Bundarrah Days

THE political storm over whether Victorians received sufficient warning of the potential for catastrophic fires on Black Saturday is missing the most important point.

That is why were warnings not backed up with action? And why were they not official?

Does the Premier actually believe that dropping a few informal sentences here and there as he did constitutes a real warning?

And were the few words Rob Hulls spoke in Parliament a real warning? I don't think so.

Victorians were not officially warned by the state government that Saturday February 7 had the potential to be the worst fire day in our history and that represents a serious failure - an official warning would have demanded to be taken seriously and to my mind would have saved lives.

It is alarming that Royal Commissioner Bernard Teague has already called the unofficial warnings impressive.

Brumby says: "I don't think there has been any circumstance that has been more publicised than the weather conditions on Saturday, February 7. I don't think we could have done more."

On the Thursday preceding the fires Deputy Premier Rob Hulls told Parliament: "Experienced fire chiefs have said that the conditions predicted, especially on Saturday, will be the worst they have seen in Victoria's history."

On the Friday morning before Black Saturday Brumby said: "I've been briefed on the latest weather forecast for tomorrow and it's going to be, probably by a long way, the worst day ever in the history of the state in terms of the temperatures and the winds."

It's not as if Brumby is God and everyone stops to listen when he makes a few informal comments on radio or television. On the other hand most people would stop and listen to a serious and official warning from the State Government.

To sum up the government claims it warned people what the conditions were going to be like. It did not. There was NO official government warning. Why were people not told their lives would be at risk if they stayed in bushfire prone areas that day?

Why wasn't a decision made to advise people to evacuate in advance of the shocking conditions? Why were there no refuges provided in safe places where people could have spent the day? And why were the warnings concerned only with the weather conditions? This government FAILED in its duty of care.

There's a very simple equation to consider here. If there is no fuel the heat and winds do not create deadly fire conditions. Fire equals available fuel.

So why were there no warnings given of the diabolical conditions of the forests which hadn't been burnt in either 2003 or 2006-07? Why were people not told that the unprecedented fuel loads combined with the weather had created a risk unlike Victorians had ever faced before.

To advise people to simply enact their fire plan on a day like Black Saturday considering the state of of our forests translates, as I've said before, as "prepare to die."

Let's review Brumby's statement again. "....it's going to be, probably by a long way, the worst day ever in the history of the state in terms of the temperatures and the winds." But not in terms of the dreadfully neglected state of our forests and the massive fuel burden, Mr Brumby?

Where was the official warning that could and should have told it as it really was:

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL WARNING FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF VICTORIA. THE FORECAST WEATHER CONDITIONS FOR THIS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, COMBINED WITH A HEAVY FUEL BURDEN IN OUR FORESTS MAY RESULT IN THE THE MOST DANGEROUS FIRE DAY IN THE HISTORY OF VICTORIA. IF YOU LIVE IN AN AREA PRONE TO BUSHFIRE THEN WE URGE YOU TO STRONGLY CONSIDER EVACUATING AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE. YOUR LIFE MAY BE AT RISK IF YOU DO NOT EVACUATE.

I HAD an encounter with Victoria's unelected Premier, John Brumby, on radio today and it's official - the man's a con!

He politicked in a fashion that was inexcusable under the circumstances and tried to run me out of time. Several times I had to interrupt and say "John, give someone else a go" but he kept going desperate to avoid giving me a chance to be critical of his government. He has mastered the political talk back trick of not listening to anyone else whilst he's talking which enables him to speak over everyone else. No doubt he shields his ear from the phone until he has finished speaking.

What it means is that Brumby is gutless and guilty. He knows he's a failure but you can bet your life he's giving due thanks to Black Saturday for revving up his popularity. Can you believe it - the Brumby government has increased its popularity since this tragic disaster. He's a good actor, this Premier - an expert at feigning empathy with victims. But does he really give a damn? Personally I don't doubt he feels sorry for the victims of Black Saturday. But it's a different story politically - Black Saturday was a gift he and his government have accepted with open arms.

Witness that other *****, Deputy Premier Rob Hulls, accusing the Opposition of politicking for pointing out that the government failed to pass on strident warnings about the inevitability of deadly fires on February 7. He was gleeful.

So who is really doing the politicking - The Opposition for pointing out the truth or Brumby and Hulls who are using the fate of victims to try and avoid due and well deserved censure?

During my exchange with Brumby on 3 AW's Neil Mitchell Show, Mitchell the talking head again talked the talk to someone who has actually walked the walk. He called me a lobbyist because I identified myself as a mountain cattleman. He made an assumption that I had called to talk about alpine grazing. I had not.

I wanted to know whether Brumby agreed with Brack's claim that his laws would have prevented Black Friday, 1939. If so, why didn't they prevent Black Saturday? Can you believe that in 2006 Bracks said this?

“In 2003, we had probably the closest we’ve ever had to the conditions of ‘39. We had a continual dry period for five years before, and we had temperatures approaching 40 degrees. We had strong northerly winds, and that was occurring regularly. It wasn’t as bad in terms of climatic conditions, but it was very close, and I think we were much better prepared.

The best indication has been the ‘39 Royal Commission report, which showed there was nothing that could be done at that point in time. With the existing laws, we could have prevented those fires occurring. They were the strongest fires Victoria has ever had, but the systems weren’t in place properly and appropriately to deal with them.”

Of course Brumby ran from my question and Mitchell sheltered him. So, I ask again - who is the lobbyist? I don't get paid for trying to change the management of our forests.

I just tell it as I see it and when it comes to fire and the environment I see it far more clearly than Brumby and Mitchell.