A parliamentary question addresses communication deficiencies between ground crews and aerial firefighting support during the Lake Clifton, Red Hill, and Roleystone fires. The Minister acknowledges the question and outlines existing protocols and review processes.

AnsweredQoN 503Legislative Council
Asked
29 June 2011
Portfolio
Emergency Services

QuestionView source ↗

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AUTHORITY — MAJOR INCIDENT REVIEW
Some notice has been given of the question. I refer to the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia major incident review on the Lake Clifton, Red Hill and Roleystone fires that was tabled yesterday and the reference in it to a lack of communications between ground crews and aerial firefighting support. (1) Is this a case of communications equipment not functioning? (2) Is this a case of no adequate means of communication being available? (3) What measures will be undertaken to remedy this communication deficiency? (4) What are the protocols for communications between the Department of Environment and Conservation and FESA aerial support? Hon PETER COLLIER

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2)–(3) No; however, if the question refers to page 37 of the major incident review and the proposed use of a dedicated communications officer, for which there was no recommendation, it will be considered in the annual review of the aerial suppression operating procedures. (4) There is an annual agreed protocol termed the aerial suppression operating procedure 2010–11. This document is reviewed annually.
I refer to the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia major incident review on the Lake Clifton, Red Hill and Roleystone fires that was tabled yesterday and the reference in it to a lack of communications between ground crews and aerial firefighting support. (1) Is this a case of communications equipment not functioning? (2) Is this a case of no adequate means of communication being available? (3) What measures will be undertaken to remedy this communication deficiency? (4) What are the protocols for communications between the Department of Environment and Conservation and FESA aerial support? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2)–(3) No; however, if the question refers to page 37 of the major incident review and the proposed use of a dedicated communications officer, for which there was no recommendation, it will be considered in the annual review of the aerial suppression operating procedures. (4) There is an annual agreed protocol termed the aerial suppression operating procedure 2010–11. This document is reviewed annually.
(1) Is this a case of communications equipment not functioning? (2) Is this a case of no adequate means of communication being available? (3) What measures will be undertaken to remedy this communication deficiency? (4) What are the protocols for communications between the Department of Environment and Conservation and FESA aerial support? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2)–(3) No; however, if the question refers to page 37 of the major incident review and the proposed use of a dedicated communications officer, for which there was no recommendation, it will be considered in the annual review of the aerial suppression operating procedures. (4) There is an annual agreed protocol termed the aerial suppression operating procedure 2010–11. This document is reviewed annually.
(2) Is this a case of no adequate means of communication being available? (3) What measures will be undertaken to remedy this communication deficiency? (4) What are the protocols for communications between the Department of Environment and Conservation and FESA aerial support? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2)–(3) No; however, if the question refers to page 37 of the major incident review and the proposed use of a dedicated communications officer, for which there was no recommendation, it will be considered in the annual review of the aerial suppression operating procedures. (4) There is an annual agreed protocol termed the aerial suppression operating procedure 2010–11. This document is reviewed annually.
(3) What measures will be undertaken to remedy this communication deficiency? (4) What are the protocols for communications between the Department of Environment and Conservation and FESA aerial support? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2)–(3) No; however, if the question refers to page 37 of the major incident review and the proposed use of a dedicated communications officer, for which there was no recommendation, it will be considered in the annual review of the aerial suppression operating procedures. (4) There is an annual agreed protocol termed the aerial suppression operating procedure 2010–11. This document is reviewed annually.
(4) What are the protocols for communications between the Department of Environment and Conservation and FESA aerial support? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2)–(3) No; however, if the question refers to page 37 of the major incident review and the proposed use of a dedicated communications officer, for which there was no recommendation, it will be considered in the annual review of the aerial suppression operating procedures. (4) There is an annual agreed protocol termed the aerial suppression operating procedure 2010–11. This document is reviewed annually.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2)–(3) No; however, if the question refers to page 37 of the major incident review and the proposed use of a dedicated communications officer, for which there was no recommendation, it will be considered in the annual review of the aerial suppression operating procedures. (4) There is an annual agreed protocol termed the aerial suppression operating procedure 2010–11. This document is reviewed annually.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) No. (2)–(3) No; however, if the question refers to page 37 of the major incident review and the proposed use of a dedicated communications officer, for which there was no recommendation, it will be considered in the annual review of the aerial suppression operating procedures. (4) There is an annual agreed protocol termed the aerial suppression operating procedure 2010–11. This document is reviewed annually.
(1) No. (2)–(3) No; however, if the question refers to page 37 of the major incident review and the proposed use of a dedicated communications officer, for which there was no recommendation, it will be considered in the annual review of the aerial suppression operating procedures. (4) There is an annual agreed protocol termed the aerial suppression operating procedure 2010–11. This document is reviewed annually.
(2)–(3) No; however, if the question refers to page 37 of the major incident review and the proposed use of a dedicated communications officer, for which there was no recommendation, it will be considered in the annual review of the aerial suppression operating procedures. (4) There is an annual agreed protocol termed the aerial suppression operating procedure 2010–11. This document is reviewed annually.
(4) There is an annual agreed protocol termed the aerial suppression operating procedure 2010–11. This document is reviewed annually.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more