A major report into Natural Disasters landed last week in Australia. Just how major may not become apparent for some time, whilst its 80 recommendations and plethora of observations are digested, but deep into its 594-pages there’s a strong clue. There have more than 240 previous inquiries related to natural disasters in Australia, but this one is the only Royal Commission to be convened into Australia’s natural disaster arrangements at a national level. The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements will set the agenda within Australia for many years to come, and will be of great interest in many countries where parallel challenges are being faced to those that Australia was grappling with during the 2019/2020 Southern Hemisphere summer.
For those not familiar with Royal Commissions: they are the highest level of ad-hoc formal public inquiry that can be held in Australia and some other monarchies. They carry great expectations, have strong powers, and are not called for trivial reasons. Royal Commissions have ranged over topics such as financial mismanagement, civil rights abuses, nuclear testing, and taxation arrangements, and usually arise following strong public concern.
That the 2019/2020 summer was of significance in Australia was never in doubt. The word of the summer, before COVID started to trouble the world, was ‘unprecedented’. The hottest and driest year on record in Australia created horrific bushfire conditions, with fire seasons starting far earlier than usual, over 24 million hectares burnt, 33 deaths, over 3000 homes destroyed, and nearly three billion animals killed or displaced. Smoke blanketed parts of Australia for week after week, likely contributing to hundreds more deaths and thousands of hospital admissions. The fires attracted international attention and triggered a flood of gratefully received donations. Many countries rendered assistance, for which Australia was also grateful. The emergency services sector and public responded magnificently, but communities everywhere were stretched to breaking point.
What did it cover?
Wisely, the Australian Government decided that now, of all times, the country needed to look at the big picture. The terms of reference included:
- the responsibilities of, and coordination between, Australian, state, territory and local governments relating to natural disasters
- Australia’s arrangements for improving resilience and adapting to changing climatic conditions
- what actions should be taken to mitigate the impacts of natural disasters, and
- whether changes are needed to Australia’s legal framework for the involvement of the Commonwealth in responding to national emergencies.
(text in italics is directly quoted from the report)
By considering the mechanics of natural hazard management in Australia through the lens of such of a vivid disaster, the Commission was given not just immediacy (responding to societal needs to talk through what happened), but the chance of making an impact.
And make an impact they will. The recommendations are wide-ranging, covering:
- National coordination arrangements (6 recommendations)
- Supporting better decisions (7 recommendations)
- A new power for the Australian Government to declare a national emergency (1 recommendation)
- Improvements to the national emergency response capability (6 recommendations)
- The role of the Australian Defence Force (3 recommendations)
- National aerial firefighting capabilities and arrangements (3 recommendations)
- Essential services (5 recommendations)
- Community education (1 recommendation)
- Emergency planning (2 recommendations)
- Evacuation planning and shelters (7 recommendations)
- Emergency information and warnings (6 recommendations)
- Air quality (2 recommendations)
- Health (4 recommendations)
- Wildlife and heritage (1 recommendation)
- Public and private land management (3 recommendations)
- Indigenous land and fire management (2 recommendations)
- Land-use planning and building regulation (4 recommendations)
- Insurance (1 recommendation)
- Coordinating relief and recovery (5 recommendations)
- Delivery of recovery services and financial assistance (8 recommendations)
- Assurance and accountability (3 recommendations)
It’s quite a list. Inevitably, it will have missed some important issues, but there is more than enough here to be getting on with.
So what are the juicy bits?
Here’s the thing. When a large, wide-ranging report like this hits the streets, everybody’s going to focus on the bits that matter most to them. It’s very unlikely that anybody else’s summary will convey everything that we ourselves really need to know, so anybody with a real interest should just take a deep breath, set some hours aside, and dive in. There probably won’t be another report like this to read for several decades, so this is worth our time. The Commission’s own overview of the text runs for 116 paragraphs, and that should be the absolute minimum.
That said, here are just a few things to mention…..
Climate…. of course
Much public attention during the summer and its aftermath was focused on climate issues, so the Commission’s commentary on that, based on expert input, was always going to attract interest even when stating the obvious:
Extreme weather has already become more frequent and intense because of climate change; further global warming over the next 20 to 30 years is inevitable. Globally, temperatures will continue to rise, and Australia will have more hot days and fewer cool days. Sea levels are also projected to continue to rise. Tropical cyclones are projected to decrease in number, but increase in intensity. Floods and bushfires are expected to become more frequent and more intense. Catastrophic fire conditions may render traditional bushfire prediction models and firefighting techniques less effective.
Natural disasters are expected to become more complex, more unpredictable, and more difficult to manage. We are likely to see more compounding disasters on a national scale with far-reaching consequences. Compounding disasters may be caused by multiple disasters happening simultaneously, or one after another. Some may involve multiple hazards – fires, floods and storms. Some have cascading effects – threatening not only lives and homes, but also the nation’s economy, critical infrastructure and essential services, such as our electricity, telecommunications and water supply, and our roads, railways and airports.
The Commission also pointed to the evidence received that warming over the immediate timeframe is inevitable and that therefore adaptive measures have to happen regardless; the recommendations that followed were framed around the urgent reality of a warming climate and not whether effective action on climate change would reduce the need to manage disasters better.
A little later in the report, the climate theme gets picked up again, around the need for national climate projections:
Australia does not have an authoritative agreed set of climate change scenarios for the nation nor standardised guidance on how to interpret and use these scenarios consistently… …there is growing national and international interest in understanding and disclosing the impacts of climate change, including hazard and disaster impacts. The finance sector is perhaps the strongest example – where the impact of a changing climate on assets and investments, coupled with changing consumer interests as the world transitions to a lower-carbon economy, mean that the viability of businesses may be at risk.
Recommendation 4.5 National climate projections
Australian, state and territory governments should produce downscaled climate projections: (1) to inform the assessment of future natural disaster risk by relevant decision makers, including state and territory government agencies with planning and emergency management responsibilities, (2) underpinned by an agreed common core set of climate trajectories and timelines, and (3) subject to regular review.
This is further backed up with recommendations on natural hazard impact data standards, collection, and sharing.
Relationships… it’s complicated… and what’s ‘subsidiarity‘ all about?
A major theme is the messy roles of different levels of government, non-government, and related agencies in shared emergency response.
The Commission is quick and clear to affirm that in Australia, state and territory governments have primary responsibility for the protection of life, property and the environment, within their jurisdictions. Much of the text deals with examples of how this plays out, with the considerable expertise, innovation, and inevitable inconsistencies around Australia. Another critical point brought out is that of subsidiarity:
Perhaps the strongest policy reason why state and territory governments should retain primary responsibility stems from the principle of subsidiarity. This principle suggests that risk should be managed by the lowest level of government that is capable of managing it, and emphasises the importance of local knowledge, which is vital to managing natural disasters. Many policies and services should be ‘tailored to meet the needs of people and communities they directly affect’ and account for differences in climate, geography, ecosystems, demography, culture, and resources. While natural disasters on a national scale are likely to become more common, all disasters large and small require a local response. The importance of local knowledge to disaster management, and particularly to disaster response, was emphasised by many people we heard from, including firefighters and the public. State, territory and local governments expressed strong support for the principle, and stressed the need for ‘deep engagement’ with affected communities. A locally-led response was described as ‘one of the strengths of the disaster management system’ and a ‘foundational principle’.
Whilst respecting this important principle, the Commission had to discuss the gaps in outcomes, particularly those where there is no unity or where the Commonwealth was seen as missing in action. In Chapter 3 of the report, dealing with national coordination arrangements, the Commission delicately draws out the roles of the players and the natural tensions between them as they seek to fulfil their duties in the general public interest, before coming to the inevitable point:
This tension of interests between national outcomes and state or territory objectives will become more challenging to manage in the midst of compound disasters. In catastrophic circumstances, when the finite national resources are insufficient, difficult and complex, decisions about resource sharing, including resources funded in whole or in part by the Australian Government, will require regard to whole-of-nation interests. In the extreme, it may involve making choices that prioritise the needs of one or more states or territories over another… National coordination arrangements for natural disasters should facilitate decision-making that takes into account the national interest
So, the Commission trod the careful path of affirming current arrangements, celebrating the good, and proposing new things with a minimum of tearing down the old. And, where it could be accused of promoting a Commonwealth power play, it was careful to outline the reasoning:
A national approach to natural disasters calls for the Australian Government to play a greater role than it currently plays. Generally, the Australian Government should complement, enhance and support the role of the states and territories. It should continue to be focused primarily on areas in which national consistency, coordination and cooperation across jurisdictions would help the states and territories to manage natural disasters more effectively.
However, as discussed further below, the Australian Government also has capabilities and capacities not available to the states and territories. It can play a greater role in assisting the states and territories to respond to and recover from natural disasters on a national scale…. …In most cases, a state or territory government will have requested assistance when needed. However, in some limited circumstances, the Australian Government should be able to take action in response to a natural disaster, whether or not a state has requested assistance. A higher threshold should be required to be met before the Australian Government can take such unilateral action…
….the Australian Government should lead in the development and coordination of long-term, national strategic policy directed at making Australia resilient to natural disasters. It is uniquely placed to see the national picture, the national risks, and the impacts on all Australians. However, like all governments, it should also increase its capacity to address the complex and long-term strategic problems in disaster risk management and resilience.
The Commission recommends the reinvigoration of national ministerial forums at the top level, the establishment of an authoritative disaster advisory body, the integration of disaster management in the Australian Government, a new standing entity for resilience and recovery, and enhanced national preparedness and response.
A new headline grabber – the declaration of national emergency
If there had been any room for doubt on future stress in the first chapters of the Report, the Commission made things clear in addressing national emergency management:
Consecutive and compounding natural disasters will increasingly stress existing emergency management frameworks. These disasters will not always be confined to a single state or territory; they will extend across boundaries and, in more severe cases, will have a truly national impact… The 2019-2020 bushfire season is an early indication of a concerning future, concurrently impacting several states and territories. The bushfires were not the only disaster to impact Australia during that period. The season also saw heatwaves, hailstorms and flooding; all on the back of the crippling drought. In many areas, the combination of these events compounded their effect. These successive hazard events strained existing systems and capacity. It is foreseeable that a future disaster, or compounding disasters, could have a catastrophic impact on a national scale.
Recommendation 5.1 Make provision for a declaration of a state of emergency
The Australian Government should make provision, in legislation, for a declaration of a state of national emergency. The declaration should include the following components: (1) the ability for the Australian Government to make a public declaration to communicate the seriousness of a natural disaster (2) processes to mobilise and activate Australian Government agencies quickly to support states and territories to respond to and recover from a natural disaster, and (3) the power to take action without a state or territory request for assistance in clearly defined and limited circumstances.
It’s individual responsibility… or is it?
Most of us know that the vulnerable parts of society suffer most in disasters, but it’s also common to see a notable lack of sympathy coming from some sectors. The Commission gave us an eloquent reminder of why suffering is disproportionate, and why it is a role of government to help manage structural elements and build community resilience:
….A person’s exposure to natural disasters is not, however, entirely a matter of choice, but rather is affected by many factors outside their control. While responsibility for resilience and disaster risk management is shared between governments, individuals and others, it is often not shared equally. Individuals simply do not control many of the levers needed to reduce their exposure and vulnerability to natural disasters.
For example, while for many Australians, living in the bush or other high-risk areas might be a ‘lifestyle choice’, for others, the choice is not entirely free. Many people must live near where they work; farmers are an obvious example. Children who live with their parents may be exposed to the risks their parents assume. And some people will find that the risk of a natural disaster where they live has grown.
There are other differences in people’s ability to mitigate the risks they face from disasters, aside from where they live. For example, some are better able to build or modify their homes to withstand disasters, or to afford adequate home insurance, or medical care. Some are better able to clear fuel from around their homes, to protect themselves during a disaster, and to recover afterwards.
The decisions people make concerning where they live and how they manage risk are also affected by government decisions and laws. An individual’s decision about where to live, for example, is informed by how governments zone land; their decisions about how to build their homes are informed by government building codes; and the extent to which they can clear fuel and manage their land is constrained by government regulations.
One of the excellent, and potentially far reaching, recommendations related to this topic is the incorporation of natural disaster risk considerations in planning decisions:
Recommendation 19.3 Mandatory consideration of natural disaster risk in land-use planning decisions State, territory and local governments should be required to consider present and future natural disaster risk when making land-use planning decisions for new developments.
Smoke and health
The Commission spent time looking at air quality, a notable weaknesses in Australia’s natural hazard arrangements, and an almost continuous headline during the 2019/20 crisis:
We heard that peer-reviewed research indicated that smoke, from 19 weeks of continuous fire activity, may have contributed up to 429 premature deaths, 3,320 hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions and 1,523 presentations to emergency departments for asthma. That research also suggested that the health costs of smoke exposure from the 2019-2020 bushfires resulted in $1.95 billion in health costs, associated with premature loss of life and admissions to hospitals.
After noting the many issues of consistency and public information available around Australia, the Commission highlighted positive actions such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Wildfire Smoke Guide for Public Health Officials and the recent efforts by Victoria, NSW, the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology to create a smoke plume forecasting capability, the Air Quality Forecasting System:
Recommendation 14.2 National Air Quality Forecasting Capability Australian, state and territory governments should develop national air quality forecasting capabilities, which include broad coverage of population centres and apply to smoke and other airborne pollutants, such as dust and pollen, to predict plume behaviour.
The Commission also looked at broader health issues arising during natural disasters, including national health coordination arrangements, Australian Medical Assistance (AUSMAT) Teams, and highlighted the importance of a well-joined up health system during national emergencies. The AUSMAT teams were set up for international assistance initially, and were deployed for the first time during the 2019-2020 bushfires, inevitably uncovering areas to be improved in health response coordination during the process.
Mental Health
As you would expect, the Commission also had a lot to say about the mental health impacts of natural disasters:
There is compelling evidence of the impacts of natural disasters on mental health. Natural disasters give rise to increased rates of stress, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol and substance abuse, aggression and violence, suicide, and exacerbation of other underlying mental health problems. Individuals may also experience somatic symptoms, disorders where a person has excessive or abnormal feelings or thoughts about physical conditions. People can also suffer from insomnia and broken sleep….
….Some studies have found that up to 39% of emergency responders have been diagnosed with a mental health condition in their life, compared to 20% of all adults in Australia. These effects can also persist over an extended period – one follow-up study of the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires found that a core group of firefighters reported psychiatric disturbance and PTSD symptoms seven years after the event. These effects could potentially extend to the loved ones of those responding to natural disasters.
The related recommendation looks relatively mild (Recommendation 15.3 Prioritising mental health during and after natural disasters Australian, state and territory governments should refine arrangements to support localised planning and the delivery of appropriate mental health services following a natural disaster), but underneath this is a complex and important narrative about improvements that must be made at the local, state and national levels.
Weather and fuel influences on fire
Reflecting yet another hot topic during the summer just past, the Commission spent considerable time discussing fuel management and fuel loading. There is a lot in this discussion – fuel is an ongoing critical management issue, and can often receive public and political attention during fire emergencies, with some commentary less well informed than would be ideal.
During this discussion, the Commission recommended more research on fire-generated convection, which has been a notable feature of some recent bushfire disasters in Australia and overseas. The main point though, is that fuel is not everything:
We received evidence that emphasised the influence that fire weather has on fire behaviour and the relevance of ‘extreme fires’ to the effectiveness of fuel management. The research on this issue differentiates between ordinary fires, which are largely a surface phenomenon, and extreme fires, where there is a coupling of the fire with the atmosphere…….in extreme bushfires, the fire behaviour is no longer solely a function of the environmental conditions. These fires generate their own behaviour by interacting with the surrounding atmosphere. This results in fire behaviours that are difficult to predict… …in extreme bushfires, fuel loads do not appear to have a material impact on fire behaviour.
Systemic continuous improvement
The last substantive recommendation is one of the best, and also highlights how different jurisdictions have innovated to show the path for all. The Commission called for accountability and assurance mechanisms to promote continuous improvement and best practice in natural disaster arrangements, noting the positive example of two of Australia’s States:
Victoria and Queensland have Inspectors-General of Emergency Management (IGEMs), who have published updates or progress reports on the implementation of recommendations from the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission and the 2011 Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry respectively. In so doing, these offices have supported public accountability in addition to their core objectives of encouraging a culture of continuous improvement and best practice in emergency management within their states.
It’s down to us
So, after spending most of the year in intense deliberation, after hearing from more than 270 witnesses, processing 80,000 pages of tendered documents and more than 1750 public submissions, the Commission, including the hard-working Secretariat that supported them, have delivered. They have produced a report of great substance, working during an enormous global crisis and in a noisy public environment. They’ve done their job. For the Australian professional community, whatever our role or interest, we now need to do our job. 80 recommendations to not just be ticked off, but implemented well, with heart and soul, in service to the community. For the international community, there will be wisdom to take from the report and applied elsewhere, and there will also be more opportunity to deliver more wisdom to Australia and other countries as the sophistication of international best practice evolves. For all of those who watched or participated with anguish during the hard summer of 2019-2020, we can do things better. And if we don’t drop the ball on this, we will save lives and property. It’s down to us.