Sounds like a good start Genie. If they did something like that here it would be a help, so it would certainly start the ball in the right direction there. But as always, who can we trust to decide? Shame that there will always be somebody who will, and can, put pressure on the designation of "non-build" restricted zones, probably in favour of developers, or industry, or one minority group or another - maybe even Joe Public who wants to visit and have facilities available. Somebody will always have a perfectly valid reason for opening up pristine forest.... Money or lifestyle choice are just two examples. Also we really can't expect emergency services to just stand by if some clown who builds in the wrong place puts his life in jeopardy by refusing to leave their property when it's threatened by fire. What do we do then, shoot them?... Mind you..... No, we know it won't happen. That's why we have these services, and that's why the people in them are there.

Will the present fires make all the interested parties, state, federal, logging, home developers, forest services, emergency services, conservationists, get together and consult on future policy? Pig's ear...... Don't matter what party is in power, or who runs the states or the services, or sets policy. Things will only change for the better after a few hundred families die in a massive disaster, and nobody wants that to happen. Until it does, though, I'll bet you'll be stuck with the existing faulty system.