write-once message input

Additional functionality must not come at the cost of increased complexity; public warning systems must be easy to use. To this end, public warning systems should be as automated as possible, supporting multiple recipients, multiple channels, multiple hazards, multiple stakeholder groups, multiple senders, and multiple platforms / applications, without requiring any emergency warning to be written more than once. Any increase in operational complexity has the potential to introduce errors, with the cost potentially measured in lives.

Message consistency is important. All messages are subject to interpretation by recipient citizens, and citizens look to other sources for validation. When different sources provide different variations on a message – even in wording only – the message can be diluted rather than reinforced. For this reason FESA has an agreement with ABC radio to read bushfire bulletins on the air verbatim. Bureau of Meteorology staff recount incidents of commercial Disk Jockeys transforming cyclone warnings into casual, between-track banter, reducing their effectiveness. Although it cannot in the end control the delivery of an on-air presenter, a "write-once" system does help to preserve consistency across channels.

Hazard notification messages must also be consistent, both within a single message and across different messages. Messages should also be consistent in describing the actions being taken. For example, a message telling respondents to remain indoors and await further information is of little help if the respondents observe that families of community emergency personnel are leaving their residences. It is important to avoid any inconsistencies across different messages. As the crisis progresses and more is learned about the potential hazard(s), hazard notification updates should be issued. These updated notification messages in turn must be consistent with the previous notification messages. (Vogt and Sorensen 1994)"In most cases, the first reaction to a warning, if it has not been expected, is to try and confirm its validity. One way this is carried out is by observing the behaviour of others. The failure to see them behaving in an alarmed manner may lead to a discounting of the warning as a mistake, misunderstanding, or overreaction. Attempts to validate the information may take the form of phone calls to relatives, friends, or public safety agencies. Another common response is to turn on the radio or TV for further information. Validation can also take the form of assessing the warning in the context of environmental cues" (Auf der Heide 1989)

Hearing repeated warnings increases the likelihood of taking protective action. Consistency of the warning information from different sources enhances its effect. When different sources of information convey similar information about the threat, persons trying to confirm the warning are more likely to heed it. The greater the number of different warning sources, the larger the number of people contacted. (Auf der Heide 1989)

United Nations C174 Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents Convention, 1993

While Australia has not ratified any Occupational Health and Safety Conventions to date, the UN Convention C174 on Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents Convention is relevant as a benchmark of best practice and the NSW Department of Commerce Industrial Relations has pressed for urgent action towards ratification (NSW Department of Commerce Office of Industrial Relations 2001). Article 16 of that convention states:

"The competent authority shall ensure that:

(a) information on safety measures and the correct behaviour to adopt in the case of a major accident is disseminated to members of the public liable to be affected by a major accident without their having to request it and that such information is updated and redisseminated at appropriate intervals (General Conference of the International Labour Organization 1993)."