JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE WITH PETER GEORGE, DIRECTOR OF LIFE SAVING, SURF LIFE SAVING AUSTRALIA
Surf Life Saving Australia, Bondi Beach
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Subject: Tsunami Awareness; Insulation Program; Christmas Island
McCLELLAND: Can I acknowledge Mr Brett Williamson, the Chief Executive Officer of Surf Life Saving Australia and commend his work generally in the area of emergency management. He makes a contribution in a range of areas on behalf of Surf Life Saving Australia but also more generally. Also Peter George, Director of Surf Life Saving Australia.
Can I start off by congratulating the Joint Australian Tsunami Warning Centre for the tremendous work that they did last week and indeed they do, on our behalf, 24 hours, seven days a week. Can I also commend especially Surf Life Saving Australia, who filled in that bridge between the warnings issued by the Centre and the public. They did a commendable job, right up and down the east coast of Australia.
Clearly, there is some tidying up to do and that is part of what today is about, from the point of view of public awareness and having the public respond to the warnings and these emergency situations.
As we saw in respect to Chile, it was a massive earthquake off the coast of Chile, resulting in upwards of 800 deaths unfortunately, but it also impacted on coastal communities right throughout the Pacific, including some repercussions for Australia.
The Joint Australian Tsunami Warning Centre is relatively recent. I opened it during the course of last year and I was surprised to learn that there can be between 100 to 400 earthquakes that occur each week, that are picked up by the centre. The job of the Centre is to assess those for strength and for potential cause of a tsunami and in turn calculate what potential impact that may have on Australia, or indeed other countries. The centre works very closely with related agencies in Pacific island countries and elsewhere to assist in providing their warning systems and to ensure that their warning systems are adequate. We now have buoys in place, for want of a better technical description, that provide that additional layer of warning and feed in as to what potential risk may be from a tsunami coming through.
Last weekend, as a result of the Centre's work, a marine warning was issued as opposed to land intrusion warning. That warning was communicated to Surf Life Saving Australia, State emergency services and also the media, who I should also recognise for the work they also did in communicating the warnings last weekend.
There has been some debate as to whether the extent of the warnings were necessary. Can I say that they absolutely were, During European settlement in Australia there have been three notable events, 1868, 1877 and most recently 1960. That was in fact an earthquake, again off the coast of Chile, slightly smaller than the one we saw last weekend but newspapers of that period talk about boats being ripped from their moorings. They talk about shipping being disrupted; indeed they talk about a barge being slammed into the Spit Bridge by the impact of the tsunami on Australian shores. So unquestionably the right steps were taken to warn the community.
The information I have received from the Warning Centre is that there is a common misunderstanding about the nature of a tsunami. It is literally an energy force that goes through the ocean. That energy force can be as wide as 100 kilometres until it gets closer to the coast. And while there may not be a visible wave as people imagine, nonetheless that massive surge of water and energy can cause all kinds of problems and of course potential damage and injury to those on our waterways.
So, the warning unquestionably was appropriate and the steps taken were also appropriate. But in terms of where we can do better, is getting the message out to develop that public education and the public understanding of the potential dangers of a tsunami. Fortunately, in Australia they will be a very rare occurrence, but potentially also a very devastating occurrence. So it is very important for the public information campaign to be rolled out.
The kit that I have had a look at, and it is really solid stuff, has been prepared with the assistance of the Bureau of Meteorology, Geoscience Australia, Emergency Management Australia, the State Emergency Services and of course Surf Life Saving Australia. It consists of materials including DVDs, information sheets, brochures, including for those who go boating for instance. There are class activity sheets, a range of material that is also available on the Bureau of Meteorology website, which can also be downloaded.
I think the lesson is until an event occurs, and to a large extent I think we saw that with the Victorian bushfires, until tragic events occur, perhaps the public antenna generally doesn't go up to pay heed to these warnings. We have seen the potential consequences. We have had our agencies and surf life savers in particular responding as we saw last weekend, but I think completing that circle with an appropriate public education campaign will ensure that this coastline that we love so much is all the more safer.
So, thank you very much for coming down. It's a very important message to get out and I know Peter also wants to say a few words at this time.
GEORGE: After the devastating effects of the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004, Surf Life Saving Australia was invited to form part of the Australian Government's taskforce, the Australian Tsunami Warning System, as part of an increased national effort to monitor, plan and warn of tsunami.
Surf Life Saving Australia would like to applaud the Australian Government's efforts in bringing together service organisations to better prepare and respond to tsunami. We value our relationship with both the emergency services, such as the SES, and by being involved in the Australian Tsunami Warning System. We've been able to develop integrated response plans to better work with these agencies during the unfortunate event of tsunami.
The Tsunami Education and Awareness Resource for surf life saving members and the general public is one of the great initiatives of the Australian Tsunami Warning Centre. This resource has been distributed to all 306 surf life saving clubs and to our State centres. This resource is also available for the public on our website, www.beachsafe.org.au and provides an overview of tsunami, a response to tsunami, for both our lifeguards, surf life savers and other beach management personnel. This resource is available to all our surf life saving clubs and has been available to them for more than 12 months.
Last weekend we did see emergency response plans swing into action. And our clubs and State centres worked hand in hand with emergency service personnel to manage that threat and keep the beach-going public safe. With support of the Australian Tsunami Warning System all surf life saving clubs are now equipped with an educational tool to better prepare our front line lifesavers and our volunteers in the event of tsunami.
Surf Life Saving Australia is proud to be part of the Australian Tsunami Working Group and we look forward to continuing our partnership with the Australia Government. Again, I would like to thank the Attorney for his support in regard to the Beachsafe initiative and particularly for giving some of his valuable time to be with us today.
McCLELLAND: We're very happy to answer any questions that people may have.
JOURNALIST: Last weekend when you saw the footage of people coming to the beach for a look at the tsunami, were you shocked or disappointed? How did you feel?
McCLELLAND: It was disappointing but understandable that that reaction would occur. People saw the earthquake of course literally thousands of kilometres away and didn't appreciate the dangers. But this material will inform the public just how inappropriate that is, not only from the point of view of their own safety but from the point of view of potentially having to provide assistance to others. So that is something that this education material is aimed fairly and squarely at.
JOURNALIST: What would you say to people thinking of doing the same thing next time?
McCLELLAND: Well, the advice to people who would think of doing the same thing is abide by the warnings. It's in their own interests and it's in the interest of others, who may need assistance from emergency services and the like.
JOURNALIST: Do you think people were aware when they came down to the beach, or do you think some people just didn't know?
McCLELLAND: I think it is still the case that some people didn't know. I should say that we also have the capacity if there had been an onshore threat, particularly if it is urgent, to use the telephone emergency warning system. That was trialled in Queensland, I understand quite successfully. I think it was unquestionably the case that people came down to the beach and so we've got to look at how we tie all those loose ends together.
JOURNALIST: You mentioned the Victorian bushfires. Bushfire emergencies have gradings, is that something that you would consider with tsunamis, having ratings to different warnings?
McCLELLAND: As I understand it, there are essentially two. There is the maritime threat and there is the possible onshore threat. As I understand, that's adequate at this stage. They are unlikely events but inevitably throughout history they have occurred and regrettably inevitably they will occur, hopefully not in our lifetime or indeed at all but the reality is, as history has shown, there is that potential. I think the current warning framework is appropriate, but again, getting that public education is the task.
JOURNALIST: Speaking to lifeguards here last Sunday, they were talking about people were going in even though they knew and there were concerns. There were police on standby. They said under more extreme circumstances police could be used to forcibly evacuate the beach. Is it clear at what level, whether it's a marine or land warning, when police can be used?
McCLELLAND: The police and emergency services can issue a compulsory evacuation order, if they think that there is a substantial prospect of life being threatened. They have the power to issue orders which are mandatory. They have to be complied with otherwise a penalty could be imposed, or indeed the evacuation enforced.
It wasn't at that level, but nonetheless common sense and prudence said if there was a reasonably foreseeable risk, as the experts identified, the common sense thing to do was to adopt measures to avoid that risk. Regrettably some people didn't do it. These education programs including getting it out to schools, we hope will change that mind set.
JOURNALIST: When does it reach that level? Is it never with the marine warning that it reaches that level, only ever with land warnings, for example?
McCLELLAND: Depending, as I understand it, on the proximity to Australia, the size of the event and on their assessments of these events. But from a practical point of view, looking at the number of earthquakes that Geoscience Australia picks up around the world, literally somewhere between 100 to 400 a week, they will look at the intensity of it, whether it's in the ocean, how far from Australia and what its likely impact will be. If they think that the intensity is such that it has the potential to come onshore then they will issue a shore based warning which will require evacuation.
JOURNALIST: Do you think Australians just don't feel threatened because we're so far away from any other country where earthquakes do occur?
McCLELLAND: That may be the case, but the Pacific is one of the most geologically unstable regions of the world and again, following the Indonesian tsunamis of a few years ago, the impacts of those tsunamis were felt on the coast of Africa. So these things do travel a long distance at around about 800 kilometres an hour. So even as we saw in the 1960s an earthquake occurring off Chile does impact on Australia's coastline.
JOURNALIST: Just on another matter, the New South Wales Department of Fair Trading says that fines handed down to an insulation company yesterday in Sydney creates a national precedent. What do you think the legal implications of that are?
McCLELLAND: The Federal Government provided the framework and the funding for the program but in terms of enforcing things such as consumer standards, occupational training standards and occupational health and safety enforcement, they are, under our federal system, responsibilities of State Governments.
I was pleased to see that in this case the consumer offence was enforced and a penalty imposed and all I would say to State authorities, obviously, they have that obligation. I think they're aware of that obligation and insofar as any employer, particularly employing people in a potentially dangerous industry as events have shown this is, have very, very clear obligations, not only to the consumers of those services, but also to their workforce and they should confront the full force of the law. There is absolutely no compromise there.
JOURNALIST: Can you confirm whether the Federal Government is in talks to more than double the capacity of the Christmas Island detention facilities?
MCCLELLAND: I am aware of the story this morning. The program, that is occurring on Christmas Island, and it's a ten hectare site, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, is in the process of building a 400 bed facility, which will take the capacity of Christmas Island up to about 2,300 and I'm informed that the story was incorrect.
JOURNALIST: So beyond that there are no preliminary plans for further expansion?
McCLELLAND: No, there has been some work done in terms of accommodating staff on the island and ensuring that that accommodation can occur in a manner that doesn't interfere with the local population. That is also a work that is occurring but in terms of the facility itself, that's the information that I have.
JOURNALIST: The comment from people is every time there's a warning nothing happens. What are your thoughts about not telling them if it's likely to be a non-event?
McCLELLAND: There is the cry wolf syndrome. It is one thing that we do discuss in the meetings we have with State and Territory emergency management ministers as to when for instance the telephone warning system should be switched on. The experts were of a view, and I think rightly of the view, that using it in the circumstances of last weekend, where it was a maritime only warning, would have been an overreaction, although I understand in some areas of Queensland it was still thought appropriate to at least test the system for that purpose.
But that is a real challenge for emergency responders. When they use these warning capabilities to inform the public to prevent a potential risk and in this case, the risk identified was a tsunami potentially arriving at about 8.30 on Sunday morning. I think unquestionably the warning issue last weekend was appropriate. But it's something that emergency responders generally are aware of and not giving these warnings in unnecessary circumstances. I think the public should take the attitude that if emergency responders provide public warnings they should abide by them because they're not lightly given, they're not given at the drop of a hat. They are really assessed and if the experts say a warning should be given the public should listen to those warnings.
JOURNALIST: And you're still considering changes to the system?
McCLELLAND: Not to the Tsunami Warning System. We think those two categories are adequate. What we are looking at, and indeed I have written to State Emergency Services Ministers and to Surf Life Saving Australia just this week, to do a post-tsunami review, if you like, as to how the system operated, any feedback that they can provide as to how we can tidy up any loose ends. But certainly that other aspect of what we can do more generally to communicate to the public and ensure public understanding, through not only this public education campaign but otherwise, is work in progress. That is still occurring.
JOURNALIST: Is there any scope to test response times of emergency crews, similar to a fire drill in this case?
McCLELLAND: Yes, that can be done and we'll receive feedback on how that all occurred. Issues such as when the first notifications were issued, the updates, whether they were frequent enough, the level of risk that was occurring during the day, for these sort of things we've invited feedback.
JOURNALIST: Those measures would create public awareness of the tsunami response plans?
McCLELLAND: I think generally how that's communicated to the emergency response agencies is one issue. How it's communicated to the media and the media's comfort with the information, or the adequacy of the information they receive, is also an important issue.
Thanks very much.
