The Victorian Royal Commission on the 2009 Bushfires has released its Interim Report (with a Final Report, including consideration of "methods for prevention, detection and management of arson", to be issued at the end of July next year).
Release of the report follows the March 2009 'National Forum on the Reduction of Deliberate Bushfires in Australia', which resulted in a commitment to explore mechanisms for improved information sharing about bushfire management and "better coordination between police, fire and emergency services to engage in targeted prevention programs and share information in investigating crimes". The Forum echoed hyperbole about "the worst day in Victoria's history", along with expressions by the Prime Minister and other politicians that arsonists are "evil", guilty of "murder on a grand scale", something for which "there is no excuse ... none at all". "What do you say about anyone like that — there are no words to describe it other than mass murder."
Mr Rudd claimed that ""We are left speechless at the thought and the possibility that some of these fires may have been deliberately lit" - a speechlessness that didn't last very long - and indicated that "Something which the nation must now attend to as a matter of grave urgency is the problem of arson ... Let us attend to this unfinished business of the nation and come to grips with this evil thing".
Given that bushfires are not unusual occurrences (and deficiencies in institutional cooperation have been recurrently highlighted, for example in the 2006 Canberra Firestorm coroner's report on the 2003 ACT bushfires) one might wonder why mechanisms haven't been developed in the past and whether the results of the no-doubt heartfelt commitment will be any different to the past.
The National Forum, and associated media releases at the national and state/territory level, gained attention for statements about "drafting model laws for stronger, more consistent arson offences with penalties of up to 25 years for bushfire arson causing death or serious harm". Those statements are an expression of 'security theatre', embodying a politics of demonisation and reassurance that is arguably out of kilter with the realities of who engages in arson and why they did so.
The author's 'Burning With Indignation: Arson, Law and the 2009 Victorian Bushfires' at pp35-45 of 15(1) Local Government Law Journal (July 2009) thus questioned the effectiveness of new laws to double the time in prison for adults convicted of deliberately setting bushfires, given that the psychological problems of some bushfire arsonists mean that deterrence is probably not significant. Spiffy new laws will not, of course, deter 'experiments with fire' involving children.
Much of the attitudinising about stronger penalties is inflamatory. It does not serve to meaningfully inhibit future bushfire arson. We might ask whether there is a need to differentiate between bushfire and non-bushfire arson, and whether existing criminal law is adequate.
We might also want to ask some tougher questions, including whether land management regimes should be changed to, for example, assist more regular burning off around the outskirts of rural towns and facilities (the ACT Coroner's Report noted complaints of smoke pollution - echoed in the current Victorian Royal Commission hearings - and criticism that burning off in the vicinity of Canberra had been deferred because smoke would reduce the delights of the Governor-General's garden party) and ensure better road access to high-risk rural and urban-fringe areas.
