www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-07/fuel-reduction-burn-debate-rubbish-says-vic-fire-chief/11849522
Vic CFA Chief dismisses calls to radically increase hazard reduction work as:
"...hysteria....and an emotional load of rubbish".
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..FormulaNova said..
Taken from a wiki I just read>
'Major Victorian bushfires occurred on Black Thursday in 1851, where an estimated 5 million hectares were burnt'
1851?
How is that relevant - any chance that water bombers were less effective in 1851? 
Hi, sorry, I posted that from my phone, so I didn't go overboard with detail 
.
I was trying to point out that fire, (and the droughts that tend to lead to them) has been a part of Australian weather/climate for a long time, and in this case before what i would consider massive increases in the CO2 emitted by people.
Again, I actually do believe in human assisted climate change, I am just not in agreement that these bushfires are the result of it.
As others have mentioned, even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, what would the impact be? Would it create the solution we want? If we return to levels from 1939, apparently that would still give us naturally occurring large scale bushfires. So, the problem we are discussing wouldn't really be solved by this, so 'we' need to look at how better to manage these bushfires.
Being a practising whinger, I have no problem with politicising these issues either. The buck has to stop with someone and the people with the purse that spend the money on different things within our economy have to be responsible. State or Federal, it doesn't bother me. Good management of a country is more than doing book-keeping with accounts.
It appears that more money should have been spent on bushfire management, but while there is no obvious problem, it seems that funding has also dried up. In the case of NSW, the current government seems to have spent less, and I think this needs to be questioned. You and I are not the people that need to decide how this money is spent, and we are not the people that need to employ experts to tell them how to management the threat of bushfires.
Select to expand quoteharry potter said..
^^^ interesting the Royal Comisssion after black Saturday found otherwise.
Hazard reduction practices and targets have been adjusted since.
Royal Commissions are a bunch of lawyers looking for someone to blame.
I'd trust the fire chiefs over lawyers any day.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..harry potter said..
^^^ interesting the Royal Comisssion after black Saturday found otherwise.
Hazard reduction practices and targets have been adjusted since.
Royal Commissions are a bunch of lawyers looking for someone to blame.
I'd trust the fire chiefs over lawyers any day.
Your talking about one fire chief in this instance who is obviously stressed and also probably covering his own arse. Even for him to make such a public statement at this time is irrational and not appropriate.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
I came across something today that said in 1973/74 we had bushfires that took out 117Million hectares! Incredible, but as most of it was in central Australia there was little impact, and only evaluated later using satellites.
Don't think so. RFS has just confirmed to date this season it's broken the NSW record. So I guess all those who derided the "unprecedented" terminology should all eat their words now?
Select to expand quoteBananabender said..Your talking about one fire chief in this instance who is obviously stressed and also probably covering his own arse. Even for him to make such a public statement at this time is irrational and not appropriate.holy guacamole said..harry potter said..
^^^ interesting the Royal Comisssion after black Saturday found otherwise.
Hazard reduction practices and targets have been adjusted since.
Royal Commissions are a bunch of lawyers looking for someone to blame.
I'd trust the fire chiefs over lawyers any day.
NSW has met their hazard reduction targets and it's done stuff-all to stop the worst NSW fires on record.
What's inappropriate is idiots like Barnaby Joyce acting like a paranoid parrot over greenies and the goons at Sky News pretending that massive increases in hazard reduction is a silver bullet. A smarter thing to do is re-assess how to better target hazard reduction to focus on life safety and fixed asset protection, rather than widespread large scale hazard reduction in heavy bushland.
The fact is, most of these fires are in heavy woodland National Parks. Again, who is calling for large scale prescribed burning of our National Parks? Only those who have no idea and want to cover the country in concrete and mines.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..
I came across something today that said in 1973/74 we had bushfires that took out 117Million hectares! Incredible, but as most of it was in central Australia there was little impact, and only evaluated later using satellites.
Don't think so. RFS has just confirmed to date this season it's broken the NSW record. So I guess all those who derided the "unprecedented" terminology should all eat their words now?
You may have missed this, but I said that the 1973/74 fire was in 'central Australia'. Anyone that thinks NSW is in central Australia has a different view on geography to me.
Lets assume what I read in a wikipedia article is true anyway. It just shows that it has been a big thing in the past, which is not to say this current problem is not equally big, but its not unprecedented.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Bananabender said..Your talking about one fire chief in this instance who is obviously stressed and also probably covering his own arse. Even for him to make such a public statement at this time is irrational and not appropriate.holy guacamole said..harry potter said..
^^^ interesting the Royal Comisssion after black Saturday found otherwise.
Hazard reduction practices and targets have been adjusted since.
Royal Commissions are a bunch of lawyers looking for someone to blame.
I'd trust the fire chiefs over lawyers any day.
NSW has met their hazard reduction targets and it's done stuff-all to stop the worst NSW fires on record.
What's inappropriate is idiots like Barnaby Joyce acting like a paranoid parrot over greenies and the goons at Sky News pretending that massive increases in hazard reduction is a silver bullet. A smarter thing to do is re-assess how to better target hazard reduction to focus on life safety and fixed asset protection, rather than widespread large scale hazard reduction in heavy bushland.
The fact is, most of these fires are in heavy woodland National Parks. Again, who is calling for large scale prescribed burning of our National Parks? Only those who have no idea and want to cover the country in concrete and mines.
What are we left with then? What is the solution? Macro's army of water drones that fan the flames and then dump water on them?
Even if you think that carbon pollution is the root cause, we need a solution that works now, not in 20 or 50 years.
volunteerfirefighters.org.au/green-tape-prevents-volunteer-rural-firefighters-reducing-bushfire-risk
Some realist perspectve ,lots of good articles on their site.
The police have charged 100's of people with starting bush fires or potentially starting bush fires
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
The police have charged 100's of people with starting bush fires or potentially starting bush fires
So what is the answer? Whether natural or not how do we stop them?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..Bananabender said..Your talking about one fire chief in this instance who is obviously stressed and also probably covering his own arse. Even for him to make such a public statement at this time is irrational and not appropriate.holy guacamole said..harry potter said..
^^^ interesting the Royal Comisssion after black Saturday found otherwise.
Hazard reduction practices and targets have been adjusted since.
Royal Commissions are a bunch of lawyers looking for someone to blame.
I'd trust the fire chiefs over lawyers any day.
NSW has met their hazard reduction targets and it's done stuff-all to stop the worst NSW fires on record.
What's inappropriate is idiots like Barnaby Joyce acting like a paranoid parrot over greenies and the goons at Sky News pretending that massive increases in hazard reduction is a silver bullet. A smarter thing to do is re-assess how to better target hazard reduction to focus on life safety and fixed asset protection, rather than widespread large scale hazard reduction in heavy bushland.
The fact is, most of these fires are in heavy woodland National Parks. Again, who is calling for large scale prescribed burning of our National Parks? Only those who have no idea and want to cover the country in concrete and mines.
What are we left with then? What is the solution? Macro's army of water drones that fan the flames and then dump water on them?
Even if you think that carbon pollution is the root cause, we need a solution that works now, not in 20 or 50 years.
Wrong we need both.
We need leaders who stop downplaying the role that burning fossil fuels plays.
We need leaders who stop pretending that hazard reduction and ending "green tape" is going to solve the problem.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..
I came across something today that said in 1973/74 we had bushfires that took out 117Million hectares! Incredible, but as most of it was in central Australia there was little impact, and only evaluated later using satellites.
Don't think so. RFS has just confirmed to date this season it's broken the NSW record. So I guess all those who derided the "unprecedented" terminology should all eat their words now?
You may have missed this, but I said that the 1973/74 fire was in 'central Australia'. Anyone that thinks NSW is in central Australia has a different view on geography to me.
Lets assume what I read in a wikipedia article is true anyway. It just shows that it has been a big thing in the past, which is not to say this current problem is not equally big, but its not unprecedented.
I got your point. But it wasn't just "central Australia" whatever that is - it was also in NSW.
We have three months of fire season left. I suspect that by the time the fires are all put out the area burnt could be multiples the current new NSW record.
Focussing on NSW now, the facts are FN that this years burning area is the biggest on record but also it's dense forrest fires and therefore, by any definition, unprecedented. The central Australian fires you mentioned were basically grasslands. Associate Professor Owen Price from the University of Wollongong will confirm this.
Why is it so hard to admit the simple truth that this is unprecedented?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..
I came across something today that said in 1973/74 we had bushfires that took out 117Million hectares! Incredible, but as most of it was in central Australia there was little impact, and only evaluated later using satellites.
Don't think so. RFS has just confirmed to date this season it's broken the NSW record. So I guess all those who derided the "unprecedented" terminology should all eat their words now?
You may have missed this, but I said that the 1973/74 fire was in 'central Australia'. Anyone that thinks NSW is in central Australia has a different view on geography to me.
Lets assume what I read in a wikipedia article is true anyway. It just shows that it has been a big thing in the past, which is not to say this current problem is not equally big, but its not unprecedented.
I got your point.
We have three months of fire season left. I suspect that by the time the fires are all put out the area burnt could be multiples the current new NSW record.
Focussing on NSW now, the facts are FN that this years burning area is the biggest on record but also it's dense forrest fires and therefore, by any definition, unprecedented. The central Australian fires you mentioned were basically grass and scrub. Associate Professor Owen Price from the University of Wollongong will confirm this.
Why is it so hard to admit the simple truth that this is unprecedented?
Oh OK , why not just focus on areas. Eg the Tassie fires in the 60's were the biggest on record for Tassie so unprecedented. What about the 74 fires in the West..
Your starting to sound like a journo looking for headlines .
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..azymuth said..FormulaNova said..
Taken from a wiki I just read>
'Major Victorian bushfires occurred on Black Thursday in 1851, where an estimated 5 million hectares were burnt'
1851?
How is that relevant - any chance that water bombers were less effective in 1851?
Hi, sorry, I posted that from my phone, so I didn't go overboard with detail .
I was trying to point out that fire, (and the droughts that tend to lead to them) has been a part of Australian weather/climate for a long time, and in this case before what i would consider massive increases in the CO2 emitted by people.
Again, I actually do believe in human assisted climate change, I am just not in agreement that these bushfires are the result of it.
As others have mentioned, even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, what would the impact be? Would it create the solution we want? If we return to levels from 1939, apparently that would still give us naturally occurring large scale bushfires. So, the problem we are discussing wouldn't really be solved by this, so 'we' need to look at how better to manage these bushfires.
Being a practising whinger, I have no problem with politicising these issues either. The buck has to stop with someone and the people with the purse that spend the money on different things within our economy have to be responsible. State or Federal, it doesn't bother me. Good management of a country is more than doing book-keeping with accounts.
It appears that more money should have been spent on bushfire management, but while there is no obvious problem, it seems that funding has also dried up. In the case of NSW, the current government seems to have spent less, and I think this needs to be questioned. You and I are not the people that need to decide how this money is spent, and we are not the people that need to employ experts to tell them how to management the threat of bushfires.
Would you agree that the drying pattern that has led to such a 'perfect storm' for fires is, in part, due to human activity??
The fast approaching reality is the need for massive investment into pumping fresh water back into the environment. Should be interesting to argue about spending $20B to $50B on that over in HW
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Bananabender said..Your talking about one fire chief in this instance who is obviously stressed and also probably covering his own arse. Even for him to make such a public statement at this time is irrational and not appropriate.holy guacamole said..harry potter said..
^^^ interesting the Royal Comisssion after black Saturday found otherwise.
Hazard reduction practices and targets have been adjusted since.
Royal Commissions are a bunch of lawyers looking for someone to blame.
I'd trust the fire chiefs over lawyers any day.
NSW has met their hazard reduction targets and it's done stuff-all to stop the worst NSW fires on record.
What's inappropriate is idiots like Barnaby Joyce acting like a paranoid parrot over greenies and the goons at Sky News pretending that massive increases in hazard reduction is a silver bullet. A smarter thing to do is re-assess how to better target hazard reduction to focus on life safety and fixed asset protection, rather than widespread large scale hazard reduction in heavy bushland.
The fact is, most of these fires are in heavy woodland National Parks. Again, who is calling for large scale prescribed burning of our National Parks? Only those who have no idea and want to cover the country in concrete and mines.
Concrete... mines... and buildings... bloody architects of destruction...
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..Bananabender said..Your talking about one fire chief in this instance who is obviously stressed and also probably covering his own arse. Even for him to make such a public statement at this time is irrational and not appropriate.holy guacamole said..harry potter said..
^^^ interesting the Royal Comisssion after black Saturday found otherwise.
Hazard reduction practices and targets have been adjusted since.
Royal Commissions are a bunch of lawyers looking for someone to blame.
I'd trust the fire chiefs over lawyers any day.
NSW has met their hazard reduction targets and it's done stuff-all to stop the worst NSW fires on record.
What's inappropriate is idiots like Barnaby Joyce acting like a paranoid parrot over greenies and the goons at Sky News pretending that massive increases in hazard reduction is a silver bullet. A smarter thing to do is re-assess how to better target hazard reduction to focus on life safety and fixed asset protection, rather than widespread large scale hazard reduction in heavy bushland.
The fact is, most of these fires are in heavy woodland National Parks. Again, who is calling for large scale prescribed burning of our National Parks? Only those who have no idea and want to cover the country in concrete and mines.
What are we left with then? What is the solution? Macro's army of water drones that fan the flames and then dump water on them?
Even if you think that carbon pollution is the root cause, we need a solution that works now, not in 20 or 50 years.
I don't think anyone is saying GW is the cause. It's a mass of contributing factors. GW makes the fire situation much worse by its changing of the "balance". GW makes the fire season earlier, possibly more intense by the temperatures and moisture levels etc.
the "cause" I guess is the actual piece of lightening that ignites that tree or the man that strikes the match or the car accident or whatever.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
The police have charged 100's of people with starting bush fires or potentially starting bush fires
Do you think this is appropriate to post this?
Select to expand quotelog man said..FormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..Bananabender said..Your talking about one fire chief in this instance who is obviously stressed and also probably covering his own arse. Even for him to make such a public statement at this time is irrational and not appropriate.holy guacamole said..harry potter said..
^^^ interesting the Royal Comisssion after black Saturday found otherwise.
Hazard reduction practices and targets have been adjusted since.
Royal Commissions are a bunch of lawyers looking for someone to blame.
I'd trust the fire chiefs over lawyers any day.
NSW has met their hazard reduction targets and it's done stuff-all to stop the worst NSW fires on record.
What's inappropriate is idiots like Barnaby Joyce acting like a paranoid parrot over greenies and the goons at Sky News pretending that massive increases in hazard reduction is a silver bullet. A smarter thing to do is re-assess how to better target hazard reduction to focus on life safety and fixed asset protection, rather than widespread large scale hazard reduction in heavy bushland.
The fact is, most of these fires are in heavy woodland National Parks. Again, who is calling for large scale prescribed burning of our National Parks? Only those who have no idea and want to cover the country in concrete and mines.
What are we left with then? What is the solution? Macro's army of water drones that fan the flames and then dump water on them?
Even if you think that carbon pollution is the root cause, we need a solution that works now, not in 20 or 50 years.
I don't think anyone is saying GW is the cause. It's a mass of contributing factors. GW makes the fire situation much worse by its changing of the "balance". GW makes the fire season earlier, possibly more intense by the temperatures and moisture levels etc.
the "cause" I guess is the actual piece of lightening that ignites that tree or the man that strikes the match or the car accident or whatever.
Seriously? C'mon man... call it... the drying pattern associated with GW is a factor...
Select to expand quoteBananabender said..holy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..
I came across something today that said in 1973/74 we had bushfires that took out 117Million hectares! Incredible, but as most of it was in central Australia there was little impact, and only evaluated later using satellites.
Don't think so. RFS has just confirmed to date this season it's broken the NSW record. So I guess all those who derided the "unprecedented" terminology should all eat their words now?
You may have missed this, but I said that the 1973/74 fire was in 'central Australia'. Anyone that thinks NSW is in central Australia has a different view on geography to me.
Lets assume what I read in a wikipedia article is true anyway. It just shows that it has been a big thing in the past, which is not to say this current problem is not equally big, but its not unprecedented.
I got your point.
We have three months of fire season left. I suspect that by the time the fires are all put out the area burnt could be multiples the current new NSW record.
Focussing on NSW now, the facts are FN that this years burning area is the biggest on record but also it's dense forrest fires and therefore, by any definition, unprecedented. The central Australian fires you mentioned were basically grass and scrub. Associate Professor Owen Price from the University of Wollongong will confirm this.
Why is it so hard to admit the simple truth that this is unprecedented?
Oh OK , why not just focus on areas. Eg the Tassie fires in the 60's were the biggest on record for Tassie so unprecedented. What about the 74 fires in the West..
Your starting to sound like a journo looking for headlines .
...and you're trying to paper over the problem by pretending it's only spin. Accept it, this is unprecedented in NSW. Even the treasurer said so yesterday. Hence $2BN
Select to expand quotePugwash said..FormulaNova said..azymuth said..FormulaNova said..
Taken from a wiki I just read>
'Major Victorian bushfires occurred on Black Thursday in 1851, where an estimated 5 million hectares were burnt'
1851?
How is that relevant - any chance that water bombers were less effective in 1851?
Hi, sorry, I posted that from my phone, so I didn't go overboard with detail .
I was trying to point out that fire, (and the droughts that tend to lead to them) has been a part of Australian weather/climate for a long time, and in this case before what i would consider massive increases in the CO2 emitted by people.
Again, I actually do believe in human assisted climate change, I am just not in agreement that these bushfires are the result of it.
As others have mentioned, even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, what would the impact be? Would it create the solution we want? If we return to levels from 1939, apparently that would still give us naturally occurring large scale bushfires. So, the problem we are discussing wouldn't really be solved by this, so 'we' need to look at how better to manage these bushfires.
Being a practising whinger, I have no problem with politicising these issues either. The buck has to stop with someone and the people with the purse that spend the money on different things within our economy have to be responsible. State or Federal, it doesn't bother me. Good management of a country is more than doing book-keeping with accounts.
It appears that more money should have been spent on bushfire management, but while there is no obvious problem, it seems that funding has also dried up. In the case of NSW, the current government seems to have spent less, and I think this needs to be questioned. You and I are not the people that need to decide how this money is spent, and we are not the people that need to employ experts to tell them how to management the threat of bushfires.
Would you agree that the drying pattern that has led to such a 'perfect storm' for fires is, in part, due to human activity??
The fast approaching reality is the need for massive investment into pumping fresh water back into the environment. Should be interesting to argue about spending $20B to $50B on that over in HW
I don't know if the drying pattern is related to human activity or not. From my perspective it matters little, and think we just need to concentrate on some sort of pragmatic approach instead of people wringing their hands and blaming it on climate change, which we cannot change in the short term or possibly at all.
I think we back Macro. Whether he solves the problem or not, at least it will be interesting.... and possibly result in everything burning and thus removing the problem.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..
I came across something today that said in 1973/74 we had bushfires that took out 117Million hectares! Incredible, but as most of it was in central Australia there was little impact, and only evaluated later using satellites.
Don't think so. RFS has just confirmed to date this season it's broken the NSW record. So I guess all those who derided the "unprecedented" terminology should all eat their words now?
You may have missed this, but I said that the 1973/74 fire was in 'central Australia'. Anyone that thinks NSW is in central Australia has a different view on geography to me.
Lets assume what I read in a wikipedia article is true anyway. It just shows that it has been a big thing in the past, which is not to say this current problem is not equally big, but its not unprecedented.
I got your point. But it wasn't just "central Australia" whatever that is - it was also in NSW.
We have three months of fire season left. I suspect that by the time the fires are all put out the area burnt could be multiples the current new NSW record.
Focussing on NSW now, the facts are FN that this years burning area is the biggest on record but also it's dense forrest fires and therefore, by any definition, unprecedented. The central Australian fires you mentioned were basically grasslands. Associate Professor Owen Price from the University of Wollongong will confirm this.
Why is it so hard to admit the simple truth that this is unprecedented?
The last question... well you need to state why you think its unprecedented and then give me time to actually process it and then respond.
Unprecedented? Since white man arrived in Aus? SInce before Aboriginals used fire themselves to manage the landscape? Maybe it is, but then what do we do?... What do we do now to try and mitigate the risk?
OK let me make it clear. Unprecedented on record, in NSW, both in area of land burnt and total intensity. This is not debatable.
If you want to debate something that may or may not have happened in the distant past before Europeans arrived, go wild mate.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..FormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..Bananabender said..Your talking about one fire chief in this instance who is obviously stressed and also probably covering his own arse. Even for him to make such a public statement at this time is irrational and not appropriate.holy guacamole said..harry potter said..
^^^ interesting the Royal Comisssion after black Saturday found otherwise.
Hazard reduction practices and targets have been adjusted since.
Royal Commissions are a bunch of lawyers looking for someone to blame.
I'd trust the fire chiefs over lawyers any day.
NSW has met their hazard reduction targets and it's done stuff-all to stop the worst NSW fires on record.
What's inappropriate is idiots like Barnaby Joyce acting like a paranoid parrot over greenies and the goons at Sky News pretending that massive increases in hazard reduction is a silver bullet. A smarter thing to do is re-assess how to better target hazard reduction to focus on life safety and fixed asset protection, rather than widespread large scale hazard reduction in heavy bushland.
The fact is, most of these fires are in heavy woodland National Parks. Again, who is calling for large scale prescribed burning of our National Parks? Only those who have no idea and want to cover the country in concrete and mines.
What are we left with then? What is the solution? Macro's army of water drones that fan the flames and then dump water on them?
Even if you think that carbon pollution is the root cause, we need a solution that works now, not in 20 or 50 years.
Wrong we need both.
We need leaders who stop downplaying the role that burning fossil fuels plays.
We need leaders who stop pretending that hazard reduction and ending "green tape" is going to solve the problem.
Sure we need both, but they are politicians. Therefore they do the minimum to get by one more election.
We have already seen that the electorate don't see GW as a reality, or at least more important than their own self interest. Do we spend years analysing why or do we just get on with finding out how this problem can be solved in the immediate future and accept that global warming cannot be addressed in a timeframe that does not require us to do anything about the immediate threat of bushfire?
There is no way that any of this is going to result in the Liberal party turning around and saying 'we were wrong' and they will not change their approach to fossil fuels, but they may get their act together if it comes to bushfire management. Even if they did suddenly get possessed by ghosts from the Greens, and changed their attitude, would it solve anything now with this current crisis?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
OK let me make it clear. Unprecedented on record, in NSW, both in area of land burnt and total intensity. This is not debatable.
Okay, you have my vote. Unprecedented on record in NSW.
What do we do about it now?
Do we just publish an article in a paper admitting it is unprecedented, or do we brainstorm solutions?
No it would not solve the current crisis but it would put us on a more sustainable path for the future....which. Is a long time...
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..
OK let me make it clear. Unprecedented on record, in NSW, both in area of land burnt and total intensity. This is not debatable.
Okay, you have my vote. Unprecedented on record in NSW.
What do we do about it now?
Do we just publish an article in a paper admitting it is unprecedented, or do we brainstorm solutions?
Like drawing blood from a stone mate. No one's claimed anything otherwise.
We do everything we can, including dispelling myths about hazard reduction's effectiveness in very intense forest fires and about the role human induced climate change has.
We can't fix the problem until we admit it exists.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
The police have charged 100's of people with starting bush fires or potentially starting bush fires
Is there anything that isn't a conspiracy? 
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..
OK let me make it clear. Unprecedented on record, in NSW, both in area of land burnt and total intensity. This is not debatable.
Okay, you have my vote. Unprecedented on record in NSW.
What do we do about it now?
Do we just publish an article in a paper admitting it is unprecedented, or do we brainstorm solutions?
The solution exists.
Blame Scott Morrison.
Problem solved; everyone happy.
