Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Government resilience in times of crisis

By Grant Chisnall - posted Wednesday, 11 May 2011


On May 4, Queensland's flood Inquiry was told a story that could have come straight from a classic television comedy such as Yes Minister.

It heard the saga of an Emergency Service helicopter, sent by State Government officials in Townsville to assist local government personnel battling flood waters in the western town of St George.

It sounds like a perfectly acceptable response, except for this: The municipal leaders of St George didn't ask for a helicopter, they didn't need it and the following day they sent it all the way back to Townsville – unused.

Advertisement

While such stories are easy fodder for critics, particularly in times of crisis, they also serve to highlight the glaring failures of preparation, communications and command that hinder emergency services responses the length and breadth of Australia.

From the Victorian Bushfires to multi-state floods to cyclones in the north and west, recent broad-scale disasters have produced two common outcomes.

The first is great respect for the resilience, spirit and ingenuity of our people. The second, generally, is despair at the lack of resilience, spirit and ingenuity shown by our governments and the lack of coordination across and among governments and agencies in times of crisis.

Time and again we hear stories of government officials – particularly at the local level – battling disaster without a clear understanding of their responsibilities and powers compared with state governments and their agencies.

We see government and community agencies – the SES is a case in point – that perform invaluable services during crisis, but often without a clearly defined role. For some organisations, the role varies from state to state and sometimes within states.

In the case of Emergency Management Australia, despite its grandiose title, it has no stated role in an emergency. It is responsible only for policy.

Advertisement

These issues combined with an over-the-top focus on counter-terrorism – as opposed to counter-disaster – planning mean that our response to natural disasters continues to be inadequate.

Admittedly "government bashing" is the oldest – and perhaps easiest – sport in the land, but in this case there is plenty of evidence from the recent summer of disaster to support it.

Because, despite decades of talk about emergency management, our recent history of disasters includes a range of areas where government preparation has been shown time and again to be simply not up to scratch, in turn hindering their ability to respond. These areas include:

  • Lack of central coordination of emergency operations, with two or even three levels of government needed to manage even basic responses in many areas;

  • Unclear command, control and coordination arrangements for critical infrastructure, leaving emergency management agencies unsure of who is in charge;

  • "Silos" among governments and departments around their prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (PPRR) arrangements; and

  • Uncertainty around public and internal communications protocols.

These institutional failings are compounded by the fact that government does not give clear guidance to industry or operators of critical infrastructure on the emergency preparedness arrangements, the communications linkages and the command and control arrangements that the entities should tie into in the event of an emergency.

In answer to the many questions and complaints about the Queensland floods – including critically whether SEQ Water contributed to the flooding – that state's government has convened the Commission of Inquiry mentioned at the start of this article.

However, already questions have been raised over the limited terms of reference given to the Commissioners by the State Government, and whether public servants are under pressure not to criticise the government's systems and responses.

Despite its promises of a full investigation, the government is less answerable to the public for the adequacy of its preparations – than a private company in the same situation would be.

What other conclusion can be drawn from the initial decision of Natural Resources Minister Stephen Robertson to cite Parliamentary Privilege as a reason to withhold vital documents from the Commission?

If this is the government's attitude at the start of the inquiry, what faith can the community have that they will make any meaningful changes to the way they operate as a result of the inquiry's findings?

We've seen plenty of these inquiries in the past. What we have rarely seen is real action from State and Federal Governments to change the way they prepare for natural disasters.

To make a lasting difference this time, the inquiry must look at more than the actions of the government departments and agencies at the time of the flood. It must analyse the organisational framework the government employs to manage the day-to-day business of its own utilities and agencies.

It must look at who is actually in control, and address these constant questions around

command, coordination and communication that continue to hinder whole of government responses to natural disasters.

And all levels of government in all states must pay attention to the findings, in order to ensure they do better in future crises.

Politicians like to talk about how "resilient" Australians are in times of crisis. This is true, but it's largely in spite of the efforts of our governments, rather than because of them.

If politicians want to take credit for the response to an incident, it's time that they matched this rhetoric with clear action before an incident.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

1 post so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Grant Chisnall is a director of global emergency management firm Dynamiq. He is an expert in the development and implementation of robust business resilience solutions for a variety of organisations ranging from local government to global companies, across a range of market sectors.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 1 comment
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy