A GROUP of farmers behind an independent review (the Cascade Scaddan Fire Review) into the Esperance fires say they are becoming increasingly frustrated with a perceived lack of co-operation from the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES).
The group of farmers took the unprecedented step following the disastrous Esperance fires to fund their own review employing the services of Pacer Legal, saying they were unhappy with how the fire was handled. Spokesman for the group and Grass Patch farmer Dan Sanderson said while they hoped to have the review out much earlier they had been waiting on DFES information.
"We have applied for information through the Freedom Of Information Act with little success in regards to DFES," Mr Sanderson said.
"Pacer Legal have compiled information from relevant authorities and people involved to complete a comprehensive report.
"We believe it could be released publicly within a couple of weeks.
"It would be good to have the DFES information to add to the report later if possible."
Mr Sanderson said despite missing the DFES information, they were happy with the report so far.
"I believe we have found out what we need to know and have highlighted areas of concern," he said.
"As a group, we feel this report is going to assist in preventing and fighting fires in WA."
Mr Sanderson said the group has a responsibility firstly to inform the people that have contributed funds to conduct the review.
"We want to get some collective minds together, discuss the findings and work out a strategy as to the best way to push for change before we release it to the wider public," he said.
Mr Sanderson said a large component of the report would focus on mitigation, but it would not be centred only on this.
"We recognise that mitigation is a large part of controlling fires in WA," he said.
"There are frustrations that authorities have with accessing funds for mitigation work and our report will have some recommendations on how to address this problem."
Mr Sanderson said another major area the review was concerned with was how to reduce delays in taking action when fires break out.
"There seems to be this whole bureaucratic trail that needs to be followed before immediate action can be taken and in some cases, the fire is already out of hand," Mr Sanderson said.
He said the group has always been focused on driving change as fire control systems have not been working effectively.
"We have looked back at fires over many years and it seems to be similar problems that emerge," he said.
"The purpose of the review is not to bash DFES, I am not happy with DFES and what happened down here (in Esperance), but in my opinion we shouldn't go away totally from DFES, we need to find a way to work with them in some areas.
"I just feel the government has been trying hard to make changes but it has put too much faith in DFES and created a bureaucratic monster.
"The State government has spent a lot of landholders' and taxpayers' money on trying to stop these large fires from happening, but the funds are not being used effectively.
"Our review will help give the government some direction on better use of the funding."
Mr Sanderson said another reason why they were frustrated with the delay in being able to get the report out was that the Ferguson Review was already out.
"We thought the Ferguson report was a great, independent report but we don't want that taken in its entirety and nothing else looked at," he said.
"We want the government to use our report in conjunction with the Ferguson report to really drive change."
In response to the farmer group's claims, DFES assistant commissioner Graham Swift said that DFES will happily work with the review group where possible to provide relevant information.
"DFES is working with the review group's legal representatives to narrow down the scope of information requested," Mr Swift said.
"The current request for all documentation from the 17 days the fires burned is estimated to be more than 30,000 pages.
"DFES will need to review every single page to remove individual personal information for privacy reasons. This will require a huge volume of resources and time to complete.
"The pending coronial investigation also restricts DFES's ability to release information."
In terms of process followed in the early days of the Esperance fires, Mr Swift said the independent report conducted by Nous Group into the Esperance fires outlines the initial response to the bushfires, which were managed by the Shire of Esperance (Merivale and Cascades fires) and Parks and Wildlife (Cape Arid fire)," he said.
He also said the Shire of Esperance, Parks and Wildlife, DFES and Bush Fire Brigades in Esperance are working together to establish a bushfire risk mitigation plan to be completed over a five year period.
"This process is being managed by the Shire of Esperance, and farmers are welcome to get in touch with the Shire to provide feedback," Mr Swift said.
