SUBMISSIONS
This chapter provides an overview of the written submissions received in response to the Commission’s public invitation. Emphasis is placed on those submissions relevant to the topics that have been dealt with in the first block of hearings, namely, warnings, communications and the Prepare, Stay and Defend or Leave Early policy, the ‘stay or go’ policy. The extracts from sample submissions are provided for illustrative purposes. The Commission does not express any views on any of the submissions referred to but comments on their overall value to the Commission’s work.
THE SUBMISSIONS PROCESS
3.1 On 18 March 2009 written submissions were invited from any person or organisation with information relevant to at least one of the Commission’s terms of reference (TOR).1 The Commission’s guidelines stated that submissions could contain factual information, opinions or both, and that observations and recommendations were welcomed on what worked well in relation to the February fires, what did not work well, and what could have been done differently to prevent the tragedies of 7 February.
3.2 There was no set format for submissions, but each author was required to complete a cover sheet to acknowledge that the submission would be treated as a public document, could be published on the Commission’s website, and could be quoted or referenced in reports.
3.3 A small number of individuals and organisations requested that their submission, or parts thereof, be treated as confidential. Requests for confidentiality were few, with reasons given including:
• protecting pending patent applications for a commercial product
• business owners needing to comply with contractual arrangements
• health care workers wishing to protect patient privacy.
3.4 The Commission received over 1260 submissions by 18 May 2009, which was set as the cut-off date for submissions to be considered for the interim report. Some of the submissions focused on one or two topics while others considered a variety of topics. Some authors contributed more than one submission.
3.5 Each submission has been read and reviewed by the Commission. The submissions varied greatly in length and included a range of attachments such as photographs, maps, graphs, books or other printed material, DVDs and CDs. After careful review submissions have been posted on the Commission’s website.
3.6 The Commission continues to receive and review submissions and will share them with the broader community through its website. Those received after 18 May will be considered for the Commission’s further work and its final report. The Commission is not able to personally respond to each author but publicly extends its appreciation to all who have contributed to the Commission’s work through written submissions.
THE Value of submissions
3.7 The submissions provided a pool of valuable resources from which to draw when identifying individuals or organisations with expertise relevant to the Commission’s inquiry.
3.8 The personal stories recounted in some submissions provided the Commission with a means of sourcing people who might wish to give evidence before the Commission as lay witnesses. Twelve of the 29 lay witnesses who gave evidence in the first hearing block (May–July 2009) were identified through the submissions process.
3.9 The submissions also played an important role in enabling the Commission to hear from the broader community. They illustrated the wide range of opinion on some matters and presented valuable insights on critical issues. Some submissions provided insight into complex technical issues, while others alerted the Commission to relevant research or technology that is already available.
3.10 The Commission received many submissions on commercial products. The role of the Commission is not to sponsor, endorse or trial commercial products; the fire authorities undertake this role. Submissions with information about commercial products will be made available to the fire authorities for their further consideration.
SUBMISSION Demographics
3.11 The Commission received submissions from across Victoria, from people residing in both fire-affected and unaffected areas, from around Australia, and from other countries including New Zealand, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain and Slovenia. Authors from the broader international community offered personal thoughts on the fires, words of support and encouragement, academic insights and expertise, and information regarding commercial products such as early warning systems and aerial firefighting hardware.
3.12 A broad spectrum of people and organisations provided submissions and presented an extraordinary range of views, ideas or interests — religious, philosophical, academic, scientific, technical or commercial.
3.13 A significant number of older members of the community contributed submissions. Some authors declared their age, while others recounted personal experiences during earlier historic fires in Australia, such as the 1939 bushfires in Victoria on Black Friday and the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires in Victoria and South Australia. There appeared to be fewer submissions by younger people.
3.14 The Commission is aware from its community consultation process that many tourist-related businesses and other businesses were directly affected by the fires through loss of property, staff members, customers and colleagues. However, tourism bodies, related businesses, and other fire-affected businesses were under-represented in the submissions received by 18 May.
Submissions by town and fire
3.15 When submissions were grouped according to one of the 12 fire events within the ambit of the Commission’s inquiry, half related to the impact of the Kilmore East fire and another quarter to the Murrindindi fire.2 Figure 3.1 shows the breakdown of submissions by reference to each fire.
3.16 Some submissions were specific to particular towns or fires, while others were of a more general application. For those submissions that were town specific, the highest numbers pertained to Kinglake and Marysville.
Figure 3.1: Submissions by fire events
CLICK FOR IMAGE
Recurring themes in submissions
3.17 Authors were asked to identify which of the Commission’s TOR their submission addressed. They often covered more than one TOR.
3.18 The second TOR (TOR 2), concerning planning and preparation for bushfires in Victoria, was most often listed by authors. The next most popular TOR concerned the causes and circumstances of the 2009 Victorian bushfires (TOR 1), followed by all aspects of the response to the fires (TOR 3).
3.19 Some issues appeared frequently in the submissions. These included the ‘stay or go’ policy; weather and climate change as a cause of the fires; fuel reduction; roadblocks; bunkers; refuges; the coordination of the response to the fires; and the provision of relief to people affected by the fires.
3.20 Against the background of the Commission’s TOR, the submissions were categorised according to issues that were frequently raised in the community consultations held during March and April 2009 (Chapter 2). Fifteen key topics were identified:
• What happened — causes and circumstances of the fires
• Emergency management of the fires
• Fire detection (including alternative systems)
• Warnings
• ‘Stay or go’ (including evacuation and fire refuges)
• Fire preparedness (including preparing and defending homes and clearing vegetation)
• Planning and local government
• Fuel reduction and prescribed burning (including vegetation management on public land)
• Building and rebuilding
• Emergency communications (Triple Zero and other emergency service calls)
• Essential services during and after the fires (including power, water and phone coverage)
• Economic cost of the fires
• Roads (including roadblocks and inaccessibility of roads during and after the fires)
• Insurance
• Recovery efforts (including relief centres, coordination and Coroner’s Office).
3.21 Of these 15 topics:
• Fuel reduction/prescribed burning generated the most submissions (485)
• Fire preparedness and warnings both featured in 430 submissions
• Fire detection was the least considered topic (61 submissions).
3.22 A significant number of submissions covered more than one key topic and some individuals and organisations made multiple submissions, sometimes on the same topic.
3.23 Figure 3.2 charts the number of submissions for each of the key topics, in descending order of significance.
Figure 3.2: Submissions to the Commission, organised by key topics
CLICK FOR IMAGE
3.24 A sample selection of views, comments, offers of assistance and suggestions outlined in the submissions are presented here according to these 15 key topics. The quotations not only provide insight into and detail about each topic, but also serve to illustrate the thoughtful and informative material presented to the Commission.
Causes and circumstances of the bushfires
3.25 A number of submissions stated that a contributing cause of the fires was climate change and requested that further action be taken to reduce the effects of climate change. The CSIRO noted in its submission that:
Climate change may affect: the occurrence of high-risk fire weather conditions; the characteristics of the natural vegetation which provides fuel for fires; the effectiveness of existing tools, strategies and approaches for managing and controlling bushfires.3
3.26 In many submissions, the extreme weather conditions were identified as a cause of the fires. For example, the Victorian Landcare Council highlighted:
... three crucial facts: 47 degrees temperature (115 Fahrenheit), 120 km/hr winds and relative humidity of 6%. ... That these conditions followed two weeks of >40 degrees heatwave, that in turn followed an unusually wet November–December and lots of late spring–early summer growth, after a decade of drought, made for an explosive tinderbox and an unprecedented Fire Danger Index.4
3.27 Many submission authors attributed the cause of the fires to the build up of fuel. It was suggested by some that there should be an increase in fuel reduction practices as a fire prevention strategy. The Victorian Association of Forest Industries stated that regular forest fuel reduction would:
… result in reduced levels of fuel material that produce burning embers and will reduce both the potential for spotting ahead of the main fire front and the impact on structures in the face of the fire.5
3.28 Some submission authors proposed tougher penalties for arsonists and litterbugs. Other submissions called for the implementation of a monitoring system for known arsonists, to be used on Total Fire Ban days as a deterrent.
3.29 On the issue of powerlines, discontent was expressed about above-ground positioning of powerlines and the use of wooden poles in fire-risk areas.
3.30 A number of submissions from individuals recounted their personal experiences of the fires. This provided the Commission with a basis for understanding the location, ferocity, timing and spread of the fires, and the steps people took to survive.
Emergency management of the fires
3.31 Issues with the coordination among the Country Fire Authority (CFA), the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB), and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) were raised in a number of submissions. Some authors suggested there should be one organisation designated to respond to fires, irrespective of where they start.
3.32 Many submissions stated that CFA volunteers needed more training, support and resources, though in most instances the CFA was congratulated for its efforts. There were many expressions of gratitude and praise for the CFA, such as the following statement on behalf of the Scout Association’s Camp Site ‘Camp Warringal’:
… we have nothing but praise for the CFA and ‘Elvis’ for all their assistance on the day of the fires; without ‘Elvis’ we would have lost a lot more than 100’s of trees and two buildings, had it not been for our committee and the CFA’s vigilance days after putting out the spot fires we probably would have lost the lot.6
Fire detection and alternative warning systems
3.33 A small number of submission authors suggested the use of spatial technologies for fire management. These included satellites using thermal technology to provide fire detection information, and aerial vehicles to gather and relay accurate information instantly. For example, Mr David Gamble of Acheron stated in his submission that, ‘existing “line scan” fire mapping technology is outdated and episodic’. He went on to suggest the use of unmanned aerial vehicles equipped with thermal infra-red imaging equipment to provide real time data.7
Warnings
3.34 There were 430 submissions that focused on warnings. Many authors stated that official warnings were not received or were sent too late to be of assistance to residents of individual towns. Mrs Renee Visentin of Kinglake wrote:
[The] entire official warning system that people relied on failed on the day.8
3.35 A few submissions presented suggestions about ways in which warnings should be released. For example, the Victorian Council of Social Services argued that:
… emergency warning systems need to communicate effectively and in a timely manner with the whole community … they need to be delivered in multiple formats to ensure that people with a range of disabilities ... including mobility difficulties, are able to make appropriate choices about evacuation.9
Similarly, the Disability Emergency Advocacy Group noted in its submission that emergency warning systems need to:
… reach people with visual or hearing impairments, and those who do not understand English.10
3.36 Some submissions commented on the provision of warnings via SMS, sirens, and television:
• The Ferny Creek Bushfire Alert Committee stressed in its submission that:
… reliance on any single information source is fraught with danger because any and all information sources will fail.11
This submission emphasised the value of incorporating sirens into community alert systems, coupled with appropriate community education as to what the siren means.
• Nillumbik Climate Action Now suggested the use of:
… a targeted communication system similar to Western Australia, where people under threat from fire are called by telephone and told to evacuate and given information regarding safe exit points and areas to evacuate.12
• Mr Shane Moore of Traralgon proposed that:
… in times of emergency, all broadcasters (radio and television) be obliged to announce at regular intervals or by means of a scrolling/displayed notice (for television) of the frequencies on which emergency broadcasts are being made. This should be the case, especially for those broadcasters (mostly commercial broadcasters) who would not normally be willing to suspend their normal service to provide emergency services broadcasting, although the federal minister has the power to direct any broadcaster to oblige to satisfying the needs of emergency services organisations wishing to communicate with the population.13
• The Mount Pleasant Community Fireguard Group, and Mr Max Garner, Leader of 9437 Fireguard Group, discussed in their submissions the trial of an automated telephone polling system that enables all telephone numbers registered in a telephone tree to be connected to an alert message within a few minutes. This system is linked to the Research CFA fire station, which enables the fire captain there to activate North Warrandyte and Mount Pleasant Community Fireguard telephone trees in the event of a fire in the area.14
3.37 Some submissions presented the view that there was a lack of common sense shown by some residents in fire-affected areas, and that these residents did not take responsibility for themselves. Mr Stuart Strachan of Callignee wrote:
… one of the best support networks is the community itself and staying indoors on a potentially disastrous day does not support or contribute to the local community.15
3.38 Many noted that the warnings given in the days leading up to 7 February were sufficient. For example, Mr David Baker-Gabb of St Andrews wrote:
[My] family was well warned of the impending severe wildfire weather in the three days before 7 February by a range of authorities from the Premier down. Consequently I took the whole of Friday 6 February off work to ‘fine tune’ our fire preparations. I suggest that the level of warning was adequate for our family’s needs.16
3.39 Others considered the general warnings about 7 February to be adequate, though specific warnings were lacking. Mr Stan Larner of Buxton stated:
Despite this obvious threat of fire to the Buxton community, there had been no official warning given that Buxton [itself] was under threat.17
3.40 There were suggestions from some that an explanation of the anticipated fire risk beyond Total Fire Ban day would make warnings more effective and allow people to better implement their fire plans. These submission authors sought a classification system of fire intensity beyond the current ‘Low’, ‘Moderate’, ‘High’, ‘Very High’ and ‘Extreme’. It was also suggested that there should be an explanation of the Forest Fire Danger Index and Grass Fire Danger Index, or a numerical rating like that used for cyclone warnings.
3.41 Some submission authors took issue with the quality of the information available via the CFA and DSE websites, the Victorian Bushfire Information Line (VBIL) and 774 ABC Radio. Submissions noted the lack of timely information on the CFA and DSE websites, as well as problems with the layout of the information. Others were unable to access these websites due to local area network failures. Mr Geoffrey Raftery of Strathewen stated that often when he tried to check fire update pages on the internet, he received the message, ‘server timed out’.18
3.42 Some submissions noted that operators taking telephone calls at VBIL lacked local knowledge and were unable to supply up-to-date information on the status of the fires. Mrs Bronwyn McLaren of St Andrews wrote:
Training needs to include the bushfire info line being aware of maps and locations. So many times after Black Saturday, for further outbreaks, we would ring up to find out if we were under threat. We would tell the operator on the bushfire info hotline that we were in St Andrews and they had no idea where we were. They would try to give us info for Gippsland, so clearly they had no idea of our location and what fires we needed to be aware of.19
3.43 Submissions recorded both an appreciation for and a dissatisfaction with the coverage of the fires on 774 ABC Radio. Some stated that some of the information broadcast was out-of-date or incorrect. Others suggested the use of local radio and foreign language stations to broadcast emergency information, in conjunction with 774 ABC Radio, particularly in areas where there is no ABC reception. The National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcaster’s Council submitted that:
… community radio can play a vital role during any emergency. Community radio has the distinct advantage of having local knowledge, understanding the local geography and the people that live in the community.20
3.44 The naming of fires by fire agencies, based on the point of origin of the fire, gave people a false sense of where the fire actually was. This comment applied to all warnings and information, whether delivered via websites, VBIL or 774 ABC Radio. Mr Mark Stephenson of Bundoora wrote:
Fire information on the CFA website refers to the point of origin of a fire … Thus the Kilmore complex fire remained with that name, despite the fact that the fire had moved a considerable distance from its origin and was threatening townships some considerable distance away from the point of origin. The naming protocol, in my view, provided false information of the status of the fire, particularly in relation to its location.21
Stay or go, evacuation and refuges
3.45 There were 326 submissions that addressed the ‘stay or go’ policy, relocation and fire refuges. Various submissions indicated that there was confusion, misinformation or a lack of information regarding what the ‘stay or go’ policy means, in particular as to what ‘leave early’ means. Ms Tammy Lobato MP, Member for Gembrook, stated:
… [many] people thought that ‘leave early’ meant leaving before a fire actually arrived at a township.22
3.46 The main issue people raised in relation to the policy was the difficulty in understanding what it meant in practice — when is the right time to go and where do you go if you are unable to leave the area? The United Firefighters Union of Australia questioned:
… [how] can a member of the community with no firefighting background know about how to plan an evacuation when a threat is imminent, and when it is appropriate and safe to leave?23
3.47 Some submissions focused on the use of household and community fire refuges. Mr Geoffrey Mortimer and Mrs Nancy Mortimer of St Andrews spoke of a house design that included a fire-resistant pantry as a bushfire shelter that:
... ultimately saved the lives of 5 people and a dog when utilised in the Black Saturday fire.24
3.48 The submission from the Yackandandah Fire Brigade stated that:
... policies regarding community emergency refuges needs [sic] to be reviewed so that such areas can be designated and maintained for both residents and visitors.25
3.49 A number of people expressed a desire that they have the right to decide whether to stay. A smaller number thought that the introduction of forced evacuations would save lives; some people suggested that there be mandatory evacuations only on Total Fire Ban days with a particularly high fire danger index rating.
3.50 Other submission authors commented on a perceived degree of apathy in the community. These authors stated that residents needed to take more responsibility for their own safety. Some submissions noted the problems that arose when people with an inadequate or no ‘stay’ plan did not have enough warning to be able to leave safely.
Fire preparedness
3.51 A large number of submissions reflected dissatisfaction with current council rules limiting the removal of trees, shrubs and dead wood from private property. Many of the authors sought regulations that allowed landowners to prepare their properties for the fire season. The Victorian National Parks Association stated that:
… [laws] regulating the removal of native vegetation on private land are an important element of biodiversity protection in Victoria. Reasonable exemptions should be available for landowners to undertake fire protection measures.26
3.52 The need for individuals to fire proof their own homes was noted by Mrs Lynlee Tozer of St Andrews, who submitted that:
… [more] homes are made unsafe due to general household build-up and domestic gardens, or from lack of preparedness by ensuring a home is impenetrable to embers, than they are from any other cause … my home was one such dwelling that was not sufficiently prepared prior to Black Saturday.27
3.53 Many of the submissions that reported personal accounts of the fires, and how residents prepared their homes, properties and families for bushfires, made reference to tanks, pumps and pipes. For example, Mr Terence McManus of Frankston wrote:
... I was concerned that the water tank bought for the purpose of fighting fires was plastic. It is a basic common fact that plastic melts in high temperatures, let alone the enormous temperatures resulting from severe fire events. In the same vein, plastic or PVC fittings, such as the piping along the guttering designed to keep water in that guttering, will also melt. The pump purchased to pump the water to the piped guttering system was underpowered for the job and worse, had a plastic fuel tank and was petrol powered. The LP gas tank for domestic use within the brick veneer home was placed directly next to an exterior wall.28
3.54 A few submissions referred to preparations for future fires. For example, Mr Drew Adamson of Yarra Glen stated:
… [watering] systems should be installed on all roof tops with metal pipe to ensure that they survive the heat intensity, or be built into the roof frame with metal sprayer sprinklers, on the top and sides. An external watering system should be set up a distance away from the house with heat sensors.29
3.55 The need for more and improved fire education was often mentioned in submissions, as was the usefulness of CFA meetings, Community Fireguard training and phone trees to communicate with others and warn them of approaching fires. The voluntary nature of training for the bulk of CFA members was expressed as a concern, as was the fact that current training is only suited to ‘normal’ fires. Some submissions reported the view that such training is unsuitable for particularly intense fires and leaves people unprepared and unable to make informed choices about their safety during extreme bushfires.
Planning and local government
3.56 A large number of submissions reflected dissatisfaction with local council policies about the need for permits to remove trees, the restrictions on vegetation clearing, and the favouring of native versus European flora. A large number of submissions advocated a change in local council regulations to allow people to clear to a safe distance around their homes. Mr Liam Sheahan of Reedy Creek wrote:
There needs to be serious revision of the planning laws, particularly relating to the removal of native vegetation. More credence should be given to local knowledge and landholders should be able to manage their own property without being bullied and victimised by local government.30
3.57 A small number of submissions described a concern that there could be extensive vegetation removal if further clearing was allowed. Also, the amenity of their local areas would be reduced by extensive fuel reduction practices on private property. Mr Tim Connell and Ms Anna Bunbury of Kinglake stated:
[We] are extremely concerned regarding the apparent swiftness with which native vegetation controls are being progressed ... [and] that these will not be given sufficient and measured consideration to the detriment of future communities and ecological values.31
3.58 Other submissions on this topic highlighted concerns regarding insufficient green waste collection; the extent of existing native tree-planting programs; councils’ fuel reduction burns; and the perceived reluctance of councils to take responsibility for vegetation clearing and fuel reduction. For example, the submission from Mr Geoff Bruckard of Warburton noted that:
… local residents … should be encouraged to dump green waste in council recycling facilities from where it can be recycled into mulch. The current prohibitive costs of dumping such waste will inevitably lead to such waste not being removed from properties, it being dumped in the bush or being burnt in a non-environmentally friendly way which increases the risks of bushfires.32
Fuel reduction, DSE, prescribed burning
3.59 Generally submissions on this topic raised concerns about the effects of prescribed burning on flora, fauna and on climate change. Many submissions called for further investigation and evidence about the effectiveness of fuel reduction, and its effect on flora and fauna. Equally, there were many submissions stating that the benefits were obvious. Ms Jenny Lau of Briar Hill called for a multi-faceted approach:
Prescribed burning will be a necessary component of most fire risk management plans but the community cannot rely on prescribed burning as the only solution to the increased risk of wildfire predicted under climate change scenarios.33
3.60 Many submission authors advocated the use of fuel reduction burns. The submission of the Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia stated:
... there is no doubt that wildfires burning in low fuel levels cause significantly less environmental damage than fires burning in heavy, long unburnt fuels.34
3.61 Other authors opposed an increase in the current levels of prescribed burning. Dr Patrick Baker, of the Australian Centre for Biodiversity, Monash University, stated that:
… [changes] to fire management practices, such as the widespread adoption of high-frequency prescribed burning, have the potential to further endanger ... the native biodiversity.35
3.62 A few submissions, including one from the Victorian Farmers Federation, called for the reintroduction of cattle grazing in parks, particularly in the High Country (Victorian Alps), as a means of reducing fuel loads in crown land areas.36
3.63 Some authors demonstrated an interest in the different methods of prescribed burning such as cool burning, mosaic burning, and fire-stick or indigenous burning, with some providing a comparative analysis of their advantages and disadvantages. They also called for the use of evidence-based fuel reduction techniques. Many authors on this topic also claimed that scheduled prescribed burning had not been undertaken by DSE, and that not enough burning is scheduled.
3.64 The issue of roadside clearing produced a variety of responses in submissions. Some sought extensive clearing of roadside vegetation while others advocated no clearing where roadsides have been declared native flora and fauna reserves. The South Gippsland Conservation Society Inc. stated that roadsides and rail trails:
... provide very important links or habitat corridors between areas of native vegetation in parks and reserves.37
3.65 Conversely, the Eureka Project’s submission noted that roadside reservations posed risks as fuel levels increased:
… road reservations are increasingly becoming fire-wicks with the propensity to join rather than separate fire activity.38
Building and Rebuilding
3.66 Many submissions reflected dissatisfaction with a perceived lack of information regarding materials, designs and recommendations for building fireproof or fire-resistant housing and bunkers. Submissions on this topic emphasised the need for easy-to-access government recommendations about materials and designs for building fireproof or fire-resistant housing and bunkers (including easy access for people without the internet). BlueScope Steel in its submission noted that:
... not only is the prevention of ember ingress and the use of non-combustible building materials important in the dwelling design, but also other aspects such as ensuring radiation barriers and separation from other ignition sources within the dwelling landscape.39
3.67 Others raised as an issue the high cost of building fire-resistant homes, or retro-fitting houses with fire-resistant features. This is acknowledged in the submission from the Housing Industry Association, which stated:
[There] are a vast array of provisions for bushfire management, but there are an equal number of requirements in respect to native vegetation. These sometimes competing provisions need to be viewed in a holistic fashion to ensure that the costs and benefits of each are appropriately balanced.40
3.68 In light of the rebuilding process and the forthcoming fire season, various submissions raised the need for regulations regarding refuges and bunkers so that people could modify their fire plans and any rebuilding on their properties could include these. The Australian Institute of Building Surveyors submitted that:
... building standards must facilitate and maximise the ability to evacuate safely and offer every opportunity to save lives.41
Emergency communications
3.69 A number of submissions outlined problems with Triple Zero calls — in particular, the length of time callers were placed on hold, and callers’ inability to get through to fire or other emergency services. As described by Dr Hania Lada of Kinglake:
We called 000, which was so overwhelmed it took many minutes before we could talk to anyone. This was useless.42
3.70 Problems with radio transmissions, particularly in the mountain areas, were also raised as an issue. Recommendations were proposed regarding the usefulness of UHF radios to communicate and CFA scanners to obtain information about fire spread. Mrs Sandra Kerkvliet of Smiths Gully relied on her scanner to gain information about the fires:
Every waking moment over that next month, the scanner became my annoying best friend, proving to be the one constant source of accurate local information I could rely on while the fires continued. The scanner was of more practical use than we could ever have imagined.43
3.71 Several submission authors also commented on a failure of mobile phone reception. They noted that emergency coverage was dependant on location. For example, Ambulance First Response Team from Kinglake stated that:
... radio communications, ABC reception and mobile telephone coverage in the Kinglake ranges have long been prone to black spots where there is no coverage.44
Essential services during and after the fires
3.72 The loss of power, water and phones, and delays in reconnecting these services featured in a significant number of submissions. Ms Fiona Wallace of Mont Albert North, in her submission recounting her experience on 7 February, stated:
… [the] importance of communication infrastructure that can withstand fires cannot be over-estimated.45
3.73 Delays in reconnecting essential services had an adverse impact on those who stayed to protect their homes and their ability to defend them. Mrs Susan Marstaellar, of Heathcote Junction, who stayed to defend on 7 February, wrote that she had:
... no power, no mobile or land line phone coverage and no access to food or water until late Sunday, which made it difficult to feed the fire fighters.46
3.74 However, a couple of submission authors were complimentary of the speed at which essential services were reconnected in the circumstances. For example, Mr Kenneth MacGowan of Coldstream wrote:
... thanks go to the various authorities responsible for restoration of utilities. Our power was reconnected within a week, phone lines restored, water tank cleaned out by two weeks and 5000L of water provided, and I have registered with Grokon [sic] for the Government provided clean-up.47
3.75 A number of submission authors called for the power and telephone lines to be underground and, where they had to be above ground, suggested that power poles should not be wooden. As outlined in the One Tree Hill Ferny Creek Residents’ submissions:
During every serious emergency (fire or storm), the power goes down. In some cases, electricity cables cause fires. With increased reliance on power and phone cables, not least for planned safety communications, it is time to put them underground.48
Economic cost of the fires
3.76 Submissions referred to the economic costs of the loss of buildings, and the impact on farming and business ventures. The economic costs on farming included the loss of livestock and fencing. In addition to the direct costs of fire damage to business premises and assets, a small number of submissions mentioned the economic cost to businesses caused by a reduction in residents and tourists in the fire-affected areas. The Insurance Council of Australia stated:
... as of 30 April 2009, members of the Insurance Council have received approximately 10,020 general insurance claims as a result of the bushfires. The approximate value of these claims received, including residential, commercial, industrial and farming losses, is $1.2 billion.49
Roads
3.77 Many people expressed dissatisfaction with roadblocks, the state of roads and roadside vegetation. Some complained about police at roadblocks requiring proof of residence before allowing them to pass; this was difficult as many residents did not have identification. The process was said by some to have become easier where identification wrist bands were issued. The submission of the Mount Taylor Fire Brigade noted that:
... the police roadblock policy for fire-affected areas caused significant frustration for locals who successfully stayed and defended their assets but needed to travel outside the roadblock to access essential supplies.50
3.78 The roadblocks were particularly frustrating for locals when it became apparent that the media had been given access. Submissions from locals also expressed frustration that many of the roadblocks were ineffective because it was often possible, by using back roads, to avoid the roadblocks, and for this reason they were simply a waste of time. Some complained that the attitude of people operating roadblocks was unhelpful and sometimes callous in the circumstances. Mr Geoffrey Biggs of Toolangi stated:
Police members on road blocks were given little or no information by superiors and didn’t know the localities they were in and quite often showed very little common sense in these situations.51
3.79 Roadblocks also prevented supplies and services getting through to some residents in fire-affected areas. In some cases this included veterinary services for animals, as described by Mrs Judy Johnston of Narbethong:
… even though DPI had notified the Alexandra Vet that he was needed, he was not allowed past the Police roadblock. It was 6 days before any horses could receive veterinary treatment. One had burns to her eyes, nose, mouth, chest, legs, teats and tail area!52
3.80 Other submission authors, such as Dr Renee Paulet of Hazelwood North, were ultimately successful in getting veterinarians through roadblocks to treat their animals.
Our vet agreed to meet us at the Loy Yang roadblock to see if we would be able to gain access to our property to treat the horse and remove him from the property. Thankfully, the police on both the roadblocks allowed us through and we were able to catch, treat and sedate our horse and load him on the float.53
3.81 A few submission authors noted that roadblocks had a beneficial role in keeping tourists and looters out of fire-affected communities. For example, Mr Edward and Mrs Diana Cherry of Marysville, although critical of the fact that the residents of Marysville were locked out of the town for seven weeks, stated that:
Of course the Police were correct in keeping sight-seers out of the town during those early weeks.54
3.82 Many of the submissions addressed concerns regarding limited access along roads caused by trees falling on the roads, dead-end streets and single-lane streets. Some authors voiced concern at the significant vegetation along the verges of roads, creating fuel for fire, while others considered that these verges should be retained. Mr Helmut and Mrs Kim Widrich of Calignee wrote:
Overhanging trees and dense vegetation close to roads have long been a concern to us. Escape via the road on Black Saturday was not an option … Dense vegetation and accumulated fallen trees and branches made the road on which we live a death trap for residents.55
Insurance
3.83 The majority of submissions about insurance issues related to dissatisfaction with the Fire Service Levy being part of voluntary insurance. The National Insurance Brokers Association (NIBA) noted in its submission that the Fire Service Levy is imposed on insurance companies for policies of insurance on Victorian property and is then passed on to policy-holders. According to NIBA, the Fire Service Levy raises 75 per cent of the cost of funding the MFB and the CFA. Submissions suggested that to make the fire levy fair, it should form part of every homeowner’s rates and this would increase the amount of funding available to the CFA. CGU stated:
… there is a need to expand the funding base because the broader community benefits from fire-fighting services, not just the insured.56
3.84 Suncorp stated that:
... the current system of levies is inequitable due to the rate of non-insurance.57
3.85 Submissions from entities within the insurance industry highlighted problems with the degree of under-insurance and non-insurance. According to NIBA:
... almost 30 per cent of the houses destroyed by the recent fires carried no insurance at all and many more were underinsured.58
3.86 The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) stated in its submission that:
... the Fire Services Levy is a major contributor to non-insurance and under-insurance.59
3.87 Some submissions suggested a reduction in the cost of house insurance for people who took steps to fireproof their homes. The Institute of Actuaries of Australia provided an example:
... [the] incentive within the insurance industry is the charging of lower premiums in cyclone regions for houses built to appropriate building standards.60
Recovery effort
3.88 The lack of coordination and organisation of recovery measures featured in a number of submissions. There was a general sense that the recovery effort did not start immediately, leaving residents to organise their own recovery centres. A large number of submission authors directly affected by the fires mentioned the frustration at having to retell their stories to different entities. The Yarra Glen Community Fire Relief Centre submission stated that many survivors:
... are frustrated by the amount of form filing to be done.61
3.89 Some submissions described problems with resources at recovery centres, including practical requirements such as hand-washing facilities being overlooked, or difficulties in getting a caseworker.
3.90 Many submission authors wrote that the community-based relief centres had been of assistance to residents in fire-affected areas. For example, Mr Rainier and Mrs Ann Verlaan of Callignee wrote that:
The support and assistance we received from the Traralgon South community via the Relief Centre that was set up there was not short of amazing.62
3.91 A few submissions referred to the importance of counselling services for those in fire-affected areas. Ms Jenny Beales of Kinglake stated:
... [in my] view, the work of the agencies that coordinated the disaster relief in our community during the aftermath of the fires was, on the whole, excellent ... Many of the agency staff who arrived in the first few days were highly trained in disaster management, with many having worked in the Queensland cyclones and in Bali, and their skills and training were evident. Counselling services Berry Street, Mitchell Community Health Services and DHS provided many counsellors to assist people cope with the enormous trauma they had suffered.63
3.92 The need for ongoing support services to assist people in fire-affected areas to recover from the trauma of 7 February was also mentioned. Ms Roslyn Shannon of Kinglake wrote:
While many services were provided in the first two week[s] ... [if] my experience is anything to go by then it is now that the realisation and shock are beginning to take effect. Counsellors and people to help get through the maze of red tape and to offer help are needed now … I have returned to work as I want some normalcy in my life. Everywhere I look is burnt and my street has been almost obliterated. Every landmark I knew has disappeared. We may have survived but our lives burnt down.64
3.93 The physical and emotional toll on people who survived the fires was evident in many submissions. Mrs Pamela Clune of Wollert recounted the difficulties she and her husband Colin faced after he suffered significant burns while fighting fires as a CFA volunteer. She described the experience of:
… trying to limit the emotional effect on our children and grandchildren, extended family and friends … Eight weeks passed before I found my own personal space to allow myself to deal with the reality of ‘Our CFA Black Saturday’ journey. To let the tension of holding on relax, and allow suppressed emotions to flow. Together we hope we have limited the risk of hidden, long term, emotional trauma that we are aware could occur.65
3.94 Another issue raised in some submissions by people who had lost relatives in the fires was the lack of sufficient and timely communication from the Coroner’s Office.
3.95 A number of submissions raised concerns about how donated money was distributed and requested that this information be publicly available. Other submissions noted the generosity of the broader community. For example, Ms Linda Fries of Hurstbridge wrote:
In the aftermath the good and kind people gave so abundantly, it moved me to tears and warmed my heart to know that so many would care.66
3.96 Finally, the impact of the fires on animals and the inadequacy of recovery efforts in relation to them was mentioned in a few submissions. Animal Aid stated:
Veterinary response for large animals was unacceptably slow in some areas, with animals waiting for many days for humane euthanasia whilst suffering from burns and smoke inhalation. This is cruel. For a disaster of this scale, involving many large animals and wildlife that could not be evacuated, future emergency responses must include the dispatch of an appropriate number of people qualified to perform humane euthanasia.67
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
3.97 The Commission is very grateful for the many thoughtful, informative and constructive submissions it has received. The submissions have fostered discussion and inquiry on relevant topics and have assisted the Commission in identifying information, experts and lay witnesses for further examination and consideration. The contribution made by authors of submissions is, and will continue to be, an extremely important one.
3.98 The Commission continues to receive and review submissions from individuals and organisations in the local and broader communities. In preparation for the next block of hearings (beginning 24 August), the Commission, through its website, called for further submissions on the key topic of building. As the Commission’s inquiry progresses and other key topics are examined in detail, the Commission will make further calls for topic-specific submissions. These further submissions, together with those already received, will be considered in the Commission’s ongoing work and final report.
3.99 The selection of submissions referred to in this chapter provides a ‘snapshot’ of the various views, comments, concerns and suggestions expressed in the submissions received by 18 May 2009. All submissions can be viewed on the Commission’s website.
footnotes
[1] The Commission’s terms of reference are presented at page VII of this report.
[2] The 12 fires are outlined in more detail in Chapter 1 of this report.
Recurring themes in submissions
[3] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-031-0369_R at 0379
[4] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-037-0102_R at 0107
[5] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-028-0178_R at 0214
[6] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-015-1122_R at 1124
[7] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-015-0867_R at 0879
[8] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-019-0040_R at 0041
[9] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-033-0222_R at 0227
[10] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-032-0321_R at 0324
[11] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-039-0075_R at 0077
[12] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-018-0538_R at 0542
[13] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-021-0341_R at 0343
[14] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-016-0783_R at 0785 and http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-017-1302_R at 1306
[15] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-015-0204_R at 0208
[16] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-016-0113_R at 0114
[17] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-016-0342_R at 0343
[18] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-022-0005_R at 0009
[19] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-017-0448_R at 0451
[20] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-032-0058_R at 0060
[21] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-018-0209_R at 0218–0219
[22] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-034-0171_R at 0188
[23] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-031-0173_R at 0183
[24] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-038-0001_R at 0003
[25] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-015-0673_R at 0678
[26] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-031-0037_R at 0040
[27] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-035-0314_R at 0317–0318
[28] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-013-0525_R at 0527
[29] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-002-0103_R at 0105–0106
[30] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-039-0250_R at 0256
[31] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-035-0284_R at 0293
[32] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-004-0309_R at 0311
[33] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-018-0096_R at 0099
[34] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-028-0057_R at 0068
[35] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-030-0292_R at 0294
[36] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-029-0235_R at 0246
[37] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-020-0336_R at 0343
[38] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-017-0289_R at 0363
[39] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-032-0040_R at 0049
[40] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-036-0001_R at 0007
[41] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-030-0327_R at 0335
[42] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-013-0331_R at 0337
[43] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-028-0029_R at 0034
[44] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-022-0137_R at 0154
[45] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-016-0725_R at 0730
[46] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-029-0313_R at 0316
[47] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-011-0037_R at 0040
[48] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-033-0328_R at 0377
[49] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-030-0080_01_R at 0085
[50] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-015-1161_R at 1163
[51] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-011-0006_R at 0008
[52] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-030-0012_R at 0018
[53] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-005-0076_R at 0078
[54] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-017-0073_R at 0080
[55] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-018-0247_R at 0250–0251
[56] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-017-0465_R at 0470
[57] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-032-0007_R at 0012
[58] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-015-0471_R at 0473
[59] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-017-0578_R at 0582
[60] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-034-0010_R at 0014
[61] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-017-0586_R at 0592
[62] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-009-0093_R at 0098
[63] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-022-0225_R at 0232–0233
[64] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-002-0054_R at 0058–0059
[65] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-023-0024_R at 0026
[66] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-028-0153_R at 0154
[67] http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-016-0267_R at 0279