currawong
thanks for that.
I don't think the headlines really reflect the content of either report (and that's a whole other area for discussion …)
The bottom line seems to be that 'non-natural' fires are of concern (there are too many of them) but, while some have catastrophic outcomes, they generally cause relatively little damage.
According to research reported on in the first (radio) report, the figure of 37% was mentioned as "accidentally or deliberately" lit but the damage is often limited. For example, from the 2nd report, "In Victoria, where about 1.2 million hectares has burned, only 385 hectares — or 0.03 per cent — have been attributed to suspicious circumstances."
Of the 'deliberate' fires, you can also need to look at the age / mental state of the fire starters. One of the reports suggested that of the deliberate fires, 60% are started by 'children' (people under the age of 21 !!??). Deliberately lit fires spike during school holidays with many of the children found to come from families with "issues" (alcoholism, drugs, abusive parents, etc)
And whether fires are natural or not, this is only addressing a small part what we need to be looking at:
* causes of the fires,
* methods to reduce intensity / damage (hazard reduction burning?),
* firefighting practices & resourcing,
* changing climate,
* increasing number of people at risk e.g. population growth, 'tree-changers', etc