It appears that the final death toll from the Victorian bushfires will not reach some of the the earlier estimates of around 300. Good news as this is, a loss of 208 lives and thousands of homes obviously justifies the kind of far-reaching examination promised by the Royal Commission, to be headed by Justice Bernard Teague. The commission, and its terms of reference, have been given bipartisan support, something The Age’s state political reporter Paul Austin credits John Brumby himself for.
While the fires certainly aren’t out, the reduction in the immediate threat to life and property has seen various groups start to make noises about some of the issues that Teague will undoubtedly examine. Some professional firefighters of the MFB and the mostly volunteer CFA itself are, apparently, claiming that they were grossly underused during the crisis because of parochialism, a claim that’s been denied by the management of both organizations. The substance of these claims will undoubtedly be addressed by the commission. It wouldn’t be entirely surprising if the coordination between the various emergency services was less perfect than it could be on the ground, despite what top management may claim. Historically, the turf wars between various branches of the armed forces, even in the teeth of real wars, are legendary, and there’s also a tension here between professional firefighters and the CFA volunteers. On top of that, there should – and undoubtedly will – be an examination of the relationship between the CFA volunteers, and the firefighting activities of the Department of Sustainability and Environment, who are responsible for the management of fire within the state’s huge areas of Crown land. I’ve heard reports that suggest that the relationship between these two bodies is also not what it should be.
But beyond that, one thing that does puzzle me slightly is the background of the Commissioner and his deputies. While it’s perhaps inevitable that a former judge would be appointed to head the Commission, the investigation to be conducted is likely to be only in small part a legal one. A large fraction of the Commission’s work will presumably be considering scientific and engineering evidence on forest management and designing appropriately fire-resistant structures, including houses and possibly overhead powerlines. The extent to which climate change was responsible for the weather conditions might just come up, as might the psychology of human responses to emergency situations. However, the Commissioner is a former judge. His two assistant commissioners have backgrounds in government administration. While the commissioners will undoubtedly have access to ample scientific expertise, wouldn’t it have been a good idea to have somebody whose professional training is in some vaguely technical field? Somebody with such a background might give a more appropriate balance to the areas that come under examination, and help the commission wade through what will undoubtedly be conflicting scientific views.
Former judicial officers are normally appointed to head Royal Commissions for two reasons – being retired, any subsequent litigation won’t imply overturning an extra-judicial decision of a sitting justice or judge and because of the extraordinary legal powers Royal Commissions have to compel evidence – which go far beyond the usual powers of a court. So it’s necessary to have someone who understands all that… More broadly, there is the legal fact finding function of an inquisitorial (as opposed to an adversarial) tribunal. Although to some degree an adversarial common law court proceeding blends into it (in that interested or possibly affected parties can be represented by counsel), it’s much more like a coronial inquiry. The legal dimension is also necessary because findings can lead to charges against individuals.
More broadly, I think the idea is in part a lack of specific expertise enables commissioners to bring an open mind to the evidence of those who do have such expertise, which can be challenged in a proceeding akin to giving evidence in a court.
Whether or not that’s the best model for something like this is another question – but it has its own logic.
I would suspect that it would be very, very difficult to find an appropriately credentialled scientist with the sufficient legal skills to manage the Royal Commission, and who did not have links to any of those presenting scientific evidence to the Commission.
I hope the Commission has the backburning issue in its TOR, this business of “bushfires is all the Greenies’ fault” has to be put to bed.
I take your points about the extraordinary compulsion powers of a Commissioner, but Teague has already said that he doesn’t expect it to be “that sort of inquiry”.
Fair enough, but surely the major point of this commission is not just to determine the specifics of these incidents, but how we can change our systems to avoid the catastrophic impacts of similar fires in future.
I’m not suggesting for a moment that a central player in, say, the fire management debate should have been pointed an assistant commissioner. But lawyers – as gifted as the best them are – don’t seem to me to be inclined towards “systems thinking”. Hopefully Justice Teague will be able to recognize the importance of this through the public submission process. But I fear that the Commission may get weighed down by too much emphasis on picking out the minutiae of the specific incidents, and miss the systemic issues.
A shame about the ‘royal’ tag. Wish we could have quietly dropped that imperial moniker at the same time we gave away appeals to the Privy Council. Wonder if Timbertops old boy Charlie will be sending in a ‘royal’ submission. He’s keen on architecture I hear and probably has some ideas on mud brick domes.. permaculture.
I think Justice Teague’s chore is too difficult and it will confront a headlong rush to rebuild that no politician will be prepared to stand in front of.
Helen, the Terms of Reference are downloadable here. They’re extraordinarily wide. Basically, they explicitly direct the commissioner to look into the planning for bushfires in Victoria, amongst other things, and give the commission discretion to look into anything else relating to the fires they think appropriate. So the controlled burning issue will undoubtedy be covered.
Pablo: good point about the “rush to rebuild”. The Commission better get cracking on the issue of building in eucalypt areas, and changes to building standards, pronto.
“…this business of “bushfires is all the Greenies’ fault” has to be put to bed.”
It’s amazing (seriously) how quickly this angle has made into the “letters” pages of the nation’s fishwraps. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. Those greenies are sinister buggers, no?
Rob, I wouldn’t want to be definitive about whether lawyers are the best people for this sort of job – except to say that what they often do have is expertise in testing and synthesising information from a very wide range of potential sources – which seems to me to be pertinent here… And perhaps the real question should be why a Royal Commission as such? If you’ve got one, you really have to go with everything that potentially goes along with that – no one really knows at this stage what Teague might have to hear – it could well be possibly criminal conduct – and let’s not forget that a lot is at stake legally in terms of class actions. That was obviously part of the thinking from Brumby.
For whatever reason, everyone seems to think a “Royal Commission” is the most serious possible investigation. So if it hadn’t been one, then there would have been endless complaints and calls from the opposition and the media for a RC – claims that Brumby wasn’t being serious enough etc. etc. So there’s a political imperative to constitute it in this form, it seems to me.
The climate change denialists had little choice but to stage a pre-emptive strike as soon as the magnitude of the fires was evident. After all consider the circumstances: mainstream scientists have been forecasting that there would be an increasing number of severe weather events including ferocious fires in South-Eastern Australia and right on cue, there’s a ferocious fire in South-Eastern Australia.
In desperation the Australian Environment Foundation and IPA and Miranda Devine and sundry other climate change denialists had to try to find a way to stop people noticing this rather inconvenient truth so what better way than to start screeching IT’S ALL THE FAULT OF THE LEFTY GREENS IF ONLY THEY HADN’T TAKEN OVER NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!!!!!
I suppose Robert on the more substantive point you make, plenty of people have already signalled that the Royal Commission’s findings will have multi-million dollar ramifications for likely legal proceedings down the road. Accordingly it’s prudent to have a commissioner who understands the legal implications of both the evidence and the ultimate report.
As a lawyer he may want to recommend the criminalization of human-caused climate change denial as a jail able offense similar to that of holocaust denial in many places.
After carefully considering all the most pertinent evidence of course.
Completed your own Royal Commission, did you?
I appreciate the point about the legal ramifications of the Commission’s report.
However, is the purpose of the Commission to serve as a central evidence clearing house for various lawsuits, or is it to recommend how things might be changed to reduce the impact of fire in Victoria?
I would argue that the second task is much more squarely the government’s responsibility.
Perhaps I should clarify that I wasn’t expecting three scientists. But we’ve got a judge, a former ombudsman and a bureaucrat. Given that, I’m still unconvinced there wasn’t room for somebody with some kind of technical training.
And, yes, it does make a difference.
Hypothetically: I live on the edge of a World Heritage wilderness area and I’m concerned about what I know to be more than thirty years of ‘fuel buildup’ in the bushland adjacent to my house. I would like ’someone’ to come along on a misty day in mid-winter and do a bit of cool fire fuel reduction. Who do I call? The council? No joy there, (as usual) and I’m told they have no funds allocated for such activities. The local volunteer fire brigade? I don’t think so, they are afterall volunteers and there is no fire. The local Hazmat team? Not our area, we don’t attend bushfires or engage in fire reduction burn offs they tell me and fair enough.
I suspect something along these lines is the biggest problem as to why hazard reduction does not get carried out often enough. Its got nothing whatsoever to do with me being a tree-hugging, greenie, animal lover.
No, hang on. The Local Council have indeed budgeted for hazard reduction campaigns, oh yes sirree, no question about that. Its just that the haven’t actually got around to allocating the money to anyone in particular and have no plans of doing so until the next AGM and only then if anybody asks.
Another fire issue: Penguin Unearthed has a nice post explaining just why those extreme fire risk days become much more likely with just a 1 degree increase in average temperature – Extreme distributions.
While I am certainly not any sort of fire expert, I do happen to know a few, and have a reasonably good grasp of current thinking in their circles.
It has been extraordinary the amount of utter tosh spouted in the mainstream media in the last week or so about how preventable these fires are, and how inadequate the resourcing is.
Many of the deaths would have been preventable through better house design and more community awareness and plannig, however the idea that prescribed burning is any sort of panacea is an utter myth. On a day like that saturday, anything would have burned ferociously. Notice that the Dargo fire was in areas that had been burned in both 02/03 and 06?
Burning off is also often opposed by locals (not greenies) because of the annoyance, air pollution, and risk of escape. There are less safe days for burning in autumn than people think, and doesn’t the department get caned whenever there are inevitable escapes? Prescribed burning is a risky business.
As for those who think we should have a massive fire break around every house, there’s a place they can go and live, and it’s called suburbia.
wilful – agreed except I’m happy to defend the right of those living in semi rural areas to create their own firebreaks – why shouldn’t they be able to? By all means charge a fee that represents the externalised costs of losing trees, and there needs to be some consideration of the likely ecological impact of having everyone cutting down dozens of mature trees and other vegetation, but I really struggle to see that there’s adequate justification for the types of restrictions that exist in many current shires – I’m no hardcore libertarian but we are supposed to be living in a free country.
wiz: in “semi-rural” areas, the kind of firebreak that would be necessary to protect a property would be big enough that it’s probably go half way to the neighbour’s fence.
I can’t see how that can be done, in places like those that got burned, without clearing half the bush that the people who live there find so attractive.
Every bushfire large or small the Urban fireys union will make a big kerfuffle about not being used etc. This is largely driven by the decades old drive by the union to have a fully paid up salaried force in the rural areas and thus expand membership and power. Whether it has anything to do with better fire fighting is not very clear.
In addition the salaried urban guys and gals, who spend loads of time sitting around in between calls. Like most people who join the police and emergency services, they have a bais toward action. That is they would rather be doing something rather than nothing – even if doing nothing is the best course of action.
The complaints by CFA people come from the same bias to action and often a lack of understanding of the big picture. Sure the CFA blokes and sheilas at Barramunga South in the middle of the Otways might have had 3 trucks and 20 people sitting around on their arses for a week or so. But sensible planning means you don’t all rush off to Gippsland just because you want to. There is every chance a fire will take off in the Otways just 5 ks from base and someone needs to protect that area.
Whilst CFA is rightly called heros at times like this, as a volunteer (largely) mob they do have their share of idiots and cowboys. Nothing worse than a couple of trucks and eager blokes thinking they will play buggery 300ks away from the country they know – thats how trucks end up burnt on dead end roads and such.
I would examine the claims of “underuse” in context, taking into account vested interests, and some time down the track. Vested (or conflicted) intersts are not always wrong neither are they always right.
Theres a similar argument put by CFA people for not calling out Urban brigades – Do you want a mob of salaried guys experienced in high rise buildings in the CBD and who lived their whole live in the suburbs, and who normally hook the hose up to the nearest high pressure high volume hydrant driving around in a BIG red truck up a logging track or firebreak road?
“I’ve heard reports that suggest that the relationship between these two bodies is also not what it should be.”
Reports are correct. Resentment abounds, partly volunteers vs paid, partly ‘city greenies’ vs ‘locals who know the bush’, all much as you might expect. Even within DSE, there’s country vs city sniping.
That’s all on the ground of course – if any of that attitude is making its way into actual policy or tactical decision making, that’s pretty seriously lame.
Some excellent points FXH.
I’d also add that there’s also a question of how all CFA volunteers cope under extreme pressure. Most undoubtedly can, some people just won’t. I don’t know whether I could. But the point is that you don’t want people who make bad decisions under extreme pressure putting themselves and others at risk; I wonder whether the nature of the beast lets those people be identified, and shifted to more appropriate roles, before the Big One hits.
I take your point about the firies union having a vested interest; I’m also buggered to know how the government could possibly afford to have thousands of professional firies sitting around in every teeny tiny hamlet in Victoria.
FDB,I’ve heard reports that suggest that such resentment does indeed work itself into tactical decision making.
Not that the specific examples I’ve heard made any difference in the outcome this time around (let’s just say they weren’t in the places worst affected), but what I heard was serious enough that the Commission ought to take a very very hard look.
Same way they “afford” to have Urban Fire Brigades sittig on their arses all day – whack a hefty premium on insurance fees. I doubt our rural houses and businesses would want that though. It would fall to the urban people to pay for the risk (subsidise) the tree changers and others. Sound familiar – I think a few people – say like Harry Clarke (and me) – might have something to say about that.
Predicting fire behaviour is a bit like predicting the weather, the shorter the time frame the more accurate the prediction. By necessity the big picture is clouded by a time frame that makes accuracy a problem. On the ground and at the front it’s difficult enough to keep within the bounds of safety, from a distance it’s much harder. There will always be people who whinge and complain about “the others” not doing their job properly, being in the wrong place or not staying put. How easy these decisions are to make after the fire has passed and from the comfort of safety. The pictures of burnt-out areas with unburnt houses, trees, green grass etc can totally distort the reality of the fire at the front. The DSE [sparks and embers] cop a lot of unfounded criticism but the reality is that they put themselves right in the firing line as first response in our parks. All of our fire services and volunteers do terrific work when required and sometimes that may mean staying put in their area on extreme fire days, while others elsewhere are in action.
wilful @ 18, I agree with what you say.
I think some nasty vested interests have sprung to the fore in reaction to the threat that the fires have posed to their remuneration and/or their belief system.
Such as:
* Loggers (and their lobbyists) falsely claiming fuel loads and lack of fuel reduction burning caused the fires. Marysville was surrounded by “very heavily managed” forest which had been subject regularly “fuel reduction burns” and had a firebreak around the town. None of which made any difference.
* The timber industry stating they need to log all our catchments to “better protect them from fire”. I jest not. Our intact catchments have burnt much slower as they are in parts wetter forest and temperatures and winds have eased. The connection has at last been made between forest destruction (from fires and logging, which includes “regeneration burns”) in catchments resulting in water loss for Melbourne. Time to kick the loggers out.
* Some questionable union argy bargy – criticising volunteers vs paid & CFA vs MFB – I think the Royal Commission should sort this out. Everyone surely did their best on the day?
* Some political hacks such as Wilson Tuckey and Barrie Cassidy (as well at the print shock jocks Devine and Bolt) falsely blaming “greenies”. Devine even said they should be “hung from lamp posts”! Greens Policy supports fuel reduction burns, and “greenies” don’t control forest or DSE policy. The state government does.
* Some building industry commentators saying the improved building regulations to improve fire resistance must be voluntary “because they would be too expensive”. How expensive was the loss of life and what will the massive reconstruction effort cost?
But I disagree about suburbia being safe.
I the wind had not changed to SW around 6-7pm, the fire would have burnt out large tracts of Melbourne. Possibly Lilydale, Wonga Park, Warrandyte, Donvale. Nobody there has a fire plan or any firefighting gear. The MFB could not have stopped a fire spotting 10km ahead and travelling at 80-100km/h.
Nowhere is safe from a fire burning under conditions like that. So need a mix of prevention and cure.
I have put an article with maps and info up [here].
Robert – the guy who had been fined thousands of dollars for clearing a firebreak had “only” removed I think 200 trees, and given the size of the blocks of land, it didn’t seem like this would have a significant impact on neighbouring properties. FWIW, I agree that for trees that are highly visible, and certain those that give shade to neighbouring properties, there’s a case for tighter restrictions – though ideally this should be determined by the most democratic means possible.
I’d also point out that while it may be true that for many properties nothing short of complete vegetation removal may have saved houses on Feb 7, this was an extreme firestorm, and one against which probably there will only ever be limited options. For the far more common types of fires that occur every 5 or 10 years, relatively limited firebreaks would surely be of some use.
Here is a house built to withstand fire that did so, with trees fairly close by. Several houses around it burned, killing 4 people. [Link]
Apparently Brian Naylor’s house was well setup for fighting fires and had a reasonable clearing around it. Not sure about the house construction.
Dunno about Brian Naylor’s house specifically, but Coombs Road where his house was has a fair bit of clearing.
Thanks for the link Peterc – good article. However I would suggest that for most people, spending $200K to make your house fireproof is probably not a realistic investment. Though I’m pretty surprised you’d need $200K of materials to build such a house (supposedly there were almost no labour costs – he did nearly all the work himself). For many locations, especially though with existing houses, firebreaks are surely a more cost effective method of protecting properties from the most common types of fires in such areas.
Surely a case for professional, fulltime bushfire fighters has got to be a recommendation coming out of the Royal Commission? Urban firefighters are neither paid nor prepared to head off down fire trails to douse blazes that aren’t threatening houses–yet. The paid up boys are IME, impressively professional and on the whole, very good looking, but they are not necessarily trained to fight bushfires nor do they want to, because its bloody dangerous. What is needed is a dedicated renumerated, full time crew–minimum of three, attached to every single rural fire station across south eastern Australia as well as skilled volunteers. We have been told money is not an issue.
Caroline: money is always an issue.
If money were no object, we could take every vehicle over five years old off the road and replace it with a vehicle featuring dozens of airbags, brake assist, and most importantly electronic stability control. But we don’t.
Heck, we could give an automatic emergency defibrillator to every household with an individual over 50 in it, and probably save well over 200 lives each and every year. But we don’t, because they cost a couple of grand each.
Re the scientifically qualified judges. Normally wouldn’t agree, but recall the case of the Chinese-American guy charged with selling nuke secrets to China. He was framed up good and proper by the FBI, who used scary scenarios in his trial about how dangerous the stuff was he told the Chinese. His defence was the stuff was common knowledge.
Anyway his judge was a former chemical engineer, who remembered enough physics from uni that he didn’t think the stuff was secret either, and let him off.
Thanks for the link, Deborah. From everything I’ve read, the extremity of these fires makes much conventional wisdom about fires incorrect. So on a “normal”extreme fire danger day, it’s probably still sensible to stay and fight the fire, and the level of backburning and vegetation clearing you’ve done around your house will make a difference.
But in these fires, the radiant temperature was so enormous, because of the extremity of the weather conditions, that for many people it wouldn’t have mattered how well prepared they were – the house was gone, and them in it, if they had the bad luck to be there.
I’ve seen Christine Nixon quoted a few times as saying that only 40% of houses were insured but if we make insurance more expensive by having more paid people ready to fight fires in the country, then probably even fewer people will take it out – not necessarily a good solution.
Robert, I just heard someone say it. Brumby I think. I don’t necessarily believe it, but he did say it and no doubt he’ll rue the day.
Hmmm… I don’t know if this really important enough considering the other issues involved… but what they hey, Gordon Moyes’ recent post uses Danny Nalliah’s exploitation of the fires to sink the boot into old Fred in some escalating rift I can’t understand. According to wikipedia – which reads likes it was edited very close to home; it has something to do with
Costello is all forgiven though.
Excellent points, Peterc. That wind change indeed saved considerable areas of NE outer Melbourne. However,the change compounded Kinglake’s problems by pushing the fire out of the southern escarpment forests northwards up onto the plateau. NASA’s Earth Observatory site has excellent IR satellite coverage of the Kinglake-Murrindindi and Maryville complexes. Close examination reveals the “pincer” action of the two wind directions as well as many examples of how far fire can spot as well as the sheer scale of firefighters tasks on the margins.
Wizofaus,the private firebreak idea has so many problems-from “the best place for my firebreak is on your land” to unacceptable aesthetic and ecological damage- that standard bunkers and smart building standards are the way to go.
The problem is that lawyers tend to look for legal solutions, just as engineers look for engineering solutions and politicians looks for political solutions. By making sure that the commission contains only lawyers you’re biasing the output strongly towards high level legal solutions – I’m betting that the result is to suggest more layers of law and politics on top of what we have now, with anything practical well down the chain and controlled by said layers of lawyers and politicians.
PeterC @31: from the article you linked to: “clearing only enough trees to lay a concrete slab and build a house. At a home ideas show, he found autoclaved aerated concrete bricks”. Basically, the guy built a fire-resistant house because he valued his own life more than he wanted to save money on his house. He lived, people who wanted cheap houses more than their own survival died, so in economic terms everyone is happy. I am convinced that we have to legislate to prevent people building cheap fireboxes in the bush because to date nothing else has worked. Those who think and pay seem to survive way more often than the “it’s just luck” pundits can explain.
moz: precisely.
And, in this case, I’d argue that the solutions (at least as far as saving lives goes) will have far more to do with engineering and science than law and politics.
Oh, and the problem with the above legislated “solution” can be seen in NSW, where planning laws are subject to the “Sartor Effect” of override from on high if your pockets are deep enough. Viz, it’s cheaper to bribe… um, “donate to the ALP”, and ask for ministerial override than to meet the legislated requirements.
The guy spending $200,000 extra for the fireproof house is probably an artefact of buying a brand new technology that’s still in the early days. When I was looking at that exact same thing the blocks were made in NZ and cost a fortune to ship over here, so it’s entirely possible that the cost was $60k for blocks, $140k for transport. And “extra” is also an interesting thing to deconstruct, since he doesn’t give any context about what else he bought above and beyond what other people do, so it probably includes luxuries like the double glazed windows he mentions (and those should be mandatory as well, IMO). I’m another (semi)retired engineer, and I would also spend a lot extra on building a house because I’d want a bunch of technogeekery that other people don’t, from insulation and double glazing to solar panels and two or three times the amount of water storage that other people would want (as well as broadband internet and so on). I’m surprised he didn’t have a heat-resistant satellite dish on top of the house.
Robert, every royal commission ever held has involved fielding expertise from non-legal experts and making findings of fact that do not relate to legal procedure.
The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was not headed by an Aborigine or a corrective serices officer. Royal Commissions into rail accidents in NSW have not been chaired by engineers or train drivers, and Royal Commissions on drug trafficking have been chaired by judges not known for their consumption of these products. The Fitzgerald Commission was not (thankfully) headed by a Queensland police officer.
I’m not saying that only judges can run royal commissions, but it is true that legal cases are not limited to legal issues, and presumably the government would not have commissioned a judge who is known as an expert in law and little else.
Yes, Andrew, I know that lawyer have traditionally been appointed to run Royal Commissions – indeed, the previous two Royal Commissions on Victorian fires have been run by judges.
However, I remain unconvinced that lawyers are the only professional body equipped to offer a useful perspective on how to investigate events of this nature, and sum up their findings. Furthermore, I would argue that lawyers typically lack several crucial skills – quantitative analysis amongst them – which will prove highly useful in making useful recommendations in the area.
I accept that the Commission will have access to scientific expertise, but it is my strong view that having a background in some technical area generally improves one’s ability to evaluate such scientific expertise immensely. Take a look at this post where a lawyer without the benefit of scientific training tackles scientific evidence.
Simply having a scientifically sound perspective on the bushfires is insufficient.
The RC will make recommendations about how the law and/or its administration should be changed to prevent and to contain bushfires.
At its heart an RC is an exercise in public administration, not in scientific or technical research.
Royal Commissioners are usually heavily enmeshed in public administration and are usually trusted by governments to make recommendations which simultaneously achieve a workable public consensus and minimise the scope of institutional change.
Scientists cannot be relied upon to perform this deft balancing act.
On the matter of inquiries, I seem to recall it being suggested that Bjelke-Peterson made the mistake of misidentifying Tony Fitzgerald with another of a similar name.
Does this have any basis in fact?
Katz,
doubtless some Quincelanders will correct me, but I thought the Qld RC was set up by Ministers other than Joh (he being overseas and an Acting Premier running the shop?) and Joh had to go along with it upon his return.
By golly I could be wrong you know, because you southerners you just dont know do you? not a thing, you don’t understand – why in Queensland we have – and I said, oh dear, another question from the ABC, eh? You’ve got a lot to learn, sonny [chuckle] oh yes, you can say that, but a lot of good folk just the other day
Acting Premier Bill Gunn, bless him. May 1987.
http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/asp/index.asp?pgid=10877
Hi Robert,
I’m a bit late on this one, but what do you make of the fact that the terms of reference do not explicitly identify climate change and climate change policy as areas of appropriate inquiry – especially when other areas, such as communication and preparedness, are expressly included?
Penny Wong made comments linking the heatwave to climate change before the fires, Brumby invoked climate during the fires, and Professor David Karoly, head of Brumby’s climate change reference group, was very strong on this issue on Lateline.
If the Royal Commission is to look into prevention in the broadest sense, shouldn’t we be looking to the benefits of adopting a stronger position that might influence the next global agreement, and so lessen the impact of bushfires over time? This should be extraordinarily awkward for Brumby and Rudd, but the media have very much excluded searching questions about climate and the fires from the narrative.
Thanks for the detail, Ambi.
Don’t you worry about that, Ambigulous.
Katz
it still doesn’t answer your main question, about two potential commissioners with similar names. Interesting to see the extremely BROAD terms of reference Tony FitzG obtained, when he asked for a widening of the terms of his inquiry.
jane: touche !!
The use of lawyers in RCs is curious, an Oz equivalent of the American overestimation of the value of legal education, you could draw on Richard Posner and Greg Craven for some skepticism here. Owen Dixson struggled in a non-legal role. Why not a historian, political scientist or a geographer? Someone with real skill in sifting through evidence to work out the how and the why? As for the argument that RC require a legal chair isn’t that what counsel assisting are for?
Peterc – thanks for the comments, particularly
I think it will be necessary to consider how communities on the fringe live with extreme fire danger. Hurstbridge came under ember attack late on Black Saturday night – if not for that windchange, it is possible that fire could have swept into the urban fringe of Diamond Creek and Eltham. As the crow (or fire) flies, these areas are within a 30km radius of the CBD. Property clearing and fire breaks won’t be whole answer in these cases.
A spokesman for the Bureau of Meteorology, interviewed on ABC Radio, has indicated the need to consider that drought may be the new norm. I’m fairly confident that the Royal Commission will receive a great deal of evidence regarding to climate change, whether it asks for it or not.
Sorry – Hurstbridge came under threat of ember attack. The wind change came in before direct ember attack occurred.
peterc, your monomania about teh evil loggers is sadly misplaced. On a day like we had, anything and everything burns. Do you have a link to show it is loggers calling for more FRB? And you’ve got no science to back up the assertion you’ve made several times that forestry increases fire risk. However, the machinery operators carving out containment lines are probably from the timber industry, putting their equipment and lives on the line at a higher rate than any other industry sector (well they do have the skills and experience, and a vested interest). But, as long as you don’t go on about it, I wont either, OK?
Worth reminding folks that suburban Bendigo was actually struck by fire on Black Saturday. Within easy walking distance of the central business district over forty houses were lost and I believe one dead, but many very close calls. Apparently the wind change saved the fire heading to the very densely populated area of suburban Golden Square.
It will be interesting to see, when this fire is investigated, how the CFA and the large established fire brigade battled the outbreak. Who owned what patch? I am lead to believe that many fire fighters were called away at another fire when the very local fire struck but I am not sure whether they included the paid up group.
For the fuel load/greeny bash conspirators the area burnt was very low in foliage.
It was just stinking hot with cruel winds.
Wilful, since you appear to be something or other to do with the woodchippacorporatocracy I have to say I’m relieved nothing dire has happened to you. I was expecting you to weigh in much earlier with your pro-logging talking points, all or mostly all of which I firmly disagree, so I’m perversely happy to see you do it.
I’d imagine that suburban areas are not setup to defend against bushfires either. The householders would neither be expecting or have the preparation to protect their houses and there would be an implicit reliance on mains water supply for the firefighters. The only real solution is to make sure the fires don’t get into suburban areas in the first place and that may mean in the future we will need very large cleared buffer zones. Fuel reduction may not be enough.
Even within the cities… We have a clump of eucalypts on the north side of our house which extends down to an electricity substation. The substation is prone to sparky fits and the local youths occasionally have a spree of lighting the rubbish bins.
helen, as long as you’re interested in playing the man not the ball, I haven’t got anything to say to you.
Wilful, I was saying yay to your not-deadness. I think your hair trigger is set a bit high today.
I’d imagine that suburban areas are not setup to defend against bushfires either.
Too true and there is no CFA or RFS to call upon, so unless the flames are actually licking the eaves its up to the neighbourhood to deal with. As happened to us in a house of my youth that adjoined Ku-Ring-Gai Chase National Park. I was quite young but still remember being aghast that the Fire Brigade would not attend until the fire was threatening a house . . . Some minutes later, a whole bunch of Navy Seals tromped up the driveway (who were these masked men?)sunk a pump into a swimming pool and put the fire out. Fire Brigade proper turned up later. I have no idea how or why the Navy responded so quickly given that this neck of the woods is a long, long, way from the sea. It was then up to my father and I, the only ones left concerned enough to patrol the bushland for most of the night putting out spot fires.
For me it was a small loss of innocence and some gain in cynicism to realise that firefighters didn’t necessarily come and put out fires.
My point, BTW, is not to sling off about urban fire brigades–well not all these years later, although at the time . . . Latterly the blokes from Katoomba FB did a stirling job saving a house I was living in despite them believing at the time, it was a gonner. My point is that in urban areas where there is much bushland, it would make a whole lot more sense were urban brigades prepared to fight the fire where it starts and not wait for it to impact upon a house.
There were only two factors that saved our neighbour’s house all those years ago. One that the Navy showed up from apparently out of nowhhere and two that they had a swimming pool.
Oh well, pity about the other comments. My apologies though, and thanks. There’s a lot of exhausted people round here, but I was sunning myself in lakes entrance the last two weeks (plus frostbite on the high plains).
We’ll never agree about forestry, and I think the moderators would appreciate it if it basically wasn’t mentioned round here btw peter, yourself and myself. I only respond, I do not initiate anything about Victorian forestry. But, just briefly, my position on the fire tragedy and forestry is that they have very little to do with each other. The fires weren’t particularly caused by or stopped by anything to do with forest practices. Any connection made between them regarding the physics of the fires is probably spurious, and would need supporting evidence for any claims.
(Though the Murrindindi mill fire was reportedly started at the mill, so they are possibly culpable. Not really the point though.)
Something I deeply worry about for the future of Victoria’s forests is the immense pressure there will be to manage them solely for community safety. All other considerations will be thrown out the window for the next few years – this may have more disastrous an ecological consequence as the fires themselves.
If we’re looking for reasons why bushfires are such a problem in Oz I suggest we start with the environmental change caused by the first Australians. 50,000 years of firestick farming both contributed to the drying of the continent and amounted to a selection pressure for fire promoting plant species, such as various eucalypts (for various reasons including the relatively low evaporative cooling in eucalypt forests).
It’s perhaps worth pondering field trials to determine if it is feasible to change the forest type in certain locations in SE Australia that into something more akin to what existed 50,000 years ago. Obviously firestick farming caused a mass extinction of fire sensitive plants, however we still have some tree etc species suitable to SE Australia, including a number in the myoporaceae family, that could be used.
And yes, I am aware that many native plants and animals are now reliant on an artifical burn regime and of course we must accomodate their needs.
“…..and that may mean in the future we will need very large cleared buffer zones.”
Chris, I just do not see how that would work. Even with an area that was denuded down to ‘nature strip neat’ , if the conditions are right, fire can just run until it finds something larger to latch onto and those embers can fly a hell of a long way.
In the Bendigo case it would be more accurate to describe it as a “grass fire” rather than a “bush fire” that caused all the damage. And of course not many would have had a fire plan because “fires dont happen in built up areas”.
Maybe if people could see, from the air, how green and grassy it was down there, in their world, they would be feeling a bit more vulnerable on those crappy days that hiding in the house with the air-conditioner on seems like the only option.
Caroline @ 64 – Wouldn’t the urban fire brigade need quite different equipment and training to tackle bushfires instead of house and general building fires?
Wilful @ 65 – One of the decisions that may have to be made is that its simply not sensible to build towns in the middle of forested areas anymore. It’ll be something we visit rather than something we try to live amongst.
Chris, that may be a logical position to take, however modern society would probably rather seek to overcome the challenge, to conquer and dominate nature rather than accept any other position.
And, of course, lots of existing houses (timber shacks, by and large) are placed smack bang in the middle fo the forest right now. With mortgages etc.
John X, that sort of landscape manipulation is going to have to happen with climate change anyway, though we don’t really know what we’re doing and are guaranteed to get it only a bit right. So I would recoil from your suggestion if we were living in holocene times, but now we’ve entered the anthrocene those sorts of ideas will be on the table.
Chris, I think a water tanker and lengths of canvas hose are pretty standard equipment for all fire fighting appliances. But you’re right, some additional training would be needed which explains the urban fire fighter’s reluctance to fight bushfires or not so much reluctance but directions from above, against doing so. But when the green bush across the way is alight and the seasoned house is in its path, surely training your hoses on the bush (and the house) doesn’t require a university degree or terribly much training, just some common sense, (which these days, is rapidly being legislated out of existence). Putting out housefires is I imagine far more involved with undoubtedly many more unseen hazards to contend with. I.e, noxious fumes from burning plastics–carpets and the like, exploding devices, etc, etc, than what is experienced with relatively simple vegetation fires, which when not fanned along by 60kmh winds apt to change and heated with air temps approaching 48 is a more straightforward if somewhat dangerous affair.
It probably all boils down to work cover insurance premiums.
caroline, I suspect you might find theres be a bit more to fighting forest fires than that, and there are university courses, at least for the trainers if not the trained.
but there’s not really any firefighting done on a day like that saturday – stay out of the way and try to save lives without jeopardising your own. Don’t get in front of it, attack from sides and rear. Which is hard when the front is where it’s going.
joe2 @ 67 – I think the clearing would make the homes defensible. As you say you’ll still get grass fires and embers, but a prepared household can handle those. Its a very different matter when you have a forest 10 metres away on fire. The suburban canberra fire experience was that many of those houses could have been saved if the houses had their own water and pump supply and actively defended along with some better design decisions (eg no mulch against the house, no gaps under the house etc).
wilful @ 69 – it would have to be a long term goal to remove towns in the middle of forested areas. And it would be politically very difficult to refuse permission for people to rebuild in the towns that have been destroyed. Sadly I suspect we’ll see the same thing happen again before long. Perhaps there won’t be as much loss of human life, but the property destruction seems pretty much inevitable.
# blockquote>Something I deeply worry about for the future of Victoria’s forests is the immense pressure there will be to manage them solely for community safety. All other considerations will be thrown out the window for the next few years – this may have more disastrous an ecological consequence as the fires themselves.
You gotta laugh. Once again it is a forestry man that is the left of the wimpish, liberal, pretend environmentalists here.
wilful, my last brush with fire, I hope to be my last, but should I ever find myself or the house I am in, in the path of a conflagration I won’t be asking anybody prepared to come to my assistance or stand at the end of a hose or climb onto a roof, whether they have the appropriate accreditation–only perhaps, that they be sober.
One of the things I have learned about bush fires is that fighting them or trying to work out which way they will blow is a very blokey arena, one in which unfortunately the blokes are often wrong. I have been alarmed by some sort of fundamental disconnect about what the fire was going to do and what the people charged with fighting it thought it was going to do. Usually along the lines of the danger has now passed or it will burn itself out. For a woman, getting anybody to take you seriously is extremely difficult–its like you don’t exist.
. . .sober and dressed for the occasion.
Clarification: not by you Wilful, by the other turkeys.
Hi Robert,
Bit late and I see some others have covered the issue!
FWIW – Legal eagles haven’t done too badly in the past. See the Waterfall inquiry and the R.C. into Brit Atomic Tests.
My issue is more with the deputies – most of the previous R.C.s that really got into the fundamentals and looked for swiss-cheese and root-cause models had very capable technically trained deputies. Usually some sort of scientific training (even if completely outside their field) meant that they not only had the ability to look at what happened (as a historian will) but also allowed them to narrow down the raw data to allow predictions of what might be avoided in future.
What does concern me is the potential legalistic approach – yes, having council to assist in this would be critical but if we want to avoid repeats then it is essential to not just sideline the people who can make the biggest difference.
We’ve already seen this too often in OH&S rules across the country where prescriptive laws have not prevented accidents and have hindered on-the-spot fixes that may not be appropriate for other sites.
Technical knowledge is needed – and I’m sorry if people feel insulted by this but we currently have a very large deficiency of such knowledge and how to apply it. We’ve seen multiple discussions in the MSM where pure emotion and pure BS have been allowed to roam free.
If we are to prevent loss of life in the future we need “cold’ hard evidence-based solutions and while a R.C. can provide this it is not reassuring for one with such a large remit to be run with a management team made up of lawyerly people and no technical people (apologies to any lawyers here).