The Royal Smoke Screen

The Stay or Go concept, which was in place on 7 February 2009, maintains that government and its fire agencies, while crucial providers of advice, must not make the final decision on whether an individual should stay or leave a fire-threatened property. 

Though often argued as a civil liberty, the policy is also thoroughly pragmatic. Fire agencies cannot properly second-guess everyone's circumstances. Apart from having to predict the speed, direction and intensity of a bushfire, and calculate the time needed to relocate, they would have to appreciate the preparedness of each individual, including their apparently irrational willingness to dig in and fight.

The Commission notes in its interim report that emergency work "is a dialogue, not a command". This is because the science of bushfire management, however good, is never sufficient. The decision to stay or go must be lived in real time, having regard for factors known only to the individual.

It is true, of course, that even adequately informed people will make bad choices. As the Country Fire Authority told the Commission: "it is unrealistic to expect people to respond to disasters in a uniform manner, or in a rational manner according to what the emergency service might try to prescribe". Others may choose to ignore the advice and go their own way, resulting in tragic consequences.

While not always easy to accept, the Stay or Go regime confirms we face two mutually-exclusive ideologies for approaching life.

If there is a formula for eliminating risk, and thus government resources are capable of being employed to achieve full transparency and a clear-cut answer for what should be done, then bushfire policy should be based on a system of command. End of story.

If there is no formula or guarantee, and the spirit manifest in personal judgement will always be required, then improved science, while certainly helpful, can never substitute for the metaphysical aspects of life and the choices it requires of us.

On the one hand, the Commission recognises the fact the inherent limits to science by stating that "complexity and diversity" means only "very general advice" can be provided on bushfires.

At the same time, however, it panders to growing community expectations that government can and should make the final – and correct – decision on our behalf. It has called for "more specific triggers" on whether it is appropriate to leave a fire-threatened property and criticised fire agencies for a Stay or Go policy that is "characterised by the drive for philosophical purity and theoretical consistency".

The ANZACs didn’t ask for guarantees when they left home for a war on the other side of the world. Perhaps they were too innocent. Regardless, the principle we celebrate endures: life is uncertain and governments can’t fix this.

The Royal Commission should stop give up harassing Christine Nixon, the former Victorian Police chief, and tackle the real issues.