[Transcript from launch of BNH CRC on 10 December 2013]
As a country and as emergency services, we have faced fire, flood, cyclone and many other natural disasters and hazards in Australia for a long time. Every indication is that we are likely to continue to do so.
You might think that we are well practiced, which we are. But are we doing the best we can? Are we leveraging off the knowledge and work of other stakeholders to the best of our ability? Are we using the available technology to our best advantage, working collaboratively with governments, councils, communities to be the most resilient we can be? Are we operating under the best policies? Is our infrastructure, our utilities, what New Zealand calls – our lifelines – as disaster resistant as they can be? And are our people well supported and recognised? Are we making the most informed and reliable predictions, and are we using the best available modelling?
We do know some of these answers, from the credible and well received work of the Bushfire CRC over the years, and I acknowledge Gary Morgan and his team in that work. And AFAC is extremely appreciative of those past efforts. But there are many questions which remain unresolved. And if we are not learning, we are likely to be going backwards.
The emergency services are just one beneficiary of the BNHCRC, but more and more emergency services are working with other agencies and NGOs to better deliver, not just preparation and response to emergencies, but for emergency management services.
More and more we are seeking to work with policy makers, so that practitioners and policy makers together develop the best possible strategies and priorities to encourage and deliver the best possible resilience across communities. That does not happen without research. Identifying and developing projects where end-users are involved from initiation to delivery, that involve researchers and practitioners working cooperatively to develop options and solutions.
Not all are adopted, not all are successful. But without the research, practitioners largely learn through hard experience, and regrettably that sometimes means loss of life.
As emergency services, we are a traditional lot. We have a conservative view and I’m confident that many here would draw from the fact that we are risk averse. We are conservative in nature. Research provides evidence that otherwise may not be available. That otherwise may or may not be gathered from difficult debriefs and post-disaster analysis. And evidence leads to change. Even for those with a conservative nature. And over time that change influences our culture.
The fire and emergency services commends the establishment of the BNHCRC and looks forward to working in partnership to develop options and solutions for safer and more resilient communities as a whole.