The Final Report of the Bushfires Royal Commission Implementation Monitor (BRCIM) was tabled in Parliament on 31 July 2012. It is expected to be the Implementation Monitor’s last major report.
Approximately 60 implementation actions from the State Government ’s May 2011
Implementation Plan have not yet been completed or are not due for completion. These will be a focus of the BRCIM’s Annual Reports, to be tabled in Parliament by 31 July 2013 and
31 July 2014.
This latest report examines progress in the implementation of the Victorian Bushfires Royal
Commission (VBRC) recommendations, particularly those actions completed since the
BRCIM’s Progress Report, July 2011.
During the last year, the BRCIM has sought evidence of implementation actions and their efficacy, where possible, on a quarterly basis. In relation to actions involving local government, the MAV undertook to request information, feedback and evidence from councils and provide a sector response.
The MAV understands that the implementation of the VBRC recommendations to date has resulted in an enormous amount of work for councils. The MAV has actively consulted with and represented councils in the development of related policy and programs and has strongly advocated for additional resourcing for councils.
The MAV encourages councils to review the key recommendations below, particularly those that the BRCIM will continue to monitor. The MAV will be asked to report on council progress twice yearly and will request feedback from councils. Between these times, the MAV would like to hear from councils if there is a particular issue of which the MAV should be made aware so that it can be pursued with the relevant agency.
Recommendation 3
Feedback to the BRCIM from the MAV throughout the year highlighted councils’ considerable involvement in the Integrated Fire Management Planning (IFMP) and Township
Protection Plan (TPP) processes. The MAV highlighted the common misconception that local or municipal emergency management plans are council plans, when in fact many agencies are responsible for contributing to, and executing relevant sections of the plan.
The BRCIM acknowledges that an IFMP Planning Guide had been developed in 2010 and the Emergency Management Manual Victoria (EMMV) had been amended to provide specific fire management planning guidance to municipal fire management planning committees (MFMPCs). However the BRCIM remains concerned at the absence of a truly integrated community based approach to emergency management planning in the state.
1

The BRCIM anticipates that the White Paper on emergency management will be vital in addressing these fundamental reforms. In the meantime a review of the current guidance to councils by the State Fire Management Planning Committee has commenced, which is expected to refine the IFMP Planning Guide and relevant sections of the EMMV.
The BRCIM will revisit this action in future annual reports.
In relation to IFMP, the MAV actively participates on the State Fire Management Planning
Committee and will continue to represent councils on matters relating to fire management planning.
Last week MAV representatives attended a roundtable discussion on key issues relating to the upcoming White Paper. The roundtable, arranged by the Department of Justice, provided an opportunity for the MAV to represent the views of councils across a range of previously identified issues as part of our consultation on the Green Paper. As the only non-government entity at the roundtable, the MAV appreciated the opportunity to provide input and to hear the views of a broad cross section of government departments and agencies. While a publication date is not yet known, we expect the paper to be released by the end of the year.
The MAV will consult with councils and advocate on proposals relating to the sector when the White Paper is released.
Recommendation 3
Following advocacy by the MAV throughout the year, funding was announced in the 2012-13
State Budget to extend the Municipal Emergency Resourcing Program, enabling the 64 councils that are wholly or partly in the CFA district to share in the funding for two years.
However the MAV had also recommended that any decision to pair/group councils should be made following consultation with councils about the practicalities of sharing such a position.
The MAV’s quarterly reports to the BRCIM highlighted the resourcing needs of councils including the experience of councils that shared an officer during 2011-12, noting that the arrangement significantly reduced the efficacy of the funding provided due to travel time across rural municipalities and the nature of the work requiring duplication for each municipality.
In the Final Report, the BRCIM noted that while the Emergency Management (Fire)
Coordinators have provided significant relief for some councils, appropriate and sustainable resourcing arrangements need to be explored to address the increasing responsibilities on municipal staff involved in emergency management.
The BRCIM will revisit this action in future annual reports.
The MAV will continue to support the Emergency Management (Fire) Coordinators through the development of programs, processes and tools such as the MAV’s emergency management e-library, as part of the MAV’s Shared Services Project.
Recommendation 3
The BRCIM noted the further clarification around the definition of vulnerable people provided through the 2011-12 Vulnerable People in Bushfire Risk Areas policy and detailed the proposed Vulnerable People in Emergencies Program (VPEP).
2

The MAV has been actively representing councils on this issue and has advocated for:

a web-based portal that enables relevant agencies to input the details of vulnerable clients and enables Victoria Police to access the details when required (subject to appropriate processes), removing the reliance on councils to maintain and provide lists of funded agencies. While the MAV advocated for a centrally-managed database, this was not supported.

appropri ate resourcing to support councils’ roles in the implementation of the VPEP, resulting in the additional resources mentioned above.

the role and responsibilities of funded agencies in relation to the VPEP to be specified in DH/DHS service agreements.
The MAV has expressed great concern about the community expectations that would be raised through the inclusion on the registers of vulnerable people not receiving services by a funded agency. To better manage expectations, the MAV has advocated for a comprehensive communication and education program to provide clarity about what is being promised to those on the register. While it has not yet been determined how vulnerable people not receiving services will be identified, it is the MAV’s understanding that the inclusion of those not receiving services will be limited to those who meet the current policy definition – i.e. those who would be unable to understand or act on a warning, have no personal or community support and would be reliant on assistance in an emergency.
Work is commencing on the development of the web-based register, as an additional component of the MECC Central incident management software that most Victorian councils have purchased through MAV Procurement. This further functionality will be developed at no cost to councils. The MAV is leading the project steering group and DHS is project managing the software development.
The MAV is strongly advocating for council involvement to develop and test the software and for council involvement in the review and further development of the existing Vulnerable
People in Bushfire Risk Areas Policy 2011-12 and the development of related protocols.
The BRCIM will revisit this action in future annual reports.
Recommendation 4
In relation to neighbourhood safer places (NSPs), the BRCIM noted that the identification and designation of NSPs has proven to be a major challenge for the State and local government and it is clear that in some locations, NSPs are not appropriate on safety and other legitimate grounds.
Also noted was the MAV’s concern on behalf of councils that it costs councils between
$5,000 and $30,000 to establish a NSP and a minimum of $2,000 a year in maintenance costs.
The designation of community fire refuges was also described as a very slow process, which the BRCIM stressed should be progressed as soon as possible.
The BRCIM noted the MAV’s concern on behalf of councils about the risks and costs associated with the establishment, maintenance and operation of community fire refuges.
The MAV has advocated for pilot fire refuges to be established on State land, so that the
State assumes the responsibilities of the owner outlined in the Fire Services Commissioner’s
3

policy and accompanying procedures. Following the experience of councils with NSPs, the
MAV is particularly concerned about the potential for legislation relating to fire refuges to assign to councils the responsibility for the operation and maintenance, and liability for death or injury.
The BRCIM will revisit this action in future annual reports.
Recommendation 31 Inclusion of identification and notification procedures regarding hazard trees in Municipal Fire
Prevention/Management Plans (MFPPs/MFMPs)
The BRCIM noted that all councils in Victoria have now incorporated provision for the identification and management of hazard trees within their MFPPs/MFMPs. The MAV ’s assistance to councils in this process by providing a template was also noted.
The BRCIM considers this action has been satisfactorily implemented.
Recommendations 37 – 55 Planning and Building recommendations
The BRCIM noted that recommendations 37 – 55 involve fundamental changes to the planning and building regimes in Victoria which will take some years to implement and have effect.
The State Government ’s May 2011 Implementation Plan contained the ‘Planning and
Building Framework ’ which has two components:

Bushfire hazard and biodiversity mapping - recommendations 37.1 and 43

Planning and building system improvements – recommendations 37.2, 37.3, 38,
39.1, 39.2, 40, 41, 45, 52.
Amendment VC83, approved by the Minister for Planning on 18 November 2011, amended the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and planning schemes. Fact sheets and advisory/practice notes are available from the DPCD website .
These changes included:

mapping and designation of bushfire prone areas (BPA) - recommendation 37

a new bushfire management overlay (BMO) - recommendation 39

a revised State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) - recommendation 39

changes to the Local Planning Policy Frameworks (LPPF) – recommendation 41

the introduction of the buy-back scheme for properties in areas of unacceptably high bushfire risk – recommendation 46

amending the Building Regulations 2006 to apply a construction minimum of BAL
12.5 in BPA
– recommendation 49

developing a new bushfire sprinkler standard – recommendation 50
Bushfire Hazard and Biodiversity Mapping - Recommendation 37
The Bushfire Hazard and Biodiversity Mapping (BHBM) project delivered a statewide bushfire hazard map (gazetted on 8 September 2011) plus detailed maps of bushfire hazard and biodiversity values in targeted areas, to assist in balancing native vegetation conservation and the management of bushfire risk and guide the application of the BMO.
4

The BRCIM noted that the map is intended to be dynamic and reviewed as bushfire science develops and vegetation mapping improves. The BRCIM will revisit this action in future annual reports.
Bushfire Prone Areas (BPA) - Recommendation 37
Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) - Recommendation 39
Bushfire Prone Areas are subject to or likely to be subject to bushfires. All of Victoria was designated bushfire prone following the February 2009 bushfires, which ended in September
2011. Specific areas in Victoria have now been designated as BPA.
BPA require specific bushfire construction requirements under the building control system.
Highly populated metropolitan areas are often excluded as they have relatively low bushfire risk.
The BRCIM notes that implementation has been challenging but is satisfied that the intention of the VBRC in relation to recommendation 37 has been met. The BRCIM notes the mapping components will continue to adapt and change according to the relevant circumstances at the local level.
The BMO replaced the Wildfire Management Overlay (WMO) as part of Amendment VC83 and applies to planning applications submitted on or after 18 November 2011.
The BMO is applied to land in areas significantly affected by a bushfire hazard.
DPCD has been working with councils, the CFA and DSE to finalise the mapping of the BMO across the state and introduce revised BMO mapping into relevant planning schemes.
The MAV is participating in the Rapid Verification Taskforce (RVT) established to assist in this process.
The MAV’s feedback to the BRCIM has been that the process to ground-truth and apply the
BMO and BPA maps needs to be resourced, particularly assistance to vary local schedules, and should be a priority as the mapping will precede any LPPF work.
The MAV has expressed concerns that support to apply the hazard mapping through the
BPA and BMO will reduce significantly after June 2012.
The BRCIM considers this action has been satisfactorily implemented but notes that it may take years before there is a true understanding of these fundamental changes and their wider implication for planning across the state. The MAV will continue to provide feedback as we receive it from councils.
Amend guidelines for municipal councils and the community to align permit applications with the new planning provisions - Recommendation 40
The CFA has developed two fire service guidelines which are available from the CFA website and is developing an additional resource to ensure applicants and referral authorities understand the approaches undertaken during the assessment of a planning application. The BRCIM will revisit this action in the 2013 Annual Report.
5

Regional Bushfire Planning Assessments (RBPA) - Recommendation 38
RBPAs are regional bushfire land use risk assessment studies setting out identified areas within the region that are close to bushfire hazards. While not having any statutory weight, the RBPA complements the new provisions in the VPP and other information that informs strategic planning decisions such as the VFRR and IFMP.
The MAV participated in the Project Reference Group, led by DPCD and consisting of a council representative from each region, CFA, MFB and GAA, to develop the RBPA.
RBPAs were developed for the areas of Melbourne, Hume, Loddon Mallee, Barwon South
West, Grampians and Gippsland. The BRCIM noted that the work on the RBPA complements the consideration of bushfire matters in other stages of the planning process such as the SPPF and LPPF.
The BRCIM noted that substantial work was undertaken in a short period of time to ensure the recommendation was met, and considers this action has been satisfactorily implemented.
Design and consult on changes to policy frameworks and the VPPs – Rec. 41
The 10/30 rule introduced after February 2009 that enabled residents to clear native vegetation around their property without a planning permit for bushfire protection, remains in place. This rule applies statewide for dwellings constructed before September 2009 except in 21 metropolitan municipalities. A new 10/50 rule was introduced in November 2011 as part of Amendment VC83, in areas where the bushfire hazard is greatest, i.e. within a BMO.
The BRCIM considers this action has been satisfactorily implemented.
Develop a native vegetation offset scheme - Recommendation 42
Feedback to the BRCIM from the MAV highlighted the considerations and work of councils in establishing native vegetation offset schemes, and the BRCIM noted the collaboration between DSE, the MAV and councils.
The MAV and DSE are continuing to progress the implementation of this recommendation through a local government working group which has a focus on over-the-counter native vegetation offset schemes and provides a forum for councils to share information, learn from each other and raise any issues with DSE.
The progress and achievements of the group will be considered and inform whether the group should continue in early 2013. Until then the DSE and MAV will facilitate the group, and MAV will provide any relevant information and guidance updates on its sustainability website.
The BRCIM will revisit this action in the 2013 Annual Report.
Council implementation of the new bushfire planning provisions through the development of local planning policies – Recommendation 45
In November 2011, DPCD released a Practice Note 64 to assist councils develop local planning policies for bushfire protection.
6

The BRCIM considers the information provided by DPCD is comprehensive and sufficient for councils to incorporate the new bushfire provisions into local planning policies if required.
The MAV advised the BRCIM that councils are applying the new framework which will assist to clarify the role and need for a local policy, given strengthened state policy and the revised
BMO.
The BRCIM noted the many projects highlighted by the MAV and the workshop in March
2012 to assist councils develop common planning projects, such as schedules to modify the
BMO, enforcement and compliance, protection options for dispersed settlements and vegetation management agreements.
The BRCIM concurs with the MAV’s view that it is expected to take a number of years to determine the effectiveness of the new planning framework.
The BRCIM will revisit this action in the 2013 Annual Report.
Developing a mechanism for sign-off by councils of bushfire permit conditions
(ongoing enforcement of future landowner compliance) – Recommendation 52
Amendment VC83 requires a permit condition for ongoing compliance with bushfire protection measures on planning permits issued under the BMO for buildings and works.
The BRCIM acknowledged the work of DPCD, councils, the MAV and the Planning
Enforcement Officers Association (PEOA) in providing guidance materials for councils, land owners and permit holders about their obligations, which is available on the DPCD website, and the work to develop additional tools.
The MAV has advised the BRCIM of council feedback that indicates a low level of community awareness of the requirements, and of enforcement related projects in Mansfield
Shire and East Gippsland Shire.
The BRCIM noted that enforcement will remain an issue for councils and is dependent on public compliance as well as municipal resourcing.
The BRCIM is encouraged by efforts being considered by the MAV and councils to identify ways to improve compliance proactively into the future.
The BRCIM considers this action has been satisfactorily implemented.
Exemption for road managers to remove native vegetation along roadsides without the requirement for a planning permit - Recommendation 60
The Local Government Native Vegetation Reference Group (LGNV Reference Group) guided the development of the new exemption, introduced just prior to the 2011-12 bushfire season.
There has been limited application of the exemption since its introduction, however many more councils are expected to use this exemption in the coming fire season.
The MAV believes the road fire risk assessment process will lead to a more consistent and transparent approach to bushfire mitigation works on roadsides across Victoria. The MAV
7

will continue to support councils undertake the risk assessment and submit works plans to
DSE for approval.
The BRCIM described the establishment of the LGNV Reference Group as vital in properly identifying issues. Council involvement was seen as instrumental in ensuring other agencies and departments understood the limitations and practicalities of implementing roadside vegetation management policies and resource implications.
The BRCIM considers this action has been satisfactorily implemented.
Identify specific guidance needs and regulatory barriers to undertake roadside vegetation management for bushfire consultation (via LGNV Reference Group and road managers) - Recommendation 61
Consistent with the assessment outlined above, the BRCIM described the work of the LGNV
Reference Group as essential to enable road managers to discharge their road management responsibilities in a more effective and efficient manner, particularly in relation to reducing bushfire risk on roadsides.
DSE guidance materials, including the road fire risk assessment guideline, provided councils with improved information about how to manage native vegetation on roadsides for bushfire mitigation works.
Councils with approved works plans and exemption agreements with DSE allow road managers to take protected flora, except threatened or advisory listed taxa or communities, when undertaking bushfire risk mitigation works under the Victorian Flora and Fauna
Guarantee Act 1988 . However, councils still need to comply with the Federal Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) 1999.
The EPBC Act does allow for a number of bushfire mitigation activities to occur without approvals, such as fuel reduction burns and routine maintenance of access roads, tracks and existing fire breaks.
The BRCIM considers this action has been satisfactorily implemented.
VicRoads implement a systematic statewide program of bushfire risk assessments for all roads for which it is responsible - Recommendation 62
VicRoads developed a new guideline to assess bushfire risk on arterial roads in consultation with the MAV and councils, which DSE CFA and the MAV modified to be used on municipal roads.
This recommendation was specific to VicRoads, but the MAV has been involved in the implementation of recommendation 62 through the interaction of the road fire risk assessment guideline with the new road fire exemption (see recommendation 60).
As use of the road fire risk assessment guideline applies to councils through the exemption, a number of municipalities have been engaged to participate in an independent evaluation of the guideline as requested by the State Fire Management Planning Committee. The MAV will work with councils where evaluation findings impact on municipal road management.
This recommendation is almost complete, with work to be completed on the evaluation of the road fire risk assessment guideline and VicRoads roadside management plans.
8

The BRCIM considers the development of the guideline and its application to all roads throughout Victoria as a valuable means of ensuring uniform assessment of risk and treatments.
Recommendation 64 Fire Services Levy
The BRCIM acknowledged the concerns of local government regarding the implementation of the levy, noting that councils are particularly concerned about the potential costs, transitional arrangements and collection responsibilities.
These issues were raised by the MAV in its submission to the g overnment’s Fire Services
Levy Options Paper - 30 June 2011 , which found that significant shifts in the burden of the
Fire Services Levy are likely under the new system. The MAV also raised these issues at subsequent community consultation sessions.
As noted in the Final Report, the Fire Services Property Levy Bill had not been introduced into Parliament by 30 June 2012 and the transition period therefore could not commence as of 1 July 2012.
The BRCIM has been advised that work is progressing and that the government still intends to introduce the Bill and to commence full implementation from 1 July 2013.
Given that no information has yet been provided to local government about the Fire Services
Levy and any responsibilities it would have under the new system, the MAV will continue to advocate for the State Government to undertake valuations, collect the levy and manage the new system.
The BRCIM will revisit this action in the 2013 Annual Report.
Interactions between agencies and councils
In addition to reporting on the progress of implementation, the BRCIM Act requires monitoring and assessment of ongoing efforts to improve interactions between agencies and councils in relation to bushfire planning and preparation.
Based on consultations in 2011 with state agencies and councils, the BRCIM noted that the quality of working relationships between agencies and councils was found to vary throughout the State.
In relation to councils, the BRCIM noted the feedback from council staff that good internal coordination between areas of council involved in bushfire and emergency planning, including fire prevention, land use planning, community development and health and community services, supported good relationships with agencies.
The BRCIM recommends that a more holistic, integrated approach which genuinely engages with communities, is required across councils and agencies.
Support and recognition of the importance of the work from management and councillor level was also noted as an important factor in council/agency relationships.
The BRCIM also noted that the MAV’s Improving Emergency Management in Local
Government program has sought to develop a clear and accepted definition of the
9

appropriate role of local government in emergency management which, if adopted in the government’s emergency management white paper, would contribute to a better understanding of roles and responsibilities between councils and agencies.
In conclusion, the BRCIM said that it is hoped these findings, read in conjunction with
Victoria’s emergency management Green Paper/White Paper process, the MAV’s work on the role of local government in emergency management and emerging research, will assist the State in developing and implementing much needed meaningful reform.
Website link: http://www.bushfiresmonitor.vic.gov.au/
MAV contact person: Ros Handley
Phone Number: 9667 5552
Email: rhandley@mav.asn.au
10

LGNV
LPPF
MEMP
MFMP
MFMPC
MFPP
NSP
PEOA
RBPA
RVT
SPPF
TPP
VBRC
VFRR
VPEP
VPP
WMO
ABBREVIATIONS
BHBM Bushfire Hazard and Biodiversity Mapping
BMO
BPA
Bushfire Management Overlay
Bushfire Prone Areas
BRCIM
CFA
DH/DHS
DPCD
Bushfires Royal Commission Implementation Monitor
Country Fire Authority
Department of Health/Department of Human Services
Department of Planning and Community Development
DSE
EMMV
EPBC
GAA
IFMP
Department of Sustainability and Environment
Emergency Management Manual Victoria
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Growth Areas Authority
Integrated Fire Management Planning
Local Government Native Vegetation Reference Group
Local Planning Policy Framework
Municipal Emergency Management Plan
Municipal Fire Management Plan
Municipal Fire Management Planning Committee
Municipal Fire Prevention Plan
Neighbourhood Safer Place
Planning Enforcement Officers Association
Regional Bushfire Planning Assessments
Rapid Verification Taskforce
State Planning Policy Framework
Township Protection Plan
Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission
Victorian Fire Risk Register
Vulnerable People in Emergencies Program
Victoria Planning Provisions
Wildfire Management Overlay
11