I will be attending the annual AFAC conference in Adelaide next week. I won’t have a stall but assuming they let me, I’ll probably hang around the Natural Hazards Research stall when not attending sessions. I will be speaking to the co-hosted Institution of Fire Engineers (Australia) National Conference on Thursday 25th at 1140am.
If anyone wants to stop and say ‘hello’ please do.
This blog is made possible with generous financial support from the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.
Australian Emergency Law 
I will look out for you and hope to catch up
Russell Dippy CStJ LEM CEM(r) TQCTM FAcEM Ph 0417 802 792 E: Russell.dippy@outlook.comRussell.dippy@outlook.com E: rdippy@csu.edu.aurdippy@csu.edu.au
Great Russell, I look forward to it.
AFAC has nothing whatsoever to do with Emergency Law in Australia. Why are lawyers, being invited to a national firefighting body, even though such “body” is actually a renowned as a “nobody” whatsoever in fire services.
Perhaps lawyers might find that chasing fire trucks and ambulances pays off.
Glenn I’m not sure why you follow this blog as its very existence seems to annoy you?
In any event the AFAC conference brings together the fire and emergency services and researchers. Research beyond fire behaviour is relevant. How individuals, communities and agencies respond to disasters is affected and informed by many fields of study – psychology, sociology, policy, economics, accounting, environmental studies – and law. Law impacts emergency services and emergency management because we live in a society governed by the rule of law and law is everywhere – we can see that in the legislation, the case law, the nature of inquiries, the implementation of government policy, the power, structure and limits of the emergency services etc.
As a lawyer I go to AFAC to get a better understanding of the sector and because some people think I add value to the sector through research and education.
I am not annoyed at all. But I find your post as a concern to all posters here, namely:
“As a lawyer I go to AFAC to get a better understanding of the sector and because some people think I add value to the sector through research and education”.
Fire engine / ambulance chaser ???
Sorry Glenn, I don’t understand your concern. The idea of an ‘ambulance chaser’ is (as I understand it) an unscrupulous personal injuries lawyer who chases ambulances in order to find injured people and try to get instructions from them before someone else can do so. I’m not a ‘legal practitioner’ (see https://australianemergencylaw.com/about-2/ for an explanation of the difference between an Australian Lawyer and a Legal Practitioner) so I’m not going to AFAC to try and sign up clients for litigation.
I ‘add value to the sector through research and education’ so why is that any different to the geographers, economists, scientists, demographers, town planners etc who also attend the conference? Are they also ‘fire engine/ambulance chasers’ because they work to inform the sector without actually being a member of the sector?
If, as you say Michael:
“I add value to the sector through research and education”. I still hold a somewhat aversion to lawyers poking their noses into emergency management (nothing personal of course) then what primary “sector” you speak of, is there in Australia in relation to all state fire service operations, fire safety, the built environment in relation to fire. AFAC is not, in my view, is reasonably only a “sector”, a player to be frank.
Considering your venture however, please understand that AFAC is largely a benign body. AFAC is somewhere between a conference and a body. There is no peak body in Australia in relation to how we fight fires, and when we come to your house, for instance, it is absolutely never a function of AFAC.
However……and I raise this with you:
Given that you are attending the usual AFAC conference, and that is that although AFAC has a very fleeting influence whatsoever in such matters, AFAC is actually prolific in the development of fire related Australian Standards where several parties, including AFAC representation, wrote many Australian Standards which serve the Australian population. These of course and are referenced by state and local governments Australia wide, and ultimately reflected in the Building Code of Australia.
Sticking with AFAC, may I say as an appointed (but reluctant) AFAC representative on several Australian Standards committees. I received a letter out of the blue, asking me to represent “AFAC” committees in Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney in developing Australian Standards . I had to look up who the hell was “AFAC”, but I went with the flow. These standards include the development of Australian Standards as the writing of hydrant systems, sprinkler systems and smoke alarm systems, and smoke management systems in buildings under fire conditions, and other standards.
One would think that developing such standards was a walk in the park. But no. Across the table at the Australian Standards meetings were the industry groups and the architect fraternity who were dead set upon fighting AFAC representatives.
In short, AFAC representatives were out-voted by twice the amount of the other members at the table in relation to AFAC’s serious issues in high rise buildings. Such as the prevalence of combustible cladding and the lack of sprinklers for the protection of balconies in high rise residential buildings at a time prior to the Grenfell Fire in the UK. Now the NSW Government has overridden Australian Standards in both respects.
My advice is that AFAC needs good legal advice in relation to its main influence in the greater good. I am not sure that you are necessarily that person but good luck and enjoy the AFAC conference .
Glenn
I’m not sure your comments are ‘nothing personal’ – the certainly have, at times, felt personal.
You may have an ‘aversion to lawyers poking their noses into emergency management’ but law affects everything and therefore you need lawyers. Fire and emergency services are created by legislation and it’s a specialist skill to interpret legislation. Anyone can read an Act but there are rules of statutory interpretation, constitutional interpretation etc that you don’t get just from the words of the Act. Everything about emergency management – from PP to RR – is affected or influenced by law. Law determines who has authority to act, who has authority to mitigate risk etc. As we know from discussions on this blog there are issues of professional registration, discipline, driving etc all of which are affected by law. Law determines the status of Australian standards and their use by government is also affected by law.
If you have an ‘aversion to lawyers poking their noses into emergency management’ then presumably you don’t want people who are affected by law to have access to information to understand the law that applies to them. You also, presumably, don’t like agencies being informed as to what they can, and cannot do, or being informed to loby for changes in law if they are required.
I would have an aversion to fire fighters interfering with my life, unless my house was on fire, in which case they’re very much who I would want. We all have an ‘aversion’ to lawyers until we need one.
As for AFAC as you know it’s the Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Authorities Council. Its membership is the fire and land management agencies and the emergency services across Australia. It can claim to be a ‘peak’ body but it has its limitations. It represents the government services, it has no statutory authority. Even so, as you say it represents industry to government and, in your example, Australian Standards. Further, as the 2019/2020 Natural Disasters Royal Commission noted it (via it’s subsidiaries such as the National Resource Sharing Centre) plays a key role in inter-state and international disaster response.
You are correct, of course, when I said I was going to AFAC I meant AFAC 22 – a conference where speakers from government, academia, the emergency services management, staff and volunteers spoke on issues that they have been investigating or working on. You may be interested to know that there were a number of talks at the associated Institute of Fire Engineers conference on the issues you talked about – high rise fire safety.
I am not AFAC’s legal adviser, or anyone’s legal adviser. As I say I research and write in the field and try to educate. I didn’t attend AFAC 22, and the Fire Engineers conference to give legal advice but to inform and to become informed.
Fair and reasonable on your part. And good for you.
As a representative of AFAC, I was trying to provide an insight into AFAC for you in relation to your proposed tour in that direction. But you are a lawyer, and you missed that advice and you are also suspicious of actual witnesses, are you not?.
Now I have another matter.
I do note however, that your revamped blog has quite a collective of many, many zero reply comments on quite a number of the “EM” headline talking points as offered on your blog.
And for that matter, Who cares in relation to emergency beacons on so called “emergency vehicles”
Let’s get this conversation back on deck and lets get to the nitty gritty of emergency management. I am brave and hopefully you are. I recall that (in some cases) earlier in your blog when you agreed with me whereby that ultimately a court will interpret the law and not us.
So let me get this straight. An interpretation of emergency law has rarely been accurate, pre-court.
Is that the case?
Lots of people care about emergency beacons on emergency vehicles. It’s probably the most popular subject.
No you’re not correct. Courts only interpret the law where there is a dispute about what the law is. Law is interpreted and applied outside of courts all the time so interpretation of law can be accurate even if it’s never tested in court.
I have made posts giving an interpretation that has been consistent with later court decisions.
In every court case there is a lawyer on each side, so one of the interpretations has to be right ‘pre court’.
Let’s not ‘get this conversation back on deck’. This is not a useful conversation. If you think the blog has nothing useful to offer, feel free to stop reading it.