engaging communities - 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission

ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
2

2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission—Interim Report
2 ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
From the outset the Commission saw its interaction with all Victorians, and in particular those affected by the
fires, as a vital cornerstone of its investigation into the fires. This chapter begins with a brief overview of the full
range of initiatives implemented by the Commission to engage with the community. It then moves to the primary
focus of this chapter — a detailed account of the community consultations held in March and April 2009 and a
summary of the issues raised. The chapter concludes with a brief account of the involvement of lay witnesses in
the first round of public hearings.
Communicating with the Commission
2.1
2.2
2.3
Initial interaction with the community began through avenues such as the offices of the Premier, the
Governor-General, the Victorian Attorney-General, the Prime Minister, the Department of Premier and
Cabinet, the Department of Justice, Members of Parliament (federal and state), the Supreme Court of
Victoria and local municipalities. A broad array of material was received by the Commission either directly
or through referral, including:
■■ offers for services (pro bono and paid)
■■ personal accounts of the fires
■■ complaints about how the emergency services responded to the fire
■■ submissions to the Commission
■■ copies of academic publications, books, research papers and previous reports
■■ enquiries about how the Commission could provide support to individuals affected by the fires.
Processes to manage the initial contacts were put in place by the Commission Secretariat. A toll free 1800
number was provided as an enquiry line, an email enquiry address commenced operation on 24 February
2009, and the Commission website was launched on 16 March. 1
Commission staff responded to initial contacts by phone, email or post, and, where appropriate, provided
contact details for other agencies providing bushfire assistance. These agencies included the Victorian
Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority, the Victorian Bushfire Case Management Service and
Bushfire Legal Help. 2 In addition, a process for the lodgement of formal submissions to the Commission
was advertised and commenced operation in March (Chapter 3).
Consultations in Fire-affected Communities
2.4 The Commission’s first priority was to meet with and listen to people from those communities directly
affected by the fires. Between 18 March and 9 April the Commission held community consultations in
fire-affected locations. The community consultations were an important foundation for the work of the
Commission. Beginning its work in bushfire-affected communities enabled the Commission to hear
first-hand about people’s experiences, and gain valuable insights into how individuals and communities
responded to current bushfire-related policies and programs. The community consultation process is
outlined in paragraphs 2.14–2.31.
84
Communication Facilitated by the Commission
2.5 The Commission website, launched in March, provided information about the Commission and its
processes, including the community consultations, the submissions process and how to view submissions,
the role of the public hearings and their dates and times, and a media centre. During the hearings interested
people were able to view the transcripts on the Commission website from the following day.
2.6 Also, to maximise immediate access to its work, the Commission provided live web-streaming of the hearings.
This proved to be extremely popular. During the first block of hearings, more than 5700 people logged in to
watch, including approximately 100 ‘unique browsers’ watching from outside Australia. A lower-bandwidth
audio-only option was also provided early in the hearings, which increased in popularity. Approximately 80 per
cent of those listening to or watching the hearings were from Melbourne and about 10 per cent were from
Sydney. The overseas viewers resided in countries such as the United States, New Zealand, China, Thailand,
Singapore, Canada and the United Kingdom.

Engaging Communities
2.7
Libraries throughout Victoria (including the State Library of Victoria) made facilities available for people
to view or listen to the live streaming and to access and download transcripts from the hearings. This
assisted the Commission in its commitment to providing an open and accessible process for fire-affected
communities and the wider Victorian community. The Commission thanks the State Library and all the other
libraries for helping to make the hearings accessible to a wider audience.
Lay Witnesses to the commission
2.8 Following the community consultations, the Commission interviewed a substantial number of people
directly affected by the fires. Many of these people agreed to appear as lay witnesses in the hearings.
These witnesses provided an invaluable and unique perspective on what took place during the January
and February fires and the impact of those fires. Many provided harrowing details of their experiences.
The Commissioners commend these witnesses for being willing to provide their testimony to assist with
the Commission’s deliberations. More information on lay witnesses is provided at paragraphs 2.77–2.90.
Written Submissions
2.9 From 18 March, submissions were invited from any person or organisation with information relevant to at
least one of the Commission’s terms of reference. Over 1260 submissions were received by 18 May, the
cut-off date for submissions to be considered for the interim report. Submissions continue to be received
and will be considered as part of the Commission’s further work.
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
The Commission received submissions from across Victoria, the rest of Australia and overseas. The content
of these submissions is discussed in Chapter 3.
These submissions have assisted the Commission in a range of ways, by:
■■
■■
■■
■■
■■
■■
providing a pool of valuable resources from which to scope topics to be considered by the inquiry
drawing attention to individuals or organisations with expertise relevant to the inquiry
providing insights into complex technical issues
identifying people who may wish to give evidence before the Commission as lay witnesses
illustrating the wide range of opinion on some matters
alerting the Commission to research that has been undertaken or technology that is already available.
Chapter 3 of this report provides more detailed information about the important role the submissions have
played, and will continue to play, in the Commission’s investigations.
The Commission extends its appreciation to all who have contributed written submissions.
85

2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission—Interim Report
2 ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
Fire-Affected Community Consultations
Box 2.1: Standard greeting at community consultations
Why are we here? Why are you here? What do we hope to achieve?
We are here to listen to what you choose to tell us about the fires and their impact. We would like to hear your
stories and your views on what we can learn from them and what you think matters most.
We are not taking evidence. This is not that sort of process. That will happen later when the formal hearings begin.
The Royal Commission has extremely wide terms of reference. You have a copy of them on the tables.
There are many issues we could investigate. We seek your views on the critical issues and the priority
we should attribute to them.
Purpose of these consultations
2.14 These were the introductory words spoken by the Commission Chairperson, Bernard Teague, at each
of the community consultations conducted by the Commission over 22 days in March and April (Box 2.1).
Twenty-six separate consultation sessions occurred in 14 fire-affected communities across Victoria.
Over 1250 people attended the sessions (Table 2.1).
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
As indicated by the Chairperson, the purpose of the consultations was to gather early and immediate
information about the impact of the bushfires and to hear directly from the individuals affected.
It was explained that the forums were not formal Commission hearings and the information obtained would
not be viewed as evidence. Rather, the participants’ experiences represented important qualitative insights
into what happened and why. The Commissioners were seeking assistance to identify key issues for further
research and investigation, before any formal hearings began. Participants’ experiences would also influence
the priority issues for attention in the Commission’s interim and final reports.
Over the four weeks of consultations it became apparent that they also provided other benefits. In a number
of cases the consultations represented one of the first opportunities for some people to come together
and discuss what might be the future of their communities in the aftermath of the fires. In many instances
participants met others for the first time, exchanged contact details and discussed how they could remain
connected and continue working together on recovery. This process also helped some to articulate their
feelings about the fire and, therefore, assisted in the healing process. The impact upon individual recovery
and the drawing together of communities were important outcomes of the discussions.
The Commissioners gratefully thank the people who participated in the community consultations. It was
a privilege to be allowed into these communities to hear first-hand accounts of their difficult experiences
and losses. Amongst feelings of utter devastation, each community demonstrated generosity and dignity in
sharing their experiences with the Commission. This personal reference point underscored the importance
of the Commission’s work as it entered into the more formal processes.
Method of Consultations
2.19 It was not possible for the Commission to hold consultations in all communities affected by the fires.
Accordingly the consultations were held in the 14 most affected communities (Table 2.1). Potential participants
were informed of the consultations by state-wide media advertisements and other local posters and publicity.
Local government personnel also advised community members of the forthcoming sessions. Only members
of the affected communities were invited to register and participate. In most communities, participants had a
choice between two forums held at different times on the same day.
86

Engaging Communities
2.20
Each consultation was chaired by a professional facilitator, and all followed a common agenda and process.
The intention was to create a safe atmosphere and a simple, straightforward format that would enable
participants to speak frankly among themselves, in the presence of the Commissioners. The sessions were
not open to anyone outside the community, including the media. Many media representatives chose to
attend the opening of each session and to speak with participants during breaks. This arrangement retained
the integrity of the process but enabled media representatives to gather personal stories from those willing
to share them publicly.
Table 2.1: Schedule of community consultations, March – April 2009
Fire-affected Communities Date Time
Number of
Participants
Myrtleford and the surrounding district
including the communities of Mudgegonga,
Barwidgee Creek, Kancoona and Rosewhite
Wednesday 18 March 1:00pm–2:30pm 85
Flowerdale and the surrounding district Friday 20 March 11:30am–1:00pm
or 2:30pm–4:00pm
Kinglake and the surrounding district including
the communities of Castella, Glenburn and
Toolangi
Kinglake West and the surrounding district
including the communities of Whittlesea and
Pheasant Creek
Monday 23 March
Tuesday 24 March
11:30am–1:00pm
or 2:30pm–4:00pm
11:30am–1:00pm
or 2:30pm–4:00pm
Bendigo and the surrounding district Wednesday 25 March 11:30am–1:00pm
or 2:30pm–4:00pm
Wandong and the surrounding district including
the communities of Clonbinane, Kilmore,
Kilmore East and Reedy Creek
Friday 27 March
11:30am–1:00pm
or 2:30pm–4:00pm
St Andrews and the surrounding district Sunday 29 March 11:30am–1:00pm
or 2:30pm–4:00pm
Yarra Glen and the surrounding district
including the communities of Chum Creek,
Dixons Creek, Steels Creek, Healesville and
Warburton
Traralgon and the surrounding district including
the communities of Churchill, Callignee,
Jeeralang Junction, Gormandale, Devon,
Hazelwood North and Hazelwood South
Boolarra and the surrounding district including
the communities of Darlimurla, Yinnar and
Mirboo
Monday 30 March
Wednesday 1 April
11:30am–1:00pm
or 2:30pm–4:00pm
11:30am–1:00pm
or 2:30pm–4:00pm
80
167
103
62
124
81
108
Thursday 2 April 9:30am–11:00am 74
Labertouche and the surrounding district Thursday 2 April 2:30pm–4:00pm 78
Marysville and the surrounding district
including the communities of Grantville,
Buxton, Narbethong and Taggerty
Horsham and the surrounding district
including Haven
Monday 6 April
Tuesday 7 April
11:30am–1:00pm
or 2:30pm–4:00pm
11:30am–1:00pm
or 2:30pm–4:00pm
72
102
Tuesday 7 April 1:00pm–2:30pm 46
Strathewen and the surrounding district Wednesday 8 April 11:30am–1:00pm
or 2:30pm–4:00pm
Total Participants 1258
74
87

2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission—Interim Report
2 ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
In table-based discussions people were invited to respond to three specific questions:
■■
■■
■■
What was the impact of the bushfires on your community?
What worked well to prepare your community?
What didn’t work well in your community, and what should be done differently?
The facilitator requested that the small groups at each table be self-managing, and that they appoint a
person to report back on their conversation to the whole group. There were three suggested ground rules:
respect each other’s views; say if you disagree; and, outside of the forum, do not attribute comments or
views to those who expressed them. People were asked to contribute as individuals, not as representatives
of any particular body or organisation.
During the table-based discussions the Commissioners moved from table to table, listening to the different
conversations. A Commission staff member was assigned to each table to take notes of the conversations.
At the conclusion of each session there was a plenary discussion, with table spokespersons reporting their
responses back to the full forum, followed by an opportunity for general discussion. This plenary discussion
was video recorded, for later reference by the Commission, and the facilitator or a scribe also recorded a
summary of the major points made during the plenary discussion.
In some consultations, in which the numbers were small enough, the entire process was conducted
in plenary, without table-based discussions. On these occasions the same three questions were used.
The sessions typically ran for one and a half hours. They each concluded with the Commissioners thanking
people and indicating other ways in which they could engage with the work of the Commission if they
wished. Each consultation included a morning tea, light lunch or afternoon tea as a further opportunity
for Commissioners to speak with the community members in an informal manner.
Following the visit to each community, a brief summary of the major themes emerging from the
consultation(s) was forwarded to participants and posted on the Commission website.
Recording the narratives
2.28
2.29
2.30
2.31
The record of each consultation was a summary of notes taken by Commission staff, the facilitator/scribe
and the Commissioners, and the video of the plenary comments. The informal records did not attribute
comments to particular people. The video-recording was for the Commission’s internal use only.
While common themes emerged across the fire-affected communities, each had distinctive features.
The details of emphasis and perspective, even dissent, were sometimes quite marked. Further, within
communities, many opposing views were expressed, often with equal emphasis. For example, there were
as many people who spoke positively about the protective nature of brick homes over weatherboard
constructions as those who were critical of the number of brick homes that seemingly exploded or
imploded. While this chapter focuses primarily on the commonality of issues and views, it does so noting
the diverse perspectives held to varying degrees within and across communities.
The first question that people were asked to address concerned the impact of the fires on their own
lives and that of their communities. Here the Commission heard stories of people, families and whole
communities torn apart by the random and unpredictable nature of the fires and the devastation they
caused. People spoke of loss of lives, livelihoods, property, stock, houses, community infrastructure and
the community itself, along with experiences of dislocation and population depletion, disruption to schooling
and childcare, and upheaval at every level.
This chapter does not attempt to capture or record the grief, devastation and trauma of the people, as
commitments were given that unfiltered emotion could be expressed without fear of attribution. Their
experiences were nonetheless powerfully expressed and compassionately received by the Commission.
88

Engaging Communities
The key issues raised in consultations
2.32
2.33
2.34
2.35
The Commission analysed the key themes emerging from the discussions. The plenary notes from the
consultations, and the notes taken by the facilitator/scribe, Commissioners and Commission staff were
collated and summarised. Some 60 issues were discussed in response to the following questions:
■■
■■
What worked well to prepare your community?
What didn’t work well in your community, and what should be done differently?
The responses from these questions were categorised and then grouped into these themes:
■■
■■
■■
■■
■■
■■
communications and warnings
community preparedness
fuel reduction
emergency management and coordination
recovery efforts
buildings and infrastructure.
The balance of this chapter is organised around these headings.
As described in paragraph 2.28, the Commission sought to capture the reactions and opinions of
participants using scribes and a video-recording of the plenary session. The subsequent exercise of writing
reports of each consultation, for posting on the Commission website, enabled summary and analysis to
occur close to the event. What is represented in the graphs below is illustrative of issues raised across the
14 communities. The graphs do not purport to be based on a technical analysis of issues.
A number of quotations are included in this chapter to illustrate the general themes and issues raised.
These are not quotations from the community consultations themselves, as the Commissioners made a
commitment to listen to the stories of fire-affected individuals in a safe, local environment where they could
speak frankly and without attribution. Rather, the quotations are drawn from the testimony of lay witnesses
who spoke publicly before the Commission in the first round of formal hearings. The quotations illustrate the
key issues raised at the consultations.
89

2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission—Interim Report
2 ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
Communication and warnings
Figure 2.1: Communication and warnings
Number of Communities
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Issues with
Triple Zero
ABC
CFA scanners/
website
Press + Radio +
TV as well as ABC
Mobile problems/
satellite phones
Sirens
Timelag
Warnings linked to
Fire Danger Index
Ways in which people obtained information/issues with warnings
Source: Community consultations, March–April 2009
2.36
All but one community (Horsham) reported severe communication difficulties and frustration about the failure
of essential systems. People spoke of clogged mobile systems and of uneven coverage, the long delays
or lack of success in getting through to Triple Zero, and of internet and landline phone outages. In some
communities, such as Flowerdale, participants said that unreliable and inadequate power supply and phone
coverage (mobile and landline) had been a longstanding grievance.
Lay witnesses Mrs Carol Matthews of St Andrews and Ms Karen Ward of Mudgegonga described similar
experiences:
It was just ringing, ringing, ringing. Just couldn’t get through. 3
The phone lines in Mudgegonga are old copper … when we had dial up it could take a week to
download anything, so we went to satellite which was practically no better, and on a hot day like that,
and with so many people accessing it, we would never have been able to get onto the computer and
have a look at the CFA websites. 4
2.37
There were varied views on the effectiveness of 774 ABC Radio. Some community members spoke of
the ABC’s exceptional service while others, particularly in Strathewen, St Andrews, Dixons Creek and
Chum Creek, were aggrieved that information about their area was not aired until well after the firefront
had passed. At several consultations, the naming of the fires by 774 ABC Radio was reported as
exacerbating misinformation and confusion. Examples included the St Andrews fires being referred to as
Kilmore East; Steels Creek referred to as Murrindindi; and Boolarra referred to as Delburn (Murrindindi and
Delburn being districts, not specific locations). However, it is important to note that fires are not named by
the ABC and they only report the information as provided by the fire authorities.
90

Engaging Communities
2.38
Common to most assessments were expressions of frustration that the ABC did not provide ‘real-time’
information about the location or direction of the fires, with the time lag for some communities being up
to three hours. Nonetheless, these criticisms were often accompanied by statements about the ABC
information being only as reliable and current as that which was provided to it.
Mr Denis Spooner of Strathewen, Mr David O’Halloran of Flowerdale and Mr Peter Brown of St Andrews
spoke of the time lag problems as follows:
No mention was made of Strathewen, St Andrews, until an hour after the places had been burnt out. 5
Flowerdale apparently got one warning, which I didn’t hear, but they got one warning and one warning
only, and by the time there was a second warning, I’m told, which was around 9 o’clock, it was all over. 6
On reflection, I regret relying on the ABC to the extent that I did. It gave me the impression that we had
more time before the fire front arrived than we had in reality. 7
2.39
Most people with access to Country Fire Authority (CFA) scanners found them to be an invaluable
mechanism for staying informed. Conversely, the CFA website was criticised. Those who retained internet
access reported significant inaccuracies and time lags in the website information.
Mr David Brown of Strathewen confirmed this:
People who had access to the CFA scanner knew pretty much by sort of 3:30[pm] that Strathewen and
St Andrews were in the firing line, as opposed to sort of a lot of us who were relying on [ABC Radio] 774. 8
2.40
Most communities reported that the only warnings of any force were those delivered by the government
and the media in the week prior to 7 February, though many conceded that these warnings did not awaken
them to the extent of the risk. Many communities suggested that the Fire Danger Index used by the CFA,
and other authorities, ought to be adopted and communicated to the public as a standard measure for all
communities.
Mr Illiya Ananiev of St Andrews supported this:
All we are looking for is a category 1, 2, 3 or 5, and maybe a colour, red, yellow, green, to mix in with it. 9
2.41
A final issue pertains to warning sirens. A recurring suggestion was that the sirens used by the CFA in
some communities to gather its members ought to be upgraded with stronger and varying warning tones
for the benefit of the whole community. Some people suggested that such a system could be similar to the
hurricane/cyclone warning systems used in Australia’s north.
The evidence of Dr Lachlan Fraser of Marysville illustrates similar concerns raised about warning tones:
It [the siren] certainly wasn’t the wail that we are accustomed to when there’s a fire at other times of the
year, so to me that didn’t indicate that there was a fire in our local area that the siren was sounding about. 10
91

2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission—Interim Report
2 ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
Community preparedness
Figure 2.2: Factors affecting community preparedness: individual and local preparations
Number of Communities
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
CFA information
sessions
Pumps, generators, etc
Fireguards
More education on feral fires
and wind changes
Non-native trees
Preparation of house/clothes
Telephone trees
Water availability/sprinklers
Lack of water
Individual preparation
Local preparation
Source: Community consultations, March–April 2009
2.42
Many discussions about preparedness were prefaced by expressions of futility. The ferocity and speed of
the fires left many feeling helpless and many of those who believed they were ‘fire ready’ were overwhelmed
by what transpired.
Mr Bevan Gobbett of Clonbinane reflected similar views in his evidence:
You could have put a hundred fire tankers and Elvis in front of my house that day and you would have
killed a hundred fire tankers and Elvis. 11
2.43
2.44
There was general consensus that individuals have primary responsibility for preparing their own properties
for bushfire threats. Many people stated that this involved minimising fuel levels around homes, preparing fire
plans, testing and maintaining pumps and ensuring that hoses and hose fittings were fire resistant.
Frustration was expressed in some communities about too few green waste and hard rubbish collections;
restrictive council regulations about burn-offs and tree clearance; and neighbours who gave little or no
attention to reducing fuel loads on their properties.
As supported by Mr Ananiev:
The CFA is trying to do the right thing, saying yes, make it safe, but the council won’t let you. 12
2.45
Local CFA information sessions focusing on fire behaviour, fire plans and basic firefighting strategies were
praised. Of concern, however, was the poor attendance at these sessions. Many people suggested that
the programs could be strengthened by:
92
■■
■■
more regular scheduling
stronger promotion, targeted at new people moving into fire-prone areas

Engaging Communities
■■
■■
■■
providing more comprehensive information about different fire behaviours, including information on radiant
heat and ember showers
placing more emphasis on the ‘stay and defend’ or ‘leave early’ options so that people are better equipped
to make sound decisions
annual checking of fire plans and site visits.
Attendance at training sessions was later commented on by Dr John Ferguson of Buxton:
The first thing I learned was that very few people attended them [the CFA information sessions]. 13
2.46
Roof sprinklers and other sprinkler systems around properties were regarded by many as effective fire
suppressants. Some spoke persuasively of the value of diesel pumps or stand-alone solar power units for
pumps; private water carts; misters under the eaves; gutter plugs; and back-up generators. Others spoke
with conviction about the more fire-resistant capacity of deciduous vegetation compared with native species.
The views of Mr Peter Newman of Buxton, Mr P Brown and Dr Ferguson illustrate various opinions about
preparing properties for fires:
The sprinkler and having greenery around the house made all the difference. 14
If we rebuild, it will be on the basis that we have electric pumps and diesel backup generator, not just
one power source. 15
Deciduous trees in previous bushfires have produced good shelter … if I had the chance to start from
the beginning, the trees would be planted strategically, specifically for that purpose. 16
2.47
There were widely held concerns in some communities about water supplies and failing water pressure.
Some communities such as Flowerdale and Kinglake West questioned bore water arrangements.
The Flowerdale community, in particular, suggested that there was inadequate access to water from
King Parrot Creek when it was most needed for firefighting. Other communities spoke of the need for
better planning to ensure sufficient and accessible water supplies for tankers.
Issues of water supply were confirmed in the evidence of Dr Ferguson and Mr O’Halloran:
In quick succession over about one hour, we had lost electricity, then landlines, then mobile and then
town water. 17
We had a five and a half horsepower petrol motor on like a billycart that had a pump attached that could
be put into the creek. We had pumping rights to the creek. 18
2.48
People who belonged to community fireguard groups rated them highly and in the lead up to the fires those
who had phone-tree arrangements felt confident about having sufficient back-up support. For those not
affected by failed phone coverage, the phone trees were a significant support in making decisions and in
securing assistance.
Ms Christine Glassford of Reedy Creek and Mr John O’Neill of Steels Creek shared similar views:
It [the community fireguard group] was very good … I felt it was sufficient to enable me to prepare
sufficiently, certainly to still be here, but I guess I don’t know what else more you could do anyway. 19
The telephone tree was … very good in that it sort of kept the lines of communication clear among the
immediate neighbours. 20
2.49
Finally, in Horsham, people spoke appreciatively of the council which organised a community practice of
its disaster plan in December 2008 and provided its residents with up-to-date phone listings. In addition,
the council took heed of the warnings prior to 7 February and ensured that CFA tankers were strategically
placed around all high-risk areas, enabling a maximum response time of 11 minutes should fires ignite.
93

2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission—Interim Report
2 ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
Fuel reduction
Figure 2.3: Factors in fuel reduction
Number of Communities
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Vegetation clearing – private land
Fuel reduction – public land
Fuel reduction – roadsides
Fuel reduction
Source: Community consultations, March–April 2009
2.50
2.51
2.52
As figure 2.3 indicates, fuel reduction discussions fell into three major categories of emphasis, with each
receiving considerable attention. 21 Across all communities these were prominent issues that were articulated
with high levels of conviction and contention.
Specific concerns were raised about the build up of fuel loads on public lands and along roadsides.
The Commission heard repeated criticism of the decline in fuel reduction and fuel management programs,
such as controlled burning and back burning, conducted by government agencies and local councils.
Many argued that the build up of fuel, particularly in state forests and national parks, was the most significant
contribution to the fires. Others spoke of roadside fuel acting as ‘wicks’ that drew the fires into townships.
Added to this concern were widely held views that the buffer zones and fire trail networks on crown land
were insufficient and poorly maintained. Some claimed that these impediments compromised the safety
of firefighters and severely limited their fire suppression efforts.
Similar comments to these of Dr Chris Harvey of Kinglake and Mrs Joan Davey, whose family lived in
Kinglake, were often made:
The idea is if you reduce fuel, there is no fire. Bald Spur Road has never, or the mountain either side of it,
has never had a fuel reduction burn … The DSE has never been up there to do any burning off … It was
metres deep in some places with leaves and debris from 47 years worth of – do we call it negligence?
I would call it negligence, but I don’t know whether I’m being fair. 22
Roadsides shouldn’t have trees that have the ability to block them. I believe that trees are fine so long
as they have not got the ability to fall and block a road. 23
2.53
In addition, some participants maintained that tree preservation orders were too prohibitive, as were council
regulations about the retention of native vegetation. These issues were contentious, with some favouring
radical change, others advocating a hands-off approach, and some arguing for a ‘common sense’ balanced
approach to maintaining bushland settings and making homes safe.
Views expressed by Mr Ananiev and Ms Glassford illustrate the frustrations that were frequently raised
in the consultations:
Fallen trees are not allowed to be touched. Trees on the outside of my property are not allowed
to be touched. 24
My issue has been that in some instances we have had these dangerous trees or roads reviewed
three or four times and each time more trees have been taken. 25
94

Engaging Communities
2.54
A final concern to some community members was the issue of absentee landholders and ‘weekenders’ who
in some communities showed little or no commitment to fuel reduction programs or standards. Insurance
discounts for compliant landowners and tighter monitoring of compliance by councils were suggestions put
forward by several communities.
As also stated by Mr Newman:
We have got a lot of suburban people in the area that are retired there and they don’t have the same
learned knowledge and reactions. 26
Emergency management and coordination
Figure 2.4: Issues in emergency management and coordination
Number of Communities
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Evacuation centres/houses
Positive use of aircraft
Not enough use of local
knowledge/leadership
Inadequate maps/house signage
Roadblocks
(inc. media and looters)
Emergency Management and Coordination
Source: Community consultations, March–April 2009
2.55
2.56
Matters associated with resources available to fight the fires were raised but did not feature prominently,
with the exception being assistance from the CFA and fire-bombing aircraft — the latter were viewed to
be effective in those communities where they were used. There appeared to be tacit agreement that there
would rarely be sufficient resources to deal with the multiplicity of fire outbreaks on days like 7 February.
Any criticism raised in sessions about the CFA was quickly countered by other community members in the
same sessions. Across all communities there was widespread praise and appreciation expressed for the
CFA and other workers supporting them.
The views of Mr Doug Walter of Taggerty, Mr Peter Olorenshaw of Callignee and Mrs Davey reflect widely
held opinions:
I would like to be able to get in touch with the fire captains and tell them how very grateful we were. 27
[The CFA] are a very selfless organisation and have assisted in clearing debris off the roads, but also
the local farming community. 28
The families are all very grateful to CFA volunteers and all volunteers. 29
95

2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission—Interim Report
2 ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
2.57
Roadblocks represented the most frequently mentioned grievance for the majority of communities. People
expressed anger and frustration about emergency service personnel denied access to fire-affected areas.
Family and friends who were separated from loved ones experienced severe distress. Residents who fled
their homes spoke of the stress of being unable to return to care for livestock and protect their homes from
spot fires and ember attacks. Others who had stayed spoke of being ‘cut off’ and reluctant to leave their
properties for fear of being denied return access.
The comment of Mr John Williams of Yarra Glen is representative of one raised many times at the
consultations:
I think there certainly needs to be a measure of common sense, a measure of compassion in these
roadblocks. 30
2.58
Many people felt that roadblock protocols and regulations were too prohibitive and lacked understanding of
some of the fundamental needs of locals to access fresh food, medical assistance, and feed and veterinary
care for their livestock. Others argued that roadblocks should be staffed by people with local, up-to-date
information, who had discretionary powers to vary regulations and protocols, as the emergency required.
Mr D Brown made similar comments:
Neither of the policemen [on a roadblock] were prepared to say what they were doing this for, why they
were doing this, what they had been instructed. 31
2.59
Community participants in Kinglake, Bendigo, Marysville, Yarra Glen, Flowerdale and Strathewen spoke
of the perils of evacuating and of not knowing the location of evacuation centres or fire refuges. These
comments were often accompanied by requests for coordinated evacuation plans for people who cannot
self-evacuate — in particular elderly people, those without cars and people with a disability. The early
evacuation of elderly residents from a Marysville aged care facility was viewed as a good example of a
well-executed plan.
Uncertainty about the location of fire refuges is reflected in the comment of Mr O’Halloran:
I think it [the Yarra Valley Recreation Reserve] would probably be just one [a fire refuge] that locals know
about. I have never been aware of it being an official place. 32
2.60
2.61
Some people questioned the existence of local council emergency management plans and argued that
more was needed to educate residents about such plans. They argued that central fire refuges should be
well known and well signposted, both for locals and for tourists visiting the area, and that a coordinated
‘notification’ approach was needed for residents who had chosen to evacuate. It was suggested that
fire-resistant signs such as ‘we have left’, posted in a prominent area close to the entrance of properties,
would assist emergency workers in checking the safety of residents and properties.
A number of the communities spoke of roads that changed names multiple times and of the lack of
accurate, up-to-date maps that indicated the types of road. Added to this was the failure of many maps
to indicate access areas, trails and firebreaks in parks and forests. This was perceived as a significant
impediment for fire units and emergency service personnel deployed from outside the local area. A recurring
suggestion was that volunteers with sound local knowledge should accompany outside units deployed to
the area; alternatively, they should play a greater role in local operational communications.
Mr Walter similarly stated:
Through the smoke up Knafl Road we saw the red and blue flashing lights of what was obviously a CFA
unit. I ran up to the front gate. They stopped and I was ever so glad to see them. It turned out, on talking
to the fire captain, that they were a New South Wales unit that was lost.
96
… [the fire captain’s] exact words to me were the first casualty in this crisis has been communication,
that they had no map and that they had no briefing, and they didn’t know what to expect. So I actually
climbed into the command vehicle with him at that point knowing that my wife and Josh were still at the
home and showed them where they were trying to go ... 33

Engaging Communities
Recovery efforts
Figure 2.5: Issues with recovery efforts
Number of Communities
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Fences
Grants
Insurance
Lack of coordination
Issues with recovery effort
Source: Community consultations, March–April 2009
2.62
2.63
Issues raised about recovery efforts were essentially directed at the immediate post-fire experiences of
participants. The timing of the consultations meant that medium- and longer-term recovery issues, such
as access to donated funds and government grants, the clearance of blocks and case management
arrangements, were only just beginning to surface.
Most communities acknowledged the generous and sometimes ‘overwhelming’ support from volunteers.
They spoke of strengthened community cohesion and resilience and of the many kindnesses extended to
them by a host of individuals, businesses, government and community-based agencies. Specific examples
of commendation were from Kinglake residents who felt well supported by the people and services available
at Whittlesea, and from Marysville residents who were profoundly appreciative of the range of support
services provided at Alexandra.
Mr Ken Rogers of St Andrews supported this view:
It turned me over. People at one stage just gave us a hundred dollars. Shops were giving us things,
or not charging ... They couldn’t do enough. It was hard at times to find things for people to do who
wanted to help you. 34
2.64
Countering these commendations were grievances about poor coordination of recovery services. Many people
observed that there was a lack of clarity about the role of different agencies and the way they should work
together. Multiple registration procedures, along with having little or no information about the whereabouts
and wellbeing of family, friends or neighbours, exacerbated the stress and trauma for many people.
The experience later described by Mr Olorenshaw was not unique:
My herd was inspected twice by veterinarians who had no knowledge or contact with one another and
they were doing the same job and the same role. 35
2.65
Some people spoke of the need for a single, up-to-date, electronic and centralised database of residents’
details that could be shared among service providers to track locals, synchronise lists of missing persons
and monitor access to services and grants. Others spoke of the need for better identification systems such
as a bracelet system or an on-the-spot photo identification procedure that enabled photos to be exchanged
between evacuation centres and service providers.
Mrs Matthews suggested the following in her evidence:
One lady had been told that in fact we had all died. So, I just think in the future, streamlining and training
people who are in the process of doing the registrations would be a simple but effective things to do. 36
97

2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission—Interim Report
2 ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
2.66
Residents of Flowerdale and Hazeldene reported that four days transpired before emergency service
personnel arrived. This time lag well exceeded responses in other areas. Nonetheless some communities
spoke of there being several days or more before they had access to medical services, fuel, fresh food,
power and phone coverage.
Delays like those described by Mr Newman illustrate the difficulties:
Water we got back on Tuesday … Thursday we got power back and then we got two bars on the mobile
and I have only got a normal mobile, got two bars on Saturday, four bars on Monday so really brilliant. 37
2.67
2.68
Many people spoke of the need for urgent assistance to repair fences, and of inequities of fencing policies,
particularly for people whose properties bordered crown lands. The responsibilities and liabilities of private
and public landowners with regard to fencing was a highly contentious issue, causing substantial stress and
anxiety for those affected.
Also touched upon in a number of the consultations were issues of insurance and grants from public relief
funds. The issues focused primarily on the equity of eligibility criteria. While acknowledging that it was
‘early days’, some people were concerned about criteria pertaining to insured, under-insured or un-insured
property owners. Property owners who did not draw their primary income from the land, and those whose
properties were not their principal place of residence, also expressed concern about perceived disparities
and inequities. Another recurring concern was about the processes for making claims and applying for
grants; many people were fearful that excessive ‘red tape’ would delay respite from the severe financial
strain they were experiencing.
Ms Sharon McCulloch of Kinglake described the same frustrations:
We needed to comply with certain things to even be open again for insurance purposes, so we needed
to have all our fire extinguishers checked, we needed to have our septic tank pumped … we needed to
do quite a few things to satisfy them that we were publicly not liable once we re-opened again. 38
Buildings and infrastructure
Figure 2.6: Concerns with buildings and infrastructure
Number of Communities
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Building codes and fire rating
Bunkers
Underground powerlines
Buildings/Infrastructure
Source: Community consultations, March–April 2009
2.69
Across the 14 communities, issues raised about building codes and community infrastructure were less
predominant than those issues reported under previous themes.
98

Engaging Communities
2.70
People described various building features and infrastructure that they believed would provide them with
protection. But many were stunned by the non-discriminatory impact of the fires — some of the most fire-ready
homes did not withstand the ferocity of the fires, while others that were less fire-protected were left standing.
As suggested by Ms McCulloch in her evidence:
I don’t like saying luck, but it was a bit of luck … if the wind had blown directly at us I don’t think we would
have been as fortunate. 39
2.71
2.72
Few people disputed that building standards for fire protection would need serious review and upgrading.
A repeated caveat, however, was that one size does not fit all; fire-prone areas can vary greatly in topography,
as can the bushfire risk. The standards need to accommodate these variations.
Some people spoke of the urban-rural interface of their respective communities and of their ‘lifestyle’ choice to
live in bushland settings. They argued that any new developments and reconstruction regulations ought to reflect
a sensible balance of competing values — environmental conservation, human safety and property protection.
Mrs Matthews reflected on life in the bush as follows:
We love the bush and every time we go back there is a feeling of it being our home. 40
2.73
Questions about the merits of bunkers were repeatedly raised. In many instances people expressed an
openness to installing bunkers, not just on their own properties but at community centres such as schools.
People suggested that an expert engineering investigation was needed so that an Australian standard could
be developed.
Mr Gobbett later said of bunkers:
It [the bunker] saved our life in this fire. If we didn’t have it, I don’t doubt that we would be dead. 41
2.74
As figure 2.6 indicates, another concern raised in some communities was that of power poles. Many argued
that power poles should be built from concrete or other fireproof materials. Others argued that powerlines
should be relocated underground. Most posited that clearing of fuel loads and vegetation around powerlines
had been inadequate.
Mr P Brown’s view on powerlines as expressed during the hearings was illustrative of those held by others
in some communities:
I believe it is about time we bit the bullet and started undergrounding our power in bushfire areas. 42
Community consultations — concluding comments
2.75 As stated at the outset of the consultations, the Commission sought assistance in identifying key issues for
further research and investigation, in advance of any formal hearings. This objective was certainly achieved.
2.76
The Commission is extremely grateful to all community participants who provided first-hand accounts of
their experiences and views on a wide range of issues. The task of confronting, examining and discussing
experiences was at times difficult for people. As emphasised in paragraph 2.35, the commitment to
confidentiality has been maintained and the quotes used in this chapter to illustrate the issues raised
have come from witnesses at the public hearings, not from attendees at the community consultations.
The Commission thanks the attendees and other local community members and organisations who
assisted in hosting and supporting the sessions.
99

2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission—Interim Report
2 ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
EVIDENCE OF LAY WITNESSES
2.77
2.78
2.79
An important part of the evidence heard by the Commission during the first block of hearings came from 29
‘lay witnesses’ — people from all walks of life who were affected in some way by the 2009 bushfires. Having
experienced the devastating impact of the bushfires first hand, they were able to provide an account of that
impact on them personally, on their families, their neighbours and the communities to which they belong.
Lay witnesses who appeared before the Commission all lived or worked in areas affected by the 2009
bushfires, or else had loved ones who lived in these areas. A small number of lay witnesses experienced
the fires in a professional capacity, though all lay witnesses gave evidence in their personal capacity.
Their names and associated transcript references are outlined in Table 2.2.
The contribution of lay witnesses was extremely valuable, as will be apparent from the frequent references
to their evidence in the chapters that follow.
Identification of lay witnesses
2.80
2.81
2.82
2.83
2.84
2.85
2.86
2.87
The Commission identified lay witnesses in different ways, including through:
■■
■■
■■
■■
■■
■■
■■
attendance at the community consultations
applications for leave to appear received in March and April
submissions made by members of the public to the Commission
witness statements taken by Victoria Police following the bushfires
referrals from witnesses interviewed
media reports
individuals who contacted the Commission’s enquiry line.
During the first hearing block, the Commission investigated a number of issues, including warnings,
communications, and the ‘stay or go’ policy. Lay witnesses provided information to the Commissioners
about these issues by reference to their personal circumstances, their individual fire planning and
preparation, and their own experiences on 7 February and immediately following.
For some, giving evidence before the Commission enabled them to speak for family members who perished
in the fires. A number of lay witnesses gave evidence about how the fires affected vulnerable people, such
as the elderly, young children and people with disabilities.
Many lay witnesses told the Commission about their efforts to defend their homes against the fires.
Some stayed and defended their homes successfully; others saw their homes burn despite their best
efforts; all were able to share their experience to the benefit of the Commission.
Some witnesses told how they abandoned their plan to stay and defend when they realised the severity of the
firestorm. The Commission also heard from lay witnesses about their attempts to find shelter during the fires.
Other lay witnesses chose to leave rather than stay to defend their homes. Their accounts of how and
when they made their decisions to leave their homes have informed the Commission’s understanding of
the practical application of the ‘stay or go’ policy.
Some lay witnesses informed the Commission of their involvement with the CFA, either through being
a volunteer, attending community information sessions or becoming involved in a community fireguard
group. Several recounted their previous experience of fires in their area, which informed their response
to the 2009 bushfires.
The evidence of almost all of the lay witnesses included vivid descriptions of the fires. Many witnesses
also provided photographs and video footage they took during and after the bushfires. Combined with
their oral testimony, these photographs and video footage have greatly assisted the Commission in better
understanding the spread and severity of the bushfires.
100

Engaging Communities
2.88
Lay witnesses were also given the opportunity to give evidence in relation to other matters of concern
to them, including:
■■
■■
■■
■■
■■
■■
their experience with police roadblocks in the aftermath of the bushfires
restrictions on their ability to manage the vegetation around their homes
the adequacy of fuel management in their area
bushfire bunkers
the process of identifying those who perished in the fires
the need for a more coordinated response to the fires.
These issues are to be examined in greater detail by the Commission in future hearing blocks.
Evidence of lay witnesses — concluding comments
2.89
2.90
The evidence presented by lay witnesses was detailed and varied. It demonstrated the profound effect that
living through the 2009 bushfires had on them, their families and their communities. From the evidence of lay
witnesses, both the Commission and members of the broader community have been able to gain a better
understanding of the devastating effect that the bushfires had on so many people. Lay witnesses also drew
on their experiences to offer suggestions as to how things could be done differently in future, all of which
have been given careful attention by the Commission.
The process of identifying, interviewing and calling lay witnesses to give evidence is continuing. In future
hearing blocks, the Commission will continue to ask lay witnesses to provide an account of their experience
of the fires, while addressing specific topics under investigation. These topics will include building issues, the
causes and circumstances of each of the fires, emergency response and recovery, land-use planning and
fuel management — all matters within the Commission’s terms of reference.
101

2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission—Interim Report
2 ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
Table 2.2: Lay witnesses in the first hearing block, May– July 2009
Name Location Date of appearance Statement Transcript
102
Ms Jesse Odgers Kinglake 12 May 2009 EXHIBIT 10,
WIT.008.001.0001_R
Mr Peter Newman Buxton 13 May 2009 EXHIBIT 13,
WIT.009.001.0001_R
Mr Brian Patten Upper Plenty 14 May 2009 EXHIBIT 15,
WIT.007.001.0001_R
Mr Denis Spooner Strathewen 15 May 2009 EXHIBIT 17,
WIT.011.001.0001_R
Mr Ken Rogers St Andrews 18 May 2009 EXHIBIT 20,
WIT.015.001.0001_R
Mrs Joan Davey Kinglake 43 19 May 2009 EXHIBIT 23,
WIT.019.001.0001_R
Dr John Ferguson Buxton 20 May 2009 EXHIBIT 29,
WIT.022.001.0001_R
Ms Jillian Kane Long Gully 44 21 May 2009 EXHIBIT 34,
WIT.017.001.0001_R
Mr Daryl Hull Marysville 45 25 May 2009 EXHIBIT 39,
WIT.030.001.0001_R
Ms Christine Glassford Reedy Creek 26 May 2009 EXHIBIT 43,
WIT.028.001.0001_R
Mr Bevan Gobbett Clonbinane 27 May 2009 EXHIBIT 46,
WIT.026.001.0001_R
Mr John (David) Brown Strathewen 28 May 2009 EXHIBIT 48,
WIT.029.001.0001_R
Mr Peter Olorenshaw Callignee 1 June 2009 EXHIBIT 61,
WIT.034.001.0001_R
Mr Ken Dwight
Woods Point,
Marysville
2 June 2009 EXHIBIT 64,
WIT.037.001.0001_R
Dr Chris Harvey Kinglake 3 June 2009 EXHIBIT 67,
WIT.036.001.0001_R
Mr Christopher Casey Long Gully 4 June 2009 EXHIBIT 70,
WIT.035.001.0001_R
Ms Sharon McCulloch Kinglake 9 June 2009 Exhibit 73,
WIT.043.001.0001_R
Mr Doug Walter Taggerty 10 June 2009 EXHIBIT 77,
WIT.041.001.0001_R
Mr Illiya Ananiev St Andrews 11 June 2009 EXHIBIT 87,
WIT.040.001.0001_R
Ms Anastasia Scott Marysville 12 June 2009 EXHIBIT 91,
WIT.045.001.0001_R
Dr Lachlan Fraser Marysville 15 June 2009 EXHIBIT 95,
WIT.048.001.0001_R
Mr John O’Neill Steels Creek 16 June 2009 EXHIBIT 97,
WIT.047.001.0001_R
Ms Alice Barber Pheasant Creek 17 June 2009 EXHIBIT 103,
WIT.046.001.0001_R
Mr Peter Brown St Andrews 18 June 2009 EXHIBIT 108,
WIT.053.001.0001_R
Mr David O’Halloran Flowerdale 22 June 2009 EXHIBIT 114,
WIT.058.001.0001_R
Mrs Carol Matthews St Andrews 23 June 2009 EXHIBIT 116,
WIT.057.001.0001_R
Ms Karen Ward Mudgegonga 24 June 2009 EXHIBIT 121,
WIT.052.001.0001_R
Mr John Williams Yarra Glen 46 25 June 2009 EXHIBIT 125,
WIT.055.001.0001_R
Ms Jacqueline Hainsworth Kinglake West 29 June 2009 EXHIBIT 134,
WIT.059.001.0001_R
T189:15–T198:30
T332:4–T356:2
T406:2–T429:27
T461:2–T508:28
T603:4–T620:2
T774:8–T790:15
T922:23–T956:29
T1040:6–T1057:12
T1160:9–T1191:19
T1319:3–T1348:30
T1491:19–T1505:31
T1635:8–T1657:8
T1871:4–T1906:23
T2058:27–T2093:17
T2189:5–T2205:1
T2347:19–T2365:28
T2442:3–T2477:7
T2581:3–T2602:25
T2768:2–T2787:21
T2915:29–T2934:24
T3046:3–T3065:31
T3190:28–T3218:14
T3331:3–T3360:11
T3496:6–T3548:19
T3676:6–T3726:19
T3771:14–T3807:31
T4028:3–T4048:1
T4205:4–T4234:9
T4529:4–T4546:31
Note: This list of lay witnesses relates only to the May–July block of hearings. The final report will include a wider representation of witnesses.