Submission in response to the Energy
Safe Victoria ‘Review of Statutory
Provisions Governing Bushfire Risk
Mitigation in Relation to Electricity Assets
in Victoria’
Discussion Paper
Municipal Association of Victoria
July 2012
This submission has been prepared by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) in response to the
Energy Safe Victoria (ESV) `Review of Statutory Provisions Governing Bushfire Risk Mitigation in
Relation to Electricity Assets in Victoria’ discussion paper.
The MAV is the statutory peak body for local government in Victoria, representing all 79 municipal
councils within the state. This submission has been prepared by the MAV following consultation with
councils. While this submission aims to broadly reflect the views of local government in Victoria, it does
not purport to reflect the views of every individual council, many of whom will also make submissions to
ESV.
© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2012.
The Municipal Association of Victoria is the owner of the copyright in this publication.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without
the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of Victoria.
All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should be addressed to
Claire Dunn on (03) 9667 5555.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Principles of good regulatory practice ...................................................................................................... 6
Fire risk classification of areas ................................................................................................................. 7
Declared area mapping and information ................................................................................................. 8
The role of local government in tree clearance in declared areas ............................................................. 9
Line clearance performance ................................................................................................................ 9
Line clearance by the distribution businesses .................................................................................... 10
Section 81 declarations...................................................................................................................... 12
Notable omissions from the discussion paper......................................................................................... 13
Additional issues of importance ............................................................................................................. 15
Executive Summary
Given the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission finding that five of the Black Saturday bushfires were
caused by electricity asset failures (not attributed to vegetation within the clearance space), there is no
doubt that measures to mitigate bushfire risk from electricity assets is a critically important issue.
Inexplicably, the Energy Safe Victoria (ESV) Review of Statutory Provisions Governing Bushfire Risk
Mitigation in Relation to Electricity Assets in Victoria discussion paper diverts readers’ attention away
from this important issue by asking questions not at all related to bushfire mitigation.
In relation to what the discussion paper should focus on – measures to reduce bushfire risk related to
electricity assets – we note that councils as `responsible persons’ under the Electricity Safety Act
(1998) take their line clearance obligations seriously and are committed to working with the State and
other stakeholders to reduce bushfire risk.
In terms of bushfire risk categorisation, one critical weakness of the system currently used for the
purposes of the Electricity Safety Act is that it fails to differentiate between areas with low bushfire risk
and areas with no bushfire risk. It makes no sense that in terms of line clearance for bushfire mitigation
purposes, the same requirements apply to areas where there is no bushfire risk and areas where the
risk is very real.
The Department of Planning and Community Development’s (DPCD) bushfire hazard mapping offers
an alternative approach that does differentiate between areas that have high bushfire risk, low bushfire
risk and no bushfire risk. While some modification of this approach may be necessary for it to be
suitable for line clearance purposes, the classification approach and hazard mapping rationale used is
an accepted approach to a difficult problem.
Despite the devastating impact electricity asset failures had on Victorian communities in 2009,
maintenance of the distribution network is not raised as an issue at all within the discussion paper. The
paper notes the work of the Powerline Bushfire Safety Taskforce regarding the Royal Commission’s
recommendations related to powerline replacement and changing the network reclose functions,
however it remains unclear what has been, or is being, done to ensure the major electricity companies
are safely maintaining and renewing their assets.
With regard to the non-bushfire related questions within the discussion paper, it is unclear why the
appropriateness of local government involvement in line clearance is raised as an issue, and not that of
other agencies, including the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and VicRoads. It is
also highly questionable that this discussion paper is the right context in which to test such a
proposition. The areas where councils have line clearance responsibilities are predominantly classified
and accepted as low (and in many instances, no) bushfire risk.
Any decision to vary a council’s electric line clearance responsibilities must be a decision made in
agreement with each individual council. Given the variation in resources and capacity across the local
government sector, and the different levels of desire among councils to retain their electric line
4
clearance responsibilities, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. A wholesale reallocation of local
government electric line clearance responsibilities is opposed.
Since the introduction of the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations (2010), several
councils and communities have witnessed destructive and excessive pruning of vegetation by the
distribution businesses and their contractors. In parts of Victoria, the distribution businesses have
moved from yearly or two-yearly pruning cycles to three-yearly cycles, leading to vegetation being
“pruned” so severely that it may as well be removed altogether. Cost saving, not safety, seems to be
driving this approach. This lack of regard for the environment and for amenity is unacceptable and
should not be tolerated. Vegetation is clearly being discounted as a critical asset, which shows a total
lack of understanding or appreciation of the significant contribution street trees make to the economic,
social and environmental wellbeing of Victorian communities.
It is essential that the distribution businesses, and their contractors, be required (and held to account by
the State) to genuinely balance safety considerations with environment and amenity values, and to
genuinely work cooperatively with land owners and managers. A critical first step to help achieve this
would be to improve the electric line clearance regulatory regime to ensure that, while prioritising
safety, it is also empirically sound and genuinely values the very real environmental and social benefits
of vegetation.
5
Introduction
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) welcomes the opportunity to provide a submission in
response to the Energy Safe Victoria (ESV) Review of Statutory Provisions Governing Bushfire Risk
Mitigation in Relation to Electricity Assets in Victoria discussion paper (the discussion paper).
The MAV is the peak body for local government in Victoria. Formed in 1879, we have a long and proud
tradition of supporting councils and councillors to provide good government to their communities.
This submission was prepared on behalf of all Victorian councils and the MAV would like to
acknowledge the councils that contributed to its preparation.
The possible implications for local government arising from the discussion paper are significant. Of the
key issues covered, two are of particular concern to local government, namely:
(i) the role of local government in tree clearance in declared areas; and
(ii) how bushfire risk is classified.
This submission focuses on these two issues and also identifies a number of additional related issues
that the MAV and councils believe warrant further consideration by ESV, by the State Government
more broadly, and by the electricity distribution industry.
Principles of good regulatory practice
The MAV agrees that it is critical that ESV’s review of statutory provisions governing bushfire risk
mitigation in relation to electricity assets accords with the recognised principles of good regulation.
In addition to the principles identified in the discussion paper as being of particular relevance to the
current review, the MAV considers the following principles, sourced from the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD), to be equally important:

Good regulation should, among other things, serve clearly identified policy goals, and be effective in
achieving those goals; have a sound legal and empirical basis; and produce benefits that justify
costs, considering the distribution of effects across society and taking economic, environmental and
social effects into account.1

Governments should co-operate with stakeholders on reviewing existing and developing new
regulations by making available to the public, as far as possible, all relevant material from regulatory
dossiers including the supporting analyses, and the reasons for regulatory decisions as well as all
relevant data.2
1
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/6/34976533.pdf
2
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/55/49990817.pdf
6

Governments should consider the use of risk-based approaches in the design and enforcement of
regulatory compliance strategies to increase the likelihood of achieving compliance goals and to
minimise the imposition of costs on citizens and businesses through compliance and enforcement
procedures.3
In summary, clear objectives, an evidence-base (accessible to all) and consideration of all economic,
environmental and social costs are fundamental to the development of good regulation.
Fire risk classification of areas
The discussion paper questions whether there are alternative bushfire risk categorisation systems that
could be adopted that would improve on the current system in terms of reliability of assessment,
transparency and clarity of responsibilities.
When determining the appropriate bushfire risk classification of an area, the MAV is of the view that
consequence should be the overriding consideration. With this in mind, the MAV respects the
Metropolitan Fire Brigade’s (MFB) decision to classify the entire metropolitan fire district as low fire risk.
Indeed many of these areas would effectively have `no’ bushfire risk. According to the discussion
paper, the MFB, as the fire control authority for most of metropolitan Melbourne, based this decision on
their ability to reach any fire site within a short period, thereby mitigating the consequences of any fire
outbreak. Risk assessments, historical data and relevant local level fire management regimes were all
taken into account. In the absence of any explanation as to why this decision should be called into
question, the MAV accepts the MFB approach to risk classification for the purposes of the Electricity
Safety Act.
The discussion paper contends that the current classification regime is “necessarily ineffective to the
extent that it fails to identify reliably those areas that are high bushfire risk areas” and classifies areas
that are actually low risk as high risk. While the MAV agrees that classifying a high risk area as low risk
or a low risk area as high risk is a serious issue, we do not agree that this necessarily means the
current regime is ineffective. Instead it suggests that there are issues with how the current regime is
being implemented and with the mechanisms in place to confirm the risk assessment.
Section 80 of the Electricity Safety Act empowers fire control authorities to assign a “high” or “low” fire
hazard rating to any area. If there are areas currently classified as low risk that stakeholders, including
fire response agencies, the distribution businesses, ESV and councils, consider to be high risk (and
vice versa), it is open to them to contact the fire control authority for the area in question and request
that a further assessment be done. The four-yearly cycle currently adopted by the CFA for their fire risk
mapping should not preclude an earlier assessment being done if agencies believe the current hazard
rating is wrong.
3
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/55/49990817.pdf
7
One clear flaw of the current bushfire risk categorisation system as far as the MAV and councils are
concerned, is the absence of a category for areas where there is no real bushfire risk. The current
regime only allows for two categories of bushfire risk – high risk or low risk. This means that the low
bushfire risk rating captures both urban areas where there is a very real, but low, bushfire risk and
urban areas where the bushfire risk is negligible (eg. central Geelong). There is a pressing need for a
regime that properly differentiates between high risk, low risk and no risk.
For this reason, the MAV is of the view that the DPCD bushfire hazard mapping for Victoria, prepared
by DSE with agency and technical support, warrants consideration as an appropriate risk classification
tool for the purposes of the Electricity Safety Act. This mapping has led to the classification of areas as
effectively either having such a low level of risk no control is warranted, a lower level of risk that can be
appropriately managed through a building response and highest risk areas requiring a more
comprehensive response through both planning and building requirements. Thus the bushfire hazard
mapping for Victoria has been translated into three tiers of risk which are currently being applied
through Planning Schemes and regulation:
(i) High bushfire risk = Bushfire Management Overlay + declared Bushfire Prone Area = building and
planning controls
(ii) Low bushfire risk = declared Bushfire Prone Area = building controls
(iii) No bushfire risk = no bushfire-related building or planning controls
While the final mapping of these areas is not complete, it is not expected, and would be most unlikely
for any high bushfire risk area to be outside of a declared Bushfire Prone Area. Appropriately, not all
Bushfire Prone Areas require planning overlay controls as well.
While some modification of this approach may be necessary for it to be suitable for use in the context of
line clearance, the classification approach and hazard mapping rationale used is an accepted approach
to a difficult problem. Using these publicly accessible maps would provide a useful mechanism to
confirm high, low or no risk for Electricity Safety Act purposes.
The MAV is unable to comment on the appropriateness of the Fire Loss Consequence mapping,
developed by DSE and used by the Powerline Bushfire Safety Taskforce, as a credible alternative
because the ignition mapping has not been made available in sufficient detail to enable us to form a
considered view. It is also unclear to the MAV how this ignition mapping fits with the other hazard
mapping approaches in use, such as for planning and building control purposes.
Declared area mapping and information
The MAV agrees that the current maps and records of declared areas are in dire need of updating and
clarification. As noted in the discussion paper, the current maps are barely legible, do not align with
current municipal boundaries and there is confusion and disagreement regarding demarcation of
responsibilities. There is a pressing need for ESV to work with all responsible persons, including
councils and the distribution businesses, to clearly delineate who is responsible for any given area. At a
minimum, maps must be made available in digital form, available online. ESV, as the electrical safety
8
regulator and the agency charged with auditing compliance with the Electricity Safety Act, should be the
“owner” of these maps, responsible for ensuring access and currency.
The role of local government in tree clearance in declared areas
Line clearance performance
The discussion paper makes a number of assertions about council attitudes toward, and performance
of, their electric line clearance responsibilities. Very little evidence is provided to support these
assertions.
The outage and fire start data on page 27 of the discussion paper, for example, does not relate
specifically to declared areas managed by councils but rather the entire electricity network across
Victoria. This data cannot be used to substantiate claims of poor performance by local government. The
MAV also notes that no information is provided as to how SP Ausnet and Powercor ascertained that
these incidents were attributable to vegetation within the clearance space, nor is there any detail given
regarding the condition of the electrical assets affected. The data presumably captures the days of the
Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 - it is now known that five of those fires were caused by electricity
asset failures not attributed to vegetation within the clearance space. It should also be noted that, as far
as the MAV is aware, the distribution businesses use “vegetation” as the default explanation if they do
not know the cause of a service fault. This classification does not differentiate between vegetation
within the clearance space and vegetation outside the clearance space (ie. hazard trees).
In relation to the 11 audit reports that showed “some level of non-compliance” by councils with the
Electric Line Clearance Code of Practice, the MAV unreservedly rejects the suggestion that this may in
part be due to a lack of willingness or a preference for amenity over safety by local government. As
responsible persons under the Electricity Safety Act, local government wholly accepts that safety must
be the paramount consideration when managing vegetation around powerlines. That said, local
government also firmly believes that, while prioritising safety, the electric line clearance regime must
also be evidence–based and have regard for environmental and amenity value. There is much concern
in the local government sector that the current regime lacks an empirical and scientific base to warrant
the level of pruning required by the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations (2010). The
costs (economic, social, loss of amenity and environmental) of implementing the current minimum
electric line clearance requirements cannot be justified.
Since late 2010 the MAV has been in negotiations with ESV regarding the development of a risk-based
management approach to electric line clearance in low bushfire risk areas in order to protect trees of
value that would be adversely affected if pruned in strict compliance with the Electricity Safety (Electric
Line Clearance) Regulations (2010). These include trees in inner urban areas (both in regional Victoria
and metropolitan Melbourne) which clearly have no bushfire risk. The 2010 Regulations removed much
of the flexibility allowed under the 2005 Regulations in terms of adopting risk-based management
approaches to vegetation around certain types of powerlines.
9
Line clearance by the distribution businesses
The discussion paper notes that the major electricity companies perform well in relation to tree
clearance and suggests that this may in part be because they are “unaffected by any preference for
amenity over safety.” An alternative, and more accurate, view might be that they are often unaffected
by any regard for amenity at all.
Since the introduction of the 2010 Regulations, several councils and communities have witnessed
destructive and excessive pruning of trees by the distribution businesses and their contractors (see
photos below). In parts of Victoria, the distribution businesses have moved from yearly or two-yearly
pruning cycles to three-yearly cycles. In order to ensure that they do not have to return to an area in the
interim, vegetation is in many locations being “pruned” so severely that it may as well be removed
altogether. Councils also report being left with trees that are structurally unsound or that have been
pruned in such a way that encourages epicormic regrowth. Cost saving, not safety, seems to be driving
this approach.
It should be acknowledged that some areas, particularly in metropolitan Melbourne, have been spared
the distribution businesses’, and their contractors’, worst efforts. Most of the examples of excessive
pruning brought to the attention of the MAV have been in townships in regional Victoria. The
assumption seems to be that regional Victorians do not appreciate, or benefit from, their street trees as
much as their city counterparts, which is of course absurd. Councils state-wide, both regional and
metropolitan, demand an electric line clearance regime that strikes a balance between safety,
environmental value and amenity.
Victoria Street, Nhill (entrance to Nhill from Adelaide)
Pinniger Street, Broadford
10
Tyers Street, Portland (before pruning)
Tyers Street, Portland (after pruning)
11
Balmoral township
Benetook Avenue, Mildura
Section 81 declarations
The discussion paper initially questions the appropriateness of local councils having electric line
clearance responsibilities in areas with high bushfire risk characteristics. The question is then asked
whether it is appropriate for councils to have electric line clearance responsibilities at all. This question
seems at odds with the stated intention of the review which is to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of bushfire mitigation regulatory controls. The areas where councils have line clearance
responsibilities are predominantly classified, and accepted, as low (and in many instance, no) bushfire
risk.
The MAV accepts that, in the context of the development of the Section 81 declaration mechanism, it
was probably never intended that councils have responsibility for line clearance in high bushfire risk
areas. Feedback from councils with declared areas that are classified as high bushfire risk, suggests
that there is a general willingness for those particular high risk areas to be ceded to the distribution
businesses for line clearance management.
12
The MAV does not agree that the fact that there has only been one further Section 81 declaration since
the mid-1980s is necessarily indicative of a “lack of enthusiasm” on the part of councils for the declared
area concept. Feedback from councils reflects a range of views on the matter, including a general
acceptance of the existing declared area boundaries; a decision by councils not to seek to alter their
declared area until the existing declared area mapping has been brought up to date to reflect current
municipal borders and land use; and a lack of awareness that the option exists to seek to have an area
declared.
The discussion paper suggests that all local government line clearance responsibilities be reallocated
but fails to explain or justify this suggestion. Given that the focus of the review is bushfire risk, it is also
highly questionable that this discussion paper is the right context in which to test such a proposition.
Any decision to vary a council’s electric line clearance responsibilities must be a decision made in
agreement with each individual council. Given the variation in resources and capacity across the local
government sector, and the different levels of willingness among councils to cede their electric line
clearance responsibilities, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
The discussion paper identifies the major electricity companies as the most obvious candidate to take
on overall responsibility for line clearance across the state. It’s noted that if the companies could make
a case that taking on this role would constitute a material change in costs, an application could be
made under the price reset process. This ability of the distribution businesses, as commercial entities,
to recover at least some of their line clearance costs through electricity tariffs, thereby passing the cost
to consumers, is noteworthy given that one would expect managing safety of their assets would be core
business and a basic obligation. It is also somewhat questionable that this cost is passed on to the
consumer given the distribution businesses’ oft-observed unwillingness to invest in powerline
construction, such as aerial bundled cabling or undergrounding, that would minimise the need for
pruning (thereby leading to long-term cost savings) and simultaneously improve community
environmental and amenity value. By their logic the electricity tariff could equally be used to provide an
income stream to councils to offset their costs for tree pruning around power lines.
The view that it would make sense for the distribution businesses to be made responsible for managing
the risks posed by vegetation to their assets, discounts the value of trees and vegetation as valuable
community assets. As noted above, the distribution businesses’, and their contractors’, treatment of
trees in many parts of Victoria has demonstrated a total lack of understanding or appreciation of the
social, environmental and amenity benefits vegetation contributes to Victorian communities.
Notable omissions from the discussion paper
Given the stated intention of the ESV review is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of bushfire
mitigation regulatory controls, there are a number of issues not covered in the discussion paper that
would seem to have been logical inclusions.
It is interesting, for example, that the discussion paper questions the appropriateness of councils having
electric line clearance responsibilities but does not question whether other `responsible persons’,
13
including VicRoads, DSE, and Committees of Management, should retain their electric line clearance
responsibilities. Indeed, the only responsible persons reviewed in the discussion paper are councils
and, to a lesser extent, the major electricity companies.
Despite the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission finding that five of the Black Saturday bushfires
were caused by electricity asset failures not linked to vegetation within the clearance space,
maintenance of the distribution network is not raised as an issue at all within the discussion paper. It is
noted that the Powerline Bushfire Safety Taskforce was established to consider the Commission’s
recommendations related to powerline replacement and changing the network reclose functions,
however it remains unclear what has been, or is being, done to ensure the major electricity companies
are safely maintaining and renewing their assets.
Although the management of electricity network assets is identified early on in the discussion paper as
one of two fundamental activities to manage bushfire risks from electricity networks, the paper then
almost solely focuses on the other activity, namely management of vegetation.
Missing entirely from the discussion paper is any acknowledgement of the need for the electric line
clearance regime to balance safety considerations with environment and amenity considerations.
Vegetation is clearly discounted as a critical asset and nowhere is there mention of the significant
contribution urban street trees make to the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of Victoria.
DSE’s 2011 ‘Victorian Local Sustainability Accord – Urban Forestry Background Issues Paper’ provides
a good starting point to understand some of the tangible and intangible benefits of street trees and
urban tree canopy:
“Reductions in urban tree canopy impact on Melbourne’s liveability and ‘greeness’ by way of
increasing heat island effect, less carbon emissions being absorbed, greater pressure on storm
water management facilities and infrastructure and loss of biodiversity.” (p.5)
The benefits of street trees include “reduced particulate air pollution; reduced energy use through
increased shade, reduced air conditioner use and subsequent mitigation of urban heat island
effects; the storage/sequestration of carbon; improved water quality and retention.” ‘Intangible’
benefits include “aesthetic/visual amenity and psychological benefits to the community, including
stress reduction, improved work attitudes, reduced domestic violence, and `consumer-friendly’
retail environments.” (p.7)
“In the city of Adelaide, South Australia, it has been estimated that all street trees city wide are
responsible for a 0.5 - 2 degrees Celsius reduction in summer temperatures, and an estimated per
year saving of $AU20 per household, equivalent to 57 million kWh.” (p.8)
The potential for an increase in the urban heat island effect is of particular concern given the Victorian
Government’s finding that there was “substantial morbidity and mortality” related to Victoria’s heatwave
in 2009. Analysis has shown that in the week of the heatwave, 26 January to 1 February 2009, “there
were 374 excess deaths over what would be expected”, with the greatest number of deaths occurring in
14
those 75 years or older, representing a 64% increase (when compared with data for the same period in
previous years).4
The benefits of vegetation are real. It is essential that the distribution businesses, and their contractors,
be required (and held to account by the State) to genuinely balance safety considerations with
environment and amenity values, and to genuinely work cooperatively with land owners and managers.
A critical first step to help achieve this would be to improve the electric line clearance regulatory regime
to ensure that, while prioritising safety, it is also empirically sound and genuinely values the
environmental and social benefits of vegetation.
Additional issues of importance
The discussion paper encourages stakeholders to identify any issues additional to those raised in the
paper that they believe warrant consideration by ESV and the industry. A brief snapshot of issues
brought to the MAV’s attention by councils is provided below. The MAV would welcome the opportunity
to discuss these issues in more detail with ESV and other relevant stakeholders.

Several councils have had, and continue to have, unacceptable difficulties securing shutdowns and
live line work approvals from the distribution businesses to undertake pruning in declared areas.
This has led to many instances of councils being unable to undertake important pruning works
around powerlines.
In relation to live line works, the MAV understands that the distribution businesses require councils
to use the distribution business’ own approved live line workers (rather than set a minimum level of
skill and qualification and allow councils to source their own workers). Councils have been
presented with exorbitant (and inconsistent) quotes and lengthy time delays to secure these
workers’ services. Shutdown requests are frequently refused, leaving councils with no option other
than to pursue live line works. As noted by more than one local government officer, it is somewhat
perverse that the distribution businesses are making it so difficult for councils to prune vegetation
around their electrical assets.

There should be an obligation on, or incentives for, the distribution businesses to invest in powerline
construction (such as aerial bundled cabling and undergrounding) that minimises impact on
environment and amenity. A number of councils have had recent dealings with distribution
businesses where they have refused to even discuss the possibility of using a construction type in
an urban area that minimises the need for pruning. This is a short-sighted approach that is costly
economically, socially and environmentally. In the case of declared areas, it is also effectively a cost
shift to councils.

Where councils have sought quotes for engineering solutions as an alternative to pruning trees
away from powerlines in declared areas, they report that they have significant difficulty getting
timely and accurate information from the distribution businesses and that the costs vary markedly
from one distribution business to another. There is a notable lack of transparency about how the
distribution businesses determine these costs. . The estimates of cost provided for these works are
often excessive and do not reflect the scope of the works. Furthermore, significant portions of the
4
Victorian Government Department of Human Services, `January 2009 Heatwave in Victoria: An Assessment of Health
Impacts’, 2009.
15
prices quoted are not contestable, thereby preventing councils from seeking cost effective
alternatives. The discontinuation of the Powerline Relocation Scheme (through which the State cofunded amenity-driven community powerline relocation projects) only months after the 2010
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations came into effect has further hindered, and in
many cases prevented, the implementation of engineering solutions.

There seems to be a striking lack of data available to properly assess the performance of a
responsible person and the impacts of vegetation within the clearance space. In order to improve
safety, amenity and environmental outcomes, there is a pressing need for systematic collection of
data that is specific and verifiable. Noting that all stakeholders stand to benefit from a regime that
balances safety, environment and amenity value, this data, once available, should be accessible,
and indeed be provided, to all responsible persons.

The distribution businesses should be required to provide councils with the details of any outage
and fire incidents that have been attributed to non-compliant council trees, both at the time the
incident occurs and through a consolidated monthly report. This would enable councils to check the
veracity of the data and to respond accordingly. It should also help improve communication
channels between councils and the distribution businesses and ultimately reduce outage and fire
incidents.
16