I am full of admiration for the bushfire response. But there are communities that are well into recovery and the systems are wanting. The brilliant, life-saving work of ABC News has helped save lives, now I encourage reporters to look at how communities are rebuilding and how millions of dollars of donations are being disbursed. I argue that emergency preparedness for recovery is under-done, under-resourced and inequitable. As climate change increases the likelihood of more emergencies we need to get better at planning post-disaster community renewal.
Rick Stone, Managing Director, Tigertail Australia
I've been working in emergency management for decades, including ten years as the training manager for the NSW State Emergency Service and five years as principal emergency planning officer for NSW. I am never surprised at the selfless competence and sheer effort put in by emergency responders dealing with bushfires, floods storms and other emergencies. They do an amazing job, largely because of good emergency preparedness. Preparedness includes recruiting, equipping and training career and volunteer staff; understanding and mitigating risk where possible; and planning to manage residual risks. Response agencies are pretty good at this. They know about risk management. They spend lots of time training for when they might be needed. They test their procedures and practise how they will respond. They develop plans with clear priorities for using their inevitably scarce resources. Response actions are equitable and prioritised on the consequences of losing an asset. You don't see the RFS doing a means test or cost:benefit analysis on which houses they will protect. Everyone has access to the same service and nobody really counts the cost until afterwards.
Recovery, I'm afraid - not so much.
My best friend Lorna (who worked as a senior manager for NSW SES for 30+ years) and her husband retired to the NSW South Coast three years ago. On NYE they lost their home and small alpaca herd. Not long after midnight this morning I spent an hour on the phone with my friend crying. She and Hunter are self-funded retirees, asset rich but income poor. They're resilient and smart. Even though they now have no assets, they've found rental accommodation. They had to stump up ten weeks' rent (four for bond and six because they have not previously rented). After an hour on the phone at Centrelink to prove her identity (having never needed that agency's service before) the $1000 disaster relief payment was arranged. At the Recovery Centre no further assistance was available. "You've already done everything and you don't meet the eligibility criteria. But here's a can of dog food for you pet." She's stopped looking at Facebook because her feed is full of calls for donations - but how are these donations being disbursed? What are the eligibility criteria? How does she find out? How does she apply? Red Cross make it clear, as do the banks and many insurance companies, all of whom are to be commended for their response and communication. But more broadly, how does a traumatised survivor benefit from people's generosity? Where's the relief grants portal? It seems the (well-meaning) staff on the ground don't have the information.
Planning for emergency response is based on understanding the foreseeable impact and working out how to manage it. Planning for emergency recovery should be exactly the same. Recovery needs are totally foreseeable. There's world-leading doctrine in the Australian Community Recovery Handbook. But there is no commitment from governments to establish and properly resource a standing organisation to manage foreseeable post-disaster needs. Recovery seems to rely on a temporary leaders (usually a serving or ex-police officer, sometimes a senior military officer because... they are skilled in community development and renewal?). Government has no (or very few) people skilled in coordinating recovery work - even though the need for recovery is absolutely predictable - and likely to increase. Most recovery work is out-sourced to dedicated organisations like Red Cross and to local government. While local management and leadership in recovery is totally appropriate - it's high-level support (effectively money) that's wanting. There was plenty of (in my view unwarranted) criticism of poor coordination and slow response while fires were burning, but if you really want to see piecemeal - look at community support after the fire has passed.
Recovery planning is grossly under-rated and under-done.
Is recovery managed equitably? If I don't need to pass a means test for my home to be protected during an emergency response, why should I be means-tested for recovery assistance? Why can the taxpayer spend a $1M every hour on aerial fire-fighting without batting an eyelid, but start penny-pinching when it comes to supporting individuals and small businesses once the fire is out? Why are recovery arrangements so reactive, when the need is so predictable?
The focus on active fire-fighting (flood or storm-damage response) is important and makes for good TV news. But the fire goes out, the flood recedes and the storm passes. The response agencies withdraw. The community, however, will need support for years or decades to renew itself. This is the real post-disaster work. We need to get better at planning for it and doing it because it's peoples' lives and long-term well-being.
