CFA attacked over back-burn damage to property
By Daniel Ziffer
February 13, 2006
A FARMER has hit out at the Country Fire Authority for torching much of his property during the
Grampians bushfire.
Tom Napier has hired a solicitor to claim damages for what he says was unnecessary destruction.
The decision to back-burn his Mirranatwa property on Australia Day was made to protect other land from the fire raging in the
Grampians National Park, the CFA said last week.
However, a leaked document suggests that the CFA's inability to get Government approval to back-burn in public forest meant almost 260 hectares of Mr Napier's adjoining property was razed.
Opposition agriculture spokesman Denis Napthine, who visited Mr Napier's property, said he was shocked and appalled by the amount of devastation done with the objective of protection.
"If a fire starts in public land, is fuelled by public land and threatens to leave public land, that's what you should use to put it out — public land," he said.
"The only real damage done by fire to farming property on the western side of the
Grampians was done by back-burning operations."
The document obtained by The Age was sent from Region 5 CFA headquarters in
Hamilton on the morning of January 27.
"Last night permission could not be obtained to burn the public land," it reads, before detailing the back-burning of Mr Napier's property, Glen Elva.
Mr Napier is furious about the CFA action, which destroyed almost a third of his property and endangered 500 sheep. The burnt paddock — 1.6 kilometres wide and deep — was full of grass to feed 1000 sheep and 400 cattle on the property.
He was not notified of the back-burn, which his father discovered about 7pm on January 26, conducted by what he estimated to be 20 CFA trucks. They left with the paddock still on fire.
The fire destroyed the fence that his property shares with the national park and burnt into the forest. The next day 800 metres of fencing was destroyed in a clean-up operation, he said.
A CFA spokesman said the back-burn was intended to establish a control line to protect the top end of the Victoria Valley.
"The strike team leader looked at the fuel load, the natural land features and (other conditions) before making their decision," CFA deputy incident controller Greg Leach said.
Mr Leach defended the actions of the crews, who he said had to evaluate weather conditions and fire behaviour in deciding where to back-burn.
He added that the CFA Act designated damage done to suppress or prevent fire as if it had been done by the fire.
But Mr Napier was not appeased by the explanation. "This wasn't a wildfire. This was a burn-out and it wasn't necessary," he said. "Under the act they can just please themselves and come in and burn you out."
His solicitor, Mark Stratman of Hunter Newns in
Hamilton, said he questioned the necessity of burning the land and the CFA's process for choosing it.
"(But) we're not suggesting for a minute that they did it for any reason other than the best motivations," he said.
CFA deputy chief officer Craig Lapsley said a "triangle" of public land mentioned in the leaked document was not allowed to be burnt because its elevation increased the likelihood of spot fires in the region. Instead, the Napier property was burnt.
The triangle was burnt about 3am the next day, he said.
A crew with local knowledge had been at the fire, he said, but he could not explain why Mr Napier's fences were burnt and why he was not notified.