 It's good to warn me as the time comes. Thank you. I was asked to give a statement about the state of play of research in this area. I don't think I'm going to be able to do that, but I'll make some comments. And I'll talk about the impact of disasters in Australia. And that's based on some recent work we've done we're in the middle of doing. So I stress it's about doing and making critical comments about sitting in front of me. And we haven't taken all of your comments on board yet. I'm sorry, there's too many things. So it's tentative, it's tentative stuff. I thought it would be good to start by reminding ourselves of why we want to adapt. And this was taken from a document that's referred to in the current Victorian State Adaptation Plan. I think it's the only actual bit of empirical material in there, but that's probably what we've been recording. I think the next one will have more in it, I'm sure. It's just worth remembering that the projections are not very pretty. Things we want to avoid. And they're all about things that emergency managers rightly or wrongly are held responsible for. So I just picked up two there. The heat wave, we talked about heat wave and Craig has made quite a big thing of it and I'm going to make more of it actually and reinforce what you said earlier. And the bush fire, that's only with respect to timber industry. So the point is, it looks bad, it's very conservative. I think now we would use a different scenario because it's very conservative scenarios and we've just seen we're exceeding them. So maybe it's useful to think, well if this is what we want to do, this is not the worst case, but this is where we're heading, we want to be below that. I think we're all great. So a comment on the state of play. People in this room might be aware, might not be aware of this body called NCARF, still exists National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility based at Griffith University. It still exists, but it's not working in this area anymore, I think. But for a while they ran a network that I coordinated on emergency management and climate change adaptation for quite a few years. And among other things, they produced the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Plan for emergency management, specifically for emergency management. That was not just done by a group of strange researchers, it was very much led by the sector. Tony Pierce actually chaired it and chaired the group. And I think it's, anyway, and it was used to guide the allocation of research funds from NCARF for a few years. So it's all on their website actually, there's a lot of work there. And the other thing that NCARF did in the network there was to produce a policy brief again with users that these things were done, that was done in Melbourne. So of course it has a nice Victorian flavour. And although it's national. And again, it's on the website. It's probably quite a useful resource, given that it came largely from the industry. And it directly addresses our topic. Of course, what happened was, well, NCARF was actually a creature of John Howard, although when you look at all the comments on the web, it's interesting. Most people seem to imagine it was a labour thing. Labour did not refund it for whatever good reason. But it received extra funding last year and now it's very much focused on coastal zone stuff. So it didn't refund anything in emergency management, which I find ironic is almost a personal view and apologies if I offend anybody. Almost all its work could fall with, except on ecosystems, could fall within the ambit of what we would all call disaster risk reduction or broadly broad concept of emergency management. We're at Vicar Victoria, which again, has not been funded at the moment, but it produced a lot of material. Most material from both these organisations is accessible and much of it is directly relevant and in fact comes from the concerns of the sector. So, I just thought, it's a very crowded area. Once I took seriously this idea, what's the state of play in research? So I thought, well, apart from what I know about, which I've just talked about, I thought I'd go and improve my mind. It's overwhelming. I think five or six years ago I could have made a statement about it. Now I don't think it's possible. And it's not just the research, it's all the endless tools, including in our sector, very specific things, as well as everyone seems to have strategies, plans, briefs and so on. You just go out of the net, you see there's probably thousands of them. So what does that mean? Well, after a bit of thinking about this and review, I think there are a number of themes in the research area. I can't say where it's going or anything, but there are a number of things. And some of these are directly related or relevant for remote management. I picked out this first four. There's a general, most people that I speak to and seem very concerned about, well, how do we know how we're going? How can we measure our progress or lack of progress in adaptation but also in emergency management in the context of dealing with climate disasters? And people won't do it. And a lot of funding has gone into that as far as I can see, various formula and everything else. So we'll have a go at it in a minute. And I think very importantly for emergency management is this whole area of why people or sectors, some sectors are adapting. We've heard a little while ago about some of the agricultural sectors, but some are not. Some are resisting it hugely. And the problem for emergency management, well, one take on it, is that if people don't adapt and then there's a problem, emergency management ends up carrying that problem and there's an inquiry, so far it's only focused on emergency managers even though they might have nothing to do with creating a problem and might afford against it. And then there's allocation of blame in the media or whatever, even if it's not part of the inquiry.