Esplin defends stay or go policy
Esplin defends stay or go policy
Mr Rush suggested Mr Esplin was not helping the situation by pointing to confusion in the community, without acknowledging it was the policy itself that caused the confusion.
Mr Esplin agreed the language used in the policy needed to change radically.
As was also pointed out, the wording of the policy is far too strong.
Professor Cova said the idea that houses protect people is “just too strong” and would be better expressed with the word “can” or “may” so people do not overestimate the chances of success.
He also criticsed the stay or go policy for putting the decision in the hands of householders, who could be operating on poor information or with little experience of bushfire.
I could not agree more. The policy is suggesting that people with no fire fighting experience or expertise can stay and defend their property, when trained experienced fire fighters might consider the situation too dangerous to enter.
