Australian Journal of Emergency Management

Department of Home Affairs Australian Journal of Emergency Management VOLUME 36 NO. 1 JANUARY 2021 ISSN: 1324 1540 NEWS AND VIEWS ꢀREPORTS ꢀRESEARCH Forcasꢀng and warnings Using community voice to build a new naꢀonal warnings system Forecasꢀng the impacts of severe weather <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Pages 11 – 21 </li><li style="flex:1">Page 50 </li><li style="flex:1">Page 76 </li></ul>SUPPORTING A DISASTER RESILIENT AUSTRALIA Changes to forcasting and warnings systems improve risk reduction <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">About the journal </li><li style="flex:1">Circulaꢀon </li></ul>The Australian Journal of Emergency Management is Australia’s premier journal in emergency management. Its format and content are developed with reference to peak emergency management organisaꢁons and the emergency management sectors—naꢁonally and internaꢁonally. The journal focuses on both the academic and pracꢁꢁoner reader. Its aim is to strengthen capabiliꢁes in the sector by documenꢁng, growing and disseminaꢁng an emergency management body of knowledge. The journal strongly supports the role of the Australian Insꢁtute for Disaster Resilience as a naꢁonal centre of excellence for knowledge and skills development in the emergency management sector. Papers are published in all areas of emergency management. The journal encourages empirical reports but may include specialised theoreꢁcal, methodological, case study and review papers and opinion pieces. The views in the journal are not necessarily the views of the Australian Government, Australian Insꢁtute for Disaster Resilience or its partners. Approximate circulaꢁon (print and electronic): 5500. Copyright Arꢁcles in the Australian Journal of Emergency Management are provided under a Creaꢁve Commons Aꢂribuꢁon Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence that allows reuse subject only to the use being non-commercial and to the arꢁcle being fully aꢂributed (<a href="/goto?url=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" target="_blank">creaꢁvecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0</a>). © Australian Insꢁtute for Disaster Resilience 2021. Permissions informaꢁon for use of AJEM content can be found a<a href="/goto?url=http://knowledge.adir.org.au/ajem/permissions" target="_blank">t hꢂp://knowledge.aidr.org.au/ajem </a>Submissions The Australian Journal of Emergency Management welcomes submissions for News and Views and Research arꢁcles. The Contributors’ Guidelines are available a<a href="/goto?url=https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/collections/australian-journal-of-emergency-management/" target="_blank">t knowledge.aidr.org.au/ajem</a>. The guidelines provide word limits for arꢁcles. Submissions exceeding those limits will be returned to authors. Arꢁcles are to be submiꢂed as a Word file. High resoluꢁon photographs, graphs and tables should be submiꢂed in their original soﬅware applicaꢁons as separate files. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that this publicaꢁon may contain images of deceased people. Publisher The Australian Journal of Emergency Management is published by the Australian Insꢁtute for Disaster Resilience with financial assistance from the Australian Government. The journal is published <a href="/goto?url=http://www.knowledge.aidr.org.au" target="_blank">online at www.knowledge.aidr.org.au. </a>Research arꢁcles must contain an abstract, university ethics statement as appropriate and a short biographical paragraph about each author. A Copyright Release form and the Editorial Policy are available on the website. Authors should familiarise themselves with the journal before making a submission. Contribuꢁons should be forwarded electronically to [email protected]. All research arꢁcles are peer reviewed. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management is indexed by several indexing organisaꢁons. Editorial Advisory Board Details of members of the advisory board are provided on the website at hꢂps://knowledge.aidr.org.au/collecꢁons/australianjournal-of-emergency-management/. Subscripꢀons Online access to all content is available free. Subscribe to the journal at <a href="/goto?url=https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/collections/australian-journal-of-emergency-management/" target="_blank">knowledge.aidr.org.au/ajem. </a>Guest Editor-in-Chief Emeritus Professor Frank Archer, Monash University Print copies can be ordered online a<a href="/goto?url=https://aidr.valiantpress.com.au/" target="_blank">t hꢂps://aidr.valiantpress.com. </a><a href="/goto?url=https://aidr.valiantpress.com.au/" target="_blank">au/ f</a>or $30.00* per ediꢁon (includes postage within Australia) or get all four ediꢁons printed and posted for $100.00* per annum. Editorial Commiꢁee Amanda Leck, Australian Insꢁtute for Disaster Resilience Zoe Mounsey, Fire and Emergency New Zealand Zoe Kenyon, Australian Insꢁtute for Disaster Resilience Chrisꢁne Belcher, Managing Editor *Prices are in AUD and exclude GST. Contact us <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Mail: </li><li style="flex:1">Australian Journal of Emergency Management </li></ul>Australian Insꢁtute for Disaster Resilience Producꢀon Design, typeseꢃng and producꢁon: Catrin Harris and Emily Fraser Print and distribuꢁon: Valiant Press Level 1, 340 Albert Street East Melbourne Victoria 3002 Cover image: The Driveway Project - Nikki Woods. Winner 2020 Resilient Australia Naꢁonal Photography Award. Image: Nikki Woods Email: <a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank">[email protected] </a><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Phone: </li><li style="flex:1">+61 3 9419 2388 </li></ul>Peer reviewers The AJEM Editorial Commiꢂee recognises the efforts of researchers and pracꢁꢁoners who serve as peer reviewers of arꢁcles submiꢂed to the journal. Peer reviewers play an essenꢁal role in ensuring the quality of research published. Their contribuꢁon is criꢁcal to the success of the journal and, more importantly, to the field of emergency management and disaster resilience. Contents Reports News and views The Royal Commission and the Australian Consꢁtuꢁon Foreword Tony Pearce 4Dr Michael Eburn 5 44 50 60 64 Australian Warning System Australia’s intergovernmental agreement on bushfires, floods and extreme events Anthony Clark 11 Dr Ray Canterford, Mark Crosweller and Chris Beaꢂe Research to improve community warnings for bushfire Using community voice to build a new naꢁonal warnings system for Australia Dr Joshua Whiꢁaker and Anthony Clark 13 15 17 Peta O’Donohue and Fiona Dunstan Hope for our future generaꢁons Marta Yebra The total flood warning system: a review of the concept Australia’s Black Summer heatwave impacts Neil Duﬅy John Nairn CF, Dr Maꢁ Beaty and Dr Blesson M Varghese Tesꢁng the effecꢁveness of your warning system without having a flood The New South Wales air quality alert system: a brief history Andrew Northfield, Michael Cawood and Hench Wang Maꢁhew Riley 21 25 26 How to improve alert systems: the technical, human, environmental and structural aspects Queensland invesꢁgates contemporary review methods Esteban Bopp, Dr Béatrice Gisclard, Professor Johnny Douvinet, Professor Karine Weiss and Gilles Marꢀn Alistair Dawson 67 New technology boosꢁng early warning capability in New Zealand Sarah Stuart-Black Why some people don’t respond to warnings: wriꢁng effecꢁve short warning messages Research Dr Sally Poꢁer 29 31 An Australian alternaꢁve to alerts Forecasꢁng the impacts of severe weather Gavin Bernstein Dr Serena Schroeter, Dr Harald Richter, Dr Craig Arthur, Dr David Wilke, Mark Dunford, Marꢀn Wehne r a nd Dr Elizabeth Ebert Shiﬅing the paradigm: emergency management to disaster risk management in Tonga 76 84 92 Suresh Pokharel 32 Implicaꢁons of arꢁficial intelligence for bushfire management Dr Seyed Ashkan Zargham i a nd Dr Jantanee Dumrak Emergency management evaluaꢁons: beyond the lessons-learned paradigm Emeritus Professor Frank Archer, Dr Caroline Spencer, Dudley McArdle, Dr Suzanne Cross and Professor Leanne Boyd Facebook as an official communicaꢁon channel in a crisis Susan Atkinson, Dr Chris Kim and Dr Jee Young Lee 33 35 43 Resilience rewarded as projects meet challenges of unique year Alana Beitz Book Review: The Principles of Effecꢁve Warnings Contribuꢁons in the Research secꢁon of the Australian Journal of Emergency Management are peer reviewed to appropriate academic standards by independent, qualified reviewers. Reviewed by Julia Becker NEWS AND VIEWS Foreword Recognising the importance of the subject matter it was a pleasure to be invited to contribute to this edition of the Australian Journal of Emergency Management on the topic of warnings. The Australian journey regarding warnings has been a long one, and while the concept of a naꢁonal warning system had been under consideraꢁon for some ꢁme, momentum really started to gain pace following the development, tesꢁng and analysis of the Community Informaꢁon and Warning System in Victoria in 2004. While the systems, processes and technology used for the trial were ahead of their ꢁme, Australia has not sat on its laurels. Since then, Australia has developed and implemented a naꢁonal warning system, Emergency Alert, which has progressed in leaps and bounds. Having a technologically advanced warning system is one thing, however, its capacity to provide enhanced community safety outcomes relies on more than just technology. Community awareness of risk is important to ensure that warnings are received in context and community educaꢁon about the purpose, capacity and limitaꢁons of the system is important. It is crucial that a warning system be more than just a method of providing a call to acꢁon. It also needs to provide ꢁmely and accurate informaꢁon to assist in community decisionmaking as, aﬅer all, we are increasingly expecꢁng communiꢁes to share responsibility for their safety outcomes. Tony Pearce Inspector-General for Emergency Management Victoria Permissions informaꢀon for use of this content can be found at hꢁps://knowledge. aidr.org.au/ajem It would come as no surprise that the issue of warnings and public informaꢁon comes up frequently in inquiries. In the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission and numerous inquiries since including, most recently, the independent Inquiry into the 2019–20 Victorian Fire Season, the Royal Commission into Naꢁonal Natural Disaster Arrangements and the independent bushfire inquiries in New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland, the issue of how to improve capacity to provide ꢁmely and meaningful warnings and public informaꢁon arises. In response to this scruꢁny, and with a natural desire for conꢁnuous improvement, it is fair to say that the emergency management sector conꢁnues to work hard to improve what has been developed. Improvement is based on experience of an increasing frequency and duraꢁon of emergencies that present increased complexity, reveal greater community need and create a greater expectaꢁon of warning systems that are all things to all people. Warning and informaꢁon systems are integral as part of a broader funcꢁonal community safety system. Ongoing research, educaꢁon and appropriate investment are enablers to conꢁnuous improvement in this criꢁcal space. No system is perfect, and we will always, through a combinaꢁon of planned improvement acꢁvity and the inevitable inquiries, find ways to do it beꢂer. As I frequently say when conducꢁng inquiries, ‘Anything that hurts you can teach you, and if it keeps hurꢁng you it’s because you haven’t learnt’. This applies equally to the improvement of warning systems as it does any other emergency management acꢁvity. I look forward to seeing further advances in the provision of warnings and informaꢁon in the future. 4© 2021 Australian Insꢀtute for Disaster Resilience REPORT The Royal Commission and the Australian Constitution Dr Michael Eburn This paper reviews some recommendations from the 2020 Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements (the Royal Commission). The Royal Commission delivered a nearly 600-page report that contained 80 recommendations. This paper does not review each of those recommendations but focuses on the constitutional and legislative considerations as they relate to recommendations about the proposed role of the Commonwealth in coordinating interstate resource sharing, the power of the Australian Government to declare a national state of emergency and the enhanced used of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in disaster response. Barrister, Honorary Associate Professor ANU College of Law Canberra Permissions informaꢀon for use of this content can be found at hꢁps://knowledge. aidr.org.au/ajem Resource Sharing Centre (NRSC) and the Naꢁonal Aerial Firefighꢁng Centre (NAFC). Up unꢁl now, it has been AFAC that has coordinated resource sharing and the movement of personnel and resources across interstate and internaꢁonal borders. The Royal Commission (2020, [3.70]) Recommendation 3.6 Enhanced national preparedness and response entity The Royal Commission was tasked with inquiring into, inter alia, ‘the responsibiliꢁes of, and coordinaꢁon between, the Commonwealth and State, Territory and local Governments relaꢁng to preparedness for, response to, resilience to, and recovery from, natural disasters…’ (Hurley 2020). The commission recommended: noted that: Each of CCOSC, NRSC and NAFC has evolved and expanded to respond to emerging needs in emergency management, responding to gaps and the evoluꢀon of emergency response in the face of significant natural disasters. They have done so incrementally, with the objecꢀve of enhancing emergency management across Australia, noꢀng AFAC’s focus on a parꢀcular subset of disasters. The Australian Government should enhance naꢀonal preparedness for, and response to, natural disasters, building on the responsibiliꢀes of Emergency Management Australia, to include facilitaꢀng resource sharing decisions of governments and stress tesꢀng naꢀonal disaster plans. Note: The reference to a ‘subset of disasters’ related to the fact that AFAC and the CCOSC are made up of various fire agencies and State Emergency Services and so have a focus on the work of those agencies, being fires, floods and storms. AFAC does not play a coordinaꢁng role in any other type of disaster that has or may occur. With respect to the sharing and coordinaꢁon of resources during a response to an emergency, and in parꢁcular bushfires, the Royal Commission idenꢁfied the role of the Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Authoriꢁes Council (AFAC) and, within AFAC, the Commissioners and Chief Officers Strategic Commiꢂee (CCOSC), the Naꢁonal The Royal Commission (2020, [3.93]) noted that the Australian Government’s coordinaꢁng body is the Naꢁonal Crisis Commiꢂee (NCC). The: Australian Journal of Emergency ManagementꢀVolume 36ꢀNo. 1ꢀJanuary 2021 5REPORT principle of Australian consꢁtuꢁonalism that Australia is a federaꢁon made up of the states and a federal government. The states are independent enꢁꢁes, not created by nor subject to the Commonwealth, except as provided in the Australian Consꢁtuꢁon (Melbourne Corporaꢀon v Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31, discussed in more detail below). It follows that even if the Australian Government establishes a federal coordinaꢁng body, it would have no power to compel the states and territories to work through that office. … NCC is recognised in the AGCMF [Australian Government Crisis Management Framework] as being the appropriate crisis commiꢁee to facilitate cooperaꢀon and coordinaꢀon between the Australian Government and the relevant states and territory government(s) in response to domesꢀc crises. The AGCMF, then, and now, recognises CCOSC but states that ‘CCOSC’s role in Australian Government crisis management arrangements is limited to informaꢀon sharing on operaꢀonal maꢁers during significant events’. Given that the states and territories are independent, the suggested arrangements will only work if the states and territories believe it will add value to exisꢁng arrangements. The commissioners did not suggest that ‘the Australian Government (or another jurisdicꢁon for that maꢂer) should have the ability to command or requisiꢁon another state or territory government’s resources’ ([3.76] and the ‘Australian Government would only facilitate interstate and internaꢁonal deployments aﬅer the Australian, state and territory governments make decisions about their own resources’ ([3.160]). If the Australian Government cannot commandeer assets, even in ‘the naꢁonal interest’, and will only get involved aﬅer states and territories have made their own decisions, which could include resource sharing decisions, it is unclear what the recommendaꢁon would add. Even so ‘CCOSC appeared to funcꢁon in lieu of the NCC during the 2019–2020 bushfires’ ([3.94]) The CCOSC met at least 9 ꢁmes whereas the NCC met only twice ([3.92]). At [3.164] the Royal Commission said: The Australian Government should assume, and make, standing arrangements for, the coordinaꢀon and procurement funcꢀons of NAFC and NRSC. With respect to the commissioners, their recommendaꢁon appears doctrinal with a view of the role of government and the Commonwealth rather than a clear exposiꢁon of why the Australian Government making ‘standing arrangements for, the coordinaꢁon and procurement funcꢁons of NAFC and NRSC’ would work beꢂer than the arrangements currently in place, with state agencies working collaboraꢁvely with their interstate and, in the case of wildland fire, internaꢁonal colleagues. The raꢁonale for their recommendaꢁon was ([3.109]–[3.110]): The Royal Commission also noted (at [3.106]–[3.107]) that ‘AFAC and some state and territory government agencies’ have concerns about the commission’s recommendaꢁon. Further, the NSW Independent Inquiry into the 2019-2020 Bushfires expressed concerns, suggesꢁng: Discussions and decisions that facilitate consideraꢀon of naꢀonal policies and the sharing of government resources in natural disasters should fall within the clear auspices of governments. … that changes to this overarching structure would lead to greater bureaucraꢀsaꢀon of AFAC funcꢀons, which in turn could have a negaꢀve impact on exisꢀng flexibility and responsiveness. The [NSW] Inquiry notes that NAFC and NRSC funcꢀons are largely operaꢀonally focussed, and that moving away from the current model may be perceived as contrary to the widely accepted principle that combat agencies are best placed to determine operaꢀonal requirements. The funcꢀons performed by NRSC and NAFC should be subject to public sector accountability and oversight, to provide greater public confidence. And at [3.156] ‘… the Australian Government is well posiꢁoned to coordinate and integrate a greater range of resources beyond just fire and emergency service resources’. And, while it may show a certain cynicism, it’s not clear why a federal government authority would be beꢂer posiꢁoned to coordinate and integrate resources more than the people who own the resources and who have responsibility for actually deploying those resources on the ground. If one can draw an analogy, the situaꢁon is akin to wanꢁng to borrow a hammer. You could go next door and ask your neighbour or go to the Hammer Sharing Office and ask the Hammer Coordinaꢁon Officer to ask your neighbour if you can borrow their hammer. No maꢂer how well-run the Hammer Sharing Office is, neighbours can sꢁll ask each other for what they want. And, in the emergency services sector, the agencies in AFAC have established relaꢁonships that are key to effecꢁve coordinaꢁon. The Australian Government could establish a body to perform the funcꢁons currently performed by the NRSC and NAFC but it is not clear why that would ‘provide greater public confidence’. That outcome would require the public to have greater confidence in Australian Government bureaucrats, rather than fire and emergency chief officers. This is a proposiꢁon that, albeit without evidence, I suspect is controversial. Former NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons is the New South Wales 2021 Australian of the Year and Professor Brendan Murphy who iniꢁally led the Australian Government’s response to the COVID19 pandemic, is the Australian Capital Territory 2021 Australian of the Year (Naꢁonal Australia Day Council 2020). This suggests no lack of confidence in operaꢁonal leaders. The recommendaꢁons in Chapter 3 went well beyond resource sharing during operaꢁonal ꢁmes and looked at the enꢁre spectrum from prevenꢁon to recovery and the development of resilience within the Australian community. This discussion Further, and with respect to the royal commissioners, it is not at all clear how this recommendaꢁon would work or what it would add, at least in the context of fire and floods. It is a fundamental 6© 2021 Australian Insꢀtute for Disaster Resilience REPORT cannot do jusꢁce to the enꢁre recommendaꢁons in that chapter, but it is argued that the recommendaꢁon that the Australian Government ‘should assume, and make, standing arrangements for, the coordinaꢁon and procurement funcꢁons of NAFC and NRSC’ is controversial, consꢁtuꢁonally problemaꢁc and is not supported by evidence that during 2019–2020 there was any failing by NAFC or the NRSC or that the Australian Government would do a beꢂer job. Rather, that parꢁcular recommendaꢁon seems to be driven by a doctrinal belief in the role of government, and a federal government in parꢁcular. A claim that transferring decision-making during heightened operaꢁons from operaꢁonal leaders to the Australian Government would ‘provide greater public confidence’ is, I suggest, at best opꢁmisꢁc. Others, including the author of this paper (Eburn 2011) conꢁnued

Australian Journal of Emergency Management

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support