Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relates to pre-14 February 2024 when the company was sold. In no way can anything said relate to the company or its new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders after that sale.
In relation to fire readiness, man X, man Y and CASACIR’s work authority conditions require that [emphasis mine]: “(6.2) The Work Authority holder must ensure that all buildings, fixed plant and mobile equipment are fitted with fire-fighting equipment, such as fire extinguishers, fire blankets, knapsack spray pumps and rake-hoes. (6.3) The Work Authority holder must develop and implement a fire response and readiness plan”.
In his affidavit dated 6 September 2010 man X (under the authority and with the acknowledged authority and approval of man Y and CASACIR) swore that: “(48) … Casacir has complied with the conditions of its Work Authority … (49) To the best of my knowledge, Casacir has complied with each of the conditions”, and in his affidavit dated 8 November 2010 man X (under the authority and with the acknowledged authority and approval of man Y and CASACIR) sworethat: “(9) In relation to the matter deposed to at paragraph 49 of my first sworn affidavit…. To the best of my knowledge, Casacir has complied with each of the conditions of the … work authority” – but but swearing that the conditions had been complied with made it false testimony.
Man X, man Y and CASACIR also claimed as fact at the 2010 tribunal that “Casacir has complied with the conditions of its work authority”, but because, while they did not actually address specifically being fire ready in the affidavits, in testimony, or in submissions, man X, man Y and CASACIR lied because they did not comply with the above work authority conditions according to the following:
(1) DPI field report dated 16 November 2009: “Condition 6 Fire Risk Management: 6.2/6.3: Fire fighting equipment and fire response plan require attention”
(2) DPI field report dated 16 December 2009: “Outstanding form previous report: … 2. Fire fighting and appropriate signs and fire response plan to be implemented immediately” – clearly showing their blatant disregard for the direction in the first field report.
(3) DPI “assessment protocol” (audit) dated 9 March 2010: Under “4. Fire risk management” the audit asked: “4.1: Has a Fire Prevention Plan been prepared?” the answer was “No”. The question was then asked: “4.2 Is a Emergency Response / Fire Response and Readiness Plan in place?” the answer was that it was: “On wall in office not dated or signed” – clearly showing their continued blatant disregard for the ongoing directions in relation to fire preparedness.
(4) DPI field report dated 2 August 2011 (produced 11 months after man X, man Y and CASACIR produced their 6 September 2010 sworn affidavit, and after a number of demands and notifications) states [emphasis mine]: “The following matters were identified as requiring attention: … 3. Condition 6.3 Fire Risk management. The operator needs to develop a fire readiness plan” – clearly showing their continued blatant disregard for the ongoing directions in relation to fire preparedness.
(5) DPI “assessment protocol” (audit) dated 2 August 2011 (produced 11 months after man X, man Y and CASACIR produced their 6 September 2010 sworn affidavit). The question was asked: “4.1: Has a Fire Prevention Plan been prepared?” the answer was that it was still “Not yet developed. Risk assessment needed. Process is :- Risk assessment – For high and medium risk develop controls – Develop a readiness plan for the controls – Develop a response plan if the risk eventuates.” “The question was then asked: “4.2 Is a Emergency Response / Fire Response and Readiness Plan in place?” the answer was that: “Fire response plan on wall in office not dated or signed. A fire readiness plan is needed”. A further question was asked: “4.3 Fire-fighting equipment (extinguishers, fire blankets, knapsacks spray pumps and rake hoes?” the answer was “No rake hoes or fire blankets” – clearly showing their continued blatant disregard for the ongoing directions in relation to fire preparedness.
So, clearly man X, man Y and CASACIR (i) were in continued violation of the conditions, (ii) knew they were in violation of the conditions, (iii) were deceptive about being in violation of the conditions, (iv) simply did not care about the truth or about violation with the conditions, and (v) in spite of having come through the very recent Black Saturday fires, did not care about even trying to ensure that they were up to the mark with fire prevention.
Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s fire prevention and preparations were grossly inadequate – and this was, as stated above, in spite of man X, man Y and CASACIR having just gone though the Black Saturday fires[1] at Jindivick (having buildings and equipment damaged, and fences burnt down). It is clear that man X, man Y and CASACIR did not comply with all the work authority conditions, and that they lied about it under oath[2] – and they were specifically uncompliant with this condition. This could have affected us because man X, man Y and CASACIR were not (and probably are still are not) “fire ready” and they were the adjacent property to ours, with a lot of vegetation on their property. It would be very interesting to find out (1) if they were still in that same uncaring, uncompliant, and irresponsible, frame of mind, because man X, man Y and CASACIR could significantly and detrimentally impact those around them, and (2) if they would continue to lie about their purported and wrongly claimed compliance.
[1] 7 February 2009, and they opened the quarry on 4 August 2009 without the necessary fire readiness, and continued to ignore the demand of the conditions and the reminders of DPI
[2] Man X lied about it under oath, but with the acknowledged approval and authority of man Y and CASACIR.