Australian Bushfires – Implications for Property

Its official the bushfires which have been raging through Victoria since Saturday, and are still not under control, are Australia's worst natural disaster with over 180 confirmed dead and 1000 homes destroyed.

Its not over yet - the fires are still out of control, but the fallout will last for a long time to come. This is a third time in 100 years that Victoria has had devastating bush fires, Black Friday in 1939, Ash Wednesday in 1983 and now the current fires.

The questions are being to be asked as to why are the 2009 fires were so deadly. The short answer is obvious - far more people live in bushfire prone areas than they did in 1983 or 1939. The Tree Change phenomena had a lot to do with the small villages, generally less than 200km from Melbourne. Here people could retire, or slow down, or live an alternative, semi-self sufficient lifestyle. Unfortunately it was possibly that lifestyle which killed them.

Aerial view Kingslake, Victoria

So what will happen to towns like Kingslake which currently resemble the aftermath of a particularly destructive war? Well the short answer, at the moment anyway, is the politically correct one - we will rebuild them. The bigger question doesn't appear to being asked - why? There is no economic necessity for most of these towns - why are we re-building in a known fire risk area, particularly if we aren't prepared to deal with the real cause of the fires - poor or non-existant back burning for fire control in forests and bush areas.

According to SBS World News - the views of the Victorian Premier are:

"If you think back to Cyclone Tracy in 1974 when the whole city of Darwin was just razed to the ground, it was rebuilt with houses which were cyclone-proof - they were built to new specifications," he said.

"So it may well be that all the homes there have to built to higher specifications.

"I'm sure people will look at things like bunkers as well, (like) where they have in the United States for twisters and things like that to provide fire protection."

Mr Brumby said more firebreaks through forest areas might also need to be considered but not everyone would support clearing bush.

Yes it looks very much like the focus will be on building standards and, inevitably, increased construction costs will be the outcome of this fire. Unfortunately its unlikely to help the next time it happens in 30-50 years.

Clearing bush, and particularly undergrowth is exactly what should happen.  Fires are a natural part of the Australian bush, many native plants cannot germinate without the heat of the fire. Aborigines have been lighting fires for 60,000 years and the early settlers cleared the land to make it productive - that brought its own problems, but not bushfires.

Of course the climate change bandwagon says that this is all the cause of global warning but they miss two key points:

1. Some of the fires were deliberately lit, a reflection of society and culture more than climate change and
2. The fires were so ferocious and moved so quickly because of the amount of fuel that there was available to burn - fuel often cultivated by the owners who were whose homes and lives were destroyed by those fires.

Though maybe we won't have to worry about the additional costs to soon.  Four years after the Building Standards Australia were ordered to give priority to new standards for houses in bushfires areas the rules are still be drawn up. The rules to date would add approximately $11k to a new home, but they talk of sarking in the roof and shutters on windows - these, I suspect, would have made little difference to many of the 1000 homes destroyed in Victoria.

Victoria meanwhile still allows wooden homes to be built in the bush ....

It appears  clear that the most dangerous place to be caught in a fire is in the open or in a vehicle. There are a few stories of some people surviving in cellars and similar. More appear to have survived in dams and water courses. Whether it makes any sense to stay and defend - which is still the stated policy across Australia - needs to be seriously debated to - entire families have been killed- even if the adults wanted to defend house - what were the children doing there?

Whatever happens it appears there is going to be no robust debate about the sense of building homes and communities in the middle of fire prone bush. From a property investment point of view it is clear that bush fire is a risk in some parts of the country - well in fact outside of the desert area and the tropical north (north of Townsville) -its a risk in most of the population dense areas of South Australia, Victoria, NSW and Tasmania. Western Australia appears to have a somewhat more robust approach to back burning and a smaller population, with only a few bad fires in the southeast of the state and in the Perth Hills.

It would seem obvious when considering a country or village property in a fire risk zone - that the main thing is to look at the local controlled burning policies and general level of vegetation around the areas. Remember if your neighbor has an overgrown section - its just as likely a risk to you as it is to him.

Fire destruction, Victoria

Photos from and more available at  ABC News