I think you're pretty much correct with this one Alfie.Alfie wrote: ↑Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:07 amGenerally Keelty's recommendations are a win for the people of NSW. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply putting the population back in second or third place on the scale of importance. The NSW government has very quickly committed to implementing all such recommendations, for this very reason. NSW Government saw the opportunity to be less embarrassed at the next major incident, and subsequent incidents.
Yes, some of Keelty's arguments, as others have suggested, seem slightly contradictory and in some cases are a bit dumb, to be frank. But these only confirm the independent nature of the report. Independent inquiries can be somewhat naive and this is no different. Overall, his recommendations are not, however, untenable and they will persist whereas some of the supporting arguments likely not.
Undoubtedly the implementation of all of the recommendations will take years to establish and it could well be discovered within such implementation period that additional significant changes may need to be made in order to fully implement the recommendation. Few of the recommendations afford a simple process for their implementation, and so ownership of the broader metamophosis is going to largely remain with the services themselves.
From my point of view, Keelty's recommendations only establish the "what and why," and the Fire / Emergency Services now need to bring the "who where and how" to construct a workable bi-partisan system, one would think.
I agree that some of Keelty's report is a bit naive. Using NSWPOL, NSWA and SES Comms as 'good' examples when they basically only deal with one agency, not with two is one.
But overall, I know that that RFS is pretty happy with the result as the long inherent response delays and communications loop issues of the current system will disappear AND the NSW Govt will fund a workable solution that's been outside the ability of the RFFF to cover.
I'm not sure of how FRNSW will see it. Having the actions of some of it's members called 'deplorable' by Keelty and the eventual loss of funding for it's comms sections and operators would not be seen as a positive I'd think.
But a lot of wait and see now. I know that RFS has trialled AVL's and the few existing RFS Rescue appliances (as required by the SRB) have them already. Wide spread implementation will take time because of funding, then tender, contract supply and fitting issues.
And of course the current 'offer of assistance policy' continues until further refined - it's a one way street at the present but if Keelty's recommendations are fully followed, it should be two way.
Interesting times ahead.