Not about the number of warnings

But the nature of them.
Mr Russell Rees has been reported in the Media as claimimg that there were "enough warnings" .
It would be a double tragedy ,if after losing so many people because we are not warning them well , if the inquiry itself gets lost in some of the excuses; in identifying the wolf warriors, but not when, and to where, its best to call them.
One of risks for the commission is to not recognise the way to be effective with warnings . Another risk is to miss the opportunity to see what proceedures inside bureaus can and should be changed ; for example,what needs to be done to resist excuses for the heavy one way traffic into the congestion riddled incident control systems -ICC's.

On the other hand, noone who has ever been involved with Bushfire information provision would expect things not to go wrong . And the huge number of incidents on Black saturday was far bigger than either CFA or DSE could cope with easily; Things had to go wrong and it would not matter for some - "how many warnings"!

This note is not to condemn anyone; rather to remind the press that things will go wrong. To target Rees or Waller is really to miss the point - they and those around them have very difficult and responsible jobs . The watershed question is whether the structures serve the situation and in what ways can they be reformed to do it better. The classic no solution risk is "revolution" and blame because its easy and looks more " effective" . The stockade could come of this looking pretty good if they find someone to blame inside the bureaubrats . Neither the stockade nor the bureaubrats are totally responsible here.

The officers on duty on those days are under huge pressure to make decisions and it doesn't matter how brilliant or capable they are - things will still go wrong !
As Rees has rightly said - the resources were overtaxed and the press need to be very careful they let the inquiry focus on the wolf properly - not the wolves generally. One thing that needs to go much better than it used to ,is to insist that fire tower reports are not tied up in the incident control system. Unless things have changed a lot , radio stations wait for too long for basic info on location.
The point is, the focus has been too much centred around the ICC - should the responsibility for information provision rest with the growing incident control systems entirely? In what ways can the information be deseminated sharing the risk, rather than take it all to the top . Things will still go wrong, but at least the ICC won't be focus of all the power and blame; Why should they be?

If the inquiry fails to recognise, in all the things that are "legitimately" out of control ( like phones , like too many messages , like secondary questions, like deaths because of poor choices , like deaf audiences, like busy controllers, ) on such truly dangerous days, there are several quality control issues on media use listed below that MUST be dealt with before the next TFB days .

One area that needs reform is in the nature of warnings - Warning is not just about noise , volume and number - its also about effective education and proper use of the team- esp "the ones at the bottom ". Good to see the Commission focusing on the question of control of local information (The locals need to have ownership too - not just the heirachy)
Last summers ads campaigns were offensive to those of who work in risk planning and live near the ground ,because they were always talking about the wolves, but not always helping the people watch out for him in their own backyards.( where are the websites like our own??)The need to warn people on the eastern flank and evacuating them should not be a matter for controversy in Victoria as it has been.
Its not about the number of warnings, but the nature of them.
Another legitimate area of questioning is the situation report system. The incident control and situation report system has been too slow and too restrictive, and was rightly the subject of some good questions yesterday.