Reliance on volunteer fire-fighters denied

Press, 6 October 1987, Page 3

Reliance on volunteer fire-fighters denied

The management of Timberlands Canterbury has denied it had to rely, on volunteers to fight a fire in its forest last Wednesday because it had made, its.own fire-fighters reduhdhnt In reply to a criticism in last Saturday’s edition of “The Press” by Mrs Judith Waters, of the North Canterbury Catchment Board,.that the, fqj;est "should have been left tp' burn,” the district manager, Mr Roger Washbourn, said Mrs Waters’ comments were based on misunderstandings. Workers were offered voluntary redundancy before Timberlands, a subsidiary of the Forestry Corporation, was formed, he said.

The redundancies were

handled by the Forest Service and Timberlands inherited a staffing structure more in keeping with its Governmentdirected function of running, as a, successful, business: • Timberlands 1 did not rely on' volunteers for fire-fighting. It had its own small unit and reciprocal support from other agencies,;, such as County » Councils,. fire teams,’ ’ Government departments, and the Ministry of Defence, Mr Washbourn said. Mrs Waters’ main misconception was that the fire-fighters did not receive payment, he said. All those fighting the Timberlands fires, Including volunteers, were paid, either by their employers

or by Timberlands as provided in the Forest and Rural Fires Act, 1977.

Mr Washbourn said he was saddened by Mrs Waters’ attitude as . all forhst‘fires had seridus consequences tor the’ community in terms of resource shortages and possible loss of employment in the timber industry. “It would seem her view is hbti shared'by the many' rural peojflg ; ln North Canterbury who volunteered to assist in last week’s fire,” he said. Mrs Waters had said at a Catchment Board meeting last week that it seemed ludicrous that Timberlands had made its fire-fighters redundant and then had to rely on volunteers.