As the blame game continues for all the carnage caused on Black Saturday early last year, it\'s worth pondering whether anything can or will be done to prevent losses from future inevitable bushfires.

The recent Royal Commission into the disaster has, predictably, produced a voluminous report that both major parties say they will act upon when framing new policies. Satisfying the interests of residents in fire affected areas, greenies, the CFA, tree changers, and so on, will be extremely difficult. Despite these potential conflicts, here\'s what we should do.

First, the \"Stay Or Go\" policy should, in fact, stay. When you think about, this three word phrase sums up the only options available to people threatened by bushfire. While some dwellings are sited in areas relatively clear of bush and therefore quite able to be defended, others nestled amongst the trees will always be deathtraps. Residents need to think about the risks their individual properties entail, then think and act accordingly.

Second, accusations that insufficient warning of dangerous fires was given on Black Saturday completely overstate the predictive abilities of the CFA and weather service. Bushfires by their very nature are unpredictable when it comes to which particular areas will be affected. I was working in Yarra Glen on February 7th, 2009, and recall at least three large plumes of smoke in the distance plus one observable fire quite close by. The hot wind was swirling about, so to have expected any authority to correctly forecast the exact direction in which up to four nearby blazes might travel would have been fanciful in the extreme.

Third, the controversial proposed acquisition policy requires some serious thought. Between the 1960s and mid 1990s, there was a state government programme in place to gradually acquire houses located in fire risk areas of the Dandenongs. For reasons that remain unclear this policy was terminated by the Kennett Government 15 years ago, but perhaps now it should be revisited on a larger scale.

Recently in Lakes Entrance a family was refused permission by VCAT to build several townhouses near the water\'s edge on the grounds that rising sea levels caused by future global warming would place the proposed houses at risk of flooding. Given that the Greens view of the world is that the incidence of bushfires will rise with climate change, should we not therefore consider refusing former residents the right to rebuild dwellings burnt on Black Saturday?

Obviously, a reasonable level of compensation would have to be paid
by residents affected by such a policy.

Fourth, the issue of fuel reduction (ie \"burning off\") during the cooler months needs to be rethought. for several years before Black Saturday the state government had gradually reduced the volume of land on which the CFA was permitted to conduct controlled burnoffs. No one will admit this policy was due to pressure from certain environmental groups, but given the scale of the disaster last February it\'s surely now hard to argue with those who say a greater reduction in fuel levels now could save many lives when next large fires strike.

Finally, linked with the proposed policy of compulsory acquisition and relocation discussed above is the issue of where displaced residents from fire prone areas should live. As a far as \'m aware, the Docklands precinct (a) is not prone to unpredictable fires, (b) is close to all necessary amenities and (c) still has plenty of room. All this points to a bright future for postcode 3008!

Tom Elliott
MME Capital 03 9601 4515
www.mmecapital.com.au