|
August 2, 2010
The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission's final report has been released. Its final recommendations are here. It makes for interesting reading given that the fire agencies stated they were fully prepared for the extreme conditions of February 7, 2009 that resulted in a firestorm that caused 173 deaths.
Unsurprisingly, the Commission found that there were system failures: problems in planning and serious deficiencies in top-level leadership that, combined with "divided responsibilities" and incompatible processes and even communication systems, hampered planning and response actions. In particular, the commission found "no single agency or individual was in charge".
That is what many suspected: no one was effectively in command as the fires roared out of control in the early evening of Black Saturday. So much for being fully prepared for a firestorm.
Surprisingly, it has found the "stay or go" policy is be basically sound, but qualifies this by saying that people should only stay and defend their houses if fires are less severe. It recommends building community refuges and bushfire shelters, burying aging powerlines underground and fuel reduction.
However, a firestorm---as distinct from a bushfire--- cannot be fought, and the fire authorities only act to contain them. Why isn't the stay or go policy scrapped for a firestorm given that there are some areas (heavy forest or on the crests of hills) that are just indefensible?
Will the report be a catalyst for far-reaching change?
The Report says that some places are too dangerous for people to live . . . and development should be strongly discouraged in these areas, and that the state government should adopt a "retreat and resettlement" approach in which the government offers to buy back people's property to encourage them to move to safer locations. This would create buffer zones.
The core political question is: will the Brumby Government be willing to embrace a policy that effectively admits parts of Victoria are unfit for human habitation, given that his government's Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority has as its motto "We Will Rebuild"? Brumby is considering his response to the Commissions' report and needs to talk and consult.
I suspect that the decision to allow bushfire victims in Victoria to rebuild in high fire risk zones will stand since the Brumby government's pledge is to rebuild every community "brick by brick". However, the costs of doing so in those parts of the destroyed areas that are too dangerous to re-inhabit and cannot be protected will be more than the property is worth. Paul Austin in Premier's moment of truth in The Age says:
For Brumby, leading a faltering and ageing government that faces a tight election in less than four months, the timing could hardly be more awkward....As he seeks to limit the political damage inflicted by these findings, Brumby is confronted with having to craft a response to culturally and financially difficult policy recommendations.His dilemma is acute: rejecting any of the recommendations should carry a political price; accepting some of them will impose a financial burden.
The commissioners note the lack of progress on implementing recommendations of their interim report, released a year ago, especially on Brumby Government has been slow in creating fire refuges for the 52 most at-risk towns in the state and enhancing the preparedness of incident control centres.
Update
The Age reports that the Brumby government will support in principle 59 of the 67 recommendations made by the royal commission into Black Saturday.Premier Brumby said those recommendations not on the interim list, including burying powerlines and residents selling high risk properties to the government, were still under consideration. These are neither ruled in or out.
|
No doubt there will be strong opposition to people being moved out of bushland areas and banning development in bushfire-prone areas.
The defence will be individual freedom and choice --"we will build where we want to live." For them there is no such as inappropriate development--in areas where the risk of bushfire is so high and the problems of bushfire mitigation so intractable that no development should be permitted by local councils and state governments.