The firefighters union has called for an overhaul of the ACT's bushfire response that would see responsibility for pockets of bushland in Canberra's suburbs handed to the territory's urban firefighters in the event of an emergency.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The United Firefighters Union has proposed changes to control over the territory's bushfire abatement zones, which are pockets of rural land adjacent to built-up areas of Canberra.
Such zones have caused consternation between the Rural Fire Service and ACT Fire and Rescue, with the process for determining who has command and control over fires in bushfire abatement zones described as "problematic" and "cumbersome".
A review of the ACT's emergency laws last year found that trying to determine which service was responsible was an "unnecessary distraction" that impeded fast decision-making, and tied up firefighters when they should be concentrating on putting out a fire.
The UFU's proposal would be that ACT Fire and Rescue take primary command and control over incidents in such areas. The proposal would not see the RFS exit urban areas entirely, but would give ACT Fire and Rescue the power to decide on allocation of resources.
Union secretary Greg McConville said the current functioning was causing confusion about which agency took charge of the response to a fire, forcing decisions over responsibility to be referred up the chain of command during an emergency.
He said the McLeod Inquiry into the 2003 Canberra bushfires proposed fire abatement zones on the interface of rural and built up areas.
"As Canberra has expanded, we now have isolated pockets of land that are Rural Fire Service responsibility - yet fires in these areas risk impacting on built-up areas."
But the Emergency Services Agency said it was well aware of concerns about bushfire abatement zones, and has been working to resolve the situation since late last year, when the review of the Emergencies ACT 2004 was tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
That review recommended that a single service be given responsibility for controlling incidents in bushfire abatement zones.
ESA Commissioner Dominic Lane wrote to the union late last year, asking for feedback on what should be done. He said the policy position was to be that ACT Fire and Rescue had responsibility for built-up areas, while the RFS had responsibility for the rural areas.
In a statement on Wednesday afternoon, Acting Commissioner Conrad Barr said:
"We are pleased the UFU has now responded to that letter some months later and we will welcome further consultation through the Emergency Services Operational Review Group which includes the UFU as a member."
Mr McConville said if rural fire crews were first responders to a fire at a location such as Gossan Hill Nature Reserve, in the centre of Belconnen, responsibility for the incident could need be handed to urban firefighters if surrounding built-up areas were under threat or more resources were needed.
If fire service bosses couldn't decide which agency should lead the response, that decision could eventually be escalated as far up the chain of command to the Emergency Services Agency Commissioner.
Mr McConville said firefighters could not afford to talk about how they should handle a fast-moving grassfire or bushfire when homes and infrastructure were under threat.
He said suburbs that would be affected by the proposed boundary changes included Gungahlin, Forde, Franklin, Bruce, Curtin, Fadden, Red Hill and Bonner.
"The [bushfire abatement zone] proposal was intended for the foothills of the Brindabellas and Molonglo Valley – not to have holes like Swiss cheese throughout Canberra.
"Rural Fire Service zones surrounded by metropolitan areas should be an ACT Fire and Rescue responsibility.
"They are no more rural than a suburban football ground."
