 Hello everyone and welcome to the fire safety verification method webinar for fire safety practitioners. We appreciate your tuning into this afternoon's webinar and I am Alexander Armstrong from the Australian Building Codes Board. Today we're going to run through three different presentations plus a Q&A session at the end, the first of course an introduction by myself then we're going to move on to an introduction to the fire safety verification method from Paul England who is a fire engineer representing the Australian Building Codes Board. Next we're on to the fire safety practitioners perspective from FPA Australia and then we'll be going for a fire authorities perspective from AFAC and finally we will have some Q&A. We would appreciate for the Q&A session if you have any questions if you could log them throughout the presentation that will allow us to review them and respond to common trends and give us time to work through that process. Learning outcomes for today look we're looking for people attending to develop a greater understanding of the fire safety verification method and how it involves your profession. We're also looking to increase the technical understanding of how you will work with the fire safety verification method and finally we're looking to increase confidence for yourself for working on your projects for fire safety verification method as it becomes a valid verification method under the NCC on 1 May. Now I'd like to pass to Paul England for his introduction to the fire safety verification method. Thank you. I'll briefly run through some of the general principles and then go through a little bit more detail that's relevant to fire safety fire protection practitioners a little bit later in the presentation. So I'm moving on. The fire safety verification method is provided in schedule two of sorry schedule seven of the fire safety verification method in the NCC 2019. It becomes active on the 1st of May 2020 and it provides a process for verifying compliance of fire safety performance solutions with the NCC. Other options can still be used but it does provide a robust approach to carrying out performance based solutions and demonstrating compliance with the NCC. So what is the purpose of the fire safety verification method? It's to ensure the minimum level of safety required by the NCC is met using the concept of equivalence. A similar reference building complying with the DTS provisions is defined. A check of the level of safety of the proposed building solution needs to be greater than the reference building or equal to the reference building and then it's assumed that you'll satisfy the relevant performance requirements. It's a practical approach that provides a quasi-quantification pending the full quantification of the performance requirements. It is a tried and tested approach. It's referred to in the NCC so you can still use equivalence and not through the fire safety verification method. It's referred to in the IFEG, the International Fire Engineering Guidelines, Early Codes of Practice put out by the Society of Fire Safety in the early 2000s. We're referencing strongly equivalence approaches and these pin use for major changes to the NCC such as we performed by Bourne back in the early 2000s and 140 Williams Street was a major project with significant changes to FRLs that was also undertaken using equivalence. So I used to not use. Moving on. One of the questions that sometimes gets asked is are the NCC DTS provisions an appropriate benchmark? The deemed to satisfy provisions have a rigorously tested rationale behind them. The BCA was originally derived from state and territory regulations which were reviewed and consolidated into the first BCA in 88 and the first generally adopted version of it which was the BCA 1990. Those requirements then went through a detailed review undertaken by the Fire Code Reform Center which culminated in a performance-based BCA 96. Since then the NCC has been regularly reviewed and updated based on detailed analysis and public comment. It's open to suggestions for improvement on a three-year cycle and again any changes go through a rigorous system including cost-benefit analysis and impact on safety levels. So the deemed to satisfy are relatively well tested and suitable for a broad range of applications. Okay. Moving on to some of the resources that support the verification method. There is a handbook which provides detailed guidance on applying the fire safety verification methods. It's got information to assist all stakeholders involved in the performance-based design process which could include fire safety and fire protection practitioners. It identifies other relevant technical documents such as IFEG national and international standards etc etc where appropriate and it also references data sheets. This is much more detailed information regarding efficacy, reliability and the efficacy of fire protection systems which may be of interest to practitioners and relevance to practitioners. It looks at occupant response and evacuation and also things like design fires and it's in a form that can be regularly updated so if you want to get into the technical aspects of it have a look at the data sheets as well. So now going through some of the highlights of the fire safety verification method. One of the key issues when you're looking at equivalents is defining a deemed to satisfy reference building and this can enter into shall we say excessive wrangling and detailed discussion with difference of opinions about what an appropriate reference building is. The handbook goes into a fair degree of detail about principles for selection of the reference building to really ensure that it's a relevant benchmark to the particular performance solution that's being examined. So some of the principles include that the NCCDTS provisions should be fully applied and include relevant state and territory variations. There are state and territory variations that can apply so obviously it has to be for the relevant state. The building should have the same footprint, floor area and volume as the proposal. It should have the same occupant numbers and characteristics as the proposal. If you start varying those things it becomes very subjective and questions can be asked about the relevance to the proposed performance solution. It should have the same fiber gate response and arrival time after notification as the proposal for a proposed fire safety solution. Where there are options for fire protection measures and there are on the deemed to satisfy solutions you can have a choice of options. Under those circumstances adopt a combination of measures based on sound engineering principles that would be expected to provide an acceptable level of safety. So don't automatically go with the lowest look at what would be reasonable for the type of building it is. If appropriate also include additional features that may not be addressed fully by the NCCDTS provisions. It seems like provisions for evacuation for people for disability disabilities and also looking at the use of lifts. Those sorts of details should be reasonable for the DTS solution as well as the proposed performance solution. Another key feature of the fire safety verification method is that it gives a list of a minimum range of scenarios that should be considered. Other scenarios can be considered if they're relevant to a particular performance solution. But this is a check and ensures that most of the requirements are properly addressed. Some of the key issues here are fire blocks and evacuation route. This is sometimes overlooked and very critical. You've got fire starts in a concealed space. Another one of those that isn't always picked up. Fire brigade intervention is a critical aspect and safety of fire brigade personnel. That's addressed in a later presentation so I don't need to cover it off into this detail here. You've got what's normally addressed the worst credible scenario but you've got items such as a robustness check which looks at the reliability of systems. So all these things are quite important. So it provides a good checklist but you can always add extra scenarios if appropriate. Also in the handbook and the fire safety verification method provides procedural requirements. A key thing is that a performance based design brief is mandatory. You should go through, you have to go through the process and some participants are mandated. So a client or client's representative, an architect or designer, fire brigade and the appropriate authority which is typically a statutory building survivor or sturdy fire are absolute minimum participants. But various specialist consultants can be involved in the early stages based on a derived stakeholder analysis and that could include a range of fire protection practitioners. A holistic approach is adopted so an entire building or reference building is compared with a proposed performance solution which is an entire building rather than looking at individual variations. This makes sure that all the fire safety strategy interacts in a reasonable manner. Tenability criteria are specified and a key issue is that individual and societal risks need to be considered. So now looking at the application of the fire safety verification method. The first thing is the design process. Typically a design process does need to address drivers and constraints in relation to the national construction code and these include safety, health and amenity, accessibility, sustainability, protection of other property. But there can be a whole range of other additional drivers and constraints that relate to a project such as usability, aesthetics, costs, speed of construction, building flexibility, operational continuity, corporate image, environmental protection, heritage protection, workplace health and safety, other legislation, etc. So these things need to be addressed now. Fire safety practitioners can end up being involved in this design process. For example, coatings used to modify group numbers require a performance solution. So a supplier of those materials could be involved to provide advice in relation to what the key issues are, durability of the product, evidence and suitability, etc. You could be looking at enhancements to sprinkler systems or assume design features are required as part of the performance solution. Again, you should really be talking a bit to the designer of those systems and installers to make sure that what's proposed is practical. And looking further down the track, emergency management organization could be a critical part of a performance solution facilitating prompt evacuation. Sometimes these people are not involved at the early stage, but they should be brought on as quickly as possible into the process. Out of looking at these drivers and constraints, a proposed building design is identified, and then you need to check with compliance with the NCC, which is the role of fire safety verification that is appropriate, and also to be checking the additional drivers which lies outside the scope of this presentation. So moving on to the next slide, assuming it is a performance solution or it's looking at the NCC compliance, the first thing is does it comply with the DTS provisions? If it does, you don't need a performance solution. In a large proportion of cases, a performance solution is required, and then you look at whether the fire safety verification method is applicable, and if it is, you proceed on to that. If not, you look at some other approaches. And potentially fire safety practitioners could be involved in this stage of the process. Moving on, assuming that the fire safety verification method is applied, you have the performance-based design brief process to run through, and the core stakeholders there, fire safety engineers, building surveyors, emergency services, i.e. fire brigade, clients and owner, or a delegate, and architect building designer. But then we look at the optional stakeholders, and I put fire safety practitioners at the top of this list, and basically they would be part of the stakeholder analysis to determine what is needed. And as I said before, depending on the scope, there could be several fire safety practitioners that are involved. You have other specialist consultants as well, including access consultants. I group material suppliers here separately because some of those material suppliers could be fire safety practitioners, others maybe just be supplying materials, but some requirements, which is non-combustibility, can still apply. Could be a peer reviewer, tenants representatives, building operations teams, builders, and insurers. So it could be a very broad list. And the fire safety verification method process you run through involves describing the proposed building solution and implementation plans. Again, fire safety practitioners need to be heavily involved in that process if they can be. Define reference building, identify variations. This is routine process for fire safety. Identify variations from the NCCDTS provisions. Identify relevant performance requirements. Identify relevant scenarios. And identify analysis methods, inputs, and criteria of comparison. Those aren't specified. So providing design flexibility for the fire safety engineer and the rest of the design team. Okay, moving on. So looking at the fire safety practitioners role, it varies depending on the type of practitioner. It may be that the fire safety practitioner is the only source of detailed understanding of the performance and evidence of suitability available for a specific product or material forming part of a performance solution. And you'd be looking at talking to a product designer or the technical department if they're available. If a system's a keeper part of a performance solution, the relevant designer contractor could be involved to provide input with respect to cost implications, practicality, and proposed solutions. Things like sprinkler designers, detection designers, alarm systems, et cetera, et cetera. And as I mentioned earlier, proposed members of the emergency management organization or a relevant consultant may be needed to provide advice input as to appropriate evacuation management strategies. There's no point designing a fire safety system and then having to rely on and it not being compatible with the emergency management strategies. So very important. Those things are sorted out at an early stage. Finally, at the end of the process, there will be a detailed report put together with the analysis and that should be reviewed by a building surveyor, peer reviewer, the pointed and fire brigades, and they'll have the greatest interest in the whole report. But fire safety practitioners should be reviewing if they're involved or subsequently involved to make sure the final design documentation, implementation maintenance plans to determine if they're relevant matters have been adequately addressed. As I said before, that could involve practicality as well. There may be several fire safety practitioners involved, depending on matters under consideration. The reviewer of the documentation should check if there is adequate information, facilitate compliance at the end of the construction, check specifications, responsibilities for design implementations needs to be clearly defined, considering extension of the performance-based design brief team into verification, because that's really when some of the fire safety practitioners will become involved. This is a rather complex flowchart just to indicate, really indicates, the complexity of the system. But if you start at the top with the blue boxes, you come up with a building design, including implementation plans and selection of verification. That's assessed for compliance as part of the performance-based design brief process. And if the building surveyor certifies happy and peer reviews are happy, the building surveyor will issue a building approvals to the builder, and it moves into the implementation stage. Product supply chains become critical then, and the product designers and manufacturers will have to produce information relating to product labeling, data sheets, declaration of performance, installation instructions, and evidence of usability. So that then flows back through the building surveyor to the performance-based design brief, if it's being carried through to the final implementation stage. If not, somebody must have been delegated to tie all that process together in the age of the builder. Then you go through installation, and again, the product installer needs to be looking at declaration of compliance, installation schedule of install products, etc., etc. When you start looking at the building use in occupation, your emergency management organization and related fire safety practitioners become involved. You've also got maintenance inspection contractors and consultants. So again, that comes in. So even after you've gone through the commission inspection and verification process, and the building surveyors issue the building documentation to the owners, which will be a occupancy permit, but also should have details of maintenance and repair, etc., etc., that's required. That's managed by that process, and basically the maintenance is normally required as part of the occupancy permit and appropriate state legislation. So you can see that fire safety practitioners are involved throughout the whole process, and particularly the implementation and ongoing use. So they form a critical part of a, or should form a critical part of a performance-based design brief team. So thank you. Thank you, Paul. I'd like to now pass along to Jeff Flou, who's from FPA Australia, and he'll be providing a perspective from the practitioner point of view on the fire safety verification method. Yeah, thanks, Alex. Yeah, to jump straight into the first slide, I guess this is when asked to present about the topic, what's the impact of the fire safety verification methods on fire protection practitioners? You think, well, isn't this a fire safety engineering matter? What's the big deal for our practitioners? For those that might have tuned in to the presentation last year where Matthew Wright presented, he articulated that there's, amongst our members, and particularly the various fire protection practitioners that are involved, there's probably over the years been a bit of a mistrust of some fire safety engineering outcomes or the solutions that are provided, and sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for not. But I guess a big part of it's about communication, because often the fire practitioners aren't always involved in the development of those solutions or in, and as Paul alluded to earlier, responsible for implementation, certification, ongoing maintenance and inspection and testing of those solutions, and the communication isn't quite there to, for them to understand what's required to successfully do that. So I guess one of the key outcomes from our point of view, in terms of the fire safety verification method, is that it's a process and it's a collaborative process. So now we've gone on to the next slide. I suppose the first thing to do from our point of view is look at what the fire protection practitioners' roles are in building design and generally, and throughout the building's life cycle, and the first one clearly is in design. So, and that's where the fire protection practitioner needs to document the outcomes of the performance-based design report, and I guess the requirement there clearly is to make sure that all those required outcomes are implemented, is part of the design of the building, and then if we go on to the next part of the slide, then the practitioner or practitioners that are responsible for installing it can implement that successfully. So once again, it's got to be clearly articulated in that design, for the people installing it as to what is required, and maybe not so much detail as why it's required, but at least understanding that that's part of the performance-based solution, and that's a new form of compliance, not the traditional codes and standards that the installs are used to. And then similarly, once the system is installed, someone has to certify it. Different jurisdictions are different, but in many jurisdictions, in addition to, I guess, general building certification, often there is individual fire safety system certification, and once again, unless those outcomes are clearly articulated, we can get problems occurring where those persons certifying it aren't fully aware of the particular requirements, and either things are certified in error, where the performance-based outcomes aren't included, or conversely, an installation is rejected, even though the performance-based solution includes some of the variations from the normal deemed to comply codes. And then finally, as alluded to, we've got the inspection of maintenance. So, and this is where things often do go awry, and it's, I guess, a larger industry issue about ongoing documentation and management of baseline data throughout the building's life cycle. You know, probably in the first year after the building's built and the person who installed it's maintaining it, things might be okay, but, you know, give it two, three, five, 10 years down the track, and documentation seems to have a habit in buildings of going missing, and a person coming in to maintain that building in that later period of life may have no idea that the building is subject to a performance-based design. I guess the thing these days is, as I think Paul alluded to in his presentation, there are very few buildings now that aren't subject to some performance-based design or another, and I guess that fits back in with the requirement for baseline data, and one of the key elements of that baseline data would be the performance-based design report. So, before we move on, oh, sorry, just quickly go back one slide, sorry, if possible. I suppose just what I want to sort of finish with on that slide is that we talk about the fire protection practitioner, and as you can see, there are four main roles that the practitioner plays, and the thing is in that, in our part of that industry or the fire safety industry is quite often, more often than not, those four roles are for separate parties, so there's a lot of talk about the fire safety engineer being involved either during installation at that building certification and even potentially through into building operation, but that will be the same fire engineer throughout that process, but we've got four different parties typically in terms of the fire protection practitioner's role, so there's clearly a need for good communication and passing documentation down through those various roles. So, if we get to the next slide and focusing on, I guess, each of those individual roles, we've got the designer, so one of the key requirements out of the fire safety verification method, and Paul did mention this before, is there is certainly a opportunity, if not requirement, for them to play an active role in the performance-based design process, particularly once again, where fire safety systems are being varied from the team to satisfy, and that can be both, I guess, what might be called a reduction or a dispensation from the normal requirements, but also where often additional measures are implemented as part of performance-based design to enhance a fire safety system to justify some other aspect in the building. The other thing, for all practitioners, not just fire safety practitioners, but for all design practitioners, is to critically review the trial concept designs. I guess we hear a lot of talk in our industry, I'm just a fire protection designer who might have questioned the fire engineer I've heard before from mechanical engineers, I'm just the mechanical engineer, the fire engineer or the building surveyor has asked me to do this, and how am I to do it. What I would say is we're all professionals, we're professional designers, and the time during that design process and through that performance-based design brief period is to speak up, and we're appropriate, push back and question the trial concept design if you think there are good reasons why it's not appropriate, or that it's going to result in an outcome that is sub-standard either for installation, hard to install or commission, or hard to maintain for the long term. We can help clearly identify the differences from the deemed dissatisfied, from the performance-based design, particularly when it gets down into not so much the deemed dissatisfied provisions or the NCC, but the particular provisions that are contained within the various caveman standards. Fire safety engineers, that's a very broad discipline in itself in there, they have to be across all forms of areas where typically experts in our fields, we like the specialists, so the fire engineers, the GP, and the fire protection practitioners are typically specialists in their field, whether it's fire sprinklers, fire detection, passive fire protection, all of that kind of thing. So we've got the responsibility of clearly identifying where there are gaps in those specific requirements. And also the other, as I said, for the designer is critically in this role in terms of passing, documenting the requirements of the performance-based design to pass on to the future stages. So clearly identifying specific commissioning requirements, and what I would call evidence of compliance, so as opposed to evidence of suitability in the design, that's the evidence of compliance that you have actually complied with the outcome required to prove that the fire engineering outcomes have been implemented. So, if a fire engineer requires, say, additional control valves or isolation valves in a sprinkler system, part of that will be documenting that those valves have been installed, and I guess a commissioning record for each valve that can be passed back to the relevant, the buildings today, a building certifier, to verify that the performance-based outcomes have been included. I just want to pick up on a couple of other things that Paul mentioned we talked before about the fire design scenarios. And once again, I've highlighted there that the robustness check, that's probably the key area where the fire safety engineer, fire protection engineer can certainly have input into the process, particularly where often to assist that robustness process is a set of requirement for additional measures that may not be normally required in a deemed-to-satisfied solution. So whether it's additional control valves, sometimes the setup of the fire detection system may need to have some redundancy with multiple detection circuits or loops to provide some redundancy there. And once again, the experts in the field can certainly provide that input to the fire safety engineer to give some indication of, well, one, what's feasible to do, as well as what actually provides value in giving that level of robustness, because sometimes things get specified in a throwaway line to say that that adds robustness when, in reality, we don't get a lot of extra value out of it. So, certainly in that part. And then the other point, if we go to the next slide, is to, in helping define that equivalent, so just sort of paraphrasing some of the points that Paul put up before, but he said that where there are options in the deemed-to-satisfied for the reference building, we can't pick the bare minimum option. We've got to pick the option that, based on sound engineering principles, would provide an acceptable level of safety. So once again, the fire engineer, safety engineer can certainly do some of that, but the fire protection designer or engineer should certainly have some input into that, particularly where it can get a bit contentious. And then, as I said before, going on to what additional features may be required to address other matters. And once again, that's what fire protection engineers do. We solve fire protection problems, and certainly across the details of our system and what we can do to provide a good level of safety economically. So I think that pretty much all of those cover the fire protection design engineers. If we move on to the next slide, so then we have the installer. So once again, the installers are typically removed from the design, or sometimes these days we're seeing a lot more design and construct processes, although typically before it gets that there's been some level of design. But the first thing the installer needs to do is clarify the performance design requirements, because once again, it's not always evident in the design documentation. And sometimes it's not always evident that a performance-based design has been applied. So the installer, and particularly this day and age, as I said, there's very few buildings now that aren't have some level of performance design. So we should clarify what those requirements are and clarify them earlier and the key requirements and incorporate them into a project quality plan to ensure that they're implemented. And then ultimately a commissioning management plan so that they're commissioned and commissioned to achieve compliance that's required for the outcome. And then finally, the handover documentation is paramount. Once again, that's that communication and passing the information on to the next party. So particularly one for compliance, but two really for the installers and that handover documentation, the operation and maintenance manuals that clearly identified that there are performance solutions, what those performance solutions are, and what the specific ongoing maintenance requirements are. And it's not many of these kind of manuals just referred to the Australian standard for maintenance, which is Australian standard 1851. The problem with that of course is that standard is written around deemed to satisfy compliant systems. And so where there is a performance-based, a system to meet a performance-based outcome, we need some specific requirements about what the specific maintenance measures are. So then finally, I've skipped over certify because it's essentially that communication to understand what it's about. But then we get onto the inspection, testing and maintenance of the fire safety outcomes for those practitioners. Unfortunately, it requires a greater level of sophistication. So I guess this is a prompt for the fire safety engineers and the fire protection practitioner designers is that it does require the maintenance personnel to understand that A, there is a performance-based solution and B, that it is different than what they might normally expect. The maintenance practitioners need to review the design and installation documentation. In other words, the baseline data. So I understand what the compliance requirement of that system is. If necessary, they should request to the person, if it's not clear, they should request to the person they're contracted to do the work for, i.e. ultimately the building owner or the system owner that they might need to get the fire engineer to provide some further input, if necessary. And particularly if there are any aspects which may be difficult to maintain, often particularly in operating buildings, it might be difficult to carry out invasive testing such as emergency warning testing or significant flow testing where lots of water will be dumped. So that may require further fire engineers input into how those things can be tested throughout the life of the building without disrupting normal building operation too greatly. And then finally, ensuring that maintenance logs are adequate for the civic outcome. So once again, standard logbooks by their definition standard and they relate to tasks and frequencies that are for normal deemed dissatisfied systems. But I've seen it more often than not that sometimes a performance solution might rely on increased maintenance frequencies or it might rely on checking of things that wouldn't normally be checked under a normal deemed dissatisfied maintenance ranging. So once again, it's pretty important to make sure that the maintenance logs reflect the requirements of the performance-based design outcomes. So if we summarise, essentially that's the key outcomes. I suppose the key points that I want to leave everyone with today from the fire protection practitioners particularly, but for all participants is that the fire safety verification method is essentially a process and it's a process which includes all stakeholders, including fire protection practitioners, but other building designers and other people that need to maintain the building. So that's the first point. The second point is communication. Hopefully I've said it once, said it twice and said it now a third time. It's paramount. Two-way communication is critical. Fire protection practitioners need to play an active role. We can't sit back and be passive. We've got to be active in this process and make sure that we have our say and that we come up with outcomes that are practical to implement and to maintain. Thirdly, documentation. So that's part of I guess that's the written communication and that's even more vital to make sure that that information is passed down through all stages. So right through from design, installation commissioning, certification, inspection, testing and maintenance. And then finally is that cost-effective solutions is the primary objective, not a cheap building. So performance-based design is about coming up with safe cost-effective solutions, not just what's the cheapest thing we can build and get away with, I guess is the attitude that sometimes pervades what we do, not always, but ultimately keeping that in the back of mind that community safety is the utmost importance in all of this. So with that said, that's my talk. Thanks, Jeff. And finally, I'll pass on to Mark Wabra from AFAC who will be writing the fire authorities perspective on their interactions with the fire safety verification method. Great. Thank you, Alex. And thank you to the Australian Building Codes Board for giving me the opportunity to add a fire services perspective on the FSVM. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Assistant Commissioner at Community Safety for Fire and Rescue in New South Wales, as well as being the chair of the AFAC Build Environment Technical Group, which tries to get fire services together and national consistency to our approach to fire safety issues. As we've heard today, the National Construction Code will now have a requirement that the solution provided by the FSVM must now be comparable to the same building or a similar building with the DTS provisions. Fire services do like DTS provisions because it's a degree of certainty. That said, performance has been in the Australian construction industry since 1996, I think Paul mentioned. So we're in 25 years. And performance is something that fire services have seen the best and possibly the worst of. The FSVM must be equal to or safer than the DTS result. And that's an important thing. We do appreciate that this will require additional work and reviewing and competence in the practitioners that will be providing these solutions. But it will enable a more informed holistic safety comparison and therefore a better result for the occupants of the building and responding fire crews. And that's an important point because the fire crews are turning up at a building that an emergency has occurred in and they want to know that they're safe in their place of work, which is what the building becomes in an incident. Any design using the FSVM will still have to go through the same approvals process, but you like the fire service. And that exists now for any performance solution. It's not an automatic acceptance. And it does not have the same acceptance as code mark, for example. It is a requirement for the FSVM to use all relevant sections of the methodology. And that if any stakeholder has a contrary view or does not approve of the design or the process, then this must be documented and attached to the proposal when submitted for approval. At the same time as the FSVM is being implemented, AFAC is also undertaking another project looking at the review of the International Fire Engineering Guidelines. That's a welcome step from AFAC's perspective. And we will be collaborating closely with ABCB in that particular review. Also, in preparation for the enactment of the verification method on the 1st of May, AFAC is currently reviewing the Fire Brigades Intervention Model, FSVM, and that's scheduled to be released to be ready for the implementation in May. The FSVM is supported by all AFAC agencies. We understand that it may require us to do more work. And certainly, when I mentioned before about competence of the practitioners who will be doing in this space, that includes fire services. Hopefully, we will all lift our level of performance, no pun intended, and that we'll be able to collaborate to get the right result for the occupants, the community, and the industry. And that is safer buildings. Although AFAC supported the FSVM, there were some discussions around some of the aspects of it, including data. But AFAC believes that if we all act with good faith, then any varying opinions can be sorted out in the fire engineering brief process. The fire services are a key stakeholder, as we've heard, and expect to be involved in the process as per the NCC provisions. But the extent of the fire services involvement will be decided once a proposal is reviewed. It may be that it's something that we want to have a deep dive into and collaborate closely with the design team, or it may be something that we're quite satisfied with the approach being taken by the practitioners. Fire services understand that the use of the FSVM is not mandatory, and there are other methodologies and pathways to achieve a safe building, as per the NCC performance provision. Regardless of the methodology used, though, fire services are expecting to be consulted as a key stakeholder, and we certainly look forward to working with you, as I said, to make safer buildings. Finally, currently the fire services around Australia and New Zealand are reviewing their approach to their regulatory role. What is the future role of fire services in Australia? That's come about partly because of the FSVM, but also in respect of fulfilling some of the objectives of the Shergoll-Weir Report building conference that was prepared for the Building Ministers Forum. Certainly from an AFAC perspective, this will include focusing on service delivery, national consistency, but I'm sure the industry understands that each of the fire services operate under slightly different legislative requirements, and therefore there may be some distance differences between the way states and territories handle it. The last thing I'd like to put in a plug for is the Warren Centre project on professionalising fire safety engineering. I talked before about the need for all practitioners in the industry to be properly qualified, experienced, skilled and accredited. Certainly the work of the Warren Centre is helping guiding some of that conversation in your industry. So thank you for the opportunity again and I'll hand back to Alex. Thank you, Mark. We appreciate AFAC being present for these webinars and your input into them. We're on to the question portion of today's webinar. At this point, we haven't had any questions logged with us. I'll give it an extra minute to see if any come in. In that space, I'd just like to run everyone through some additional resources on the fire safety verification method we have available. Paul mentioned two of the main ones in his presentation, which is the handbook and their associated data sheets. These are currently out in preview versions, but they will be moved to finalised versions as we move to the awards one May transition date and the fire safety verification method becoming a valid pathway within the NCC. Apart from them, we also have a webinar on our YouTube channel, which was from middle of last year as an awareness webinar. Please feel free to go have a look at that. That'll provide you some more detail. We also have a frequently asked questions document on our website, which provides some input on some of the common questions we've received about the fire safety verification method across our consultation over the past 12 to 18 months. Now we're moving into the closing part of today. No questions have come through yet. We appreciate everyone tuning in and hope this has been a very informative presentation. We would very much appreciate your feedback and on closing of this webinar, a link for a survey will appear. We would appreciate everyone could fill that in and help us gather some information on how useful this is and also other support materials that may assist with the adoption of the fire safety verification method. Thank you again for tuning in and look forward to producing some more material for you in the future.