Bushfire - fact, fiction and other information relevant to living with bushfire in Australia.: February 2026

Sunday, 22 February 2026

FEAR AND BURACRATIC PROPAGANDA ADD TO THE COST OF BUSHFIRES

In the aftermath of the despicable act of terrorism at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025, I heard numerous politicians mentioning words to the effect that the first responsility of a government was the safety of Australians. That means all Australians!

Here, I'm principally addressing bushfire — a failed emergency management methodology ruled by dogma.

Plate 1

Let's start with fear.

Click on the image above created by Emergency Management Victoria. The running figure inside the evacuation triangle would instill fear in some unfamiliar with bushfire and possibly lead to poor decision-making leading to a deadly outcome — interesting to note that EMV is starting to discriminate between bushfire and grassfire. Maybe it's time to follow the USA and refer to any uncontrolled fire in the landscape as wildfire.

Then there is the "catastrophic fire danger rating" where that is applied. No doubt in some minds unfamiliar with wildfire, it's a short step from "extreme" to "catastrophic".

For some, the results of their exposure to wildfire are catastrophic. Why misrepresent an outcomes word to predict the outcome of an event yet to occur, is it adopted to frighten people?

Plate 2

Plate 3

Is leaving always the best option or does it lead to otherwise avoidable loss, including loss of human life?

Important to understand, who is responsible for that as a seemingly policy decision. Were they qualified to adopt that position? Was it adopted to serve the interests of emergency management protagonists rather than the broader community?

Let's consider the effect of leaving homes and businesses unattended. With no one there to combat ember attack, many structures are lost.

Plate 4

From the above paper:

Therefore, evaluating leaders based on a target—e.g., acres burned by prescribed fire— does not necessarily mean that the most important areas will be managed first.

This type of approach will require substantial change in selecting and evaluating leaders in land management. Generic evaluation criteria will need to be replaced with outcomes-based evaluation criteria—e.g., how did the acres treated contribute to achieving the management unit objectives associated with reducing the risk of high-severity fire? Appraisal of leaders against outcomes-based criteria will need to occur over a multi-year window to allow for the fact that prescribing fire and managing natural ignitions for resource benefits both require particular meteorological conditions. To effect such outcomes will necessitate organizational changes, from national offices down to local management units. If implemented, however, land management agencies will be better positioned to meet the challenges that are arising from rapid ecosystem change due to changing climate and disturbance regimes [my emphasis].

Plate 5 Lieutenant General Sir John Monash KCMG KCB VD, General Officer Commanding, Australian Corps seated in front of his staff. Photograph from Australian War Memorial, Canberra.

Plate 6 Then Lieutenant General Sir William Slim, General Officer Commanding 14th Army, India-Burma. Photograph from Imperial War Museum, London, England.

For those wondering why I included Monash and Slim in this posting. Though they had relatively humble beginnings both went on to overcome bias above them and achieve substantial, historic military victories. Both employed a combined operations approach, that is, infantry, armour and air to succeed.

Slim employed strategies and tactics that defeated the Japanese, obliterating them as a functioning force in some of the most difficult, indeed hostile landscape in the world. Slim's approach can be adapted to help minimise loss from bushfire. But it will require management by people able to implement fire management founded on prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, rather than just response and recovery.

As I complete this posting, I’m seeing advice to the community from EMV to “leave Woods Point and Gaffneys Creek; and “not safe to return to the area surrounding A1 Mine Settlement”.

I’m familiar with this area of Victoria having explored much of it by trail bike. A very remote part of Victoria populated by tough people who will have chosen to stay and defend their homes and businesses.

Why then urge them to leave? Surely EMV telling people to leave and stay away when EMV should be aware that the locals will be digging in and can supplement the CFA volunteers deployed there. Agency protection or more crudely expressed: arse covering?