The bunker dilemma: navigating safety in bushfire-prone regions

As bushfire seasons intensify across Australia, the discussion surrounding safety measures for residents in high-risk areas becomes increasingly critical. In South Australia, the ban on private fireproof bunkers has sparked debate, especially as neighboring Victoria embraces similar structures. This regulatory divide raises important questions about the best ways to protect families from the devastating impacts of bushfires.

A landscape of risk

In the scenic Adelaide Hills, properties like Daniel Katz's are surrounded by dense gum trees, making them particularly vulnerable to bushfires. Having lived through the traumatic experience of the 2019 Cudlee Creek bushfire, Katz and his partner decided to install a private bushfire shelter as a precaution. “There’s no guarantee that I’ll be able to leave early,” Katz explains, emphasizing the unpredictability of bushfire emergencies. “If I’m stuck, I want to have a safe place for my family.”

This sentiment resonates with many residents in bushfire-prone areas. Recent bushfire emergencies in South Australia, including the alarming Cudlee Creek fire that has scorched over 9,000 hectares, have highlighted the need for effective safety options. However, Katz’s shelter, which meets Victorian standards, is banned in South Australia. He now finds himself unable to access it while appealing a removal notice, leaving him and his family in a precarious position.

The regulatory divide

The stark contrast between South Australian and Victorian regulations creates a confusing landscape for residents seeking safety. While Victoria has recognized and accredited certain bushfire bunkers, South Australian authorities maintain that evacuation should always be the first line of defence. They argue that encouraging residents to evacuate minimizes the risk of being trapped in a fire.

Yet, this approach raises significant concerns. Many residents fear that the existing regulatory framework does not adequately address the realities of bushfire situations. “We are putting those people into a situation where they may be injured or killed by a fire,” warns Dr. Philippa McCormack of the Environment Institute (University of Adelaide), an expert in bushfire shelter regulations. She advocates for South Australia to adopt similar measures to Victoria, allowing for safer shelter options during emergencies.

Advocating for change

Dr. McCormack’s call for change reflects a growing recognition of the need for viable safety alternatives in bushfire-prone regions. Accreditation for private bunkers could provide residents with much-needed peace of mind, knowing they have a protective option available should evacuation become impossible.

As climate change contributes to longer and more intense bushfire seasons, the urgency for effective safety measures is undeniable. Residents must navigate the difficult balance between the risks of evacuation and the potential protection offered by private shelters.

Conclusion

The ongoing debate surrounding bushfire safety regulations in South Australia underscores the importance of aligning policies with the realities faced by residents in high-risk areas. The voices of those like Daniel Katz are essential in advocating for a more comprehensive approach to bushfire preparedness, one that includes the option of accredited private shelters. As we confront the challenges posed by climate change and natural disasters, ensuring the safety of communities should remain a top priority. The path forward may involve collaboration, innovation, and a willingness to adapt to the evolving landscape of bushfire risks.

See the ABC report