Once considered a practical, even obvious approach to bushfire safety, the provision of designated Fire Refuges in at-risk communities has fallen out of favour. In fact, many municipal councils have adopted an active process of decommissioning existing refuges, be they specially designed buildings or public ovals. This marks a radical shift in the Victoria’s approach to bushfire safety, firmly placing the reins of responsibility in the hands of individuals.
A 2005 report by the Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner outlines the Victorian government’s current policy regarding Fire Refuges. It says: “The Government’s policy on fire refuges is very clearly an expression of the primary strategy for people exposed to bushfire, that is to ‘stay and defend or leave early’ on days of high fire danger.”
According to the Fire Refuges in Victoria, Policy and Practice report, the problem with refuges is that they can cause confusion as to what people should do in the case of bushfire. While recognising that they can provide protection from radiant heat, the greatest danger in extreme fires, it raises the concern that refuges “may encourage people to delay decisions about evacuation, and this may increase the likelihood of them being caught in the open or in a vehicle as a fire front passes.”
On top of the clear inconsistency between the provision of shelters and CFA recommendations to stay or go early, the report identifies several other concerns. Many shelters, built following Ash Wednesday in 1983, were not properly selected or maintained, were located too far from the population, were too small and exposed municipal councils to legal liability. In some cases people did not even know where they were, despite efforts to ensure appropriate signage.
This asks serious questions about the tenability of Fire Refuges at all.
The problems associated with Fire Shelters also place the State Government in a tricky position. The report says “it is not appropriate or even possible for the State Government to dictate that there be a standard approach which mandates that fire refuges should be provided in all areas based on a single factor such as bushfire hazard. To do so would tend to undermine the CFA’s recommended bushfire behaviour model and present another behaviour option as if it had the endorsement of the Government.”
The result, therefore, is that the provision of a fire refuge will be based on a decision of the municipal council, who must consult with the community. Fire Shelters are not compulsory. This policy decision is explained on the government website: “The purpose of the policy is to promote a safer and more consistent approach to the provision of fire refuges in Victoria. The policy itself neither encourages nor discourages provision of fire refuges in specific locations, and the standards and decision criteria make it quite difficult to justify and maintain a fire refuge.”
The report outlines the process that councils must go through when considering a fire shelter, and the strict performance criteria that must be maintained.
A very real concern, and one raised in the report, however, is that “…not all people in Victoria are actually following or planning to adhere to the CFA’s recommended household response to bushfires.” People continue to leave too late. The report says among this group, there is still an expectation that Local and State governments will take responsibility for their safety.
So the question becomes, has the policy of decommissioning Fire Refuges in favour of stay or go and individual responsibility proved effective? Unfortunately, the events of the last week would seem to indicate that it hasn’t.
If you carefully listen to the Garry Hughes audio you will understand that they did almost everything right, sheltered in the house for about 5 minutes and lived. He is an absolutely fantastic journo for communicating his account so well. The details in the story provide a lot of essential info for analysing the situation and showing how the house was in fact a refuge.
The house was prepared, hose and pump, buckets etc. Unfortunately the pump was not shielded and burnt as did the plastic hose (left outside) and the wire handles ripped out of the plastic buckets. Details count.
They protected the house initially and when the fire hit went inside. The ember attack driven by wind was pushing embers through all the gaps around doors etc (details). When fire entered through the exhaust fan in the laundry (details) and the house started to burn it did not “explode into flames” and they progressively retreated to the other end of the house. By the time they could not stay inside any longer it sounds like the main front had passed and they were able to leave and make it to the car which was parked in a cleared area. This only had to be moved as roof sheets were flying around, they didn’t want to drive for fear of crashing in smoke etc.
My conclusion is that they protected the house and it protected them during the crucial time even though it burnt down.
The reality is it sounds like they were well prepared, resourced and educated about fire and managed not to panic and this would have been incredibly difficult to manage under the reported conditions. Imagine trying to deal with kids or frail aged at the same time.
Given conditions were unprecedented it sounds like a standard bunker refuge will be needed at every house as well as getting community and school refuges built. The public liability problem needs to be resolved through legislation, too many things don’t get done because of the worry of legal action. My condolences to all those affected.
I was imagining how to make a refuge, then I read a real bad story today of a family suffocating during the firestorm. Another story about a survivor under a the floor boards in turn under the stairs as the house collapsed. But I have to say refuges look pretty wise to me.
Your writer quotes a report that says: ‘ “…not all people in Victoria are actually following or planning to adhere to the CFA’s recommended household response to bushfires.” People continue to leave too late.” ”
What I have gathered from reading reports by people who were involved, is that there is no simple solution. Leave and get killed on the road. Stay and die in your house. Leave and escape the inferno, stay and save your house, leave and die and your house survives anyway. And, given the speed of the fires, you have to decide all this in a split second. Plus, the recent reports prove that however ‘prepared’ you think you are, in the event of a firestorm such as this you just can’t win.See what Gary Hughes said:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25026912-2702,00.html. (He and his family took shelter in their car while their house burned down.) We’ve also read from accounts by people who obeyed every instruction and still found themselves surrounded by a fire they could neither escape or fight.
I was interested to read that
“the provision of a fire refuge will be based on a decision of the municipal council, who must consult with the community”
We live in a bush fire prone area and our refuges were closed down 3 years ago despite the local communities’ very strongly expressed preference for refuge areas to be retained.
There was no community consultation. The council simply advised their decision to close the refuges. The reasons given implied that the local council was far more concerned with legal liablitiy and insurance than it was concerned for its residents.
We are also a major tourist destination – never did work out where the tourists are meant to seek refuge if a fire emergency happens. Perhaps they are meant to knock on a local door and “stay and defend”!