Page 45 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If the aim of keeping fire out of national parks and wilderness is to protect biodiversity, it is essential to protect it in a way that does not destroy important elements of that biodiversity. That is why the Greens support a fuel reduction process based on scientific study, appropriate for the particular vegetation type and the topography, conducted in a time pattern that allows regeneration to occur. The coroner’s recommendation suggests interest in control burns only for fire prevention purposes, with little regard for catchment values and the retention of biodiversity.
I was a bit alarmed at the Attorney-General’s comments at his media conference yesterday, where, in response to a question about fire hazard reduction burns, he did not even refer to ecological considerations but dwelt purely on rural land and the benefits of grazing. I hope and expect that this was merely a misunderstanding and that the government will act on its stated commitment to a scientific approach to fire hazard reduction burns incorporating biodiversity values and evidence into the decision-making process.
I read with interest the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment’s guidelines and procedures for ecological burning, because they suggest that there is room for asset protection measures within an ecological framework. Let us hope that the second stage of the strategic bushfire management plan, expected in July 2005 but delayed “for more detailed analysis to ensure that it is scientifically rigorous”, reflects similar principles. The Victorian code of practice for fire management on public land states:
All uses of prescribed burning within a given area must be integrated to the maximum extent practicable. The planning of prescribed burning requires the recognition and balancing of often competing objectives and must take account of … the role of fire in the maintenance of biological diversity, the responses of different ecosystems to fire, natural patterns of succession, and the risk of wildfire …
I am sure that these guidelines are not always followed to the letter, but at least they exist.
I agree with the coroner and many people in the community that the first aim of any fire service should be to attempt to extinguish the fire at the earliest opportunity, understanding that this will not always be possible. In deciding whether or not to attend or stay overnight, and especially the first night, the advice of the fire crews on the ground should be sought. I understand that there are occupational health and safety considerations, but a fire burning out of control poses risks to life and property at a level which may be greater and is certainly unpredictable. I am talking here about the precautionary approach again.
The issue of warnings has preoccupied many of those who lost loved ones and homes in the 2003 fires. I cannot know whether or not the officials realised that Canberra’s urban areas were under threat from the fire before they said that they realised it, but I do believe that an informed community is likely to be a safer one. I understand that the Chief Minister wanted to avoid needless panic, but I think that next time—God forbid—we face such an event the relevant officials and ministers must take the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .