The public servants and their officer holders must take great care in preparing the reports which will follow this enormous event and make sure that they now re earn the trust, which has now been lost in their care as defenders of our communities,families and their children.

Well said, Richard, let's hope the Victorian government etc respond better than did their ACT counterparts a few years ago. "Mea culpas" all round.

The first Royal Commission occured in 1923 (I think) there has been 6 more since then , how many RC's are needed , particuarly considering they all found "Fuel Reduction was required for safty". All Country people know this , Aboriginals also know this , the people who were self appointed custodians of the River Red Gum forests know this .
All the Pollies , Public Servents , Forestry Bigots etc don't know because it would be them who would be responsible for Back Burning the forrests . Note the Aboriginal Lady at the Memorial service who said that her people fired the bush every seven years .

It's pretty safe to say that Fuel Reduction will never happen .

Unless seven is some kind of Magic Number .

Tap Barmah Forrest into Google to find out how fanatical the forrestry commision thugs are , the citizens of Barmah decidered to purchase 30 cows to eat the long grass that endangered their villiage . The Fanatical Forrest Thugs turned up with a platoon of Police . They demonstrated their incompetence they found nothing .
Under their watch the Famous Barma Forrest will shortly be a moonscape courtsy of the public servants .

From a passer-by farmer's point of view, must only say to the writer, spot on.

However the very wonderful music and ceremony paying homage to those who died under such horrific circumstances, may have too much lulled the minds to the necessary use of historical insight to busy the minds with the needed foresight for better preparation against similar tragedies in the coming years.

In more simple terms, as any wheat cockie knows, to learn from the past to prepare for the future.

Regards, BB, WA.

ShazBaz has made one of the most important points. The truth has been repeatedly identified and then covered up or drowned out by those who have the ability to create their own reality using shear will power. Because it makes them feel so good.

Notice how the media elite attempted to herd public opinion by harping ad nauseam on the human element -- the arsonist.

When even they could not completely drown the voices of reason, the media started up the lie that hazard reduction can occur on only a few days a year.

Minimising risk is the only real possibility. Fire will occur and the only controllable factor is the intensity i.e. fuel load.

Extreme Greens have been complicit in the killing of more Australians than all of our mass murderers collectively. Yet they remain smug, confident and delusional while wielding disproportionate political power.

Next they will be arguing for increased benchmarks for our Emission Trading Scheme to counteract the release of a Zillion Mega Tonnes of that poisonous CO2 pollutant from the fires.

Sadly times have changed.
Once anyone who lived near bushland could burn off whatever and whenever they liked. They usually were done at short notice when the conditions were suitable and probably saved many lives. But a few were not so well managed and property and lives were lost and in todays litigious culture we all know what that means.

Now burnoffs need to be planned well in advance and regularly canceled because nature dosnt adhere to the script and throws up a rainstorm or too much wind etc. They also need an army of firefighters and their trucks and equipment. A check with the scientists to see that no endangered animals might be endangered. A labyrinth of govt bureaucracy to navigate. And someone to pay for all of the above.

Its no wonder there are nowhere near enough hazard reduction burns anymore. I doubt there is any way we can change this. We will have to look to other means to protect ourselves. Fireproofing of houses, restricting development in fire prone areas, even mandatory evacuations and sacrificing property over lives will have to be looked at further as burnoffs are just too problematic these days.

Unfortunately state governments react to the squeaky wheel. Reports from years ago can't compete with the noisy ignorant greenies.

Once it hurts them in that they are sued for negligence, and possibly face criminal charges, they will have their priorities reorganised for them.

In industry, an employer who acted as they have done would be bankrupt and facing criminal charges. So should they.

The title of this article is "Government responsibility for bushfire tragedy"

For a start, "the government" cannot be blamed for the actual fire itself, so we can put that away.

But what do we want them to do?

Would we, for example, countenance the Federal Government placing a complete ban on the building of dwellings in a fire-prone area?

I somehow doubt it.

How about that all levels of government, Federal, State and Local, adopt a hands-off approach to the entire process? No restrictions on where and how buildings are put up, but no support in the event that a fire occurs.

Obviously, this won't happen either. So there has to be a middle position.

We take for granted that the question should be addressed from the angle "what should the government do?"

How about we change the emphasis a little, and ask "what responsibility should individuals take, when placing their family in the path of a known danger?"

There is a growing tendency to leave far too much to that thing called "government", which is entirely driven by politics.

I suspect that we have already passed the tipping point. We expect the government to keep us safe, whatever personal decisions we make. If we sail single-handed around the world, we expect the Navy to rescue us. If we invest in get-rich-quick schemes that fail, we expect to be reimbursed. If we smuggle drugs into a foreign country, we expect the government to bail us out. If we build a house in a fire-prone area and don't insure it, we expect... what?

The upcoming Royal Commission won't address these questions. It will follow the article's populist position:

"...we should not be asked to suppress all anger at the outcome or to blunt our immediate demand for answers."

Yep, let's all be angry at "the government" for letting us down.

But it would be nice, once in a while, if we considered our own role in the tragedy. Which is that we have over the years placed way too much responsibility on that amorphous mass "government", while taking too little ourselves.

10 years of drought and a horror week of weather are the main culprits.
Blaming "extreme greenies" or the government shows a lack of understanding of the issues. (Not that this is unexpected from the politically charged city folk)
Yes it has been very hard to burn off for the last few winters.
The risk of hazard reduction burning creating a hazard is real, and managing this risk is a real logistical issue.
Allow local actions and you risk outbreaks: Lack of control is blamed.
Control it all and you risk "beuracracy gone mad": Too much control is blamed.
Better housing codes will come of this, as will more sensible rules for burning off. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that a few new rules will prevent it in future though. People like taking risks for a decent return, and living in the bush *is* a decent return most of the time. Look at the folks living under volcanoes or on fault lines: Risk is just a part of life.
The blame game may be fun for the angry soul but it doesn't achieve much.

You mugs all talk about burnoffs, but as we used to say in the old days round the homesteads, what about the axe occasionally, caus' just one or two trees is all that's necessary near sheds and homesteads.

Once you want to live in or near forests, for Chris'sake use some commonsense - really not so hard these days long since the axe has been replaced with such magical clearing gear.

In fact most of the OLO threads on this topic seem mostly from city folk and not from the bush.

From BB, Buntine, WA.

Well said Shadow Minister, an employer, in similar circumstances to those in which the Local, State and Federal Governments find themselves, would be in severe trouble. This because non- government organizations have the “authority” to make policy decisions, they are “responsible” for implementing them and they are held “accountable” for the outcomes.

Governments however, seem to take all the authority, some of the responsibility and none of the accountability. Our media and minority interest groups seem to grant immediate absolution or defer meaningful criticism until after yet another RC.

Pericles, when you suggest that “There is a growing tendency to leave far too much to that thing called "government", which is entirely driven by politics.” Do you mean that Government cannot be expected to be accountable because a policy decision was politically based?

As I see it, Governments and the Green lobby can legitimately claim that they are not opposed to burning off. If however, we look at the raft of policies relating to how, when, who and where burning off might occur, we can clearly identify significant “inhibitors” to burning off. These represent a series of bars, hoops and jumps through which applicants must first jump. Added to this is the fact that these inhibitors force the process into bureaucratic “decisions in progress” delays.

What we end up with is what appears to be a policy that permits burning off, whilst at the same time has sufficient embedded inhibitors to, for all practical purposes, actually prevent it.

The raft of complex and wide ranging related policies from all levels of government have been corrupted to suite a minority influence for the purpose of obtaining political benefit. As a consequence we have abjectly failed 210 fellow Australians with thousands severely impacted.

My case is that Governments collectively introduced bushfire mitigation policies. However, in true “Yes Minister” style, they will break total policy into little “nibbles” and point the finger at other levels of government and agencies. I doubt another RC will change that.

Pericles,

Having lived in Rural NSW at the time of the last fires, I am not just some city dweller pontificating from my armchair.

Whilst I agree with you that the local governments are not responsible for the fires, and cannot be expected to do everything for everyone, it is their responsibility to take heed of obvious hazards to the community and at the very least put in place guidelines and facilitate the process.

Their fault is not only the act of omission (which is excusable only where there is no record of danger), but the direct act of commission in preventing recommended safe practices from being implemented.

The planning and permits required to remove any undergrowth was taking months and huge expense, and on top of it, they imposed a massive fine ($50 000) on a farmer who actually dared to protect his family and property.

I would say that their direct cupability is not in doubt. They have been protecting their elected positions by pandering to the greens, and now they must be held personally accountable for their gross negligence.

Yet another RC is unlikely to differ significantly from the previous RCs, but is unlikely to include in its terms of reference any governmental culpability.

In China they would probably receive a cranial lead injection.

This thread of consistently rational responses should be held up as a standard for future OLO posters.

PS some of us city folk actually spend a significant amount of time in the bush while rubbing shoulders with those who live in the bush. In addition, we may have grown up in the country even though we no longer live there.

I did a lot of "back burning" years ago .
I was with people who used to graze the Forests , some of them were of Aboriginal decent. These people worked somewhat like a cooperative , each acquired Cattle and simply let them go , these cattle had to have water and had to have grass .
Water and grass were the only controls .
Grass was controlled by fire , unless the Forrest is burnt there will be no grass .
Knowledge of geography supplied the water it was a mountainous area .
Parcels of cattle were rounded up irregularly , several killed for shareholders consumption the rest sold on the hoof any breeders branded , males castrated .
Some where there must have been a manager ?
Wildfires did not happen for obvious reasons .
Once the native grasses established establishing a burn was much easier , establishing a burn in unburnt Forrest is sometimes impossible and has to be left later time spring which becomes dangerous .
It was acceptable to cut firewood , it isn't now .
What I have illustrated above could still be done ,
Places like Kinglake could have been saved by Goats .
Simply surround Kinglake with a fence road gates or cattle grid , clear fell fireside of fence just enough to stop evaporated canopy gas ignition , maybe replant with non eucalypti possibly English trees . Massive damage to trees in a Forrest is done by Burrawongs .
If burrawongs catch fire trees adjacent always destroyed .