Thread: All 2019/20 bushfire comments here.

Originally Posted by 4bee

Yep, & the poor buggers are still endeavoring to help others so there is no escape from the Trauma for them, it is constant.

A lot of it is a build up of other events, with campaign fires it's the constant running into the public that have suffered a loss and hearing their stories and seeing the suffering and sadness and distress up close. So when you have a win it helps push the needle towards the positive side a bit more.

kangaroo island sitrep:
Army advised that they will not remain at Basecamp if it is under threat and require 4 hrs leadtime to demob.


1) bunch of pussies
2) what make them think they will get 4h lead time?
3) where will they go if the ferry isnt running
4) bunch of pussies

lets hope we never have to go to war.

Ok, so there is now mumblings into a "federal royal commission" into the current bushfire "disaster".

Don't get me wrong, I place what is has happened recently, is happening now and is likely to keep happening for weeks to months firmly in the "disaster" category. In fact "disaster" doesn't quite seem a strong enough term in light of the magnitude of what has/is/will happen. Is a royal commission the way forward or is there some other way of filtering and collating the data in the aftermath to put a lessons learned into place that is actually effective?

My limited take on royal commissions is they generally consume a huge amount of resources, make a swath of (often unrealistic or impractical) recommendations and then seem to be generally ignored as they've crossed an election cycle and the guys who are in next reckon they don't need to worry about all that pish as it was all the fault of the last lot.

Now I now that sounds contentious and is likely to stimulate some robust political discussion, but is there any way of looking at it from a dispassionate point of view while setting aside prejudices?

It just seems to me that the sort of coin that is required for anything that involves legal analysis could be better spent equipping the response forces and assisting in mitigating the causes.

To place that in some form of context, as part of the work I do that pays my AULRO subscription and enables me to afford a 4 wheeled money pit, I do work in emergency response planning and disaster recovery. Part of that work involves post event analysis as part of the feedback to ensuring appropriate preparedness for the next one (there is always a next one), but stuff like this is multiple orders of magnitude far and above the (relatively) chicken feed stuff I do.

It just seems that involving layers of bureaucracy and legal waffle isn't the best way to get the job done, but I guess it provides "jobs for the boys".

Anyone on the ground have any real input? Again, I don't want an argument. I'm more after some perspective as mine is quite limited and blinkered by my little corner of the role.

Originally Posted by BradC

My limited take on royal commissions is they generally consume a huge amount of resources, make a swath of (often unrealistic or impractical) recommendations and then seem to be generally ignored as they've crossed an election cycle and the guys who are in next reckon they don't need to worry about all that pish as it was all the fault of the last lot.

the 2009 RC into the black saturday bushfires had realistic recommendations, most of which were implemented and i believe responsible for a lower death toll, even with the fires being much bigger in size.

Originally Posted by BradC

Ok, so there is now mumblings into a "federal royal commission" into the current bushfire "disaster".

....

The advantage of Royal Commissions is that they can compel evidence, and recent examples such as the Banking one show that they can make real change.

There are two questions that need to be answered -

1. What should be the terms of reference - this usually decides whether the inquiry is going to be any use.

2. Is a R.C. needed to find answers, or are these so obvious that one is not needed?

This second question is one that is very hard to answer; the answers are obvious to some, but to others those answers are obviously wrong, and a R.C. may even be needed to sort that question out (but the terms of reference need to allow this!).

I think Morrison might think having a RC might produce lots of factual information which might put to bed many of the Climate Change denialist claims.
An example is the claim that more hazard reduction could have prevented these fires, which the fire chiefs say is wrong because the fires are so fierce that hazard reduction wouldn't have stopped them. Warming also reduced the window for safely doing cool, dry, windless controlled burns.
A RC would also collect the meteorological information demonstrating that the climate really is changing.
Morrison could then, if he chose, use the overwhelming evidence to silence the climate denialist cultists in the LNP and push through improved climate change policies, so Australia pulls it's weight and catches up to the rest of the world in reducing emissions.

I'm giving Morrison the benefit of the doubt here and assuming he wants to use the RC for a positive result. Only time will tell.

Originally Posted by BradC

Ok, so there is now mumblings into a "federal royal commission" into the current bushfire "disaster".

Don't get me wrong, I place what is has happened recently, is happening now and is likely to keep happening for weeks to months firmly in the "disaster" category. In fact "disaster" doesn't quite seem a strong enough term in light of the magnitude of what has/is/will happen. Is a royal commission the way forward or is there some other way of filtering and collating the data in the aftermath to put a lessons learned into place that is actually effective?

My limited take on royal commissions is they generally consume a huge amount of resources, make a swath of (often unrealistic or impractical) recommendations and then seem to be generally ignored as they've crossed an election cycle and the guys who are in next reckon they don't need to worry about all that pish as it was all the fault of the last lot.

Now I now that sounds contentious and is likely to stimulate some robust political discussion, but is there any way of looking at it from a dispassionate point of view while setting aside prejudices?

It just seems to me that the sort of coin that is required for anything that involves legal analysis could be better spent equipping the response forces and assisting in mitigating the causes.

To place that in some form of context, as part of the work I do that pays my AULRO subscription and enables me to afford a 4 wheeled money pit, I do work in emergency response planning and disaster recovery. Part of that work involves post event analysis as part of the feedback to ensuring appropriate preparedness for the next one (there is always a next one), but stuff like this is multiple orders of magnitude far and above the (relatively) chicken feed stuff I do.

It just seems that involving layers of bureaucracy and legal waffle isn't the best way to get the job done, but I guess it provides "jobs for the boys".

Anyone on the ground have any real input? Again, I don't want an argument. I'm more after some perspective as mine is quite limited and blinkered by my little corner of the role.

You may find some answers here. edit. The important issue would be the terms of reference. I believe they must be set before the investigation. ensuring the correct terms of reference could be critical.
Counting the costs of a Royal Commission - Government, Public Sector - Australia

More Americans arrive.


Reinforcements arrive! Australians cheer US firefighters walking through Sydney airport to join battle against bushfires that have killed 26 people ahead of new 100F heatwave