Melbourne, Thursday 2 February 1939

[Mr. Gowans]: What is your full name?
Clarence Pattison and I am now living at Thornton. I was formerly a sawyer at No. 6 mill.

Were you employed there at the time of the fire?
Yes. I had my wife and two daughters living with me at the mill.

You conducted a boarding house at the mill itself, did you not?
Yes.

What happened to your wife and daughters at the time of the fire?
We stayed at the boarding house. Most of them were standing there until the fire got to within about 100 yards. Jack Callinan, the boss, said 'All make for the dug-out; you cannot save anything - life first'; so we all went to the dug-out.

Did you take any furniture into the dug-out with you?
No.

How many people were in the dug-out?
Somewhere about 25.

Was there sufficient room for them all?
It was a hard jam to get in. The dug-out was only about 12 feet long and 7 feet wide at the most.

Was it a straight drive into the hillside?
No, it was following the slant of the hill, up the hill. There was a downhill part and it followed the hill there, but it was not a direct drive in.

Was the floor on a slant?
Yes.

Was there any timber about?
Yes, it was all timber on the top and about 6 inches of dirt at the deepest part thrown over the top.

In what direction did it face?
South west, right into the gully.

Was there any provision made for water?
We had previously filled tubs and kerosene tins and placed them in the dug-out.

There was no pipe laid on to the dug-out?
There was pipes as far as the mill, but there was no hose. A chap had purchased a hose for two pounds, and we used that until it burnt out, and then there was no water running. We used the water out of the tins.

If someone had not had the foresight to bring the tins of water into the dug-out, you would have been cut off without water?
Yes.

Was the pipe line connected with just an ordinary rubber hose?
Yes.

Did you have any difficulties with the fire by way of the timber catching alight?
Yes, the dug-out caught on fire three times.

How did you get it out?
With the water. It was catching alight on the corners, where there was no dirt on the wood.

Was that where it was projecting out into the open?
The wood was right out, with no dirt on it, and when it caught alight, the blaze came inside.

Did you have much trouble in putting it out?
No, we managed to put it out alright.

What covering did you have over the opening?
We had a wet blanket there.

Did you have any ventilation at the back?
No.

What was it like in there?
It was fairly warm, I can tell you that.

What about smoke?
It was also smoky, but they were fanning with bags and getting a little fresh air that way. Just as the main fire got over, we could not get out, and we were there until six hours later. We went in about half past nine [at night] and at half past three we came out.

There was a hollow log from the valley into the dug-out, and that caught fire. That sent smoke into the dug-out, and just as soon as the main fire had passed we got out. That was when the hollow log caught alight. That log was from the gully into the corner of the dug-out.

What was the object of having it there?
It was just there. It was never moved, and dirt was thrown over it.

Just something that would help a fire?
It certainly would. If it had happened when the main fire was on, it would have been the end of everybody in the dug-out.

How far was the nearest building of any kind from the entrance to the dug-out?
From 15 feet to 20 feet to the blacksmith's shop. That was a wooden structure, and it was burnt right down. Then there was the mill 30 feet away.

I do not know whether it was in connection with this mill, but I have heard it suggested that when a house burnt out there that was the hottest time of the lot. Did you find that in your dug-out?
There is no mistake that when the mill burnt that was the hottest time of the lot. There was a big stack of wood right at the borders. That would be about 30 feet from the dug-out, and it was very hot then.

Can we take it that it could have been placed further away from the building than it was?
Yes, and there were good places to put it, too.

If you bathe your eyes with water, it is not so bad.

[The Commissioner]: Some of the men were blinded?
Many of them did not think of it in time. I did not do it myself. As long as you do bathe your eyes straight away, you are all right.

You have had a fair amount of experience in this industry?
I have been at saw milling since I was thirteen years of age.

[Mr. Slater] I understand one condition [of a timber licence] leaves the question of the burning of heads to the discretion of the forestry officer. He has to consider the safety of the forests. Do you think that is a reasonable provision?
No, I do not.

Why?
For the simple reason that there are some forestry officers who have no idea of what a fire will do or what it will not do.

Do you mean to say that the forestry officers are not experienced men?
Exactly: Some of them are not experienced. Unless a man has had twenty years' actual experience in the bush, I do not think he can be termed 'experienced'.

A forestry officer - there are some very good men among them, while there are some who can only tell you how a tree is fed. We do not care how it is fed as long as it is there to cut.

The difference between their point of view and yours is that you are there to destroy the forest, while they are there to save it and regenerate it?
I can remember when the forest was not destroyed when a mild fire went through it and it did more good than harm.

It regenerated the forest?
The forest thrives with the small fires.

Do you know what experience the average forestry officer has?
Yes, they have a lot of theory.

Do you know that first of all they graduate from the school of forestry?
Yes, I understand that.

Then they go out as practical men into the forest regions of the State?
Yes, I understand that, but still this fire happened in 1939. If the forest had not been burnt this year, in five, six, or seven years there would be another big fire, and more loss of life. You cannot help it; it will be.

Do I take it your evidence is this, that, regardless of the circumstances, there should be a fire not once but twice a year in all the forests?
Around different areas where there has been no fire, and then there would be no big fires. A light fire will not hurt the forest.

But when it is left for three, seven, or eight years, there is something there to burn, and it will kill the forest, as was done in 1926, 1932 and again this year.