Australia faces the prospect of both under- and over-reaction to the recent bushfires. On the criminal-justice front, NSW Premier Bob Carr and ACT shadow attorney-general Bill Stefaniak have been quick to grandstand. As they have in past with spates of criminality they have happily grandstanded to call for tougher penalties. But as the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdrey has pointed out, present law provides for an adequate range of penalties and juvenile programs to deal with the arsonists. They have committed terrible crimes, but political grandstanding about rubbing noses in ashes and higher penalties will not bring the lost houses, bushland and farmland back, not will they do any more to deter future arsonists. It is just easy talk. And it will make any difference to fires not caused by arsonists.
On the science and technology front, there is talk of considering the purchase of some new helitankers and talk about reconsidering funding research into how fire behaves and how best to fight it – but no commitment. There has been some talk about putting powerlines underground, which would end fires caused by sparks that spray when powerlines touch in high winds – but no action.
If we could have less grandstanding about punishment and more action on the science and technology front, future bushfire fighting would be more effective.
Consider the use of the “”Elvis” air crane helitanker. They cost about $30 million each. On Tuesday alone one Elvis saved 300 homes in Sydney’s north-west in 40 trips dumping 9000 litres of water a dump. The 300 homes would be worth at least $100,000 each – that works out at $30 million, or one helicopter paid for in a day. Sure, there are operating and upkeep costs, but there are other days of hone-saving. The investment is obvious, particularly as the helicopters could no doubt have a double use in the military.
Then we have research. At present Australia spends about $2 million a year on bushfire research. That is about 20 houses. As Science Minister Peter McGauran points out, however, no amount of research will enable us to completely understand and control bushfires. Bushfires are ferocious and unpredictable. But science is very good at helping to understand and predict natural phenomenon. With partial understanding and extra control, lives and much property can be saved. It makes the research worthwhile. Also, there would no doubt be serendipitous off-spins from the research, as there always is when humans pursue greater knowledge and understanding.
In Australia, where distances are great and population density is low, often human ingenuity is more important than sheer force of numbers. That means – heart-breaking and anger-inducing as the bushfires have been — we should apply our minds and resources to science and technology rather than atavistic vengeance. The former will help the efforts of the fighters of future fires; the latter will only provide a brief feel-good factor.
AND ANOTHER THING . . . The federal government $1 billion subsidy scheme to help keep country fuel prices down has been an utter failure. The Australian Automobile Association’s evidence collected since the scheme began points to oil companies just putting the subsidy in their pockets. There are far more useful places for the money to go. The Federal government should spend more time and effort encouraging competition in the petrol market rather than subsidising the present oligopoly. If the base motive of buying off rural voters has failed – every rural voter who pulls up at a fuel pump knows the scheme is a dud.