation of Emergency Services Areas as discussed in detail earlier in this Chapter. The alternatives for hydrant ownership and maintenance also have consequences for fire districts and include a partial transfer of hydrants or no transfer at all. 854 A partial transfer might only involve responsibility for hydrants within fire districts passing from FESA to the water supply organisation in which case, local government would remain responsible for meeting costs for hydrants outside of fire districts. If no transfer occurs and the status quo is retained, FESA and local government retain responsibility. In these latter two scenarios, some distinction is still required between areas of hydrant responsibility be it via fire district boundaries or some other mechanism.
Recommendations relevant but separate to ownership of, and responsibility for, fire hydrants
FESA recommends repeal of Section 55 of the Fire Brigades Act - Use of Pillar-Hydrants Instead of Fire Plugs.855 The basis for this recommendation is twofold, firstly that the operation of pillar hydrants has become outmoded with the advent of built-in systems such as high rise hydrant systems. Secondly, the good working relationship with the Water Corporation has meant that FESA has never experienced any difficulty repairing or getting pillar hydrants installed, so the provision is unnecessary. 856
Both FESA and the Water Corporation also propose modernisation of the word “turncock” used in Section 56 of the Fire Brigades Act.857 The Water Corporation details that the term is no longer used in the water industry and that the related position no longer exists. They propose:
56. Water Supply Authority to attend fires
When so requested by the Authority the water supply authority will offer advice and attend fires or hazardous materials incident occurring within its area of operation to assist by all means in its power, the ensuring of a copious supply and service of water.858
The Water Corporation also requests amendment of Regulation 39C(1) of the Bush Fires Regulations 1954. The Regulation relates to operating welding and cutting apparatus. The Water Corporation believes it is unduly prescriptive and places “undue burden” on Water Corporation workers. The Water Corporation also considers that changes in welding technology and the introduction of Australian Standard 1674 “Safety in Welding and Allied Processes” Part One “Fire Precautions” has diminished the requirement for this provision.859
854 Ibid. 855 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Hydrant Ownership Review, prepared for the joint FESA/Water Corp Agency Project Team, June 2006, p8/36. 856 Mr Kevin Cuneo (FESA), 2006, pers.comm., 19 July. 857 Ibid., p8. 858 Submission No 12 from Water Corporation, 2005, p3. 859 Ibid., p4.
- 212 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Committee assessment
After extensive investigation into this issue, and comparison with other States and Territories, it is clear to the Committee that the current arrangements in Western Australia in relation to fire hydrant ownership and maintenance are unnecessarily complex and inappropriate.
Prior to the introduction of the Fire Brigades Act, fire hydrant ownership and responsibility was placed solely with the water supply companies of the day. However, weeks prior to the proclamation of the Act, the WAFBB successfully lobbied for the transfer of fire hydrant ownership, from the water supply companies to the Board. In 1942, it was argued that this was necessary because firefighters had technical requirements related to the hydrants that the water supply companies simply did not have the expertise to meet.860 This is no longer a valid argument as today, all fire hydrants must conform to national commercial and operational standards and, therefore, hydrants meet firefighter requirements without the need for adaptation. The Australian Standards comprising AS 2419 “Fire Hydrant Installations” are a case in point and establish minimum standards for the design, construction and performance of fire hydrant systems, valves and booster connections.861 While some jurisdictions have developed more detailed technical guidelines for hydrants, these usually reference the Australian Standards.
The fact that fire hydrants form part of water supply authority infrastructure does inhibit competitive price negotiations, a comment made by FESA and implied by WALGA.
The Committee has received contradictory legal advice in relation to the matter of ownership of fire hydrants and its relevance to the incidence of civil liability in negligence. The Committee is in no position to judge which legal advice is correct in the absence of court rulings on this matter. The legal advice obtained should be considered in the drafting of the emergency services Act. Despite the latter, the Committee is of the opinion that fire hydrant ownership and responsibility (apart from the servicing, marking of hydrants and reinstatement of paving) should be transferred to the respective water supply authority in the manner recommended by FESA. The Committee acknowledges that the annual checking and indicating of hydrants is part of FESA’s mandated preparedness function and as such, the existing servicing regime and associated responsibility of FESA and local government in this regard should continue. While fire district boundaries for the purpose of allocating costs for hydrant installation and maintenance are made redundant by the transfer of ownership and responsibility to water supply organisations, some method of distinguishing responsibility between FESA and local government would still be required in terms of the servicing and marking of hydrants. Fire district boundaries would not necessarily need to be retained for this purpose because as discussed earlier in this Chapter, the proposed Emergency Services Area boundaries would similarly suffice.
860 Information provided by Mr Kevin Cuneo, Director Operational Resourcing, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia at staff briefing on 12/05/2006. 861 Standards Australia Limited. ‘AS 2419.1-2005’, ‘AS 2419.2-1994’, and ‘AS 2419.3-1996’ (Fire Hydrant Installations). Available at: www.saiglobal.com/shop/Script/ICSDocBrowse.asp?Code=13.220.10&StdType=AS Accessed on 20/06/2006.
- 213 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Although the Committee is concerned that hydrants have not been maintained in a satisfactory state by some local governments, local authorities have not had the benefit of the ESL to cover such costs. It is therefore the view of the Committee that the matter of funding for upgrade or replacement of existing or installation of new hydrant infrastructure should be re-considered once an audit has been conducted and the financial implications ascertained. The Committee concurs that coverage deficiencies in existing infrastructure in fire districts should be undertaken by FESA, prior to transfer.
The Committee accepts that Government cannot expect organisations such as the stated water supply authorities to run a non-commercial activity that is not part of their core business without appropriate financial recompense. Community Service Obligation (CSO) payments have been established for that purpose. These enable Government to take account of the cost of providing a form of benefit to people, either individually or in a community, for example concessions on rates and other Government charges. The ESL is an established rate, hence the only manner in which the change of ownership would remain cost neutral to Government is to amend consolidated revenue received by FESA to reflect CSO payments to the water supply authorities. This is a matter that requires further discussion with the DTF. Consideration will need to occur in the context of third party usage of fire hydrants and maintenance implications.
The Committee commends the Water Corporation and FESA on the establishment of the Joint Interagency Project Team and views that this could be a vehicle through which to progress transfer of ownership and resolution of other hydrant related issues. Naturally the same level of consultation would need to occur with Busselton Water Board and Aqwest.
Recommendation 72 § The responsibility for the installation, removal, maintenance (and all associated costs therein) of fire hydrants should rest with the water supply authority responsible for servicing the areas in which the hydrants reside.
Recommendation 73
§ FESA and local government should retain their responsibilities in relation to the marking and servicing of fire hydrants in their respective areas.
- 214 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 74
§ Local government should retain responsibilities and associated costs in relation to reinstatement of paving.
Recommendation 75
§ That Government (in consultation with the Department of Treasury and Finance) give consideration to appropriate financial recompense to the relevant water supply authority on transfer of ownership and responsibility of fire hydrants. § That such financial recompense take into account revenue received as a consequence of third party hire of hydrant infrastructure.
Recommendation 76
§ Coverage deficiencies (and any missing or faulty fire hydrants) in existing infrastructure in fire districts should be rectified by FESA, prior to transfer of ownership to the respective water supply authority.
Recommendation 77
§ The matter of funding for upgrade or replacement of existing or installation of new hydrant infrastructure in non fire districts (where local government are currently responsible for fire hydrant ownership and maintenance costs) should be re-considered by Government once an audit has been conducted and the financial implications ascertained.
- 215 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 78
§ That the Joint FESA/Water Corporation Agency Project Team continue in its present capacity or expand to incorporate other affected parties (such as Busselton Water Board and Aqwest) for the purpose of implementing the transfer of hydrant responsibilities and ensuring ongoing interagency communication with regard to matters such as standards and hydrant design.
Recommendation 79
§ The Committee recommends repeal of S.55, Fire Brigades Act 1942 - Use of Pillar- Hydrants Instead of Fire Plugs.
Recommendation 80
§ The Committee recommends replacement of S.56, Fire Brigades Act 1942 with the following: 56. Water Supply Authority to attend fires
When so requested by the Authority the water supply authority will offer advice and attend fires or hazardous materials incident occurring within its area of operation to assist by all means in its power, the ensuring of a copious supply and service of water.
Recommendation 81
§ That during drafting of the emergency services legislation due regard be given to whether Regulation 39C(1) of the Bush Fires Regulations 1954 reflects current practices under Australian Standard 1674 “Safety in Welding and Allied Processes”.
- 216 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
7.5 Provision of Emergency Services to Indigenous Communities
The Bush Fires Act does not exclude Indigenous communities from local bushfire responsibilities and as such local government has held legislative responsibility for bushfires in these communities since the enactment of this Act.
Under the Fire Brigades Act, FRS Brigades do not service communities outside of gazetted fire districts. However, under the FESA Act, ESUs and SES Units operate within and external to, fire districts. Road rescue and hazardous materials (HAZMAT) response are similarly not confined by fire districts, however are provided more broadly on a Statewide basis.
FESA qualifies the latter stating that the delivery of emergency services to remote Indigenous communities (RICs) is hindered by a number of factors perceived by the Authority as outside of its control, including that:
§ Communities are often geographically isolated and difficult to access during certain seasons;
§ Career Fire and Rescue Brigades do not operate outside of fire districts and other emergency services groups are operated by volunteers who are often unwilling to travel large distances to RICs;
§ The cost of providing prevention, preparedness, response and recovery services to hundreds of hub and homeland Indigenous communities would be cost prohibitive for the State.
FESA cite that despite the latter they do provide a full response to all hazards. 862
Under the FESA Act, FESA is not only tasked more broadly with improving the State’s capability to respond to hazards but with assisting communities to prevent hazards such as fires and mitigating the effects of other emergencies (cyclones, storms and floods).863 FESA also aids communities in recovery from disasters, although it is principally empowered to do so under the Emergency Management Act. FESA generally do not provide capital equipment to Indigenous communities to address hazards, for example, firefighting appliances, vehicles or road rescue trailers, unless, as is the case in other localities, a formal registered brigade has been established. That said FESA is currently considering providing fire and/or rescue trailers to hub communities.864
It is important that the Committee preface this section with comment that its review of the provision of emergency services to Indigenous communities was not detailed. Although the
862 Letter from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 29/08/2006, p2. 863 Section 11 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act 1998. 864 Letter from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 29/08/2006, p2.
- 217 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Committee obtained some input from agencies tasked with emergency service responsibilities impacting on RICs, the Committee was only able to visit two RICs during the Inquiry. That said it is understood that considerable consultation has been undertaken at the Commonwealth level with Indigenous people, Government and community based services to underpin the development of a National Emergency Management Strategy for Remote Indigenous Communities.865 The Strategy, announced in August 2005 by the Hon. Philip Ruddock, MP, Attorney General, is due to be released in Bidyadanga, in north Western Australia, in November 2006.866 The priorities centre on decision making structures, communication and engagement, planning, and resourcing of remote communities for emergency management. They also include ensuring a coordinated and cooperative approach, training, employment and education of Indigenous people in emergency management. 867
The Committee understands therefore that the Strategy will impact across the four principal components of emergency management - prevention, preparedness, response and recovery and is therefore significant in the context of commentary in this section of the report.
The Committee acknowledges the complexity and diversity of emergency management requirements for RICs and the intricacy of State and Commonwealth Government shared responsibility for the latter. Considering the strategy in this context, although it will provide an overarching framework from which the States and Territories can develop their own emergency management approach and priorities for communities,868 policy development will take time. The Committee is mindful that it needs to lend support to this process.
The information provided above gives an indication of the legislative requirements and to a lesser degree, the level of service delivery to Indigenous communities under the emergency services legislation. To contextualise this, the following comments were provided by local governments and FESA in the north of this State, where approximately 33 percent of the regional Indigenous population reside.
Mr Gary King, Ranger and Chief Fire Control Officer, Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, noted that the Shire undertook some preventative work in terms of installation of fire breaks around a number of communities.869 However, Mr Peter Stubbs, Chief Executive Officer, for the Shire,
865 The Attorney General, Philip Ruddock MP, Available at: www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/Page/ Media_Releases_2005_Third_Quarter_3_August_2005_New_national_strategy_will_help_manage_emergencies_in_rem ote_indigenous_communities_-_1412005 Accessed on 14/08/2006. 866 Letter from Ms Moya Newman, Indigenous Programs Coordinator, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 09/08/2006, p2. 867 Emergency Management Australia, National Emergency Management Strategy for Remote Indigenous Communities, Final Draft Version V13, 28/03/2006, unpublished, p1-2. 868 Letter from Ms Moya Newman, Indigenous Programs Coordinator, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 09/08/2006, p2. 869 Mr Gary King, Ranger and Chief Bushfire Control Officer, Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p11.
- 218 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
acknowledged that they were probably inadequately equipped to deal with fires external to the main population centre of Kununurra.870
Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, FESA, provides a summation of the Authority’s intervention, particularly with respect to communities in the Kimberley and Pilbara regions of the State:
Our aim is always to provide the same level of service for the communities. There is no distinction. FESA works with local governments and communities to build up their capacity to deal with emergencies. In its formation, FESA was focused on community- centred management, through which communities deal with risks. At this stage we mainly focus on the hub communities such as Jigalong, Oombulgurri and Kalumburu. In the past few weeks the guys have been up there assisting with planning and preparedness so, collectively, it is all not just about response; it is about training, and developing their understanding of risks. We work alongside other management agencies in the emergency field, such as police, community development and local governments, to develop plans and programs that we can introduce. Risk management is a key issue. We have gone to some communities and conducted risk management workshops… We try to build capacities, and we provide a service to the communities through our awareness programs and videos. Prior to the wet season we conduct a large program that looks at indigenous communities and preparing indigenous communities… This year we evacuated communities from Linga Valley and Ellenbrae station during the wet…We also look at resupply when communities get isolated. That is done through the state resupply act…871
The Kununurra SES Unit affirmed its role in evacuations of remote communities, the service extending into the Northern Territory. 872
Mr Brian Harris, Officer in Charge, ESU, Halls Creek, indicated that the ESU did not have significant involvement with Indigenous communities.873 The Shire of Halls Creek however cited that they have received funding via an All West Australians Reducing Emergencies (AWARE) grant to undertake risk management processes in two communities in which community members define those risks. The development of Emergency Management plans will follow, together with a recovery plan. 874
Access to evidence was hampered in Fitzroy Crossing by the need for witnesses to attend a wildfire. Information obtained in relation to the delivery of emergency services to Indigenous communities was therefore scant. Mr Andrew Twaddle, Officer in Charge, Fitzroy Crossing ESU, briefly discussed the establishment of a sub branch of the unit at the Yungngora community and
870 Ibid.,p2. 871 Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p13-14. 872 Mr Lincoln Heading, Manager, Kununurra State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p3. 873 Mr Brian Harris, Officer in Charge, Halls Creek Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p2. 874 Mr Tony Morley, Executive Manager, Regulatory Services, Shire of Halls Creek, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p8-9.
- 219 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
the incorporation of community members in related training, delivered in Fitzroy Crossing.875 Mr John Abbott, also a member of the Fitzroy Crossing ESU elaborated on this. While the Yungngora community at Noonkanbah does not have its own formal emergency services unit, a number of community members are FESA volunteers and through them, further assistance is available from the community in the event of major fires:
Two Aboriginal members have joined our unit within the past six months…A group at Noonkanbah feeds in through the Fitzroy Crossing unit. They assist us with major three- day, four-day or week -long fires. We will roster off on a break and they will come in and work with our teams. The Noonkanbah unit has also been involved in a lot of the training courses in Fitzroy Crossing.876
The Shire of Derby West Kimberley was not explicit, however stated that they do assist Indigenous communities although such assistance is rarely requested.877
The two communities visited by the Committee were Warmun Community, located on the Great Northern Highway between Kununurra and Halls Creek and Bayulu Community, on the outskirts of Fitzroy Crossing. Both RICs claimed to have fairly negligible resource and planning mechanisms in place for emergencies.878
One of the issues raised in evidence was the varying success with regard to recruitment of Indigenous people to ESUs. Some claimed it was due to FESA being perceived as a non- Indigenous organisation, pressure being placed on those involved to leave the unit879 or cultural issues surrounding attendance at road crash fatalities.880 Mr Robert Smillie, Acting CEO, Shire of Halls Creek, elaborated on this last point by saying that the perception of blame for an individual’s death can potentially be directed to any Indigenous or non-Indigenous person involved in a rescue effort.881 Further, that there is a risk that the person trying to help could be perceived as having failed to save the injured party and as a result, be singled out for punishment.882 Others did not see attendance at road crashes as being an impediment, believing that the Officer in Charge of the Unit just needed to be selective in terms of attendance at such scenes.883 The transient nature of
875 Mr Andrew Twaddle, Officer in Charge, Fitzroy Crossing Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 07/07/2006, p1. 876 Mr John-Kym Abbott, Senior Ranger, Department of Environment and Conservation, Transcript of Evidence, 07/07/2006, p3. 877 Mr Steven Martin, Chief Bushfire Control Officer, Shire of Derby West Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 07/07/2006, p5. 878 Information obtained from site visits to Warmun Community on 05/07/2006, and Bayulu Community on 07/07/2006. 879 Mr Steven Martin, Chief Bushfire Control Officer, Shire of Derby West Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 07/07/2006, p7. 880 Mr Tony Morley, Executive Manager, Regulatory Services, Shire of Halls Creek, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p8. 881 Mr Robert Smillie, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Halls Creek, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p12. 882 Ibid. 883 Mr Andrew Twaddle, Officer in Charge, Fitzroy Crossing Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 07/07/2006, p3.
- 220 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
communities was highlighted as being a particular obstacle to Indigenous recruitment by Mr Brian Harris, Officer in Charge, Halls Creek ESU:
Some people stay in Halls Creek for 12 months, some a few years, and some only a few months. The people who stay in the town for only a few months probably do not consider it worthwhile joining FESA.884
Both the Fitzroy Crossing and Wyndham ESUs have Indigenous membership. Ms Lynn Carter, Officer in Charge of the Wyndham Unit attributes the latter to engaging young people:
We have actually got probably eight members now who are Aboriginal, which we have not had before, and they are young, too. We are starting them young. This has had a little bit of an impact on the situation as well because the kids around see those kids. I take them to the school with me when I have the talk and introduce them as firefighters. They stand up and the kids say, “Oh, that’s my sister. That’s my brother.” That in the long term will be an advantage to us…885
Ms Carter has also positioned Community Development Employment Program participants within the Unit as well as running skill development courses for young people. Ms Carter advised that the Unit and associated initiatives have increased the employability of young participants and consequently a number have accessed jobs with mining companies such as Argyle Diamond Mine.886 The Committee attended this Unit and met with many of its members. It was impressed with the model established by Ms Carter and believes that the combination of ESU and “youth centre” could be a model considered by FESA for replication in other localities.
In a letter dated 9 August 2006, Ms Moya Newman, Indigenous Programs Coordinator, FESA, confirms the difficulty in recruitment of Indigenous people to volunteer ESUs. She also informs that there is currently no volunteer brigade structure located within Aboriginal communities, limiting their capacity to respond to a hazard. Although acknowledging the need for community response capability to be enhanced, Ms Newman indicates that there is a lack of clarity around how this should occur.887
It was indicated in evidence and anecdotally that most communities do not have fire related equipment and where they do, it appears to have been funded external to the ESL, often through Commonwealth funding. The safety, or appropriate use, of fire equipment and training of personnel was touted as an issue. This principally centred on the use of equipment for purposes other than that intended and the loss of skilled operators given issues related to transience.888 Mr Robert Smillie, Shire of Halls Creek, stated that it was a local government’s “moral and legal obligation” to provide real service delivery to communities. He sees the solution as involving
884 Mr Brian Harris, Officer in Charge, Halls Creek Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p7. 885 Ms Lynn Carter, Officer in Charge, Wyndham Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p2. 886 Ibid., p8. 887 Letter from Ms Moya Newman, Indigenous Programs Coordinator, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 09/08/2006, p2. 888 Mr Tony Morley, Executive Manager, Regulatory Services, Shire of Halls Creek, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p10.
- 221 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Federal Government provision of funding for municipal services direct to local government who would then establish a town manager and a depot yard where equipment could be secured.889 He comments:
…We need to develop a concept that they are part of the shire, and the fire truck is actually shire equipment of which they have a broader interest, but it is not a community fire truck. The town -based managers cannot say no to requests when they do not have a really good argument about rights and entitlements. They must be able to say that it is a shire truck and cannot be taken away for just any purpose.890
A discussion paper by the EPA Committee on Fire Management in the Kimberley and Other Rangeland Regions of Western Australia, discussed the concept of landscape burning by Aboriginal people. The Review found that widespread landscape burning occurs in the Kimberley region and that there was a view that Indigenous people were the cause of many wildfires but not necessarily in the context of customary burning. The Review detailed that such reports had been made by both Aboriginal elders and pastoralists.891 This was an issue raised by a number of stakeholders in the Kimberley region either anecdotally or in evidence and in a few submissions to the Committee’s Inquiry. Wyndham ESU indicated that the number of fires had increased markedly this past year, attributing this largely to social issues, particularly as a reaction to the deaths of a number of young people in the community. Wyndham ESU has commenced a community education program about the impact of wildfires and is particularly targeting schools in the area.892
Mr Kevin White, Regional Fire Coordinator, CALM, implied that the impact of customary burning is greater given access by Four Wheel Drive vehicles:
They are trying to get back onto their country so that they can get the younger people more involved in what was their traditional way of life - hunting, fishing and so on. The key element of that is that if you want to hunt goannas, or whatever, you obviously cannot do it in the long cane grass, so the idea is that they will burn it off and that will make it easy to find turkeys and goannas. It makes hunting a much easier activity. The significant difference now, of course, is that they can access most of that land in a land cruiser, whereas in the 1940s and 1950s they walked the country and had a mosaic across country where they burnt for hunting needs, and that did not give big fires long runs that generated the size of fire that we are seeing now…They are burning off only what they can access in a land cruiser. What is occurring is that away from the areas that have roading, there is build -up of fuel that will carry a much more intense fire, and it will go much further,
889 Mr Robert Smillie, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Halls Creek, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p11. 890 Ibid. 891 Environmental Protection Authority, Fire Management in the Kimberley and Other Rangeland Regions of Western Australia: A Synopsis and Invitation for Further Public Comment, Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, May 2006, p26. 892 Ms Lynn Carter, Officer in Charge, Wyndham Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p2.
- 222 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
because they are not walking the country and breaking it up early in the year when fires go out overnight…893
This is a complex issue, particularly given the inherent cultural implications. One suggestion to the EPA Review for improved fire management entails the establishment of Fire Teams comprising Aboriginal people tasked with fire prevention, detection and education. 894 The EPA Review has called for further comment. In a similar vein, Mr Kevin White of CALM described a relatively new initiative involving training Indigenous people and working together with them to undertake natural burning within a national park. This process has mutual benefits:
[We] have been working with them this week doing natural burning in Purnululu using traditional people whom we trained in the wet season. We sat down with them and developed a fire strategy for Purnululu, including the community areas of interest that they have control over. The proposal was that we would train them and we would use them. We have been doing that this year. They have been part of our resources…The main aim of that is to try to get an understanding of what the traditional people’s burning needs are, because they are very different from those of most other land managers, and to try to incorporate that into a strategic fire management strategy in the Kimberley.895
Apart from what is occurring at the Federal level in terms of the development of the above mentioned National Strategy, FESA are also undertaking a range of initiatives as a consequence of the enactment of the Emergency Management Act. The Committee considers these worthy of mention because not only do they provide a more holistic picture of emergency management in communities but the issues considered under the emergency services legislation and those under the Emergency Management Act are intrinsically linked. The following provides a synopsis:
Implementation of the Emergency Management Act 2005
Community consultation was facilitated throughout the Pilbara and Kimberley regions as part of the Emergency Management Act Awareness Campaign (see below). Community meetings were held in Port Hedland, Karratha, Broome, Derby, Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, and Bidyadanga. Organisations including the Aboriginal Lands Trust and the Aboriginal Legal Service were also consulted.
Safer Country – A Community Centred Approach to Emergency Risk Management
The Safer Country program was developed to enable Indigenous communities to become safer through emergency risk management. The Program integrates cultural protocols and views within the framework of the Australian New Zealand Risk Management Standard AS/NZS 4360. Partnerships to undertake emergency management and emergency risk management were formed with three local governments all with significant Indigenous
893 Mr Kevin White, Regional Fire Coordinator, Kimberley, Department of Environment and Conservation, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p2-3. 894 Environmental Protection Authority, Fire Management in the Kimberley and Other Rangeland Regions of Western Australia: A Synopsis and Invitation for Further Public Comment, Environmental Protection Authority, Pert h, May 2006, p21/26. 895 Mr Kevin White, Regional Fire Coordinator, Kimberley, Department of Environment and Conservation, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p2.
- 223 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
populations (Hall Creek, Broome and Ngaanyatjarraku). Training commenced with these local governments and was also delivered to several communities outside these areas. Communities visited in 2005-06 included Bidyadanga, Oombulgurri, Kiwirrkurra, Beagle Bay, Lombadina/Djarindjin, One Arm Point, Punmu, Kunawaratji, Warburton and other Ngaanyatjarra Lands communities.
Translation of Emergency Management Arrangements and Emergency Risk Management Guidelines
A project commenced to develop support materials to assist both local governments and Indigenous communities work together to undertake emergency risk management and emergency management activities. The project is in partnership with the Kimberley Language Resource Centre with the support of the Kimberley Interpreter Service. A translation workshop was held in Broome in May 2006.
Halls Creek Local Government – ERM.
Halls Creek Local Government received funding from the AWARE program to undertake ERM with town-based and remote Indigenous communities in its district. The Local Government in partnership with the Indigenous programs team was also successful in securing funding for Interpreter support for the AWARE project.
Ngaanyatjarra Lands – Goldfields.
FESA Goldfields/Midlands Region, in collaboration with the Indigenous Programs team has recently commenced engaging Indigenous Communities in the Ngaanyatjarra Lands (spanning the Gibson and Great Victoria Deserts) to undertake a risk analysis of the area. Visits proved timely as Warburton had been recently impacted by a severe storm causing damage to houses and power failure. Ngaanyatjarraku Local Government was successful in applying for AWARE funding. The immediate aim is to assist in the establishment of a Local Emergency Management Committee.
FESA Geoscience Australia – Mapping Project
FESA Emergency Management Services partnered with Geoscience Australia to undertake a joint mapping project to develop a clearer understanding of the level of vulnerability the 280 or more Indigenous communities within Western Australia have to emergency hazard risk. Developing a state -wide understanding of risk by mapping existing data assists in strategic planning and the prioritisation and delivery of emergency management programs and activities.
The mapping tool was completed in 2005-06 and will be used as a data base for more detailed information that is gathered by FESA, local governments and communities undertaking emergency management and emergency risk management programs.896
As cited earlier, the Committee review of the provision of emergency services to RICs was limited. However, the concept of equity of service provision to RICs has been a concern to this
896 Letter from Ms Moya Newman, Indigenous Programs Coordinator, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 09/08/2006, p3-4.
- 224 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Committee, both within and external to, this review. As detailed, FESA has outlined a number of impediments to the delivery of emergency services to RICs.
The Committee accepts the complexities inherent in service delivery however it does not believe that this should result in the denial of basic citizenship entitlements. It is understood that the National Emergency Management Strategy for Remote Indigenous Communities and the requirements under the Emergency Management Act will provide a framework from which engagement should occur and should afford some coordination in approach to the management of emergencies in RICs. The latter is however dependent on commitment by Government through FESA and other key stakeholders, such as local governments, of sufficient funding and resources.
Recommendation 82
§ FESA should examine the model developed by the Wyndham Emergency Service Unit in regard to its replication in other localities.
Recommendation 83
§ Government should both assess, and ensure, the commitment of appropriate levels of resourcing and funding to ensure effective implementation of the National Emergency Management Strategy for Remote Indigenous Communities.
7.6 Heavy Industry Emergency Response Arrangements
The State’s heavy industry emergency response arrangements were not a core concern of the majority of stakeholders in this Inquiry. That said such arrangements are critical to the safety of industry employees and the broader community. Categories of heavy industry comprise Mining, Oil and Gas, Ports and Shipping and Dangerous Goods Transportation. 897 The responsibility for the safety and risk management of heavy industry is not limited to the emergency services Acts. Aside from FESA, the Department of Industry and Resources, DPI and Department of Consumer and Employment Protection (DOCEP) also have accountabilities under a range of legislation. 898
To give due regard to this issue, examination of the spectrum of relevant legislation and in depth consultation with heavy industry would need to occur. The requirement to focus on issues central to the emergency services Acts has precluded the Committee from the latter. The information
897 Letter from Mr Bill Hewitt, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 02/06/2006, p1. 898 Ibid., p2.
- 225 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
provided in this section is therefore principally in the context of the emergency services Acts and is limited in scope. The Committee’s intention however is to highlight some of the matters raised during the course of this Inquiry about the emergency response capacity of heavy industry and to provide some suggestion as to future directions.
As already detailed, FESA is the HMA for a significant number of hazards in this State. At the response level, services are provided by Career and Volunteer fire and emergency services. Apart from the metropolitan area, this capability addresses general risks of structural fire, tempest and flood damage, bushfire and road crash and general rescue. The Committee was informed that in the more remote areas of the State where heavy industry exists, such as the Pilbara, Kimberley, Midwest Goldfields and Great Southern, FESA rely on heavy industry to reduce risks and hazards to an acceptable level. However, FESA is concerned that some heavy industry is still dependent on FESA’s capability and expertise to respond to such hazards. FESA comments on this issue:
…FESA does contribute significantly to industry emergency response planning through the conceptual, commissioning and operating phases. This includes partnership arrangements, formal agreements, staff secondment and technical advice to industries. However, our ability to respond to significant emergencies in these areas is limited.
For example in th e Burrup Peninsula, several major hazard facilities operate with emergency response plans that are reliant on a response from the Dampier Volunteer Fire & Rescue Service and emergency services from adjoining areas. However, it is clear that each industry in the defined area has varying levels of response capability to supplement the limited volunteer response. 899
FESA details that despite structured liaison with key Government agencies with legislative responsibility for safety and risk management of heavy industry, supported by Local and District Emergency Management arrangements, a major incident in a regional area would significantly challenge available resources.900
In the context of the Committee’s cursory examination of this issue, the intention is not to single out companies rumoured to have inadequate emergency response arrangements but rather to recommend a process that enables a review of these arrangements to ensure appropriate safety measures are in place. Any outstanding concerns identified as a result of review can then be dealt with via appropriate channels.
The information derived for this section of the report primarily relates to the Pilbara region. Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, FESA, provided the following information on FESA’s collaborative working arrangements with Industry in that locality:
§ FESA staff are being seconded to, or employed by, some of the major companies such as BHP Billiton, Argyle Diamonds, Pilbara Iron and Woodside. This has resulted in the adoption of FESA training standards (primarily in fire and rescue)
899 Ibid. 900 Ibid.
- 226 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
leading in the longer term to the adoption of the Public Safety Training Package standards and procedures (nationally recognised standards);
§ As part of the licensing requirements of heavy industry, companies must submit a safety case to DOCEP for approval. FESA provides “expert” comment on these safety cases (for example Burrup Fertilisers);
§ FESA is Executive Chair of the Burrup Industry Emergency Management Committee, established to coordinate the approach of industry on the Burrup Peninsula to emergency management. The Committee reports to the District Emergency Management Committee.901 902
On the basis of concerns raised anecdotally, the Committee queried Mr Cann as to whether volunteers were being placed at an unacceptable risk because of an inadequate emergency response capacity by some heavy industry. Mr Cann advised that the risks in the region were profiled, that volunteers were well trained, and that significant support was available either at a regional level via FESA communications or, in the event of a “declared” incident, by the Hazardous Emergency Action Team in Perth. Industry was also cited to be a useful resource.903 FESA has adopted a coordinated approach between industries to ensure a consistent response to emergencies.904
Mr Cann detailed the importance of cooperative response arrangements between Industry and community emergency response units in remote locations, for reasons of mutual benefit.905
The following information provides some insight into the emergency preparedness measures by a number of the aforementioned major industry stakeholders in the North West of this State and the inherent benefits in community/Government partnerships.
Industry arrangements
The Committee viewed Argyle Diamond Mine’s emergency response capacity on 5 July 2006. Argyle operates a private brigade under the Fire Brigades Act, which allows for privately owned resources located at Argyle to participate in emergency response in the region. They have legal autonomy to respond to emergencies such as road rescue, HAZMAT and bushfire, under the Act.906
901 Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p9-10. 902 Mr Peter Cann (FESA), 2006, pers. comm., 25 August. 903 Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p11-12. 904 Mr Peter Cann (FESA), 2006, pers. comm., 25 August. 905 Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p10. 906 Mr Peter Cann (FESA), 2006, pers. comm., 25 August, and information obtained from site visit to Argyle Diamond Mine 05/07/2006.
- 227 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The Committee toured the Woodside Energy Limited (Woodside), Karratha Gas Plant on 7 August 2006 and took evidence on 8 August 2006 from senior emergency response staff. The following information is indicative of the level of emergency preparedness at the Karratha Gas Plant and of related partnership arrangements:
§ Woodside has its own emergency response capacity, including trained staff, fire tenders and ambulance. Some appliances are specifically for site emergencies, others are available for deployment to community emergencies, specifically bushfire;
§ Woodside, through the Karratha operation, liaises with FESA, the SES and other volunteer units, and participates in LEMC meetings;
§ A FESA employee has been seconded to the Karratha Gas Plant for a period of 18 months as Emergency Response Coordinator. Woodside report an improved understanding by FESA of Woodside’s work methodology and emergency response capabilities and the development of an integrated relationship with external agencies;
§ Woodside is required under Federal legislation to prepare a safety case when commencing a new venture. This ensures the identification of major risks and hazards associated with the operation and emergency response plans to mitigate risk. The Karratha Gas Plant abides by the Code of Practice for major hazard facilities, referring to the National Code of Practice for the Control of Major Hazard Facilities [NOHSC:2016(1996)] as advised by the Australian Safety and Compensation Council907 and conducts its business in accordance with these guidelines.908 The guidelines include liaison and exercises with local emergency services.909
§ Woodside is required because of its proximity to the local community to have emergency plans for “interoperability of mutual aid response to the site”. 910 This has resulted in:
- attempts to integrate site emergency responder units and external volunteer emergency service units;
- the establishment of a secondary group of responders from non-operational areas of the plant integrated with community units, for the purposes of improved mutual aid;
907 Information is available on the Australian Safety and Compensation Council at: http://www.ascc.gov.au/ascc/AboutUs/WhatWeDo/ 908 Mr Michael Werts, Emergency Response Manager and Mr Gino Zaza, Emergency Response Coordinator, Karratha Gas Plant, Woodside Energy Ltd, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p1-3. 909 Mr Peter Cann (FESA), 2006, pers. comm., 25 August. 910 Mr Gino Zaza, Emergency Response Coordinator, Karratha Gas Plant, Woodside Energy Ltd, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p2.
- 228 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
- exposure of external volunteer units to the operations of the plant, threats, risks and methodology for emergency response.911
On the issue of mutual aid agreements, Woodside were extremely supportive of the concept, believing that the way forward is for FESA to facilitate the latter.912 Mr Gino Zaza, Emergency Response Coordinator, Karratha Gas Plant, although seconded from FESA, perhaps best summarises the benefits:
…Up to the point at which I went to Woodside, it had a fairly light-weight understanding of what emergency response contingencies were available outside its gates. It was very proactive internally. However, the type of emergencie s that may emanate from a major process failure out there may require the use of external agencies. It was important that we build an integrated relationship or a proposition in which integration was easily achieved. We had a high level of interoperability. From a FESA point of view, the benefits will return to FESA. I have a fairly high level of insight into the mechanics of an oil and gas facility. I was told during conversations with colleagues in the eastern states that they are looking at this quite ardently to see whether it is successful as a standardised model, because traditionally when emergency services respond to a major facility it becomes a bit of a turf war or a battle of egos somewhat about who will take control. I generally tend to work on the basis of integration. We have to integrate because we do not have the level of technical expertise to deal with that. We need the people out there and, similarly, they need the manpower that is available through state-provided emergency services, whether they are local volunteers or in those in career situations. 913
Mr Zaza also highlights a pertinent issue, subsequently raised by Mr Michael Werts, Emergency Response Manager, Woodside. That is, the company is limited in its capacity to deal with major incidents (beyond its level of technical expertise) and is reliant on external support. They detailed that Woodside’s operations are likely to expand significantly in the future and although this will likewise result in an improved response capability, this will cause an increased reliance on FESA and the community in the event of a major emergency. While recognising that volunteers are being asked to step up to provide a higher-level technical response, Mr Werts also acknowledges that training volunteers up to the necessary skill level may come at a cost to volunteers and the critical balance needs to be evaluated:
There has to be a work-life volunteer commitment balance for the individuals. To skill them to the level that is being discussed here would virtually involve a second full-time job for those individuals. The State Emergency Service and other volunteer organisations that provide this service to the community do so out of the goodness of their hearts and from a commitment to their fellow residents and the people in the community. We cannot afford to push them to a point within their training at which they no longer wish to do the training because it is taking them away from their family life etc.914
911 Ibid. 912 Mr Michael Werts, Emergency Response Manager, Woodside Energy Ltd, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p6. 913 Mr Gino Zaza, Emergency Response Coordinator, Karratha Gas Plant, Woodside Energy Ltd, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p4. 914 Mr Michael Werts, Emergency Response Manager, Woodside Energy Ltd, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p5.
- 229 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
The company therefore requests that Government give consideration to additional expertise and assistance for the region. 915
The Committee viewed Pilbara Iron’s Parker Point operation in Dampier on 8 August 2006 and was advised that an MOU exists between Pilbara Iron, St. John Ambulance and FESA. Pilbara Iron has 2 ambulances on site as well as a number of other small appliances and a 24 hour emergency response capacity covering a range of incidents (road crash, hazardous chemical, medical), for which support can be provided to the community of Dampier.
The Committee conducted a site visit of the BHP Billiton Iron Ore operation at Nelson Point, Port Hedland, on 9 August 2006 and subsequently took evidence from senior regional staff on 10 August 2006. The company has a large contingent of trained emergency services personnel on site comprising permanently employed Emergency Services Officers and Emergency Response Team members (operational employees who volunteer support in emergencies), with comparable teams operating at other facilities.916 In the broader framework of emergency management, partnerships occur via the company’s Community Investments Portfolio and on a more tactical level with local emergency services. The following provides a synopsis of the community/Government partnerships provided by BHP under these two divisions.
Under the Community Investments Portfolio:
§ BHP employees who donate time to not-for-profit organisations in the community can have their time matched in grants to that organisation;
§ An MOU has been signed with Government in relation to the funding of an emergency specialist to work in the Emergency Department of Port Hedland Hospital principally to attend to trauma and industry related accidents;
§ The Company have committed $1 million to the Royal Flying Doctor Service for aircraft. They also fund a caravan that operates 8 months of the year in remote locations in the Pilbara region ensuring the adequacy of first aid kits and on occasion, providing training by nurses and other specialists;
§ The conveyance of community safety information via a range of mediums, particularly about the company’s train movements and when relevant, cyclone and other safety related information. 917
Under various partnerships with local emergency services:
§ Ongoing liaison with key emergency services organisations and participation on the LEMC;
915 Ibid., p6. 916 Mr Graham Locker, Coordinator Emergency Services, BHP Billiton Iron Ore, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/2006, p6. 917 Mr Richard O’Connell, Regional Manager, Public and Community Affairs, BHP Billiton Iron Ore, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/2006, p1-2.
- 230 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
§ Signatory to a mutual aid agreement with both FESA and St John Ambulance. Also provide a standby service in the event that these units are unable to attend an emergency but only on the proviso that it does not leave their own site unattended;
§ Plotting of cyclone information and exchange of this information with the local SES;
§ BHP offers train control to minimise the impact of train movements on emergencies (as trains can block crossings for up to 10 minutes);
§ Attendance at emergency incidents at the Port on request;
§ A FESA District Officer is located on site in an advisory capacity and under a contractual agreement. BHP also access considerable specialist response training through the FESA Training Centre at Forrestfield; and
§ BHP subsidise the FESA staff member’s accommodation in town and provide office space on-site. 918
BHP made comment that the partnership with FESA was “very successful” and that they were in the process of signing off on a further contract. They did however indicate that they were concerned that restrictions may be placed on industry access to the Forrestfield Training Centre:
We have heard that the Forrestfield operation is getting overhauled and is having problems getting its people through the training. Therefore, it is looking at closing or reducing the activity for us to go down and do. That would be a massive back step for BHP or any other industry in the Pilbara region.919
Under contract, BHP currently purchase 157 days of training from FESA. This is principally in Breathing Apparatus, Road Rescue and Hazardous Materials.920 Other training is held in relation to confined space and ship fire response.921
In accompanying documentation to FESA’s submission to the Inquiry FESA proposes that provision be made to:
…enable privately owned Industry and the Department [FESA] to enter into an agreement to establish an Emergency Services Unit. The Department [FESA] is to be empowered to approve and cancel the approval of the Emergency Services Unit.
The relevant industry and the Department [FESA] are to negotiate the terms and conditions related to the establishment and operations of the Emergency Service Unit. If
918 Mr Graham Locker, Coordinator Emergency Services and Mr Richard O’Connell, Regional Manager, Public and Community Affairs, BHP Billiton Iron Ore, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/20065, p2-5. 919 Mr Graham Locker, Coordinator Emergency Services, BHP Billiton Iron Ore, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/20065, p4. 920 Ibid., p5. 921 Ibid., p4.
- 231 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
the Industry and the Department [FESA] do not agree to the terms and conditions, an Emergency Services Unit is not to be established. 922
FESA detail that in some predominantly industrial areas not serviced by State or local government fire units, private brigades have been established. In recent years however, FESA has entered into agreements with industry to provide support and assistance to these brigades. FESA currently recognises six private brigades and views that it is important that community members located or residing in predominantly industrial areas receive a service comparable to that in other towns in the State. FESA view that an ESU negotiated under agreed terms and conditions with industry, would provide a more comprehensive response to emergencies. 923
This proposal was put to Mr Michael Werts, Emergency Response Manager, Woodside, at hearing. Keeping in mind that Woodside currently has a FESA secondee and is extremely satisfied with working relations with the Authority his response was as follows:
…I would fully support, as would Woodside, any enhancements that we already have on the current relationship with FESA in any format.924
The same recommendation was put to Mr Richard O’Connell, Regional Manager, Public and Community Affairs, BHP Billiton, who raised the impact of this proposal on duty of care to the mine’s own workers:
There is something I would like to reiterate, and we spoke about it yesterday. As an employer, our emergency services operations are primarily based on our site as a duty of care to employees, contractors and visitors. We would need to be very clear that we can maintain the necessary levels of confidence that we can provide that service to those people on our sites before we move into a formal agreement or commitment. At this stage we have not formally received such a submission to consider.925
FESA has advised that this proposal is based on the individual industry’s ability to respond to the ESU requirements. The company would still need to maintain a response capacity in accordance with its own risk assessment or risk profile, thereby ensuring that it meets its duty of care obligations. The proposal provides for a process of negotiation and agreement for terms and conditions for the establishment and operation of the ESU.
The view of other organisations
Feedback received during the course of this Inquiry with respect to other organisations’ interaction with, and experience of heavy industry emergency response has been predominantly positive.
922 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority, 2005, Proposed Drafting Instructions, p48. 923 Ibid. 924 Mr Michael Werts, Emergency Response Manager, Woodside Energy Ltd, Transcript of Evidence, 8/08/2006, p1. 925 Mr Richard O’Connell, Regional Manager, Public and Community Affairs, BHP Billiton Iron Ore, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/2006, p5.
- 232 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
A number of volunteer groups referred to cross training opportunities with heavy industry. According to Mr Andrew Ogilvie, Captain, Kununurra VFRS, the local volunteers are occasionally given the opportunity to utilise the resources at the Argyle Diamond mine for training purposes.926 Mr Michael Booth, Captain, Karratha VFRS, similarly mentioned training opportunities and also observed the level of preparedness that industry maintains through ongoing training:
Rio Tinto, Woodside and Burrup fertilisers all have emergency response teams that are continually striving for improvement. They will always be the first responders. They have exercises and regular training to increase their level of preparedness. We have been involved in some of these exercises.927
Cooperative arrangements between industry and volunteers are not limited to training. Mr Stuart Robertson, President, West Pilbara Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue, cited the significant sponsorship received from industry for the purchase of the group’s vessel. 928 In return, the volunteer group provides a service to both industry and the wider community:
The multinational mining companies and the Dampier Port Authority are major supporters, so we have an arrangement with them. If they call us, we do what they need us to do. They do a lot of radio relays for us. They also sponsor us to make sure we have a relevant service in the port of Dampier.929
In terms of radio relay, Mr Robertson explained that while it is not an official service, the Dampier Port Authority also provides support by monitoring the radio and notifying the Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue Group in the event a distress call is received.930
Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland VFRS, acknowledged that industry does provide for its own emergency response, however emphasised that the onus is on industry to ensure that adequate emergency response arrangements are put in place:
Industry is obviously a big part of the role we play - we provide a service for industry as well. There needs to be certain pressure on industry to make sure they have their own services in place. More to the point, it takes the pressure off volunteers…There are still issues that need addressing but we are heading in the right direction. Industry is starting to wake up and starting to commit services and resources to provide the facilities for looking after their own interests.931
Mr Michael Booth, Karratha VFRS, also provided additional comment in relation to this issue. He recognises that volunteers are exposed to increased risk due to heavy industry, however believes that as risk has increased, so has the level of industry preparedness to counter that risk:
926 Mr Andrew Ogilvie, Captain, Kununurra Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p5. 927 Mr Michael Booth, Captain, Karratha Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p5-6. 928 Mr Stuart Robertson, President, West Pilbara Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p2. 929 Ibid. 930 Ibid., p6. 931 Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland Fire and Rescue, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/2006, p3.
- 233 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Yes the risk is now greater than ever before but so has the training and preparedness increased…In my opinion, I believe industry is doing the best it can, and the level of risk for us, even though it is high, has been diminished by what it is actually doing itself.932
Mr John Lorantas, Captain, Dampier VFRS, advised that the Dampier volunteer unit was originally established as a private brigade by Hamersley Iron but as at 1 July 2006, transferred to FESA. 933 The change was made to facilitate service provision to the broader community of Dampier, which is now no longer limited to mining industry employees.934 Mr Lorantas states that the shift in the brigade’s focus and responsibilities from industry to town-based fires and an associated downgrading of the group’s firefighting appliance means that volunteers are now insufficiently equipped to handle industrial incidents.935 Mr Lorantas concurs with Mr Michael Booth however, that although the volunteers are still expected to provide a response, that industry is managing these risks.936
Some concerns were raised by the Karratha SES regarding insufficient interaction with industry:
We have never really been introduced to their members and they have not been introduced to us, so they have no idea of our capabilities, the equipment we have in that building, and what we could do to assist them. The opposite is also true: we really do not know a lot about those guys…We would like to see more involvement between the volunteers and the industrial rescue teams, so that we are all part of one big team, which is a rescue organisation.937
According to the Shire of Roebourne, the Burrup Industries Emergency Management Committee may be a mechanism for addressing some of these concerns.938 Mr Guy Thompson, the Shire’s Director, Technical and Development Services, alluded to a certain reticence among industries to reveal their exact capability, but stated that progress is being made in this regard.939
The DoE has drawn attention to the current legislative provisions for the removal of fire hazards and while it is discussed more in the context of FESA, it does relate to industry emergency arrangements. The DoE cites that FESA is currently empowered by legislation to order the removal of fire hazards but argues that a number of recent industrial incidents demonstrate that these provisions have not been adequately enforced.940 The DoE therefore suggests a need for the legislative provisions to be strengthened and clarified with respect to FESA’s power to order the
932 Mr Michael Booth, Captain, Karratha Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p6. 933 Mr John Lorantas, Captain, Dampier Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p1. 934 Mr Peter Cann, Acting Director Country North, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p9. 935 Mr John Lorantas, Captain, Dampier Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p1/5. 936 Ibid., p5. 937 Mr Terrance Swetman, Team Leader, Karratha State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p4. 938 Mr Guy Thompson, Director, Technical and Development Services, Shire of Roebourne, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p1-2. 939 Ibid., p2. 940 Submission No 8 from Department of Environment, 27/09/2005, p2.
- 234 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
removal or reduction of fire hazards.941 Also suggested is a clarification of the existing mechanism within legislation to enable FESA to recover costs of responding to an ‘unnecessary’ incident, described by the DoE as being one caused intentionally or through carelessness or negligence and where FESA and other agency resources must be expended because the responsible party cannot assist in the clean up of the incident.942
In response to the DoE’s suggestions of legislative amendment, FESA has advised that Regulations 228 and 229 of the Fire Brigades Regulations 1943 do indeed empower FESA to order the removal of stored inflammable matter within a fire district and concurs that these powers have not been exercised to the level of pursuing prosecutions.943 Nonetheless FESA supports the retention of these same powers and states that the preferred approach to date has been to liaise with industry to ensure the removal of hazardous substances without resorting to prosecution, and that in most cases this approach has been successful. 944 FESA acknowledges however, that it may now be appropriate to consider prosecution or penalties where the consultative approach fails.945 With respect to cost recovery, the FESA Act already provides for this under Section 36ZL, and FESA supports the retention of this provision in any new legislative framework.946
Committee assessment
The Committee acknowledges that heavy industry creates hazards above the general risks dealt with by volunteer units in the remote areas of this State. It views that heavy industry in these localities should have the capability to respond to incidents matched against identified risks of the operation. The evidence received indicates that some of the major companies in the North West are taking emergency management very seriously, have a sound emergency response capacity and have entered into mutually beneficial partnership arrangements. The Committee is however concerned about reports that some heavy industry is reliant on FESA’s capability and expertise to respond to incidents. The evidence received by the Committee suggests that trained industry personnel would generally constitute first responders to any incident on-site and that community based volunteers would only be called upon in the event that an incident surpassed the industry’s own capacity to respond. The comments received from volunteers on this issue, although limited, largely reflect a willingness on behalf of the volunteers to assist if required, although this is often tempered with some concern about the adequacy of equipment and expertise for dealing with an industrial incident. How widespread this issue is would need to be determined through further review.
941 Ibid. 942 Ibid. 943 Email from Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 05/09/2006, p1. 944 Ibid. 945 Ibid. 946 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, Proposed Drafting Instructions p87.
- 235 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Considerable concern was raised, external to formal evidence hearings, in relation to the preparedness and emergency response capacity of the State’s Ports. The Committee was unable to pursue the validity of these claims to a level of sufficiency during the course of this Inquiry.
With regard to the establishment of ESUs by FESA and Industry, the Committee is supportive. From the evidence provided by Woodside, it appears that there are some moves towards integration of community and industry based emergency services groups. BHP Billiton through agreement with FESA also currently attend community based emergencies when required, whilst maintaining their own response capacity on site. It is understood that under the proposed arrangements this would not change. Ultimately, the proposal only progresses on the basis of agreement of terms and conditions for the administration and operation of the Units by FESA and the relevant Industry.
Recommendation 84
§ That Government consider appointing FESA as lead agency to facilitate a collaborative review by relevant Government agencies, industry representatives and other parties of heavy industry emergency response arrangements. This is with a view to proposing amendments to existing legislation or developing other measures for the protection of the community, significant resources and assets in this State. § A central premise of this project should be ensuring uniformity of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery across heavy industry, including training competencies.
Recommendation 85
§ That the review should give priority to the emergency response arrangements of the State’s Ports.
- 236 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Recommendation 86
§ That the legislation empowers FESA and privately owned industry to enter into an agreement to establish an Emergency Services Unit.
§ That where an agreement is entered into, FESA be empowered to approve and cancel the approval of the Emergency Services Unit.
§ That the relevant industry and FESA be empowered to negotiate the terms and conditions related to the establishment and operations of the Emergency Service Unit.
§ That if the industry and FESA do not agree to the terms and conditions, an Emergency Services Unit is not to be established.
Recommendation 87
§ FESA is to consider prosecution or penalties in instances where consultation with industry to ensure the removal of hazardous substances is unsuccessful.
7.7 Peripheral Issues
A number of issues emerged during the course of this Inquiry, which were either beyond the scope of the review of emergency services legislation or were not core concerns of the majority of stakeholders. These issues are nonetheless summarised here as the Committee considers they may have relevance for future reviews of applicable legislation and/or for the improved functionality of the emergency services, particularly with respect to arrangements for volunteers.
Issues pertaining to legislation
According to CALM, fire management and in particular prescribed burning is not specified as a function of the Department in the CALM Act, it is merely implied.947 948 As discussed in detail in Chapter 3, there is a statutory requirement for CALM to prepare management plans but not fire management plans as such. Even so, CALM addresses fire management in varying levels of detail via regional plans, area management plans, indicative prescribed burning plans, and where no formal management plan exists, via interim management guidelines or necessary operations checklists.
947 Submission No 27 from Department of Conservation and Land Management, 17/10/2005, p3. 948 Ibid., p1.
- 237 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
CALM contends that the absence of fire management as a legislatively prescribed function of the Department fails to recognise the importance of prescribed burning to land management and biodiversity conservation and that it has implications for Departmental liability when using planned fire for fire management on Crown lands.949 As such, CALM suggests that the CALM Act be amended to “specify fire management as a function of the Department in fulfilment of its land management and biodiversity conservation functions” and for appropriate immunity provisions to be incorporated.950
In Chapter 3 the Committee recommends that CALM be required under the emergency services legislation to develop fire management plans essentially in areas where there is a high risk and where a plan will assist in mitigating the impact of a fire. In essence, CALM will therefore be prescribed a fire management function, if not under the CALM Act, under the emergency services legislation. Whether this provides sufficient recognition for CALM regarding the importance of prescribed burning to land management and biodiversity conservation has not been determined. Further, the Committee has not sought legal advice on whether CALM’s concerns about liability in the absence of a legislatively prescribed fire management function in the CALM Act are justified and indeed whether provision for fire management planning in the emergency services legislation addresses such concerns. These are issues that Government will need to consider further.
Issues pertaining to Emergency Services
(i) St John Ambulance
St John Ambulance is a non-profit organisation responsible for the delivery of ambulance services in Western Australia.951 It relies on 400 full time staff and 2500 volunteers.952 While St John Ambulance is a private organisation and outside the scope of the Inquiry into Fire and Emergency Services Legislation, a number of significant issues arose during the course of the Inquiry, which warrant further investigation. This includes the concern of a number of stakeholders regarding inadequate resourcing of the ambulance service in regional areas.
Ms Lynn Carter, Officer in Charge, Wydham ESU described how Wyndham has been unable to maintain a continuous ambulance service and how “a couple of members are holding it together, and they are elderly, that is, in their 60s and 70s”. 953 This arrangement is a cause for concern as it places other emergency services volunteers under increasing pressure:
When we attend a road accident, there might be a couple of mortalities and another person who is trapped but who is still alive. Without knowing that the ambulance is on their way to assist, it is hard. We can cut the person out of the car. We have all done senior first aid;
949 Ibid. 950 Ibid. 951 St John Ambulance, Available at: http://www.ambulance.net.au/ Accessed on 11/09/2006. 952 Ibid. 953 Ms Lynn Carter, Volunteer Officer in Charge, Wyndham Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p9.
- 238 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
we all know how to use the Oxy-Viva. I have done nursing. That helps a little, but we do not have the necessary equipment. These small towns cannot do without an ambulance service. It is really important. It is scary for us. We do not need that extra responsibility.954
Mr Gary Webster, Ravensthorpe VFRS, highlighted resourcing inadequacies and the implications of the latter on volunteer recruitment:
They [St John Ambulance] had a fundraiser last night out at the mine to try and raise money. They held a pool competition. They are buying their own uniforms, band-aids, bandages - anything that is in the ambulance, they have to pay for. That is how their organisation runs. I understand it is a private organisation. As part of the Fire and Rescue Service, I will not join the ambulance service for the reason that they do not get financial support. Volunteers are expected to do a huge amount of work.955
The inequity between ambulance and other volunteer emergency services was highlighted by Mr Stuart McIntyre, Area Manager, FESA, Esperance:
St John Ambulance has been the poor cousin for a very long time, particularly when I had responsibility in the Jerramungup Shire for the new emergency service units. It was a ludicrous scenario. After a drill we would all sit down and have a cuppa or a beer or whatever and talk about funding opportunities. We had people in one uniform who had all their appliances, training, uniforms, trips away and accommodation paid for and then we had people from St John Ambulance who had to fundraise to buy their own ambulances. It is absurd…Putting it in perspective, the local St John Ambulance gets over 500 calls a year. For an organisation that is funding 500 calls a year out of its own budget or coffers, it is a big ask compared to other emergency services.956
This view was also reflected in comments by Mr Stuart Taylor, CEO, Shire of Ravensthorpe:
… in truth, if there was a way St John could be supported financially as FRS, bush fire brigades or SES, that would take a lot of pressure off the volunteers. They already have enough to deal with, having to go out to trauma incidents and having to deal with patients, restocking the vans, maintenance and running the organisation, without having to spend their weekends fundraising to provide a critical service to the community. It is very unfair that they are required to do that.957
Western Australia and the Northern Territory are the only regions in Australia where St John Ambulance administers the ambulance service. In all other States and the ACT, this responsibility lies with the respective Government.958 When queried whether St John Ambulance might benefit from coming under the same emergency services umbrella as other emergency services groups, Mr Webster959 and Mr McIntyre960 agreed that the proposal had merit, as did Mr Graham Little of
954 Ibid. 955 Mr Gary Webster, Ravensthorpe Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p16. 956 Mr Stuart McIntyre, Area Manager, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Transcript of Evidence, 08/06/2006, p6-7. 957 Mr Stuart Taylor, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Ravensthorpe, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p18. 958 St John Ambulance, Available at: http://www.ambulance.net.au/ Accessed on 11/09/2006. 959 Mr Gary Webster, Ravensthorpe Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p16.
- 239 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
the Shire of Three Springs.961 Mr Terence Hunter, President, AVBFB also supported this idea although suggested that in reality it may prove difficult to achieve:
I have been involved with St John for many years. I think the system that it has works very well. However, again, it is having a resourcing problem, like everyone else, and a funding problem. If it could be brought under an umbrella whereby it got the funding and the support that it requires, it could be implemented. However, I think you would have a fight on your hands.962
The Committee also heard from several stakeholders about the invaluable and essential service provided to communities by St John Ambulance, perhaps best encapsulated in the comments of Mr Stuart Taylor, CEO, Shire of Ravensthorpe:
It [the ambulance service] is the backbone of the community. Fire, okay, but when we look at the aged population, children, schools, farm accidents and normal work accidents, these are the people they rely on to come and get them to ease the pain, stop the bleeding and make them instantly feel that they will get something done and then they are taken to the hospital. It is such an important service.963
It is clear however that resourcing of the ambulance service presents a real challenge to some communities. The increased difficulty of recruiting and retaining volunteers is common to volunteer organisations as a whole. It is apparent however, that there are also some significant funding issues that need to be addressed to ensure the long-term sustainability of the ambulance service in rural and remote locations.
(ii) Recruitment and retention of volunteers
Evidence from various regions of the State highlighted a number of themes regarding the recruitment and retention of emergency services volunteers. These include the impact of remoteness and transience on volunteer recruitment and retention, and increased levels of responsibility being placed on volunteers.
According to Mr Max Osborn, Secretary, WA Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service Association (Inc), changing employment trends and the growth of a highly mobile “fly-in, fly-out” workforce, principally associated with the resources sector, is impacting negatively on volunteer recruitment and retention:
Fly in, fly out is everywhere. When fly in, fly out first started off it was probably restricted to Perth in general, but now people travel from Esperance, Ravensthorpe or wherever. Wherever you go, people are flying north. When they come home it takes them some time before they get their feet back on the ground. By the time they are ready to be a volunteer,
960 Mr Stuart McIntyre, Area Manager, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, Transcript of Evidence, 08/06/2006, p7. 961 Mr Graham Little, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Three Springs, Transcript of Evidence, 29/05/2006, p15. 962 Mr Terence Hunter, President, Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA (Inc.), Transcript of Evidence, 21/06/2006, p12. 963 Mr Stuart Taylor, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Ravensthorpe, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p19.
- 240 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
they get on a plane and go back again; plus they have their family and everyone else to look after. It has had an enormous impact.964
Mr John Lorantas of the Dampier VFRS also detailed the impact of employment trends on retainment of volunteers:
We get new members in, we train them up, get them a truck driver’s licence, get them through breathing apparatus training, road rescue and all the rest and the next minute they pack up and move.965
This view was shared by Mr Vaughan Price of the South Hedland VFRS, who also intimated that there is greater responsibility placed on those who do volunteer:
Port Hedland is a transient town, as a lot mining towns are. It makes it very hard to keep your training level up because it really takes a number of years to get people to a certain level. You can put a person through all the basic training in 12 months and then experience will obviously build on that through a number of years with the service. Being a transient town you have people here for two, three or four years. You get them to a level where they are pretty good and they move on. That is very common here. It is really hard… Also, the responsibility put on volunteers these days is getting out of control at the moment. I feel that the way we are heading, it gets too much, it really does.966
The effects of transient populations appear to impact more on some communities than others. The Kununurra SES for example has based its recruitment around the cyclical nature of the community, whereby they undertake public recruitment drives at the time of each significant new influx of population:
Our recruitment is by word of mouth and from either a commercial entity or a public service entity for which people come into town for a couple of years. We really have not had the need to recruit publicly. We are leading up to that now as the community has settled in for what might be another couple of years of service to Kununurra. We are about to launch a public recruitment drive, and that will start occurring through the public newspapers.967
The impact of sociological change on volunteerism extends to rural areas, as indicated by the Northern Country Zone:
Farming operations are now larger in area, but support far fewer people and employees. This has resulted in a dramatic and well documented reduction in rural populations across Western Australia. The strain to locate volunteers across the variety of community
964 Mr Max Osborn, Secretary, WA Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service Association (Inc), Transcript of Evidence, 21/06/2006, p8-9. 965 Mr John Lorantas, Captain, Dampier Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p6. 966 Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/2006, p4. 967 Ibid., p4-5.
- 241 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
services required in each town is more pressing than ever before and the associated responsibilities with volunteering for control of fires is obvious.968
Already alluded to as being of concern are the perceived unrealistic or excessive expectations and/or levels of responsibility being placed on volunteers, a sentiment expressed by the Shire of Toodyay:
Volunteers are being relied upon too much to undertake duties that should be undertaken by professional emergency service agencies. This has impacted on volunteer recruitment, more so in outer urban, rural and remote areas.969
Mr Brian Harris, Officer in Charge, Halls Creek ESU, shares this view and draws attention to the administrative burden on volunteers:
We feel that a lot of the community is unaware that the members of FESA units or fire brigades are just volunteers. It seems that more and more is expected of volunteers. I think the community abroad needs to be made more aware that we are just volunteers. We have normal jobs and normal private lives, and there is only a certain amount of time that volunteers can really give to the community… A lot of paperwork has to be filled out. There should be a way of minimising the paperwork.970
Mr Peter Stubbs, CEO, Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, considers that bureaucracy is often a disincentive to volunteerism because it detracts from the reason people choose to be volunteers, that is, to protect their community.971
Some volunteers assume greater responsibility through membership of several emergency services groups. Evidence to the Inquiry suggests that this is not uncommon in regional and/or remote locations. Mr Keith Rowe, Ravensthorpe SES, comments:
The committee will find that there are bushfire control officers, certain bush fire brigade members and SES people who are ambulance officers. We have two very capable ambulance officers in our SES unit. One of them works out of Munglinup, because that is where he lives, and the other works out of Ravensthorpe. I can tell the committee that these guys are called out on a regular basis and they front up for SES work as well.972
The Committee commends the efforts of volunteers who dedicate additional hours to the service of their communities. The sustainability of this scenario in the long-term however is questionable and is likely to impact negatively on the retention of volunteers particularly within smaller and more remote communities.
968 Submission No 32 from Northern Country Zone of Western Australian Local Government Association, 26/10/2005, p2. 969 Submission No 30 from Shire of Toodyay, 14/10/2005, p4. 970 Mr Brian Harris, Officer in Charge, Halls Creek Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 06/07/2006, p16-17. 971 Mr Peter Stubbs, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p9. 972 Mr Keith Rowe, Local Manager, Ravensthorpe State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p19.
- 242 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Once again, the issue of recruitment and retention of volunteers is a matter that has not received the level of attention that is perhaps warranted. Discourse has been limited to a cursory identification of some of the common themes. Many of the issues identified here are not limited to emergency services volunteers and are symptomatic of wider socio-economic changes impacting on volunteerism. On the basis of such a limited analysis, it is inappropriate for the Committee to propose the means by which these issues might be addressed. That said, some stakeholders have made suggestions to alleviate the pressure on fire and emergency services volunteers.
Training represents a significant time commitment for many volunteers and as highlighted by the Northern Country Zone, excessive training requirements can impact adversely on volunteerism:
Since the transition to the FESA structure, there have been many requirements for brigade members to be trained. It is believed that this will, in time have a detrimental impact on volunteers - if training becomes too great an impost, then volunteers many (sic) not be forthcoming.973
It has been suggested that more flexible training arrangements might assist. The AVBFB indicates that such steps are already being taken:
A new training package is being rolled out at this moment. From what I have seen of it, it will be adequate for what we need. The amount of training being offered by FESA is, at times, restricted, which is due to costs and so forth. We would be a lot happier if more training was made available and the training was changed to reflect the situation of the worker today. A person can ill afford to take a week off work to go to training courses like people used to be able to do 15 or 20 years ago. It is even getting to the stage now at which people cannot afford a full weekend off to go to training. They need to tailor the training so that it can be done interactively via computer or kept down to one-day courses. I believe that the new package is endeavouring to reflect that.974
It is considered by some that access to training is not consistent across the emergency services and that there needs to be some standardisation. Mr Stuart Robertson, West Pilbara Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue explains:
…FESA should look at its whole training synergy across all of the services that it covers. We have great systems in place for fire. The district managers come around on a regular basis. They run training as it is needed. Courses are set up within the region on a monthly or even fortnightly basis to provide the basic skills. A model like that, whether it is under the regional office or a central office, is badly needed within VMRS.975
The need for adequate notification of training programs, particularly in regional centres, was raised by Mrs Kathryn Swetman, Karratha SES. While that unit has its own accredited instructors and can conduct most of its training in-house, volunteers also have the option of attending regional
973 Submission No 32 from Northern Country Zone of Western Australian Local Government Association, 26/10/2005, p2. 974 Mr Terence Hunter, President, Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA (Inc), Transcript of Evidence, 21/06/2006, p8. 975 Mr Stuart Robertson, President, West Pilbara Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p4.
- 243 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
training courses if unable to attend in-house training. Mrs Swetman indicated that more notice of regional programs would enable volunteers to plan around shift work or organise leave from employers.976
Another matter that has been raised relates to management stability within FESA and its impact on volunteer morale. The AVBFB elaborates:
Volunteer brigades, in particular those residing in rural or remote areas depend a lot on the building of relationships and understanding with their points of contact with FESA staff. The volunteers find it most disruptive and counter productive to find that their trusted contact has been moved and they are then faced with the prospect of dealing with someone who means well but is just “keeping the seat warm” and can’t or won’t make decisions.977
Mr Terrance Swetman, Team Leader, Karratha SES, concurs:
…the problem we have with FESA at the moment is that we really do not know who is in charge. In FESA, someone will be acting in a position, then things change in Perth and somebody moves into a new position, and the person who was previously acting for us moves on to a different job and someone else takes over that position. This happens on a monthly or regular basis. We are not really sure who we are supposed to contact.978
It has been suggested that FESA provide adequate notification of change in FESA emergency services unit liaison/management staff.979
Related to the management of volunteers but more in the context of incident response, the AVBFB has suggested that the role of Volunteer Liaison Officer be established, presumably within FESA. The AVBFB believes a dedicated Liaison Officer could assist in ensuring the welfare of volunteers during large and/or multi-agency incidents and could also ensure that appropriate use is made of the volunteers in these circumstances.980
Several suggestions have been put forward for attracting more emergency services volunteers. The first involves the fostering of community spirit by volunteer groups. Mr Peter Stubbs, CEO, Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, comments:
The Packsaddle shed is a fantastic model for how to run a volunteer fire brigade. A social life has been created around that shed. There are regular sausage sizzles and barbecues every Friday night. The community goes there and uses that as a de facto club, in essence. The camaraderie that has developed there is what holds the volunteers together. That does
976 Mrs Kathryn Swetman, Acting Rescue Officer, Karratha State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p6. 977 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA Incorporated, 21/06/2006, p3. 978 Mr Terrance Swetman, Team Leader, Karratha State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p5. 979 Mrs Kathryn Swetman, Acting Rescue Officer, Karratha State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p5. 980 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA Incorporated, 21/06/2006, p9.
- 244 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
not happen all over the state, but that is a particular success story. It is helped by FESA regularly attending those social functions.981
Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland VFRS, indicated that FESA could consider more targeted recruitment campaigns:
The majority of people want to be a fireman, or with the SES, or with sea search and rescue or whatever. Some sort of advertising campaign that targets each one of those areas would be more beneficia l than having a broad advertising campaign for volunteers.982
Mr Phillip Peterson, President of the SES Volunteers Association, believes that raising the profile of volunteers, particularly amongst employers, could also assist with recruitment. According to Mr Peterson, a volunteer should be viewed as having transferable skills:
There are some underlying things that need to change. I guess one of the things is employer perception about their volunteers. Some employers see the volunteers as a risk to their business. You can appreciate that, if there is a really small business, a volunteer may have to rush off to do a job. It has been based on an understanding between employers and volunteers. We need to raise the profile of volunteers so that they are an important part of the community and can be a valuable asset to the business as well … If we could raise that community profile for all the volunteers, people may say, “Phil, you are an SES volunteer. How do you become one? It is great. I would like to employ you because you have team- orientated skills and specific other skills”.983
The AVBFB has suggested improving the funding and management of emergency services cadet units, which are administered by FESA. According to the AVBFB, bushfire service cadets are currently funded on an ad hoc basis and lack a uniform management system. The AVBFB perceive that the best way to ensure the continuation of the emergency service volunteers is via a functional cadet system. 984 At hearing, the AVBFB explained that only cadet units attached to a school can secure funding, which can be a problem in country areas. They suggested that the State Government should provide uniform funding to all cadets.985 The benefits of the cadetship program were related by Ms Joanne Weekes, Local Manager, Albany SES, who indicated that although cadets may leave the service in their late teens, they tend to return to the unit after a few years.986 Mr Keith Rowe of the Ravensthorpe SES also conveyed the long-term benefits of cadet units:
It is important that emergency service cadet units stay as they are. Any involvement of young kids in emergency services at any level will make them a reasonably good target for
981 Mr Peter Stubbs, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, Transcript of Evidence, 04/07/2006, p7. 982 Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/2006, p5. 983 Mr Phillip Peterson, President, State Emergency Service Volunteers Association, Transcript of Evidence, 10/05/2006, p4. 984 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA Incorporated, 21/06/2006, p9. 985 Mr Terence Hunter, President, Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA (Inc), Transcript of Evidence, 21/06/2006, p12. 986 Ms Joanne Weekes, Local Manager, Albany State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p9.
- 245 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
emergency service work later on, perhaps after they are married, 10, 15 or 20 years down the track. They do not lose the actual ethic, if you like, of being involved in an emergency service.987
Another method for encouraging recruitment was the concept of an honorarium, however a financial incentive for volunteerism has generally been discounted by volunteers themselves. Mr Andrew Twaddle, Officer in Charge, Fitzroy Crossing ESU, views that an honorarium risks attracting people to the service solely for financial benefit:
We do this as volunteers. I, for one, do not really see the need for it [an honorarium]. If you start putting that sort of incentive into it, you will not get the real volunteers out there. You will get people who say that if they join up, they will get all these sorts of benefits and so forth.988
Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland VFRS, shared a similar view:
I suppose we have to look at whether we should pay people a retainer, as they do over east. However, people would then not be cast as volunteers, and, again, we might attract the wrong people. At the moment we have people who want to be there; they are keen to provide a service. We do not want to lose that. It would be great to have some tax relief, but it is (sic) needs to be structured in such a way that it can be managed.989
Mr Price suggested that should there be any tax relief, this should be structured fairly to reflect the extent of voluntary service, for example, the number of hours volunteered per week by an individual.990 Potential tax relief was also raised by Mr Michael Booth, Captain, Karratha VFRS. Mr Booth highlighted that volunteers pay for the ESL on their rates and many also use private vehicles to attend incidents and training. Some form of subsidy (for example, for fuel) and/or tax break could assist volunteers financially.991
Rather than tax relief for individuals, Mr Phillip Peterson, President, SES Volunteers Association, suggested that tax relief for businesses might compensate employers when volunteers on their staff need to leave work to attend incidents/training:
We need government support. If a person has to leave employment for a couple of days, temporary employees should be able to be hired in so that the company can get a tax break for that assistance. Whether that is a state or a federal issue, I am not sure. That could be an incentive to overcome the financial losses to particularly small employers, which is where a lot of the issues arise. It happens even with larger employers.992
987 Mr Keith Rowe, Local Manager, Ravensthorpe State Emergency Service, Transcript of Evidence, 09/06/2006, p11. 988 Mr Andrew Twaddle, Officer in Charge, Fitzroy Crossing Emergency Service Unit, Transcript of Evidence, 07/07/2006, p4. 989 Mr Vaughan Price, Captain, South Hedland Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 10/08/2006, p6. 990 Ibid. 991 Mr Michael Booth, Captain, Karratha Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p9. 992 Mr Phillip Peterson, President, State Emergency Service Volunteers Association, Transcript of Evidence, 10/05/2006, p4.
- 246 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
In October 2005, the Hon. Michelle Roberts, MLA, then Minister for Police and Emergency Services, put forward the idea of a national $300 tax rebate for emergency service volunteers. While acknowledging that it did not seem a large sum, it was thought that it might help to provide some recognition and assist with reducing out of pocket expenses.993 The matter was referred to the Australian Emergency Management Volunteer Forum to be progressed and Federal Government support was to be sought.994
(iii) Insurance cover for volunteers
The insurance of volunteers has been raised a number of times during the course of the Inquiry. Under existing legislative arrangements, any local government that maintains a BFB is required to insure the members of the brigade(s) as well as the brigade’s equipment/appliances and any privately owned equipment/appliance while it is used for firefighting purposes under the direction of the bushfire control officer or BFB member.995
The AVBFB has drawn attention to inequities across local government areas in terms of insurance coverage, stating that “unfortunately the level and scope of insurance cover is outdated and the level of cover purchased by local governments (shires) varies significantly”.996 According to the AVBFB, this has led to instances of delays in payment and variable interpretations of what can be claimed in the event of injury or loss, causing frustration among BFB volunteers. The AVBFB consider this unacceptable and suggest that no volunteer performing their duty should be left out of pocket as a result of loss of income or property, and that the issue could be resolved if FESA or local government insure all volunteers uniformly under the one policy. 997
The Shire of Kojonup has also raised concerns about the adequacy of volunteer insurance, stating that high costs of insurance mean that not all of the Shire’s registered volunteers are covered at any one time.998 They are also concerned that any changes required to ensure coverage may require that resources be diverted from other needs such as infrastructure.999
Mr Roger Howell, representing the Metropolitan Volunteer Sea Rescue Group (MVSRG), also expressed concern regarding the uncertainty of coverage under volunteer insurance policies:
…insurance is a problem for the groups. It is a huge problem because no-one is able to identify what the insurance arrangements really are. We have had conflicting advice, and experiences that conflict with that conflicting advice. That is a matter that is just as important to every other volunteer, not just sea rescue, under FESA as it is to us…That is because in an emergency the water police issue a job number to the particular group that
993 Hon. Michelle Roberts MLA, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Western Australia, Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 18/10/2005, p6463. 994 Ibid. 995 Section 37 Bush Fires Act 1954. 996 Submission No 50 from Association of Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades of WA Incorporated, 21/06/2006, p8. 997 Ibid. 998 Submission No 41 from Shire of Kojonup, 29/11/2005, p4. 999 Ibid.
- 247 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
will conduct the response…we do not know whether the job number means insurance cover; and that is not a particularly satisfactory state, because the last thing we want is the skipper of one of our vessels to be uncertain of the question of insurance cover when he is making a decision that may put the health, welfare and safety of the crew at risk and the safety of the vessel at risk if the circumstances of that particular rescue calls for him to make that sort of decision.1000
While the MVSRG (comprising Whitfords, Fremantle and Cockburn Volunteer Sea Rescue Groups) operates independently of FESA (unlike other VMRS groups in the State) it is party to a Service Level Agreement with FESA. 1001 In line with that Agreement, FESA provide insurance cover to MVSRG volunteers,1002 akin to that of other FESA volunteers (except BFBs). The concerns raised by the MVSRG could therefore just as easily apply to any volunteer group.
FESA has recommended that local government retain responsibility for obtaining and maintaining insurance for BFB volunteers under their control. FESA likewise would continue to provide insurance for Fire Services Brigades, ESUs, SES Units, VMRS Groups, and VFRS Brigades.1003 FESA has also recommended that if local government enters into an agreement with FESA to transfer administration and operation of BFBs, then FESA will assume the associated insurance responsibilities.1004
While this may assist in clarifying responsibilities for insurance, it does not address the two key issues raised, namely the variability/inadequacy of local government insurance arrangements and the confusion/uncertainty surrounding insurance particulars, including those policies instigated by FESA. With regard to the latter, FESA has indicated that it is currently reviewing volunteer insurance and is endeavouring to improve communication more generally.1005 These steps should go some way towards resolving uncertainties. With regard to the former, it is critical that local government insurance coverage for volunteers is adequate especially as many volunteers trust that these arrangements are in good order. This sentiment was encapsulated by Mr Charlie Butcher, Chief Bush Fire Control Officer, Albany, BFB:
They [the volunteers] need to know that when they leave home they are covered as far as insurance is concerned, right to the end of the fire when they get home. They need to know when they get in one of these vehicles that they are covered by insurance immediately without any declaration from anyone else that there is an emergency on. It has to be automatic. The volunteers leave all the legalities up to you people and to shire councils; they are not interested in that. They are interested in assisting to put a fire out and going back to their own homes and work as quickly as possible after the fire is safe. They do not
1000 Mr Roger Howell, Group Liaison Officer, Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group, Transcript of Evidence, 16/08/2006, p8. 1001 Ibid., p2. 1002 Ibid., and associated Dossier of Evidence and Attachments, p14. 1003 Submission No 16 from Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, 2005, Proposed Drafting Instructions, p 49. 1004 Ibid. 1005 Ms Jo Harrison-Ward, Chief Executive Officer, Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Briefing, 18/09/2006.
- 248 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
want to be worried about anything else in between. They are there to assist, not to get too involved with legalities.1006
As discussed in Section 6.1, some local governments may elect to transfer the administration and operation of BFBs to FESA (including insurance responsibilities). At least with respect to these BFBs (given the impending review of insurance arrangements by FESA), this should result in greater uniformity of insurance coverage. The adequacy of insurance coverage for BFB volunteers remaining under the administration of local government would need to be assessed and benchmarked against the standard of insurance coverage for all other emergency services groups.
(iv) Funding of Volunteer Marine Rescue Services
Unlike other emergency services groups under the umbrella of FESA which are funded by the ESL, namely FRS (career and volunteer), BFBs, SES, volunteer ESUs, and volunteer Fire Service Brigades, the ESL does not fund VMRS.1007 Rather, funding of VMRS is via a combination of Government assistance through FESA, fundraising by the groups themselves and local sponsorship arrangements.1008 Nonetheless, according to the Volunteer Marine Rescue Association of WA the amalgamation of VMRS into FESA has been positive as it has “meant secure financial support for the association and its member groups”.1009 This view has been reflected in comments from various FESA VMRS groups around the State. Comments have pertained to additional funding being received by groups as indicated by the Albany, 1010 and Bunbury1011 VMRS groups, greater uniformity and sense of belonging according to the Geraldton Volunteer Sea Rescue Group,1012 and the improvement of equipment under FESA, as cited by West Pilbara Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue.1013
The fact that VMRS funding is provided external to the ESL was commented on by a number of VMRS groups. Mr Eliot Fisher of the Bunbury Sea Rescue Group believes that this arrangement has indirectly benefited VMRS as ESL funding of other groups releases additional funds from FESA’s general revenue for VMRS.1014 Other groups have highlighted the inequity of the arrangement. Even so, it has not been suggested that the ESL be expanded to cover VMRS. Mr Barry Lapham, Commander, Geraldton Volunteer Sea Rescue Group, comments:
1006 Mr Charlie Butcher, Chief Bush Fire Control Officer, Albany Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p2-3. 1007 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/default.aspx?MenuID=185 Accessed on 20/09/2006. 1008 Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Available at: http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/upload/shared/docs/VMRS_web.pdf Accessed on 30/08/2006. 1009 Mr Keith Shadbolt, President, Volunteer Marine Rescue Association of Western Australia, Transcript of Evidence, 12/04/2006, p1. 1010 Mr Noel Francis, President, Albany Volunteer Marine Rescue, Transcript of Evidence, 21/02/2006, p4. 1011 Mr Eliot Fisher, Sea Rescue Skipper, Bunbury Sea Rescue Group, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p3. 1012 Mr Barry Lapham, Commander, Geraldton Volunteer Sea Rescue Group, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p3. 1013 Mr Stuart Robertson, President, West Pilbara Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p1. 1014 Mr Eliot Fisher, Sea Rescue Skipper, Bunbury Sea Rescue Group, Transcript of Evidence, 23/02/2006, p3.
- 249 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
I believe there is a bit of an anomaly there. We had to raise 50 per cent for our rescue vessel, which was not easy - it took a long time - before we could actually purchase that vessel, whereas as you say, if a fire truck went out of action there would be a new one there in a couple of weeks at no cost to the local group. We are the poor relations as far as the FESA family goes, but then we are a late addition. We do not get any of the funding that comes to the local council in rates, for obvious reasons. People in outlying areas would protest greatly, I believe, if they thought they were funding a sea rescue group when they live in Mullewa.1015
On the contrary, where the issue of VMRS funding has been raised, potential mechanisms other than the ESL have been put forward. Mr Lapham supported the concept of a small levy on boat registrations on the basis that an extra $5 for example, on top of current registration costs would not impact greatly on boat owners.1016 Mr Stuart Robertson, President, West Pilbara Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue, similarly supported the idea and emphasised that it was becoming increasingly important to resolve VMRS funding in order to meet modern expectations and requirements:
There should be some sustainable funding model worked out for sea rescue. I am not saying that it should come out of ESL. It could be an imaginative thing like a fee on boat licensing if the government is adamant that ESL is only a land-based tax so it only supports land-based service. Somewhere along the line we really need to consider the funding model, especially given the expectation of the community and the appropriateness of the equipment we need to put in the water. In the old days the boats did not have to be surveyed and they did not have to be a certain standard. We have training levels and equipment levels. There is the cost of that equipment to consider. The latest boat we put on the water was worth over $300 000. We had to get half of that from the community. We rely on local businesses a lot for the equipment that goes on that boat. I believe for sustainability and into the future we should be looking at another model for funding and servicing the marine rescue groups.1017
The MVSRG, which operates independently of FESA’s capital funding program and receives limited government funding largely augments funds through fundraising and sponsorship.1018 Although operating within a different funding environment to other VMRS groups, the MVSRG rejects the concept of ESL funding for VMRS viewing that any increase in the levy to fund VMRS would cause community resentment.1019 Mr Frank Pisani, Fremantle Volunteer Sea Rescue Group (a constituent group of the MVSRG), believed that funding the VMRS through the ESL would impact negatively on VMRS fundraising efforts because the community would perceive that the service was adequately funded under the ESL. 1020
1015 Mr Barry Lapham, Commander, Geraldton Volunteer Sea Rescue Group, Transcript of Evidence, 01/06/2006, p3. 1016 Ibid. 1017 Mr Stuart Robertson, President, West Pilbara Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue, Transcript of Evidence, 08/08/2006, p3. 1018 Mr Roger Howell, Group Liaison Officer, Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group, Transcript of Evidence, 16/08/2006, p8 and associated Dossier of Evidence and Attachments, p15. 1019 Mr Michael Graham, President, Cockburn Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue, Transcript of Evidence, 16/08/2006, p17. 1020 Mr Frank Pisani, Fremantle Volunteer Sea Rescue Group, Transcript of Evidence, 16/08/2006, p17.
- 250 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Committee assessment
The fact that the issues summarised here are peripheral to the “legislative nature” of the Inquiry has meant that the Committee has been able to undertake only a cursory review. In general, the Committee has not made definitive comment regarding future action on the issues raised in this section, except with respect to the Ambulance Service. It views that the current arrangements are inadequate and out-of-step with the other emergency services, particularly in regional and remote Western Australia.
On the basis of some common themes that have emerged in this section, the Committee concludes the following:
§ If Government implements the Committee’s recommendations in Chapter 3 pertaining to fire management planning by CALM, the Department will have a fire management function prescribed under the emergency services legislation. As discussed, whether this provides sufficient recognition for CALM regarding the importance of prescribed burning to land management and biodiversity conservation has not been determined. It also remains to be seen whether CALM’s concerns about liability, given the absence of a legislatively prescribed fire management function under the CALM Act, are justified and whether provisions under the emergency services legislation regarding fire management planning address these concerns. These are matters for the Government to determine.
§ It is evident that serious resourcing deficiencies (both in terms of funding and volunteer recruitment) are impacting on the provision of ambulance services to some rural and remote locations in the State. This situation is unacceptable and warrants detailed investigation to identify issues and solutions. The Ambulance Service is an integral part of the emergency services in this State and should be recognised as such. Ambulance Service volunteers provide an invaluable and essential service to communities.
§ Difficulties associated with recruiting and retaining volunteers and the underlying socio-economic factors are not restricted to emergency services. Even so, a number of common themes have emerged, which if targeted, could benefit emergency services volunteers:
- Training is one area where volunteers across all emergency services streams are required to commit significant time. The Committee concurs that improved training flexibility to accommodate work and personal commitments, would have a positive impact.
- There are apparent deficiencies in the communication of information to volunteers by FESA, which has been reflected in volunteer concerns regarding notification of training programs, changes in management personnel, and the particulars of insurance coverage arrangements. The engagement of a dedicated Volunteer Liaison Officer within FESA has been suggested to improve information dissemination. The Committee understands that FESA has
- 251 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
recently established a community engagement function which it is envisaged will address a number of these issues.
- Other suggestions which may facilitate the recruitment and retention of emergency services volunteers include more targeted recruitment campaigns, raising the profile of volunteers, and improved funding and management of emergency services cadets. On face value, these suggestions would appear to have merit however the Committee does not possess enough information to make definitive comment except to say that these options require further examination.
- There is no doubt that emergency services volunteers provide an invaluable service to the community and should be recognised for their commitment. Whether that should be financial is questionable in the context of this Inquiry. The Committee is cognisant that the concept of a tax rebate is currently being considered by Government.
§ It is critical that volunteers have adequate insurance cover. While a greater degree of uniformity may evolve over time as a consequence of the transfer of the administration of BFBs (and associated insurances) from some local governments to FESA, this still leaves the potential for variable arrangements among those local governments choosing to retain responsibility for BFBs. The Committee recognises a need for the insurances for emergency services volunteers to be reviewed to ensure that insurance cover provided by local government and FESA is comparable in standard and provides adequate and comprehensive cover for volunteers. This may be a project that WALGA and FESA could address jointly.
§ Feedback received from FESA VMRS groups has largely been complimentary of administration arrangements under FESA. While concerns about the inequity of the current funding model for VMRS were only raised by a small number of groups, the Committee acknowledges there may be some validity to concerns surrounding the rising costs of equipment purchase and maintenance and the current reliance of VMRS on community donations and sponsorship. The Committee is satisfied that the ESL may not be the most appropriate mechanism for VMRS funding, and that other alternatives should be explored. Whether a tax on registration is appropriate is a matter for Government to consider.
Recommendation 88
§ Government should conduct a detailed investigation of the adequacy of the Ambulance Service, principally in regional and rural Western Australia.
- 252 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
APPENDIX ONE
BRIEFINGS HELD
Date Name Position Organisation
31/08/2005 Mr Robert Mitchell Chief Executive Fire and Emergency Services Officer Authority of WA
Ms Nicole Gibbs Executive Officer Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA
14/09/2005 Mr Keiran McNamara Chief Executive Department of Conservation Officer and Land Management
Mr Alan Walker Director Regional Department of Conservation Services and Land Management
Mr Des Pearson Auditor General Office of the Auditor General
Mr Peter Wilkins Director Performance Office of the Auditor General Review Division
21/03/2006 Mr Heinz Mueller Executive Officer Office of Emergency Services, Queensland
Mr Greg Mullins Commissioner New South Wales Fire Brigades
Mr John Anderson Deputy Commissioner New South Wales Fire Brigades
Ms Carmel Donnelly Director of Corporate New South Wales Fire Services Brigades
Dr Tony Flemming Deputy Director Department of Conservation General and Environment, New South Wales
Mr Mick O’Flynn Manager Department of Conservation Conservation and Environment, New South Operations Wales
22/03/2006 Mr Phil Koperberg Commissioner New South Wales Rural Fire Service
Mr Trevor Anderson Director New South Wales Rural Fire Administration and Service Finance
- 253 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr Mark Crosweller Executive Director New South Wales Rural Fire Operations Service
23/03/2006 Mr Ian Mitchell Assistant Fire and Rescue Service Commissioner Queensland (Brisbane Region)
Mr Steven O’Reilly Manager Legislative Fire and Rescue Service Review Project Queensland
Mr David Reid Director Legal and Fire and Rescue Service Legislative Services Queensland
Mr Gerard Lawler Assistant Ambulance Service Commissioner Queensland
Mr Mark Dole Executive Officer for Counter Disaster and Rescue the Executive Director Service Queensland
Ms Jackie Malone Director Helicopters Counter Disaster and Rescue Service Queensland
Mr Eddie Bennett Director State Counter Disaster and Rescue Emergency Services Service Queensland
Mr Ralph Carlisle Team Leader Counter Disaster and Rescue Dangerous Goods Service Queensland and Safety
Mr Bruce Grady Special Projects Counter Disaster and Rescue Service Queensland
Dr Michael Logan Manager Scientific Counter Disaster and Rescue Unit Cannon Hill Service Queensland
24/03/2006 Ms Barbara Williams Acting Executive Department of Emergency Director Strategic Services, Queensland Policy and Executive Services Division
Mr David Reid Director of Legal and Department of Emergency Legislative Services Services, Queensland
Mr Andrew Gilroy Secretary Queensland Emergency Services Advisory Council and Rural Fire Advisory Council
29/03/2006 Mr Grahame Searle Chief Executive Department of Land Officer Information
29/03/2006 Mr Mark Carniello Senior Project Cooperative Research Manager Centre/Emergency Management
- 254 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Inspector Corkill Operations Manager Western Australia Police Police Service Communications Centre
Superintendent Divisional Officer for Western Australia Police Lockhart the Communications Service Division, Traffic and Operations Portfolio
Superintendent Traffic and Western Australia Police Langford Operations Portfolio Service
05/04/2006 Mr Bill Hewitt Acting Chief Fire and Emergency Services Executive Officer Authority of WA
Mr Greg Pobar Manager Fire and Emergency Services Coordination Authority of WA
Mr Keith Darbyshire Manager Information Fire and Emergency Services Services Authority of WA
08/05/2006 Inspector Corkill Operations Manager Western Australia Police Police Service Communications Centre
18/09/2006 Ms Jo Harrison-Ward Chief Executive Fire and Emergency Services Officer Authority of WA
Mr Craig Hynes Director Country Fire and Emergency Services Operations Authority of WA
- 255 -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
APPENDIX TWO
WITNESSES TO HEARINGS HELD
Date Name Position Organisation
19/10/2005 Mr Wayne Scheggia Director, Policy Western Australian Local Government Association
Mr Bruce Wittber Policy Manager Western Australian Local Governance Government Association
Mr Nabil Yazdani Principal Policy and Department of Housing and Technical Officer Works
Mr Peter Gow Executive Director Department of Housing and Works
9/11/2005 Mr Robert Mitchell Chief Executive Officer Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA
Mr Craig Hynes Director, Country Fire and Emergency Services Operations Authority of WA
Mr Russell Stevens Director, Fire Services Fire and Emergency Services Metropolitan Authority of WA
Mr Ian Bowden Legal & Legislation Fire and Emergency Services Officer Authority of WA
Mr Colin Williams Manager Fire Safety Fire and Emergency Services Branch Authority of WA
16/11/2005 Mr Kieran McNamara Executive Director Department of Conservation and Land Management
Mr Alan Walker Director Department of Conservation and Land Management
Mr Karl O'Callaghan, Commissioner of Western Australia Police APM Police
Mr Chris Dawson Deputy Commissioner Western Australia Police (Specialist Services)
Senior Sergeant Alan Officer in Charge, Western Australia Police - Eason Emergency Maylands Police Complex Management Unit
23/11/2005 Mr Roger Underwood Bush Fire Front The Bushfire Front Inc.
- 257 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Dr Francis McKinnell Consultant The Bushfire Front Inc.
23/11/2005 Ms Veritas Bryson Executive Director Office of e-Government
Ms Karen Gee Senior Policy Officer, Department of the Premier Office of E- and Cabinet Government
20/02/2006 Mr Stephen Gash Chief Executive Officer Shire of Kojonup
Mr Steve Magini Chief Fire Control Kojonup Bushfire Association Officer
Mr Tim Johnston Deputy Chief Fire Kojonup Bushfire Association Control Officer
Mr Arthur Jones Regional Director Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA - Great Southern
Mr Russell Gould District Manager Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA - Great Southern
Mr Gary Logan State Emergency Fire and Emergency Services Service District Authority of WA - Great Manager Southern
Mr Graham Stanley Chief Executive Officer Shire of Cranbrook
Mr Nicholas Burges President Shire of Cranbrook
Mr Ron Denney Chief Bushfire Control Shire of Cranbrook Officer
21/02/2006 Mr Robert Fenn Executive Director City of Albany
Mr Stephen Gray Bush Fire Control City of Albany Officer
Mr Charlie Butcher Chief Bush Fire Albany Volunteer Bush Fire Control Officer Brigade
Mr Noel Francis President Albany Volunteer Marine Rescue
Ms Joanne Weekes Local Manager Albany State Emergency Service
Dr John Watson Regional Manager Department of Conservation and Land Management
- 258 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
21/02/2006 Mr Greg Broomhall Regional Fire Department of Conservation Coordinator and Land Management
Mr Martin Lloyd Regional Leader Department of Conservation and Land Management
Cr Ken Pech Councillor Shire of Gnowangerup
Mr Kevin Forbes President Shire of Plantagenet and Great Southern Zone of the Western Australian Local Government Association
22/02/2006 Mr Vernon McKay Chief Executive Officer Shire of Manjimup
Mr John Connor Chief Bush Fire Shire of Manjimup Control Officer
Mr Peter Keppel Regional Manager Department of Conservation and Land Management
Mr Dennis Barnsby Captain Eastbrook Bush Fire Brigade
Mr Ian Bennett Local Manager State Emergency Service
23/02/2006 Mr John Kowal Manager, Law and City of Bunbury Safety Services
Mr Robert Chandler Regional Manager Department of Conservation and Land Management
Mr John Tillman Regional Fire Department of Conservation Coordinator and Land Management
Mr Greg McKay Regional Director Fire and Emergency Services South West Authority of WA - South West
Mr Eliot Fisher Sea Rescue Skipper Bunbury Sea Search and Rescue Group
Mr Ian Axell Local Manager Bunbury State Emergency Service
24/02/2006 Ms Christine Deputy President Shire of Murray, and Thompson Chairperson Local Emergency Management Committee
24/02/2006 Mr James Camplin Chief Bush Fire Shire of Murray Control Officer
Mr Kevin Jones Captain Pinjarra Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service
- 259 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr Ray Flatt Senior Firefighter Coolup Bush Fire Brigade
Mr Maurice Leach Captain Coolup Bush Fire Brigade
Mr Shane Woods Captain West Murray Bush Fire Brigade
12/04/2006 Mr Keith Shadbolt President Volunteer Marine Rescue Association of Western Australia
Mr David Bowers Secretary United Firefighters Union of WA
3/05/2006 Mr John McDougall General Executive The Western Australian Member Farmers Federation (Inc)
Mr Julian Breheny Grains, Executive WA Farmers Federation Officer
Mr Ray Sousa Ranger, Emergency Town of Kwinana Services Coordinator and Chief Bush Fire Officer
10/05/2006 Mr Phillip Petersen, President State Emergency Service ESM Volunteers Association
Mr Hugh Thomson Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA
Dr Henry Esbenshade Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA
Mrs Ruth C. Webb- Pastoralists and Graziers Smith Association of WA
17/05/2006 Dr Beth Schultz Conservation Council of WA
Mr Cameron Poustie Principal Solicitor Environmental Defender's Office (WA)
29/05/2006 Cr Ian Carpenter Deputy Mayor City of Geraldton
Mr Graham Little Chief Executive Officer Shire of Three Springs
Mr Geoff Shoemark Executive Manager City of Geraldton Environmental and Infrastructure Services
Mr Richard Maslen Chief Bush Fire Shire of Greenough Control Officer
- 260 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
1/06/2006 Mr Mark Jones Unit Manager Geraldton-Greenough State Emergency Service
Mr Craig Chadwick Unit Manager Morawa State Emergency Service
Mr Barry Lapham Commander Geraldton Volunteer Sea Rescue Group
Mr Rudolph Wille Deputy Commander Geraldton Volunteer Sea Rescue Group
Mr Kelly Gillen Regional Manager Department of Conservation and Land Management
Mr Anthony Desmond Regional Leader, Department of Conservation Nature Conservation and Land Management
Mr Matthew Merritt Captain Geraldton Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service
Mr Gordon Purvis Fire Services District Fire and Emergency Services Manager Authority
Mr David Parkin Station Fire and Emergency Services Officer/Firefighter - Authority Supervisor
Ms Allison Henss Fire Services Station Fire and Emergency Services Officer Authority
8/06/2006 Mr Ronald Scantlebury Manager Shire of Esperance Administration Services
Cr Ian Mickel Shire President Shire of Esperance
Mr Tom Brown Farmer Esperance Bush Fire Brigade
Mr David Green Captain Esperance Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service
Mr Stuart McIntyre Area Manager Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA, Esperance
9/06/2006 Mr Klaus Tiedemann Esperance District Department of Conservation Manager and Land Management
Mr Gavin Wornes Fire Coordinator Department of Conservation and Land Management
Mr Keith Rowe Local Manager State Emergency Service
- 261 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr Stuart Taylor Chief Executive Officer Shire of Ravensthorpe
Mr Rodney Daw Chief Bushfire Control Shire of Ravensthorpe Officer
Mr Gary Webster Ravensthorpe Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service
14/06/2006 Dr Roy Green Chairman, Committee Environmental Protection for the Review into Fire Authority in the Kimberley and Inland Regions of Western Australia
Mr Vincent McMullen Director Planning Department for Planning and Reform Infrastructure
Mr Paul Hayes Senior Policy and Department for Planning and Legal Officer Infrastructure
21/06/2006 Mr Terence Hunter President Assocation of Volunteer Bushfire Brigades of WA (Inc)
Mr Edward Van Honorary Secretary Assocation of Volunteer Rijnswoud Bushfire Brigades of WA (Inc)
Mr Max Osborn Secretary WA Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service Association (Inc)
28/06/2006 Mr Kevin Cuneo Director, Operational Fire and Emergency Services Resourcing Authority
Mr Bill Hewitt A/Chief Executive Fire and Emergency Services Officer Authority
Mr Sandro Piscicelli Manager, Commercial Water Corporation Pricing
Mr Peter Moore A/Chief Executive Water Corporation Officer
Mr Peter Armanasco Regional Business Water Corporation Manager, Perth Region
Mr Geoffrey Oddy Chief Executive Officer Aqwest
Mr Barry Jeffrey Manager, Client Busselton Water Services
- 262 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
4/07/2006 Mr Peter Stubbs Chief Executive Officer Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley
Mr Gary King Ranger and Chief Shire of Wyndham East Bushfire Controller Kimberley
Mr Lincoln Heading Unit Manager Kununurra State Emergency Service
Mr Andrew Ogilvie Captain Kununurra Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service
Mr Graeme Down District Manager Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA
Ms Lynn Carter Volunteer Officer in Wyndham Emergency Charge Services Unit
Mr Peter Cann Acting Director Fire and Emergency Services Country North Authority of WA
Mr Tony Stevenson District Manager Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA
Mrs Anne Koeyers Chairperson North Kimberley Land Conservation District Committee
6/07/2006 Mr Robert Smillie A/Chief Executive Shire of Halls Creek Officer
Mr Tony Morley Executive Manager, Shire of Halls Creek Regulatory Services
Ms Lynette Craig Councillor/Pastoralist Shire of Halls Creek
Mr Brian Harris Captain Halls Creek Emergency Services Unit
Mr Kevin White Regional Fire Department of Conservation Coordinator, Kimberley and Land Management
Mr Edward Hatherley Regional Fire Department of Conservation Operations Officer - and Land Management Kimberley
7/7/2006 Mr John Abbott Senior Ranger CALM Department of Conservation and Land Management
Mr Andrew Twaddle Officer in Charge Fitzroy Crossing Emergency Services Unit
- 263 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
8/8/2006 Mr Stuart Robertson President West Pilbara Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue
Mr Terrance Swetman Team Leader Karratha State Emergency Service
Mrs Kathryn Swetman Acting Rescue Officer Karratha State Emergency Service
Mr John Lorantas Captain Dampier Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service
Mr Michael Booth Captain Karratha Volunteer Fire and Rescue Servi ce
Mr Guy Thompson Director Technical and Shire of Roebourne Development Services
Mr Michael Werts Emergency Response Woodside Energy Ltd. Manager
Mr Gino Zaza Emergency Response Woodside Energy Ltd. Coordinator, Karratha Gas Plant
10/08/2006 Mr Vaughan Price Captain South Hedland Fire and Rescue Service
Mr Matthew Scott Acting Chief Executive Town of Port Hedland Officer
Mr Peter Wilden Ranger-Coordinator Town of Port Hedland Ranger Services
Cr Desmond Pike Councillor Town of Port Hedland
Mr Richard O’Connell Regional Manager BHP Billiton Iron Ore Public and Community Affairs
Mr Graham Locker Coordinator BHP Billiton Iron Ore Emergency Services
16/08/2006 Ms Kerry Fitzgerald President Fremantle Volunteer Sea Rescue Group
Mr Michael Graham President Cockburn Volunteer Sea Search and Rescue
Mr Roger Howell Group Liaison Officer Whitfords Volunteer Sea Rescue Group
- 264 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr Frank Pisani Member Fremantle Volunteer Sea Rescue Group
30/08/2006 Mr Simon Bowen Manager Community Shire of Mundaring Safety
Mrs Fiona Bentley Director Community City of Wanneroo Development
Mr Michael Barry Manager Ranger and City of Wanneroo Safety Services
- 265 -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
APPENDIX THREE
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED
Date Name Position Organisation
10/02/ 2005 Mr G.J. Little CEO Three Springs Shire Council
24/02/ 2005 Mr Michael Barry Manager Ranger and City of Wanneroo Safety Services
30/03/ 2005 Ms Jane Blackwood Coordinator Kimberley Regional Fire Management Project Inc.
9/09/2005 Mr Bernie Masters
19/09/2005 Mr Richard Gates General Manager Perth Airport Airports
27/09/2005 Mr D Carew-Hopkins A/Director General Department of Environment
4/10/2005 Mr Bob Thomas Acting Director General Department of Housing and Works
7/10/2005 Mr Peter Kneebone
10/10/2005 AA Lewis
11/10/2005 Mr Garry Meinck Chief Operating Officer Water Corporation
21/09/2005 Mr Maurice Battilana Chief Executive Officer Shire of Chapman Valley
13/10/2005 Mr Neil Hartley Chief Executive Officer Town of Kwinana
12/10/2005 Ms Carol Zimmerman Volunteer Bushfires Brigade Member
12/10/2005 Mr Robert Mitchell Chief Executive Officer Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA
23/11/2005 Mr Robert Mitchell Chief Executive Officer Fire and Emergency Services Authority of WA
- 267 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
13/10/2005 Mr John Walker Acting Secretary United Firefighters Union of WA
13/10/2005 Mr John Bonker Chief Executive Officer Town of Victoria Park
6/10/2005 Mr Henry Vander Ende Chief Executive Officer Shire of Mingenew
14/10/2005 Mr Trevor De President The Western Australian Landgrafft Farmers Federation (Inc)
14/10/2005 Ms Gillian Martelli Acting Director, City of Mandurah Community and Economic Development
17/10/2005 Mr Grahame Searle Chief Executive Department of Land Information
10/10/2005 Mr Wayne Wright Acting Chief Executive City of Wanneroo Officer
14/10/2005 Mr Wayne Scheggia Director Policy Western Australian Local Government Association
17/10/2005 Mr John Kowal Manager Law and City of Bunbury Safety Services
17/10/2005 Ms Jo Bryson Executive Director Department of the Premier and Cabinet
17/10/2005 Mr Keiran McNamara Executive Director Department of Conservation and Land Management
17/10/2005 Mr Ray Stokes Acting Secretary Western Australian Planning Commission
12/10/2005 Mr Gordon Temby Chief Bushfire Control Augusta Margaret Officer River Shire
14/10/2005 Mr Graham Merrick Chief Executive Officer Shire of Toodyay
24/10/2005 Mr Gary Sherry Chief Executive Officer Shire of Coorow
26/10/005 Cr Ian West President Northern Country Zone of the WA Local Government Association
- 268 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
1/11/2005 Mr Karl O'Callaghan, Commissioner of Police Western Australia APM Police
7/11/2005 Mr Roger Underwood Chairman The Bushfire Front Inc.
7/11/2005 Mr Simon Bowen Manager Shire of Mundaring
11/11/2005 Ms Anne Koeyers Chair North Kimberley Land Conservation District Committee
18/11/2005 Ms Bindi Thomson Policy Director Pastoralists and Graziers Association
28/11/2005 Ms Leigh Simpkin Principal Solicitor Environmental Defender's Office WA (Inc)
30/11/2005 Mr Stuart Billingham Manager Finance and Shire of Northam Administration
29/11/2005 Mr Ray Sousa Chief Bush Fire Control Town of Kwinana Officer
30/11/2005 Mr Stephen Gash Chief Executive Officer Shire of Kojonup
20/02/2006 Mr Barry Jones Regional Director- Fire and Emergency Great Southern Services Authority of WA - Great Southern
20/12/2006 Mr Grahame Stanley Chief Executive Officer Shire of Cranbrook
21/06/2006 Mr Charlie Butcher Chief Fire Control Albany Volunteer Bush Officer Fire Brigade
21/02/2006 Cr Kevin Forbes President Shire of Plantagenet
15/05/2006 Mr Michael Archer Chief Executive Officer Shire of Esperance
18/05/2006 Mr RW Jefferies Chief Executive Officer City of Geraldton
29/05/2006 Mr Rich Maslen, AM, Chief Bush Fire Control Shire of Greenough AFSM Officer
6/06/2006 Dr Beth Schultz Vice President Conservation Council of WA
22/06/2006 Mr Eddie van Honorary Secretary Assocation of Rijnswoud Volunteer Bushfire Brigades of WA Inc.
- 269 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
14/08/2006 Dr Beth Schultz Vice President Conservation Council of WA
10/08/2006 Mr Rob Rogers Assistant NSW Rural Fire Commissioner Service
9/08/2006 Ms Moya Newman Indigenous Programs Co-ordinator
7/04/2006 Ms Jo Bryson Executive Director Office of e- Government, Department of the Premier & Cabinet
6/07/2006 Mr Tony Morley Executive Manager Shire of Halls Creek Regulatory Services
8/08/2006 Mr Trevor Patton Unit Manager Karratha/Dampier State Emergency Service
16/08/2006 Mr Mike Graham Commander Cockburn Volunteer Sea Search & Rescue
1/09/2006 Mr John Pearson Chief Executive Officer Shire of Derby West Kimberley
- 270 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
APPENDIX FOUR
LEGISLATION
Legislation State (or Country)
Building Regulations 1989 Western Australia
Bush Fires Act 1954 Western Australia
Bushfires Act 2004 Northern Territory
City of Brisbane Act 1924 Queensland
Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 Western Australia
Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 Western Australia
Country Fire Authority Act 1958 Victoria
Emergencies Act 2004 Australian Capital Territory
Emergency Management Act 1986 Victoria
Emergency Management Act 2005 Western Australia
Emergency Management Regulations 2006 Western Australia
Environmental Protection Act 1986 Western Australia
Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 South Australia
Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Western Australia Act 1998
Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 Queensland
Fire Brigades Act 1942 Western Australia
Fire Brigades Act 1989 New South Wales
Fire Brigades Regulations 1943 Western Australia
Fire Service Act 1979 Tasmania
Forests Act 1918 (repealed) Western Australia
Forests Act 1958 Victoria
- 271 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND JUSTICE STANDING COMMITTEE
Health Act 1911 Western Australia
Hunter Water Act 1991 New South Wales
Land Administration Act 1997 Western Australia
Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Tasmania Provisions) Act 1993
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Western Australia 1998
Local Government Act 1993 New South Wales
Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage, and Western Australia Drainage Act 1909
Native Title Act 1993 Commonwealth
Nature Conservation Act 1992 Queensland
Planning and Development Act 2005 Western Australia
Power and Water Corporation Act 2002 Northern Territory
Rural Fires Act 1997 New South Wales
Rural Fires Regulation 2002 New South Wales
Sydney Water Act 1994 New South Wales
Utilities Act 2000 Australian Capital Territory
Water Act 1989 Victoria
Water Act 2000 Queensland
Water Boards Act 1904 Western Australia
Water Management Act 1999 Tasmania
Water Management Act 2000 New South Wales
Waterworks Act 1932 South Australia
Waterworks Clauses Act 1952 Tasmania
- 272 -