During the last so-called “Catastrophic” fire-danger day on Kangaroo Island (2013.01.04; CFS danger classification scheme), it was obvious to those with open eyes and ears that bush-fire preparation was very poor and safety implementation on the day only lip service (and a barely audible mumble at that).

Fire is a terrible way to perish, whether you are local residents, the many visitors or our extensive fauna. Council and its administration should take this issue much more seriously.

As you can see hereunder, on 2013.01.16 Cr Gr. Walkom has raised a number of legal, administrative and practical questions that all need clear answers from Council.

These are difficult questions, made all the more so that the CFS (Country Fire Service) is notorious for being an organisation very hard to deal with — also because there are native vegetation aspects in the matter of bushfire safety, and the Native Vegetation Council is just as hard to deal with as the CFS (each with its own idiosyncrasies, of course).

This does not excuse the CEO taking the too easy tack of ducking the questions being asked (see thereunder). A rash attitude, which, considering that bushfire is the highest threat to any Australian community, may be perceived as irresponsible on his part. And a legally dangerous one, considering that all cases where councils and CFS were implied have demonstrated that councils do have legal responsibility in protecting towns and communities against bushfires.

Considering how dry the vegetation on the island is, I invite Mr Boardman to immediately reconsider his tack, starting with providing non evasive and effective answers to each of Cr Walkom’s 10 questions, and from there to act urgently where unpreparedness is obvious.

Dr Gabriel Bittar

PS Unfortunately, Council being reluctant to answering questions in relation with fire safety and prevention is not something new…

*******************

Questions on Notice by Councillor Graham Walkom

January Meeting of Kangaroo Island Council (16/1/2013)

Council’s fire obligations

1. In specific statutory terms, what are council’s obligations with respect to designated towns and communities in this council area?
2. What was the assessed fire risk mitigation status for the various communities that are classified as very high fire risk by the KIBRMP at the commencement of this current fire season?
3. On days of major fire risk to the identified very high fire risk communities, how prepared are these communities for a fire outbreak from within that community – poorly prepared, some preparation or well prepared?
4. Have the designated safe haven and last resort refuges for the very high fire risk communities been clearly identified “on the ground” as promised by the minister some two years ago?
5. On the designated days that require residents, tourists and campers to “leave and leave early” – ie the “severe”, “extreme” and “catastrophic” risk days, how effective has this been?
6. On the most recent “catastrophic” day last week,
   1. indicatively, how many people moved to the safe haven areas of Kingscote and Penneshaw?
   2. were there any catering and accommodation issues resulting?
   3. did council effectively close its campgrounds?
   4. As we are now into our third fire season since the introduction of individual resident’s and tourist accommodation facilities having their own fire plans, how successful is this in practice?
   5. Is the apparent community indifference to fire plans and implementing them in accordance with the advocated practice
      1. a concern?
      2. considered acceptable relevant to the original objectives?
      3. Has the significant community disruption and costs been identified for the many “false alarms” that result from the current system?

10. Is it time for this council to lobby for a major review of current advice and to develop different community ‘fire drill’ procedures – one that the community “owns” and will act upon?

Cr Graham Walkom

Initial answer by the Council’s CEO:
Taken on Notice – noting that there are elements of this question that are not Council’s area of responsibility and therefore the Councillor is advised to refer these sections to the CFS as the responsible Agency.

*********

UPDATE :

Answers provided by Andrew Boardman, KI Council CEO, at the Council public meeting of 2013.02.13

Answer 1:

Pursuant to s.72 of the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005(SA), the SA Governor has proclaimed nine Bushfire Management Areas (BMAs) for South Australia.

One of those BMAs is “Kangaroo Island”, consisting of the LGA area of the Kangaroo Island Council.

Under the October 2010 Administrative Guidelines for the State Bushfire Coordination Committee (SBCC), under s.72A the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005(SA), a Bushfire Management Committee (BMC) has been established for the Kangaroo Island BMA.

The Chief Executive Officer, or nominee, is a member of the Kangaroo Island Bushfire Management Committee. In future, the Asset Services General Manager will be the CEO’s nominee on this External Committee.

The KI BMC has superseded the previous Kangaroo Island Bushfire Prevention Committee.

The new BMCs will be required to prepare bushfire risk management plans under the amended legislation, in accordance with policy established by the SBCC.

Kangaroo Island is the only region in the State with such a plan at the present time, as this was the pilot project for South Australia of this new planning approach for the State.

While the new structures are being developed, an interim local implementation structure for the Kangaroo Island BFRMP will be put in place by the SA CFS and local land management agencies. This structure will ensure that the implementation of the plan proceeds during this transitional period.

The Kangaroo Island Bushfire Risk Management Plan (KIBFRMP) 2009-2014 has been approved by various partner agencies – SA Country Fire Service, Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), SA Water, and Kangaroo Island Council – and the Native Vegetation Council.
A summary of the identified roles and responsibilities contained within the KI Bushfire Risk Management Plan ( pages 25-28) are as follows:

• To Review Bushfire Protection Zoning  – KI Council
• Varying the Standard Fire Danger Season as Required – SA CFS
• Requiring Permits during the Fire Danger Season – KI BMC, KI CFS
• Publicity of Fire Restrictions during the Fire Danger Season – KI Council, SA CFS
• Prosecution of Arsonists/Offenders – SAPOL
• Investigation of Bushfire Cause – KI CFS
• Promotion of Grain Harvesting Code of Practice – KI BMC, KI Council
• Normal Fire Suppression Activities – SA CFS, DEWNR (as a brigade of SA CFS)
• Reviewing the Appropriateness of Standard Fire and Emergency Cover Allocations – SA CFS
• Preparation of Group Operations Management Plan – KI CFS
• Fire Access Track Auditing and Maintenance – KI Council, DEWNR, SA Water, KI CFS
• Agency Fire Management Plans – DEWNR, SA Water
• Bushfire Hazard Complaints and Compliance – KI Council
• Hazard Reduction Provisions – SA CFS, NVC
• Visitor Information – KI Council, SA CFS, DEWNR
• Improved Weather Forecasting – KI CFS ( supplementary AWS support)

Questions 2-5, 7-8 and 10, were answered thus:

This question will be referred to the KI Bushfire Management Committee for their response.

Answer 6:

a) Whilst some people were observed at the Ovals, no record was taken on the day.
b) None reported.
c) Officers attended Campgrounds, posted “Campground Closed” signage and advised occupants to leave.

Answer 9:

This is a question for the KI Bushfire Management Committee and the Community to answer.

Council respected the “Catastrophic” alert status, and this does have cost implication in terms of work suspended and limitation on works that can be undertaken that do not have an inherent risk of generating fire. Given that we have only had two “Catastrophic” status days at the time of writing, it is difficult to make assessment of an average “cost” of disruption associated with this.