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.