australian emergency management arrangements handbook · web viewthere’s no inclusion of the...

Australian Emergency Management Arrangements HandbookWorking Group Meeting 6th July 2018

Summary Working Group Feedback

Comment Decision

GeneralA. TerminologyA1 consistency and update against national DR glossary eg evacuation, recovery (WA, RC)

A1 Accepted.

A2 emergency ready vs disaster resilient Australia (RC) (Tas) (SA) A2 Proposing to adopt ‘disaster resilient Australia’. Checking with Home Affairs.

A3 resilience (Tas) A3 Two definitions in AIDR Glossary. Seeking to use UNISDR definition. Will also liaise with National Resilience Taskforce.

A4 address language particularly around ‘response’ (for example, Should also maintain adequate levels of well-equipped and trained career and volunteer emergency recovery personnel). (SA)

A4 Accepted.

A5 4.1 emergency planning - Use the words ‘event’ or ‘activation’ instead of ‘experiences’ (EMA)

A5 Accepted.

A6 coordination vs evacuation centre - What is meant by coordination in this context? In WA a coordination centre would be where multi agency reps gather to assist with the response (in addition to or co-located with incident control centres). Other centres may be established for evacuation or other welfare focused activity, e.g. information, registration and enquiry services, family reception, personal support…) (WA)

A6 The definition is in the AIDR Glossary and in AIIMS. The application varies somewhat depending on jurisdictional arrangements. Defer to state / territory plans and arrangements.

A7 Hazard descriptors. Terms like ‘emergency-ready Australia’ and ‘disaster-ready Australia’ – are the meaning of those terms different and/or consistently referred to across all jurisdictions? (Tas)

A7 See above: Proposing ‘disaster resilient Australia’.

AEMA Handbook – WG Feedback Summary 20180725 1

B. ArrangementsB1 Include reference to national plans and departments eg CCC, EMA IDETF and role they have in EM (WA)

B1 and B2 Seeking advice from Home Affairs.

B2 Explain Australian Government Crisis Management Framework is and how it relates to this document (WA)

B1 and B2 Seeking advice from Home Affairs.

B3 Constitutional arrangements could be explained more clearly. There is nothing in the constitution that expressly speaks to emergency management arrangements. It is likely that it falls from the provision relating to silence on topics is a S/T responsibility. Reference or examples. (RC) (WA)

B3 Reference is made to Constitution. Seeking advice from Home Affairs.

B4 document seems to explain concepts more than arrangements (WA) B4 It is intended to explain both.B5 I think the handbook would benefit from reference to the range of Australian Government plans, eg COMdisplan, osmasscasplan, comreceplan etc. It would be useful for people to know these exist. There are also a number of other plans, such as AusVetplan, and the Health plan that operate in parallel to these arrangements (and have the ability to cause confusion. I’d suggest that these are referenced, and an attempt is made to integrate them into the existing arrangements. Again, this has provided to be confusing in the past. I would also suggest the National Counter Terrorism arrangements are also referenced as well (RC)

B5 Seeking advice and feedback from Home Affairs. If accepted, this could be included in ‘4.1 Emergency Planning’.

B6 It may be worth making reference to jurisdictional coordination arrangements (ie each state has a “state” crisis council of some sort). It may also be worth noting that it is the states that have the power to declare states of disaster/emergency. (RC)

B6 There is a reference to governments having their own legislation and arrangements. If the state / territory arrangements were in more detail, then that would be a significant body of content and change frequently.

B7 There’s no reference to defence assistance arrangements. I think this is important, as everyone thinks the army is going to save us! (RC)

B7 Accepted. DACC is referenced.


B8 There’s no reference to International Disaster Response Law. I think something should be included (although should be in one of the Aus Gov Plans), as there is a prevailing view that we’d never need international assistance (as did the Americans pre Katrina, as did the Japanese pre Tohuku, and the New Zealanders, and the all found otherwise) (RC)

B8 Accepted. Reference is made (generally) to national, foreign country agreements. Seeking advice on how much detail goes into this Handbook.

B9 include high level EM committee / org chart (WA) B9 Structure chart on Page 4, seeking advice from Home Affairs on the Ministerial Council arrangements.

B10 Interagency arrangements - MOUs are only part of the picture e.g. there is an Interagency Governmental Agreement for SAR, as well as legislated obligations, e.g. under the International Law of the Sea, also jurisdictional agreements (WA) and defence (Tas)

B10 Option to list these specific arrangements, but it may lead to rapid ‘dating’. Proposal to reference sub plans more generally.

B11 Some disasters may need national coordination from the outset. For example a global fuel / gas supply disruption, cyber-attack, Terrorism threat or human pandemic that is yet to reach Australia (i.e. the 2009 Swine Flu example). (WA)

B11 Accepted.

B12 Citizens as 1st responders (WA) (RC) B12 Included this in this draft.B13 Section 1.1 to provide a high-level overview of the risks and impacts of hazards and to outline the structures etc. I am not sure we have achieved that. We probably need to add some words on agency, state and national command, control or coordination centres, more information on public information and reference to the standards that apply for those public messages (like CAP etc.) and maybe a bit more to reinforce that terrorism is just a deliberately caused incident and that consequence still needs to be done locally even if crisis is managed elsewhere. (SA)

B13 This would lead to a lot more detail that would quickly date as state/territory arrangements are updated and changed. It is proposed to simply refer to the fact that states and territories have their own legislation and arrangements.Emergencies and disasters as the result of ‘Hostile acts’ is now included.

B14 2.2 Governance B14· Needs updating- text and figure (SA) Seeking updated governance arrangements from

Home Affairs.· List ministerial departments (RC) Seeking updated governance arrangements from

Home Affairs.


· List of who is on committees (QFES) This would be problematic because names / titles change very frequently. This level of detail would be in specific hazard management and state/territory plans.

B15 Figure 2 update B15· Might be beneficial to add to table label that intensity refers to National

significance (WA)Noted.

· In Figure 2, should be Prime Minister and Premiers/Chief Ministers (capital letters).

Noted. Table will be updated separately (it is a pdf insertion).

· There’s no inclusion of the word ‘coordination’ in addition to command and control. (Tas)

Accepted. Include coordination.

· Environment is missing from top left column under ‘impact’. In section 7 further on – environment is included.(EMA)

Accepted. Include environment.

B16 This should also include recovery, e.g. managed by local resources, through state support, with minimal fed support, to fed support etc (RC)

B16 Accepted. Included in Section 2.3.

B17 once the review of NDRRA, funding arrangements should be updated (Tas)

B17 Checking latest arrangements of the NDRRA with Home Affairs.

B18 Definitely a greater focus on public information (timeliness, consistent messaging, single source of truth etc) and lessons management (operational lessons and exercises). (Tas)

B18 Accepted.

B19 Lessons management for example is currently on the national agenda with a common vision to all jurisdictions learning from operations (and exercises) and implementing improvements/changes to prevent or mitigate issues in the past recurring. (Tas)

B19 ‘Lessons Management’ is referenced in the draft.

C Shared responsibilityC1 A much stronger reflection and integration of the National Disaster Resilience Strategy and the move within jurisdictions to address resilience and mitigation as critical to emergency management (e.g. The first paragraph of the introduction refers to ‘protection’, rather than government

C1 Accepted. Note 2.1.


doing its best to mitigate risk or develop resilience. Protection brings to mind sheltering and does not reflect the resilience we are trying to develop in individuals and communities). (SA)C2 better reflect shared responsibility, that it is not only the preserve of governments, but all take responsibility to protect (RC)

C2 Accepted.

C3 Given there is a large section on benefits of a shared approach at section 2.5, would it be worth adding shared responsibility to the approach / principles? (WA)

C3 Accepted. This will come into the ‘E-M Principles’ proposed changes.

D E-M stakeholdersD1 expand list where relevant to include private sector, the not-for-profit sector, community services, business, and government departments (RC)

D1 Accepted. Reference made throughout draft.

D2 Defence (Tas) D2 Accepted.

E HazardsE1 All hazards? Suggest that the following hazard descriptors might be useful to consider: natural/environmental hazards; technical/technological hazards; behavioural hazards (would cover criminal activity and remove the concept of intent from ‘intentional violence’ for instance). (Tas)

E1 ‘All Hazards’ would be a new (albeit oft used) doctrine. Need advice from the W-G and Home Affairs on how strongly ‘All Hazards” should be referenced.Also, using the term ‘hostile act’ which covers terrorism and other violent acts that result in an emergency/disaster.

E2 Include terrorism (WA) E2 See E1 above.E3 Hazard descriptor/s could be better defined, or a conversation commenced at least about contemporary or appropriate hazard descriptors. In the (current) review of the Tasmanian EM arrangements, we will likely use the following hazard descriptors: natural/environmental hazards; technical/technological hazards; and behavioural hazards (to cover criminal activity and remove the concept of intent from ‘intentional

E3 Noted. If the Handbook went down this path it would be a doctrinal change and would need endorsement by jurisdictions and ANZEMC.


violence). The Tasmanian EM arrangements are essentially the same regardless of the ‘hazard’ and we are actively promoting that, to remove ambiguity about whether the EM arrangements apply to hazards other than natural/environmental. (Tas)

F PPRRF1 Move away from just PPRR and towards developing and fostering resilience. (SA)

F1 Agreed but noting current doctrine of PPRR is retained. Use of the term Prevention and mitigation is adopted as is relief and Recovery.

F2 Include mitigation with PPRR reflecting changing focus (AIDR) F2 Agreed and adopted.F3 Include BDA context where relevant F3

G 2.4 Roles and responsibilities of government

G1 Reconsider some elements of Roles and responsibilities of government. It is important to state that each jurisdiction has its own legislation which defines the roles and responsibilities of the state and local governments. There are some significant differences around the nation in this regard. Under state and territory governments section, I think it is incorrect to refer only to ‘emergency services to the community’ – last line of page where the heading appears. This should reflect that its ‘emergency management’ services which encompasses a broad range of government agencies as well as the emergency service agencies. It is also unfortunately that it appears the Australian Government is pitched as leading the high level strategies etc. State and Territories play a key role in driving national priorities and considering how nationally agreed approaches can be successfully implemented in their jurisdiction to meet their community’s needs. There could be a better balance of high level strategy focus between the state/territory and Australian governments. (SA)

G1 Noted. Covered in 2.4.2 and ‘dot point’ list.

G2 Section 2.4 – add in the last Section a responsibility for the Australian G2 Accepted and implied in re-worded section. See


Government relative to receiving, collating and passing to the jurisdictions offers of international assistance and then the support for the border control and provision of any jurisdiction agreed resources to the state for tasking in line with the requirements of the emergency (SA)

page 9, lasts para.

H 2.4.1 Role of LGH1 Reference to local govt role – check and update (AIDR, Qld) H1 Accepted.H2 Include reference to Climate change and role of LG (Tas) H2 Noted. Climate change is but one hazard. If

there is reference to climate change then it would invite other hazards (eg: pandemic, drought etc)

H3 Or other guiding legislation (e.g. EM Act in WA establishes responsibilities on LG for EM planning not linked to powers.) (WA)

H3 Noted. See earlier comments. If state/territory legislation was included, then that would add significant volume and may time base the comments.

H4 Perhaps add a dot point re awareness of elements within the community relevant to emergency response, e.g. CaLD, vulnerable people, etc. (WA)

H4 Accepted.

H5 Emergency warnings are not a LG responsibility in WA. Suggest change to assist with? (WA)

H5 Accepted.

I 2.4.2 State GovtI1 Consider adding compliance and assurance monitoring and State Level Risk assessment as contemporary examples. (Tas)

I1 Accepted.

I2 I think there also needs to be a statement about International Disaster Response Law in here as well. For catastrophic events, we are likely to see the need for international resources, outside of bilateral or multilateral agreements such as USAR. This should recognised. If Japan asked for assistance post 3/11, then we would in the same instance (RC)

I2 Noted. Reference made to international arrangements and agreements.


J 2.4.3 Australian GovernmentJ1 add building national capability as an example – e.g. USAR, AUSMAT etc (WA)

J1 Accepted.

J2 Financial Assistance - What form of financial assistance relating to risk management? In view of the revised NDRAA and no further National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience. (Tas)

J2 Noted. Checking with Home Affairs the current NDRRA arrangements.

K 2.5 Benefits of a shared approachK1 There is something about this section that doesn’t quite gel. Either the section title is not right, or the content doesn’t match the title. It seems to be a mix of benefits, policy statements and responsibilities. Insurance seems to feature heavily, and whilst I acknowledge it is an important issue, has it been emphasized at the sacrifice of another important issue. (WA)

K1 Noted. The ‘shared’ approach tends to be about sharing risk - thus the emphasis on insurance.

L 2.5.1 Families and individualsL1 Maybe add something re legislated responsibilities (e.g. bushfire prevention/fire breaks, building regs, etc),(WA)

L1 Accepted.

M 2.5.2 CommunitiesM1 change title to Local Governments because I cannot see how a community can achieve these actions without coordination from someone. (WA)

M1 Noted. There still needs to be reference made to communities.

N 2.5.3 EM volunteersN1 needs to take into account emerging volunteer groups and the impact of spontaneous volunteers on the EM response and recovery operations. Also need to note the episodic nature of volunteering and the effect that can

N1 Accepted. Expanded words on volunteering.


have on the management of those volunteers to ensure a safe and effective set of activities are carried out. (SA)N2 Strengthen wording (WA) N2 Accepted.


O 2.5.4 NGOsO1 we need to include somewhere in this Section or the one before how these groups are managed/coordinated – it appears they have free range across an emergency and the need for that management and pre-planned processes should be described.

O1 Noted. Reflected in new words on volunteering.

P 2.5.5 Business and primary producersP1 needs increased narrative around business continuity (for example, business and primary producers need to address business continuity as a broader concept - it's not just about insurance).(SA)

P1 Accepted. Considering a ‘vignette’ box dialogue.

P2 business continuity planning (WA) P2 Accepted. Considering a ‘vignette’ box dialogue.

P3 Should this include anything focussing on livestock protection? (WA) P3 Noted. Refer to AusVetPlan?

Q 2.5.6 land-use planningQ1 create stronger links between government and hazard planning (for example, Land use planners are generally part of state or local government (or contracted to these) and abide by local and state policy and legislation so should be a sub-set of state and local government). (SA)

Q1 Noted. Is this the role of hazard sub plans / planners?

R 2.5.7 design, building constructionR1 Is this the right section to include role in recovery re clean-up/removal of hazardous materials, e.g. asbestos? (WA)

R1 Noted. Should be in hazard plans.

S 2.5.8 Residential and small businesses

AEMA Handbook – WG Feedback Summary 2018072510

S1 I’m not sure why this is in and not other measures, such as social capital, which is arguably is of equal important with insurance (RC)

S1 Noted. Scope to refer to ‘healthy communities’ discussion.

S2 has a heading of residential and small business but then only talks about insurance. Insurance is good to pay for rebuilding at some point later, but prepared residents and businesses should not intend to be affected to the point that they need to apply insurance monies. This section should place more emphasis on people and business undertaking pre-planning, training, exercises etc. to prevent the need to apply insurance. Strengthened reference to business continuity planning would be beneficial. (SA)

S2 Noted and accepted in part. Recognises the criticality of adequate financial risk assessment and planning. Reference is also made to Business Continuity Plans.

T 2.5.9 Critical infrastructureT1 talks about “critical infrastructure owners and operators”. This term has a defined meaning and audience within the nations CT arrangements and this heading will severely limit how people think this section applies. We need to make sure that this requirement is broader than just CI and that the comments and processes are applied to all business. A small shop or bank branch in a local town being affected may have a greater overall effect that a major CI for that community and our arrangements need to take that into account. (SA)

T1 ‘severely limit how people think this section applies’. More information on what this means and how it would have this outcome.Shop / bank example could be used as a ‘vignette’ box?

U BroadcastersU1 Update to include social media (RC) U1 Agreed.U2 this section is disjointed with a section on preparedness activities contained within it. We need to mention near this part about emergency warnings and information standards, the information sharing by control agencies across all hazards (which is not mentioned until section 4.1). (SA)

U2 Noted and agreed.


V 3 Prevention and MitigationV1 This title confuses the comprehensive approach of PPRR. The American model uses mitigation as a fifth step after recovery and we use mitigation to represent PP. This use of the term here is new and unclear. (SA)

V1 Noted. If the American model was adopted, then that would be a change in doctrine and would require more consultation and endorsement by ANZEMC.

W 4. PreparednessW1 mentions all hazards finally and talks about planning but makes is sound like it is governments only that need to plan – we need to highlight the need for personal planning and exercising as part of this. (SA)

W1 Noted. Words now reinforce preparedness planning.

W2 Mention lessons management (Tas) W2 Agreed. Reflected throughout the revised text.

X 5. ResponseX1 This needs a bit more information around some generic words on incident management structures (without necessarily mentions AIIMS, ICCS+ or any of the other versions); some information about the separation of command, control and coordination; and some discussion that for things like health and animal disease type emergencies the response activities could be ongoing for a long period of time. Again it mentions assistance going out of Australia but it also needs to cover some of the incoming assistance discussion. (SA)

X1 Agreed.

X2 Should also include if we are a receiving country for assistance (RC) X2 Agreed.

Y 6. RecoveryY1 The wording implies that we go straight to a supported recovery model – we need to ensure that the full spectrum of recovery – i.e. resilient community doing it themselves, a small supported recovery

Y1 Agreed.


operation undertaken locally or a major centrally supported recovery operation with multiple local inputs etc. (SA)Y2 Updated recovery principles (AIDR) Y2 Noted. Current principles are in accordance

with Community Recovery Handbook.

Z 7. Catastrophic disasterZ1 Introduce the term "catastrophic" upfront as reflected in current national narrative (rather than referring to ‘severe or widespread’).(SA)

Z1 ‘Catastrophic’ needs to be included in the AIDR Glossary. The absence of a definition has resulted in the description ‘severe and widespread’ etc.

Z2 Which means….? Perhaps this should be fleshed out, significant loss of accommodation, basic services, governance structures (RC)

Z2 Refer to above.

Z3 Essential services can be seen as more than just electricity (WA) Z3 Noted. See list within second last dot point.Z4 Should this not be an essential service, loss of water, telco, gas would also have catastrophic impacts (RC)

Z4 Accepted.

Z5 We need to stress that this will require a lot of mutual aid type support and reinforce that the application of standards and common systems during lower levels of emergency response will allow for scale-able and seamless transition to the catastrophic level of response and recovery. To this end there needs to be a lot of planning and exercising that stretches our current boundaries and capabilities for maximum of maximums events (SA)

Z5 Noted.

Z6 Section 2.3 – a catastrophic emergency could also arise from the outcome of a terrorism event – while the management of the Terrorism part is separate (the crisis management aspect) the consequence management aspect i.e. the contaminated persons, the collapsed building is still the same as an EM caused event. (SA)

Z6 Accepted. Using the term ‘hostile act’.


General CommentsGC1: What changes to emergency management arrangements have emerged since the publication of the previous handbook in 2014? e.g. social media, technology, national policy or strategy, etc.

Tasmania:Definitely a greater focus on public information (timeliness, consistent messaging, single source of truth etc) and lessons management (operational lessons and exercises). Lessons management for example is currently on the national agenda with a common vision to all jurisdictions learning from operations (and exercises) and implementing improvements/changes to prevent or mitigate issues in the past recurring.Editor:Agree with Tas comments. Changes include greater emphasis on information and warnings; and numerous references to ‘Lessons Management’.Also, the concept of ‘Before, During and After’ is introduced (supplementing references to the traditional PPRR framework for emergency management. (It is recognised that this is a change to new policy / doctrine and may take time to be accepted in all jurisdictions.

GC2: What content is wrong, no longer relevant or out-of-date and should be updated or deleted?

S.A.(?):Hazard descriptor/s could be better defined or a conversation commenced at least about contemporary or appropriate hazard descriptors.Tasmania: In the (current) review of the Tasmanian EM arrangements, we will likely use the following hazard descriptors: natural/environmental hazards; technical/technological hazards; and behavioural hazards (to cover criminal


activity and remove the concept of intent from ‘intentional violence). The Tasmanian EM arrangements are essentially the same regardless of the ‘hazard’ and we are actively promoting that, to remove ambiguity about whether the EM arrangements apply to hazards other than natural/environmental. (Tas)Editor:Accepted to some degree. Through the document risks arising from hazards is identified. A number of specific hazards (as distinct from ‘hazard groups’) are listed.There is scope to develop a standardised list of hazards: eg: drought; flood; storm; cyclone; earthquake; bio-hazard; animal disease; urban fire; rural fire; engineering/structural collapse etc.If the Working Group thinks the Tas concept (ie: 3 generic ‘hazard descriptors’) is a good one, then that can be pursued. Seeking comment on this.

GC3: What content is missing? Tasmania: There doesn’t appear to be any reference to climate change in terms of planning in particular.Editor:Accepted. This is related to the comments above.To some degree, climate change is the cause, but the consequent hazard is extreme weather, drought, tidal surge, land use change etc.The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience includes reference to climate change - as do some of the case studies therein.

GC4: Do the arrangements outlined in the handbook adequately reflect Tasmania: The lessons and learnings that have AEMA Handbook – WG Feedback Summary 20180725

15

an integrated, collaborative, cross jurisdictional, all hazards approach where appropriate?

been the catalyst (albeit slow) to having the crucial role for lessons management on the national agenda.Perhaps reinforcing the need for a ‘line in the sand’ in terms of lessons management, e.g. communication (in all forms) is frequently the top of the list of operational and exercise learnings so let’s fix it.Editor:Accepted. Due to the wide range of operating environments, some issues keep on emerging (communication is one such issue). To ‘let’s fix it’ is a good goal, but the ‘how’ and ‘how much’ are harder to define.It is hoped that, through a greater emphasis on a number (8 to 10) of broader principles (communication being one of them) recurring issues can be kept to the forefront of E-M practice.

GC6: What research has been conducted which should inform content update?

Tasmania: Climate change, volunteer retention/sustainability, capability and capacity assessments at state/territory level.Editor:Note comments above on climate change.Volunteers (including unpaid emergency workers) and jurisdictional capacity are both referenced in the revisions.

GC7: What have we learned from international experiences or observations?

Tasmania: At times it seems we haven’t learnt much! Review after review, hundreds of recommendations, inadequate resources or support to implement positive change etc. In my view, Australia does not yet have a nationally consistent, continuous improvement or lessons management approach and until we – Australian jurisdictions - can manage to learn


from each other’s experiences or observations, it’s unlikely we’ll learn much from international experiences or observations.Editor:Agreed. It is understood that there is momentum building to have a national approach to Lessons Management. The ADF, forest fire agencies, and a number of jurisdictions have emerging policies and processes. At the time of writing, none of these concepts are sufficiently developed to be called a national system. (If I’m wrong on this, please send me some pointers!).

GC8: What operational challenges can be appropriately addressed in this handbook – noting the handbook is an articulation of national principles and guidelines, rather than practice and operational procedures?

Tasmania: Highlighting jurisdictional capability and capacity related issues and avenues for interoperability / inter-jurisdictional assistance.Editor:Agreed. References are made in section 2.4.2.Also, integration / interoperability or some similar phraseology is likely to be included as one of the E-M principles.

GC9: What content, or the detail, can more appropriately be referenced in another document or handbook companion document, with appropriate links? eg practice note, guideline with appropriate links referenced?

Tasmania: The revised ‘Tasmanian Emergency Management Arrangements’ will include hyperlinks to a range of companion documents and links to how/where to find additional information if required. The TEMA will be quite high-level and not overly prescriptive but will be user-friendly for everyone from Municipal EM Coordinators up to State level EM stakeholders.Editor:Accepted and noted. It is expected that key supporting public documents will be both referenced and hyperlinked. There is a risk when hyperlinks are not maintained over time, but with a 3 year review time, that is one


control over this problem.GC10: What references or links should be included? What case studies could be added?

Tasmania: Links to AIDR Knowledge Hub, Bushfire Natural Hazards CRC, state/territory EM websites etc. There would be no need to add case studies into the Australian EM Arrangements – instead referring to links to the information that the reader/user can follow if required.Editor:Accepted and agreed.It may be that case studies within the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience can be referenced as well.

GC11 What cross cutting themes should be included or referenced? Tasmania: Climate change/planning and lessons management.Editor:Accepted. See earlier comment on climate change.Also, a set of national E-M principles would cut across the wholeHandbook on Arrangements.

GC12 What legislation changes require content update? Tasmania: Arrangements with Defence (DACC / DFACA), especially relating to riot or terrorism incidents????Editor:Noted. DACC is referenced and is accessible on the World Wide Web. It could be hyperlinked in this Handbook.I question why civil disturbance and terrorism or counter terrorism arrangements should be in this (publicly accessible) document.


Principles

Develop clear list of national EM principles eg recovery, FEMA, warnings, spon vol, handbooks, animals (SA)

It would be valuable to articulate EM Principles in this section – if there are nationally agreed ones. (WA)

Section 2.0 - In describing comprehensive and integrated, this should also include all hazards and prepared community concepts as they also underpin our arrangements.

Suggested draft principles outlined in text:

EM Handbook:ComprehensiveIntegratedCoordinationCollaborationPartnershipPrimacy of life (protect life, property and environment)Shared responsibilityDisaster Resilience


australian emergency management arrangements handbook · web viewthere’s no inclusion of the...

Documents