Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

Readers of the Midland Express on Tuesday February 17 will have noticed a letter from the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Brad Battin, as follows:

*******

‘The 2009 Royal Commission into Black Saturday recommended the State Government adopt a five per cent fuel reduction target.

‘Considering the Andrews Government has not publically stated their prescribed burning targets, a question was directed to the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water requesting the Government’s target.

‘The response “normally those figures are articulated through budget papers”. (Hansard, February 10, 2015)

‘The response will raise anxiety in the communities affected by fires in the past as we see a government not willing to commit to prescribed burning to protect Victoria.

‘The Andrews Government must come out and explain why they have no target for Victoria; is it they don’t understand the impact, or don’t care?’

*****

This ‘letter’ is actually a press release, distributed presumably to all regional newspapers, and appearing in more than one. They all reproduce Mr Battin’s misspelling of ‘publicly’, though the Express did clean up his punctuation.

Unfortunately for Mr Battin, a  quick reference to Hansard of February 10 shows Minister Neville’s reply as follows:

‘I thank the member for his question. Normally these figures are articulated through budget papers, but I am happy to indicate to the member that there is no intention to make any changes.’ [Our emphasis].

In other words, Labor is persisting with Coalition policy, for the moment. What all this suggests is that Mr Battin doesn’t listen, or doesn’t read, or he’s deliberately misrepresenting the Minister’s reply. None of these options are great news for those hoping the Coalition might show some ability to rethink burning policies.

They’re not great news for the public, either. What the state needs right now is a sensible bipartisan attitude to public safety and the environment: not cheap point scoring and fear mongering. The Coalition showed last year that it was prepared to look into risk management of the fire problem: it just wasn’t prepared to go a step further and critically examine whether its five per cent target policy really is making us safer.

The Labor Government is persisting with Coalition policy on fire in the short term. This is confirmed in a statement released yesterday, announcing an independent review of the fuel reduction program. The statement, from the Environment Minister’s office, goes partly as follows:

******

‘The review meets the call for action from Neil Comrie, the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Dr Gillian Sparkes and others. It will consider the views of experts, current research and the work undertaken by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) since the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission.

One of several risk management documents released last year: at last we’re going to find out whether this approach is compatible with a rigid five per cent target for burning public land.

‘Planned burning is an important part of a broader approach to community safety. Land management agencies and emergency services work together with communities, to prepare for, respond to, and recover from, natural disasters and other emergencies.

‘The review will examine a risk-based approach to bushfire fuel management against the existing hectare-based performance target program. The Inspector-General for Emergency Management has been asked to deliver his report by the end of March 2015…

‘Key points

• ‘The scope of the IGEM’s review is to provide independent advice, free of influence from external sources.
• ‘It will also consider the findings of the Bushfires Royal Commission Implementation Monitor and the reports of the Expert Reference Group- Bushfire Management Reform Program.
• ‘The IGEM may provide recommendations on complementary performance measures for fuel management on public land, but will not provide advice on a recommended target.

*******

This statement contains a number of peculiarities. What on earth can be meant by ‘independent advice, free from external sources’, for example? Is the enquiry to take place in a kind of cone of silence?

It’s good news that the Government has decided to scrutinise the mindless commitment to the target espoused by its predecessors. It’s also good news that the Minister seems prepared to do something the Coalition seemed unable to do: that is, to see if risk management is compatible with an arbitrary target.

It’s sobering to be reminded, however, that in the mean time, the old order remains. The minister’s press release yesterday offered this:

“The review will not affect the Department’s planned burning program for 2014-2015. It will begin a process to develop an evidence-based approach to reducing the risk of fire and protecting lives, communities and the environment.”