natural disaster management

31
NATURAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT Collaborative Communities for Safer Futures Report By Left Right ThinkTank QLD State Policy Report Report Date: November 2013

Upload: khangminh22

Post on 08-May-2023

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

 

NATURAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT Collaborative Communities for Safer Futures

Report  By  Left  Right  Think-­‐Tank  QLD  State  Policy  Report  

Report Date: November 2013

 

 

WHO  ARE  WE?  

Left Right Think-Tank is Australia’s first independent, non-partisan think-tank of young minds with a purpose to transform Australia through the ideas of young people.

We aim to help create a society where young people advise and are consulted on national issues of broad community concern, not just youth issues.

We are not-for-profit and all our staff are aged between 15  –  24 and volunteer their time for our cause.

We are:

• Independent of influence

• Politically non-partisan

• Young people aged 16 to 24

• Not-for-profit

• Passionate about ideas

• Committed to inclusive debate

We work to achieve our purpose through:

• Developing policy based on sound research across the public policy spectrum.

• Fostering discussion on the greatest challenges of our generation throughout the

community.

• Advocating policy ideals with various stakeholders and across Government; promoting

a new genre of thinking in the public policy cycle.

• Educating young Australians through various events and programs, motivating

individuals to harness their potential in contributing to public policy debates.

• Empowering the next generation of leaders by providing them with unique opportunities

for development.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  

 

Policy  Fellows  

Victoria  Allen  

Rhea  Connolly  

Jake  Edwards    

Angus  Fraser  

Catherine  Garlick  

Grace  Enid  Gowen  

Nicholas  Piper  

Riley  Thornton  

Joel  Van  Veluwen  

 

Queensland  Staff  Team  Members  

Brody  Foy  –  State  Director  

Danika  Maxwell  –  Deputy  State  Director,  Consultancy  Manager  

Nathan  Johnston  –  Policy  Fellowship  Manager  

Samuel  Brookfield  –  Policy  Fellowship  Officer,  Policy  Fellowship  Manager  

Peter  Hwang  –  Communications  Manager  

Madeline  Rodgers  –  Sponsorship  Manager,  Policy  Fellowship  Officer  

 

 

National  Policy  Team  Members  

Connor  Taylor  –  Chief  Executive  Officer  

Lisa  Bradley  –  National  Policy  Fellowship  Director  

Conrad  Liveris  –  Western  Australian  State  Director  

Isobel  Sloan  –  National  Policy  Fellowship  Manager  

 

STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED Consultees  

• Brian  McMahon  –  Planning  Engineer,  Energex  

• Carolyn  Parsons  –  Australian  Red  Cross,  Manager  of  Emergency  Services  

• Charlie  Hawkins  –  Business  Development  Manager,  CSIRO  

• Dan  Galligan  –  Chief  Executive  Officer,  Queensland  Farmers  Federation  

• Derek  Tuffield  –  Chief  Executive  Officer,  Lifeline  Darling  Downs  

• Geoff  Argus  –  Assistant  Director  of  Psychology,  Darling  Downs  Hospital  

•  Jeff  Lassen  –  Principal,  Synergies  Economic  Consulting  

• Jill  Elliott  –  Lifeline  Volunteer  

• Jim  McGowan  AM  –  Adjunct  Professor,  School  of  Government  and  International  Relations,  Griffith  University,  previously  Director  General  of  the  Department  of  Community  Safety  and  Emergency  Service  

• John  Richardson  –  National  Coordinator,  Strategic  Development  for  the  Australian  Red  Cross  

• Julie  Molloy  –  Director  of  Social  Engagement,  Volunteering  QLD  

• Melanie  Irons  –  Administrator,  Tassie  Fires  –  We  Can  Help  

• Paul  Pisasale  –  Ipswich  Lord  Mayor  

• Tracey  Arklay  –  Managing  Editor,  Australian  Journal  of  International  Affairs,  Research  Fellow  at  University  of  Queensland  and  Griffith  University  

 

Speakers  

• Professor  Alastair  Stark  –  Lecturer  in  Public  Policy,  University  of  Queensland • Kyl  Murphy  –  Queensland  State  Director,  Committee  for  the  Economic  Development  of  

Australia • Kathleen  Brophy  –  Former  Queensland  State  Director,  Left  Right  Think-­‐Tank • Alexander  McLaren  –  Consultant,  KPMG’ • Amanda  Yeates  –  Deputy  Regional  Director,  Department  of  Transport  and  Main  Roads • Patrick  O’Callaghan  –  Senior  Research  Associate,  University  of  Queensland • Robert  Johnston  –  Former  Chief  Political  Journalist,  Queensland  ABC

 

FOREWORD  

The  Queensland  division  of  Left-­‐Right  Think-­‐Tank   is  pleased  and  excited   to  present   their  2013  

Policy  Paper  on   ‘Natural  Disaster  Management’.   This  paper   represents   the   culmination  of   over  

eight  months   of   intensive   research,  wide-­‐ranging   consultancy   and   in-­‐depth   analysis.   This  was  

achieved  through  the  hard  work  and  dedication  of  the  nine  policy  fellows  alongside  the  guidance  

and  support  of  the  Left  Right  QLD  Staff  Team  and  the  National  Policy  Team.    

 

This   paper   is   the   fifth   produced   by   the   Queensland   Team,   and   the   culmination   of   the   fourth  

policy  fellowship.  I  am  pleased  to  say  that  the  program  continues  to  grow  and  develop  each  year.  

This   year   saw   the   highest   ever   number   of   applications   for   QLD,   and   the   overall   quality   and  

enthusiasm   of   these   amazed  me.   Bringing   forward   the   ideas   of   young   people   needs   to   be   an  

important  part  of  Australia’s  future,  and  I  personally  feel  privileged  to  be  surrounded  by  a  group  

of  young  people  who  inspire  me  daily  as  they  work  towards  this  goal.  

 

The   topic   of   ‘Natural   Disaster   Management’,   has   been   an   incredibly   complex   and   at   times  

paradoxical  area  for  policy  development.  Particularly  in  QLD  with  the  spate  of  natural  disasters  

in   recent   years,   there   is   media   saturation   and   strong   conflicts   in   the   literature   on   the   issue.  

However,   despite   there   being   so   much   discussion,   very   little   appears   to   actually   change   in  

implementation.  This  is  worrying  in  an  area  that  is  so  important,  especially  for  a  country  such  as  

Australia,  which  experiences  frequent  and  various  natural  disasters.    

 

The  fellows  should  be  highly  commended  for  their  efforts.  They  have  all  worked  incredibly  hard  

throughout   the   8  month   program,   often   balancing   these   commitments  with  work   and   study.   I  

also  would   like   to   extend   a   large   thank   you   to   the   Queensland   Policy   team,   Nathan   Johnston,  

Samuel  Brookfield,  Danika  Maxwell  and  Madeline  Rodgers.  This  team  have  devoted  many  hours  

to  guiding  the  fellows  through  the  process  of  creation,  consultation,  writing  and  revision.  They  as  

well  should  be  commended  for  their  efforts.  

 

We  are  proud  to  help  provide  opportunities  for  young  people  to  be  involved  in  the  creation  and  

advocacy  of  public  policy,  regardless  of  background  or  political  views.  

 

Sincerely,  

 

Brody  Foy  

State  Director  –  Queensland    

 

TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  

EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY                                                            1  

 

BACKGROUND                                    3  

 

QUALITY  ASSURANCE                                    5  

    Recommendation                                5  

    Background                                  5  

    Case  Study:  Inter-­‐American  Development  Bank                        6  

 

BUSINESS  CONTINUITY  PLANNING                              8  

    Recommendation                                8  

    Background                                  8  

    Case  Study:  French  Insurance  Premium  Reductions                10  

 

PUBLIC  HEALTH  RECOVERY                          12  

    Recommendation                          12  

    TELEHEALTH                          12  

          Background                      12  

          Case  Study:  United  States  Subsidised  Telehealth                14  

    DISASTER  FIRST  AID  TRAINING                      15  

          Background                      15  

    VOLUNTEER  MENTAL  HEALTH  RECOVERY  PLAN                17  

          Background                      17  

 

CONCLUSION                              20  

 

REFERENCES                              21

 

 

EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  

Major  disasters  have  a  significant   impact  on  the   livelihood  of  Australians,  hence  it   is  the  imperative  of  

policy  makers   to  minimise   their  effect.  Natural  disaster  management   in  Queensland  has  recently  been  

subject   to   much   examination   and   although   the   performance   of   frameworks   in   Queensland   has   been  

admirable,  there  remain  to  be  challenges.  

 

Given   Queensland’s   strong   economic   and   population   growth,   Left   Right   Think-­‐Tank   proposes   the  

adoption  of  the  following  recommendations   in  order  to  place  Queensland  in  a  stronger,  more  resilient  

position  in  the  face  of  future  disasters.  

 

Recommendation  1  

That  the  Disaster  Management  Groups  in  Queensland  conduct  more  quantitative  analysis  of  investment  and  

modifications  to  disaster  management  arrangements  on  prevention,  preparation,  response  and  recovery  

efforts.  

 

Recommendation  2  

That  the  Queensland  government  should  incentivise  small  and  medium  sized  businesses  to  implement  

business  continuity  planning  (BCP).  

 

I. Requiring  BCP  as  part  of  business  name  registration  with  ASIC  

II. Incentivising  insurance  companies  to  provide  insurance  premium  discounts  for  local  businesses  

that  undertake  BCP’s  

III. Where  private  negotiations  are  unsuccessful,  providing  tax  relief  to  businesses  undertaking  

meaningful  BCP  

 

 

 

 

Recommendation  3  

I. That  the  Australian  Government  introduce  measures  to  reduce  the  mental  health  impact,  and  

subsequent  economic  and  social  impact  of  natural  disasters  by:  

a) Expanding  the  Telehealth  incentive  scheme  to  allow  neighbouring  services  to  support  victims  of  

disaster-­‐related  mental  health  issues.  

b) Incorporating  basic  disaster  preparedness  into  First  Aid  training  in  areas  considered  at  above  

average  risk  of  experiencing  a  natural  disaster.  

II. That  organisations  using  volunteers  as  a  resource  in  their  recovery  operations  take  active  measures  

to  mitigate  any  potential  psychological  harm  suffered  by  these  volunteers  as  a  result  of  their  

participation  in  the  recovery  effort.  

 

Further   details   of   these   recommendations   are   detailed   below.     Additional   background   and   briefing  

material  can  be  found  in  Left  Right  Think-­‐Tank’s  disaster  management  literature  review.  

 

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND  

Disasters   can   cause  widespread   damage   to   people,   property,   and   the   environment.     The   provision   of  

disaster   management   infrastructure   before,   during,   and   after   extreme   weather   events   greatly  

determines   how   they   impact   Australian   society.   Effective   public   policy   can   significantly   reduce  

disruptions  to  affected  communities  and  aid  recovery  from  disasters  when  they  occur.    This  policy  paper  

will  be   focused  on   the   soft   infrastructure   component  of  disaster  management,  defined  as   the  policies,  

legislation   and   social   systems   used   for   supporting   economic   activity   and   meeting   social   and  

environmental  needs  (Sustainable  Planning  Act,  2009).    

The   damage   disasters   cause   is   often   distributed   unevenly,   with   the  most   vulnerable   people  within   a  

society   being   the   most   affected   (Keys,   1991).     Equally,   the   responsibility   for   disaster   response   and  

provision  of   infrastructure  services   is  a  complex  network  of  government,  private  enterprise,  and  non-­‐

government   organisations   (NGOs).     Disaster   management   therefore   concerns   a   broad   range   of  

stakeholders.     Effective   policy   must   be   directed   at   government,   whilst   also   taking   into   account   the  

interests   and   needs   of   private   businesses,   non-­‐for-­‐profit   organisations   and   local   communities;  

accounting  for  their  complex  and  shifting  relationships.  

To  understand  and  analyse  Australia’s  current  approach  to  disaster  management,  it  is  first  important  to  

understand  the  key  pieces  of   legislation   that  have  shaped  and  continue   to  shape  the  policy   landscape.  

However,  as  disaster  management   is  commonly  the  responsibility  of  state-­‐level  government,   the   focus  

will  be  on  key  pieces  of  legislation  affecting  Queensland.    If  more  information  and  analysis  is  required,  

Left  Right’s  literature  review  on  this  issue  is  also  available.    

The  Disaster   Management   Act   (Qld)   2003   is   the   chief   piece   of   legislation   in   Queensland   for   disaster  

management,  establishing  principles  and  guidelines  and  defining  key  terms.   In  the  document,   ‘disaster  

event’   is   defined   in   section   16   as   ‘a   cyclone,   earthquake,   flood,   storm,   storm   tide,   tornado,   tsunami,  

volcanic   eruption   or   other   natural   happening;   and   a   failure   of,   or   disruption   to,   an   essential   service   or  

infrastructure.’     Furthermore,   the   Act   identifies   the   key   phases   for   disaster   management   as  

arrangements   for  mitigating,   preventing,   preparing   for,   responding   to   and   recovering   from  a   disaster  

(section  14).    

Queensland   has   made   considerable   progress   in   ensuring   comprehensive   and   progressive   disaster  

management   arrangements.     Systematic   and   operational   flaws   remain,   however,   stemming   from  

repetitive   and   redundant   legislation.   The  Disaster   Management   Act   prescribes   inconsistent   roles   and  

responsibilities  at  various   levels,  which  change  depending  on   the  disaster   response  phase  of  an  event  

(O’Sullivan,  2010).  Furthermore,  the  Auditor  General’s  recommendation  that  the  State  Plan  be  guided  by  

an   all   hazard   risk   management   assessment   has   yet   to   be   amalgamated   in   the   State   Plan,   which  

 

significantly   impacts   on   State   risk   assessments   informing   strategic   and   policy   decisions   (O’Sullivan,  

2010).  Although  the  Act  specifies  that  ‘district  and  State  support  responses  and/or  advisory  and  direction  

initiatives  must   be   actioned   and   implemented   at   grass-­‐roots   level   in   cooperation   with   or   through   local  

arrangements’,  there  continues  to  be  a  lack  of  investment  in  Disaster  Management  arrangement  at  Local  

level  (O’Sullivan,  2010).  

As  mentioned  previously,   it   is   not  only   government   interests   that  need  be   considered  within  disaster  

management.     Agencies   that   provide   key   disaster   service   delivery   include   NGOs   and   spontaneous  

volunteers.   NGOs   are   a   vital   and   significant   component   of   emergency   mitigation   and   community  

preparedness  initiatives  (Australian  Emergency  Management,  2013).    There  is  a  need  for  government’s  disaster   policy   to   capitalise   on   NGO   strengths   as   a   collective   and   further   professionalise   as   a   sector  

(Australian  Civil-­‐Military  Centre,  2012).      This  process  should  include  analysis  of  core  competencies  and  

expertise  in  order  to  identify  common  values  and  themes.    

Whilst   the   efforts   of   spontaneous   volunteers   are   often   effective,   there   appears   to   be   a   need   for  more  

emphasis  on  their  management  strategies  (Orloff,  2011).    It  is  recognised  that  more  defined  cooperation  

between   the   different   agencies   is   required.   Equally,   key   issues   have   been   identified   by   both  

Volunteering   Queensland   and   Volunteering   Australia.   These   include   how   to  manage   the   physical   and  

mental  health  of  volunteers  that  assist   in  recovery  efforts.    Both  Volunteering  Queensland  and  Orloff’s  

Field  Manual  acknowledge  the  role  of  preparing  volunteers,  and  post  disaster  recovery  for  volunteers,  

as  key  strategies  in  mitigating  physical  and  mental  health  issues.      

While  Queensland  outperforms  many  of  the  other  states  within  the  area  of  disaster  management,  there  

are  still  many   ineffective  and  redundant  processes,  and  great  potential   for   improvement.    To  continue  

Queensland’s  progress,  the  policy  landscape  and  literature  suggests  that  a  more  collaborative  approach  

to   disaster   management   is   required,   with   more   quantitative   benchmarking,   long-­‐term   economic  

planning  and  more  active  volunteer  management.    

 

 

QUALITY  ASSURANCE  

Recommendation    

That  the  Disaster  Management  Groups  in  Queensland  conduct  more  quantitative  analysis  of    investment  

and  modifications  to  disaster  management  arrangements  on  prevention,  preparation,  response  and  

recovery  efforts.      

Background  Queensland’s  disaster  management  arrangements  have  recently  been  subject  to  several  reviews.    Whilst  

the  current  framework  provides  sufficient  guidelines,  given  the  complex  nature  of  disaster  management,  

challenges  still  persist  (Queensland  Police  and  Emergency  Services  Review  Team,  2013).  An  important  

consideration  in  any  government  funding  decision  is  whether  this  allocation  is  prudent,  efficient  and  in  

the  best  interests  of  Queensland.  The  Queensland  Commission  of  Audit  (2013,  pp.10)  noted  that:  

 

“Public   administration   requires   the   highest   standards   of   financial   management,   based   on   principles   of  

transparency   and   accountability,   to   ensure   limited   financial   resources   can   be   directed   to   meeting  

government  priorities  on  a  sustainable  basis”  

 

Benchmarking,  at  all   levels,  will  serve  as  the  quantitative  basis  to  review  the  effectiveness  and  value  of  

changes   to   the   disaster   management   arrangements   and   investments.   Benchmarking   can   provide   a  

transparent  and  evidence  based  platform  to  justify  future  amendments  and  investments  and  will  ensure  

that  future  government  funding  for  disaster  management  projects  is  providing  the  promised  value  to  the  

citizens  of  Queensland.  

 

Benchmarking  is  a  strategic  process  often  used  by  businesses  to  evaluate  and  measure  performance  in  

relation  to  best  practices  of  their  sector  (World  Health  Organisation  2007).  The  process  provides  policy  

makers,  planners  and  citizens  with  the  information  necessary  to  induce  change  in  entities,  often  driving  

growth   and   improvement   (Economist   Intelligence   Unit,   2013).   Benchmarking   indicators   and   data  

requirements  should  be  designed  in  consultation  with  the  local  government  areas  that  make  up  the  local  

disaster  management  groups.  This  will  ensure  that  the  best  practice  benchmark  reflects  local  conditions  

and  accounts  for  different  factors  that  determine  disaster  management  performance.  

 

   

Left   Right   recommends   that   the   Queensland   Government   and   Disaster   Management   Groups   conduct  

benchmarking  assessments  of  disaster  management  performance   in  prevention,  preparation,  response  

 

and   recovery   to   ensure   future   capital   heavy   projects   and   radical   changes   to   arrangements   bring   a  

material  benefit  to  Queensland.  

 

It   is   important   to  note   that  although  benchmarking   is  a   technically  difficult  process   for  heterogeneous  

events,  a  consistent  and  systematic  approach  that  uses  high-­‐level  data  already  collected  could  provide  a  

quantitative   measure   to   determine   whether   changes   in   the   framework   or   levels   of   investments   are  

justified.    Further,  by  having  low  data  requirements,  the  burden  of  creating  and  applying  the  benchmark  

would   be   significantly   reduced.   Given   that   the   Department   of   Community   Safety,   Emergency  

Management  Queensland  Critical   Infrastructure  Providers  and  Disaster  Management  Groups  all  collect  

and  disseminate  data,  both  in  times  of  crisis  and  in  their  mandatory  reporting  routines,  the  task  of  data  

collection  may  not  be  a  resource  intensive  exercise.  

 

Left   Right   would   like   to   acknowledge   that   this   activity   could   be   undertaken   at   any   of   the   Disaster  

Management  Group  levels,  or  by  a  State  Department.  The  recent  Police  and  Community  Safety  review  is  

championing  the  creation  of  the  new  role  of  Inspector  General  Emergency  Management  and  it  is  noted  in  

the  review  that  benchmarking  Queensland   jurisdictions  performance  against  best  practice  should  be  a  

focus  area  for  this  new  role.  

 

Case  Study:  Inter-­‐American  Development  Bank  The   use   of   indicators   and   benchmarking   to   quantitatively   assess   disaster   risk   and   response   has   only  

been  a  recent  development   in  best  practice  disaster  management.   In  2005,  Cardona  at  the  Instituto  de  

Estudios   Ambientales   (IDEA)   developed   a   system   of   disaster   risk   indicators   for   the   InterAmerican  

Development   Bank   (IDB)   to   allow   it   to   perform   a   systematic   and   quantitative   benchmarking   of   each  

country  in  its  jurisdiction  over  a  time  and  between  nations.  

 

The  indicators  are  designed  to  generate  knowledge  within  the  IDB  and  borrowing  nations  regarding  the  

importance   of   disaster   risk   management.   Further,   these   indicators   can   help   policy   makers   steer  

financial,  economic,  environmental  programmes  at  the  national,  regional  and  local  levels  towards  more  

effective  disaster  management.  

 

When   designing   the   indicators   for   disaster   risk   management,   Cardona   needed   to   ensure   that   all  

methodology  was  easy  to  use  and  used  several  aggregate   indicators  that  were  of  use  to  policy  makers.  

Cardona  stated  that  the  methodology  would  create  three  national  impacts:  

1. It  should  lead  to  an  improvement  in  the  use  and  presentation  of   information  on  risk.  This  will  

assist  policymakers  in  identifying  investment  priorities  to  reduce  risk  (such  as  prevention  and  

mitigation  measures),  and  direct  the  post  disaster  recovery  process.  

 

 

2. The  methodology  provides  a  way  to  measure  key  elements  of  vulnerability  for  countries  facing  

natural  phenomena.   It  also  provides  a  way  to   identify  national  risk  management  capacities,  as  

well   as   comparative   data   for   evaluating   the   effects   of   policies   and   investments   on   risk  

management.  

 

3. Application   of   this   methodology   should   promote   the   exchange   of   technical   information   for  

public  policy  formulation  and  risk  management  programs  throughout  the  region.  

 

In  creating  the  index,  Cardona  aimed  to  create  a  framework  that  was  transparent,  robust,  representative,  

replicable,  comparative  and  easy  to  understand.  Based  on  this  conceptual  framework,  the  indicators  are  

transparent,  easy  to  update  in  a  timely  manner  and  easily  understood  by  policy  makers.  

 

Four   components   or   composite   indicators   have   been   designed   to   represent   the   main   elements   of  

vulnerability  and  show  each  country’s  progress   in  managing   risk.  The   four   indicators  are   the  Disaster  

Deficit  Index  (DDI),  the  Local  Disaster  Index  (LDI),  the  Prevalent  Vulnerability  Index  (PVI),  and  the  Risk  

Management  Index  (RMI).  The  Disaster  Deficit  Index  measures  country  risk  from  a  macroeconomic  and  

financial  perspective  according   to  possible  catastrophic  events.  The  Local  Disaster   Index   identifies   the  

social   and   environmental   risks   resulting   from   more   recurrent   lower   level   events   (which   are   often  

chronic  at  the  local  and  subnational  levels).  The  Prevalent  Vulnerability  Index  is  made  up  of  a  series  of  

indicators   that   characterize   prevalent   vulnerability   conditions   reflected   in   exposure   in   prone   areas,  

socioeconomic  weaknesses  and   lack  of  social  resilience   in  general.  The  Risk  Management  Index  brings  

together  a  group  of  indicators  that  measure  a  country’s  risk  management  performance.  

 

Reviews  of  the  risk  indicator  framework  have  noted  that  these  tools  enabled  Latin  American  countries  to  

improve  their  ability  to  quantify  and  evaluate  the  risk  faced  by  their  populations.  Likewise,  these  tools  

have  been  used   to  design   interventions   to   limit   financial   and  economic   losses   caused  by   earthquakes,  

flooding   and   other   natural   phenomena,   thereby   preventing   important   funding   for   poverty   reduction  

being  diverted  in  the  face  of  a  disaster  (ELLA,  2012).  

 

 

BUSINESS  CONTINUITY  PLANNING  

Recommendation  

That  the  Queensland  government  should  incentivise  small  and  medium  sized  businesses  to  implement  

business  continuity  planning  (BCP)  by:  

I. Requiring  BCP  as  part  of  business  name  registration  with  ASIC  

II. Incentivising  insurance  companies  to  provide  insurance  premium  discounts  for  local  businesses  that  

undertake  BCP’s  

III. Where  private  negotiations  are  unsuccessful,  providing  tax  relief  to  businesses  undertaking  

meaningful  BCP  

Background  

Local   businesses   are   the   crux   of   a   community.   They   play   a   fundamental   role   in   supporting   a  

community's   resilience   to  disasters  by  providing   resources,   expertise   and  essential   services  on  which  

the   community   depends   (Council   of   Australian   Governments,   2009).   Yet   statistics   from   Volunteering  

Queensland  demonstrate   that  50%  of   small  and  medium  sized  businesses  within  Queensland  have  no  

disaster   preparedness   plan   (Volunteering   Queensland,   2012).   The   recent   review   into   Police   and  

Community   Safety   found  multiple   examples   of   communities   relying   upon   emergency   responders   and  

other  external  support  rather  than  generating  systems  of  self-­‐reliance  (Keelty,  2013,  p.144).    Given  the  

increasingly  widespread  and  indiscriminate  devastation  caused  by  natural  disasters  across  Queensland  

over   the   last   five   years,   communities   and   private   enterprise   must   take   responsibility   for   their   own  

preparedness.    

 

In  the  report,  From  Disaster  to  Recovery,  the  Regional  Australia  Institute  found  that  business  recovery  is  

central   to   community   recovery   and   must   be   emphasised   as   a   priority   (2013).     Business   continuity  

planning  involves  developing  a  practical  plan  for  how  best  businesses  can  prepare  for,  and  continue  to  

operate   after   a   crisis   (Queensland   Government,   2013).    Having   risk   management   measures   in   place  

ensures   information   security,   adequate   staff   training   in   recovery   procedures,   and   that   adequate   risk  

identification   and  management  measures   have   been   implemented   early.  While   larger   firms  will   often  

have  the  resources  and  staff  to  devote  to  business  continuity  planning  and  risk  management,  small  and  

medium   sized   businesses   often   do   not.     Consequently,   our   recommendation   reflects   this,   choosing   to  

focus  on  small  and  medium  businesses  over  large  ones.      

 

 

All  new  businesses  are   legally  obligated  to  register   their  business  name  with  the  Australian  Securities  

and   Investment   Commission   (ASIC).   Following   this,   business   names  must   be   renewed   at   least   every  

three   years.     Left   Right   recommends   that   the   Queensland   government   make   the   completion   of   a  

business  continuity  plan  a  prerequisite  to  successfully  register  a  business  name  with  ASIC.  This  would  

increase  the  numbers  of  disaster  resilient  businesses  by  improving  their  ability  to  prepare  for,  recover  

from  and  continue  to  operate  following  a  disaster.    

 

The   Australian   Government   website   business.gov.au   provides   a   good   template   that   could   be   used   to  

implement   a   BCP.     This   is   referred   to   as   an   Emergency   Management   and   Recovery   Plan   and   as   an  

example,  includes  the  risk  management  table  shown  below  of  possible  and  likely  disaster  risks  such  as  

flood  and  fires  to  your  business.  

Business risk Impact Likelihood Mitigation strategy Contingency plan

[Description of the risk

and the potential impact

to your business.]

[High,

Medium,

Low.]

[Highly

Unlikely,

Unlikely, Likely,

Highly Likely.]

[What actions will you

take to minimise/mitigate

the potential risk to your

business?]

[What is your

contingency plan in

the event that this risk

happens?]    

Other  components  of  the  BCP  template  include:  a  critical  business  area  analysis  table  (as  shown  below);  

Rank Critical business areas Impact if failed Current protection strategies

1 [Description of what you can't

do without: people, suppliers,

documents, systems or even

procedures.]

[Describe the potential

impact on your

business if this critical

area fails.]

[What strategies do you have that minimise

the impact to your business? e.g. Training

employees in multiple areas of the business

will reduce key person risk.]  

 

current   insurance   table   of   policies   and   coverage   held   and   exclusions;   property   and   infrastructure  

assessment  of  vulnerabilities  to  potential  damage  such  as  overhanging  branches;   identified  temporary  

office  accommodation   to  ensure  business  as  usual  such  as  mail   forwarding;  skilled  staff   retention  and  

updating  skills;  and  data  backup  and  security  measures.  

 

 

To  further  assist  businesses  in  implementing  BCPs,  the  necessary  information  and  resources  should  be  

made   available   on   the   Australia   Business   License   and   Information   Service   (ABLIS).   This   could   be  

efficiently  done  through  simply  linking  to  state  government  websites,  such  as  the  Queensland  Business  

and  Industry  online  Portal.  This  site  includes  specialised  guides  and  checklists  for  a  variety  of  disasters  

and  also  contains  quick  assessment  tools  for  businesses  to  self-­‐evaluate  their  disaster  operation  plans.    

 

Case  Study:  French  Insurance  Premium  Reductions  

Left  Right  recommends  that   the  Queensland  government  should  approach   insurance  companies  about  

providing   insurance   premium   discounts   for   businesses   that   undertake   in-­‐depth   business   continuity  

planning.    

 

As   outlined   above,   the   execution   of   BCPs   for  most   small   and  medium   sized   businesses   could   be   very  

effectively   implemented.   However,   currently   over   50%   of   these   businesses   do   not   have   a   disaster  

preparedness   plan   (Volunteering   Queensland,   2012).   By   offering   insurance   premium   discounts,  

businesses  would   be   provided  with   a   long-­‐term   financial   incentive   to   partake   in   resilience  measures,  

such  as  business  continuity  planning,  which  will  ultimately  aid  disaster  preparedness  and  recovery    

Insuring   against  natural  disasters   is   a   complex  process.  While   actuarial   insurance  pricing  models   like  

those  currently  used  in  Australia,  the  United  Kingdom  and  Germany  will  often  provide  the  most  efficient  

solution,  this  is  not  always  equitable  (Picard,  2011).  Some  areas  are  inevitably  more  disaster  prone  than  

others,  which   leads   to  differences   in  premiums   that  make   insurance   for  many  small   and  medium  size  

businesses   infeasible   or   even   impossible.  Mandated   property   insurance   programs   similar   to   those   in  

France  spread  variation  in  premiums  across  society,  and  as  a  result  create  a  more  equitable  solution  for  

stakeholders.   However,   this   approach   can   create   significant   moral   hazard   and   does   not   incentivise  

adequate   disaster   preparedness   and   resilience   planning   (Jametti   and   von   Ungern-­‐Sternberg  

2004)(Picard,  2011).  

 

To   overcome   the   shortcomings   of   these   two   approaches   Left   Right   recommends   a   balanced  

implementation,   with   private   negotiations   between   businesses   and   insurers   being   preferred,   and  

government  bridging   this  gap   in  some   instances.    For  example,   if   it  were   the  case   that  a  business  was  

unable  to  acquire  insurance  due  to  being  judged  too  high  risk  by  private  insurers,  with  the  lodgment  of  a  

detailed   and   in-­‐depth   BCP,   Left   Right   suggests   that   the   government   extend   a   tax   concession   to   that  

business   equal   to   the   difference   between   the  weighted   average   premium   across   Queensland   and   the  

 

premium  offered  by  the  insurance  company.  As  government  is  covering  the  gap  between  what  would  be  

an  equitable  premium  under  the  mandated  insurance  system  and  the  private  system,  this  enables  those  

deemed  to  be  too  a  high  risk  to  pay  an  equitable  premium  which  is  the  benefit  of  the  mandated  system.    

By   being   forced   to   lodge   a   detailed   BCP,   this   addresses   the   downside   of   the   mandated   system   by  

incentivising  disaster  preparedness  and  resilience  measures.  

 

This  approach  encapsulates   the  better  points  of   the  private   insurance   system.  By  allowing  businesses  

and   insurers   to   negotiate,   those   businesses   that   are   deemed   low   risk  will   receive   a   low   and   efficient  

premium  offered  by  insurers.  

 

In  addition  to  the  benefits  for  business,  improved  disaster  preparedness,  in  the  form  of  BCP,  will  reduce  

the   burden   on   government,   insurance   companies   and   financial   institutions   to   provide   post   disaster  

assistance.    

 

 

PUBLIC  HEALTH  RECOVERY  

Recommendation  

I. That  the  Australian  Government  introduce  measures  to  reduce  the  public  health  impact,  and  

subsequent  economic  and  social  impact  of  natural  disasters  by    

a. Expanding  the  Telehealth  incentive  scheme  to  allow  neighbouring  services  to  support  victims  of  

ongoing  disaster-­‐related  health  or  mental  health  issues.  

b. Incorporating  basic  disaster  preparedness  into  First  Aid  training  in  areas  considered  at  above  average  

risk  of  experiencing  a  natural  disaster.  

II. That  organisations  using  volunteers  as  a  resource  in  their  recovery  operations  take  active  measures  to  

mitigate  any  potential  psychological  harm  suffered  by  these  volunteers  as  a  result  of  their  participation  in  

the  recovery  effort.  

 

TELEHEALTH

Background  Since   the   late   1990s,   telehealth   has   been   a   burgeoning   field   in   the   Australian   medical   landscape.    

Telehealth  consists  of  using  a  range  of  telecommunication  technologies  for  the  transmission  and  storage  

of   health   information   in   the   delivery   of   both   clinical   and   non-­‐clinical   health   related   services   (RACGP,  

2011;  Sabesan,  2013).    This  emerging  sector  will  have  an  impact  on  the  administrative,  preventative,  

consultative   and   curative   aspects   of   healthcare.   Telemedicine   provides   convenient,   site-­‐independent  

access  to  expert  advice  and  patient  information  (Australian  Government  Department  of  Human  Services,  

2013).    An  exemplary   telehealth   transaction  encompasses  clinical  consultation  performed  via  a  digital  

medium,  the  transferring  of   information  to  a  patient  or  a  healthcare  professional  at  a  second   location,  

and  finally  the  health  care  professional  employs  clinical  skills  and  judgment  to  provide  healthcare  and  

feedback  to  the  patient.  

 

Implementation  of   telehealth  meets  multiple   longstanding  needs  of   the  modern  Australian  healthcare  

system.   Guidelines   established   by   the   Royal   Australian   College   for   General   Practitioners   (RACGP)  

identify   the   benefits   to   the   healthcare   system,   such   as   enabling   fair   and   equitable   access   to   health  

(particularly   to   vulnerable   demographics),   improving   efficiency,   supporting   sustainability,   reducing  

 

costs,   and   making   better   use   of   the   professional   health   workforce.     Patient   benefits   include   educed  

travel   time   and   costs,   increased   access   to   local   health   services,   improved   timeliness   of   healthcare,  

reduction   in   lost   work   days,   reduced   time   away   from   home,   and   increased   sustainability   of   rural  

communities.    Finally,  telehealth  also  offers  healthcare  professionals  reduced  need  for  specialist  travel  

to   rural   and   remote   clinics,   increased   availability   of   medical   specialist   and   specialized   services,  

provision  of  an  alternative  method  of  communication  and  supporting  rural  recruitment  and  retention  of  

healthcare  professionals  (RACGP,  2011;  Sabesan,  2013).  

 

Its   potential   to   address   future  needs  depends  upon   the   evolution   of   policy  made  by   the  main  health-­‐

sector  stakeholders  such  as  the  RACGP,  video  conferencing  hardware  and  software  vendors,   the  video  

consultation   industry,   the  Australian  Government   including   the  Department  of  Health  and  Ageing,   the  

National  E-­‐Health  Transition  Authority,  and  the  healthcare  workforce.  

 

Despite   its   positive   perception,   telehealth   technologies   are   underutilized   in   the   Australian   disaster  

landscape   (E-­‐Unicare,   2013;  Terry,   2013).  More   effective  use   of   information   technology   after   a  major  

disaster   could   significantly   improve   patient   outcomes,   according   to   a   study   by   researchers   at   Weill  

Cornell  Medical   College   and   the  University   of   California,  Davis   (Healthcare   in   the  News,   2012).  When  

one  area   is   inundated  or  otherwise   incapacitated  by  a  disaster,   telehealth  technologies  can  spread  the  

health   services   demand   across   a   range   of   neighbouring   providers   in   the   short-­‐   and   long-­‐term.   The  

diverse  modalities   of   transmission  particularly   eases   the   surge   toll   on   local   providers   as   they   include  

direct   hard-­‐wired   connections   over   standard   phone   lines   and   specialized   data   lines,   and   “wireless”  

communications  using   infrared,  radio,   television,  microwave,  and  satellite-­‐based   linkages  (Garshnek  &  

Burkle,  1999).  Telehealth  has  the  ability  to  reduce  unnecessary  hospital  presentations,  and  to  open  up  

collaboration   between   other   health   sectors   and   a   diverse   range   of   stakeholders.     Telehealth   enables  

improved  equity  of  care  closer  to  home,  or   in  the  home  (Jakowenko  2011).  Merrell  and  Doarn  (2012),  

the  editors  of  Telemedicine  and  e-­‐Health,  claim  that   the   ‘failure  to  adopt  telemedicine  and  e-­‐health  has  

dominated  much   of   our   scientific   consideration   of   telemedicine   in   the   last   20   years.’   For   technology   to  

work   it  must  work   for   the   people   it   is  meant   to   help   -­‐   patients   and   the   professionals   providing   care  

(Garshnek  &  Burkle  1999).  

 

It  is  recommended  that  the  current  Australian  telehealth  incentives  scheme  expand  to  include  victims  of  

disaster-­‐related  health  problems.    With  $30.9m  already  being  devoted  to  telehealth  over  the  next   four  

years,   Left   Right   believes   part   of   this   should   be   attached   to   a   disaster   recovery   program.     This   will  

 

recognise  the  long-­‐term  social  and  economic  impacts  of  natural  disasters  on  communities,  which  can  be  

significantly  reduced  without  additional  financial  input.  

   

One  of  the  main  barriers  preventing  the  integration  of  telehealth  into  mainstream  health  services  is  the  

reluctance   of   physicians   in   particular   to   change   the   traditional   approaches   to   care.   In   2010   the  

Australian   Government   announced   the   ‘Connecting   Health   Services   with   the   Future:   Modernising  

Medicare  by  Providing  Rebates  for  Online  Consultations’  initiative  (Australian  Government  Department  

of  Human  Services  2013).  This  Medicare-­‐based  scheme  provides   financial   incentives   to  eligible  health  

professionals   and   aged   care   services   that   help   patients   from   targeted   demographics   have   a   video  

consultation  with   a   specialist,   consultant   physician   or   consultant   psychiatrist   (Medicare,   2013).     The  

current  target  group  comprises  patients  in  rural  areas  and  aged  care  facilities,  as  well  as  Aboriginal  and  

Torres  Strait  Island  patients.  

 

A   specialized   program   for   sufferers   of   long-­‐term   issues,   particularly   mental   health   problems,   in   the  

years   following   disasters   could   be   easily   and   simply   amalgamated   into   the   current   framework.   If  

disaster  victims  were  included  in  the  target  groups,  health  care  professionals  would  be  incentivized  to  

treat   them   with   telehealth   technologies.   As   a   vast   demographic,   the   inclusion   of   disaster   victims  

suffering  mental  health  problems  could  create  a  significant  strain  on  this  rebate  initiative.  This  would  be  

avoided,   however,   by   restricting   the   eligibility   of   disaster   victims   to   attract   rebates   for   healthcare  

providers  to  a  five-­‐year  period  commencing  when  the  patient  first  seeks  treatment.  

 

This   simple   addition   to   recent   initiatives,   using   funding   already   allocated   to   the   area,   could   provide  

greater   social   and   economic   return,   by   focussing   on   the   sub-­‐population   of   communities   affected   by  

natural  disaster.  

Case  study:  United  States  Subsidised  Telehealth      In   2012,   the   United   States   of   America   Department   of   Veterans   Affairs   provides   subsidised   telehealth  

services  for  over  half  a  million  veterans.  They  commonly  suffered  from  health  problems  such  as  diabetes,  

chronic  heart  failure,  depression  or  post-­‐traumatic  stress  disorder.  Technologies  including  virtual  visits,  

home  monitoring,  or  a  store  and  forward  system,   facilitated  access  to  care  and   improved  the  health  of  

veterans.   The   Department   found   that   patients   easily   learned   how   to   use   devices   and   were   highly  

satisfied   with   the   process.   Telehealth   also   significantly   reduced   VA’s   costs.   A   combination   of   remote  

 

patient   monitoring   and   care   coordination,   for   example,   reduced   hospital   bed   days   by   25%   and  

admissions  by  19%,  according  to  a  VA  study  (United  States  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  2012).  

 

 

 

DISASTER FIRST AID TRAINING  Background  Recent  disasters  in  Queensland  have  demonstrated  that  citizen  involvement  is  inevitable  and  critical  in  

volunteerism.   Good   management   and   self-­‐care   is   key   to   having   a   resilient   volunteer   workforce,   and  

community  volunteers  should  ideally  be  trained  prior  to  disasters.    

 

Whilst   the   efforts   of   spontaneous   volunteers   are   often   effective,   managing   this   resource   can   be   a  

significant  burden  when  responding   to  a  disaster   (Volunteering  Queensland,  2011).    As  early  as  1989,  

disaster   management   experts   reported   that,   while   volunteers   are   invaluable   ‘the   inundation   of  

unsolicited  assistance’   following  a  disaster  presents  significant   logistical   issues   for  NGOs  and  volunteer  

organisations   (Auf   der   Heide,   1989).   However,   effective   policy   that   addresses   the   burden   of   SUCV   is  

ostensibly  limited,  with  a  heavy  reliance  on  the  internal  operations  of  NGOs  to  coordinate  such  volunteer  

efforts.   Emergency  Volunteering  CREW,   an   initiative  of  Volunteering  Queensland,   currently   acts   as   the  

‘shock   absorber’   by   reducing   influx   and   placing   potential   volunteers  with   disaster   response   agencies,  

local  councils  and  community  groups.  

 

Key   issues   identified  by  Volunteering Queensland   include  potential  physical   and  mental  health   issues  arising   from   volunteer   participation   in   recovery   events.     Both   Volunteering   Queensland   and   Orloff ’s  

Field  Manual   identify  volunteer  preparation  as  a  key  strategy   in  mitigating  physical  and  mental  health  

issues   (Orloff,   2011).     To   that   end,   the   Department   of   Families,   Housing,   Community   Services   and  

Indigenous   Affairs   (FaHCSIA)   in   cooperation   with   the   Australian   Red   Cross   found   that   only  

approximately   25%   of   volunteers   acknowledged   that   they   were   appropriately   trained   to   volunteer  

(FaHCSIA,   2010).   Similarly,   in   a   Volunteering   Australia   national   survey,   volunteers   most   frequently  

identified   safer  working   environments   and   volunteer   training   as   requiring   the  most   urgent   attention  

(Volunteering  Queensland,  2011).  

 

An  increased  understanding  of  the  impact  of  natural  disasters  has  illustrated  the  need  for  education  of  

the   general   public   on  matters   of   disaster   relief.   To   best   take   advantage   of   social   capital   and   increase  

public  safety,  improvement  of  basic  disaster  response  skills  and  knowledge  for  spontaneous  volunteers  

(both  within  NGOs  and  as  unaffiliated  members  of  the  broader  community)  is  necessary.  

 

In  areas  identified  as  being  at  risk  of  natural  disaster  according  to  the  Queensland  Government’s  2011  

State-­‐Wide   Natural   Disaster   Risk   Assessment   Report   3,   all   first   aid   training   should   include   incident  

training  for  natural  disasters  that  is  specific  to  the  area.  Specifically,  the  obtainment  of  qualifications  in  

Workplace   Level   1   Emergency   First   Aid   (HLTFA211A),   Workplace   Level   2   Apply   First   Aid  

 

(HLTFA311A)  and   Workplace   Level   3   Occupational   First   Aid   (HLTFA403C)   should   include   course  

material   on   emergency   safety   procedures   in   the   event   of   a   disaster,   emergency   evacuation   planning,  

hygiene  precautions,   identification  of   common  dangers  of   that  natural  disaster  and  basic  volunteering  

conduct   (such   as   advice   on   appropriate   clothing   or   not   removing   property   and   debris   from  damaged  

buildings).   Moreover   any   first   aid   training   should,   where   appropriate,   be   contextualised   to   address  

situations   arising   from   a   natural   disaster   in   that   local   area   (such   as   addressing   heat   stroke   or  

dehydration  in  bushfire  areas).  

 

Further,  simplified  Psychological  First  Aid  (PFA)  should  be  included  insofar  as  first  aiders  are  aware  of  

the  potential  mental  health  impact  of  being  affected  by  a  disaster  and  can  identify  the  signs  of  prevalent  

issues   such   as   Acute   Stress   Disorder   and   anxiety.   Shock   management   is   already   taught   in   the   most  

common  Apply  First  Aid  course.  An  increase  in  people  able  to  self-­‐care,  listen  to  distressed  friends  and  

family  and  encourage  them  to  seek  professional  help  where  appropriate  would  assist  in  remedying  this  

overlooked  issue  of  disaster  recovery.  While  it  should  not  be  treated  as  a  substitute  for  an  accredited  PFA  

course  the  education  of   the  general  public,  particularly   in  areas  at  risk  of  natural  disaster,   is  critical   to  

managing   the   spread   of   psychological   issues   in   vulnerable   demographics.   In   order   to   reduce   the   long  

term   impact   on   affected   communities   and   the   incidence   of   serious   mental   health   issues   such   as  

depression  and  Post  Traumatic  Stress  Disorder,   it   is  vital   that   there  be  greater  mental  health   training,  

albeit  at  an  introductory  level.      

 

Those  affected  by  the  disaster  training  would  include  workplaces  currently  obliged  to  have  trained  first  

aiders  under  a  duty  of  care  established  by  the  Workplace  Health  and  Safety  Act  2011  (Cth).  This  means  

that,   at   the   very   least,   most   workplaces   will   have   access   to   a   person   with   a   current   Apply   First   Aid  

qualification   (the  minimum   requirement   for  workplaces),   and   thus   a   requisite   knowledge   of   disaster  

safety.  Such   policy  would   not   be   a   significant   amendment   to   the   current   guidelines,   as   the   Safe  Work  

Australia  First  Aid  in  the  Workplace  Code  of  Practice  already  recommends  that  training  is  dependent  on  

the  context  and  location  of  the  work,  and  that   ‘additional  first  aid  considerations  may  be  necessary  for  

workers   in  remote  or   isolated  areas.’  Additionally,  any  other   individual  or  body   that  chooses   to  obtain  

first  aid  qualifications  will  gain  disaster  training  that  can  then  be  applied  in  their  community.    

 

Necessarily,   not   every   person   at   risk   of   a   disaster   will   receive   disaster   training,   but   the   benefits   of  

providing   persons   already   learning   First   Aid   training  with   basic   additional   knowledge   are   significant.    

Communities  are  strengthened  when  the  skills  to  identify  and  address  dangers  from  disasters  are  part  of  

their  collective  preparedness.  Additionally,  people  may  be  more  prone  to  volunteer  with  an  NGO  if  they  

feel   a   responsibility   to  apply   the   skills   they  have   learnt,   and   there   is   a   significant  pressure   lifted   from  

NGOs   if   volunteers   have   already   received   training.   The   burden   on   emergency   service   personnel   and  

 

professional   volunteers   is   also   reduced   if   the   public   can   identify   risks   and   assist   with   physical   and  

mental  health  issues  prior  to  aid  arriving.  If  people  have  received  some  basic  form  of  PFA  training  there  

is  a  reduced  chance  that  long-­‐term  mental  health  problems  will  lay  undiagnosed  in  the  community  and  

be  unresolved  12-­‐18  months  after  the  disaster  and  government  aid  has  ceased.      

 

 

VOLUNTEER MENTAL HEALTH RECOVERY PLAN

Background  

There  is  international  consensus  on  volunteering  regarding  certain  key  points.    There  is  agreement  that  

civilian   volunteer   involvement   in   disaster   response   is   inevitable   and   critical,   that   spontaneous   and  

unaffiliated  volunteers  must  be  integrated  into  organised  efforts,  and  finally  that  good  management  and  

self-­‐care  of  volunteers  is  crucial  to  ensure  a  resilient  volunteer  workforce  and  responder  community  by  

reducing  the  incidence  of  harmful  physical  and  mental  effects  (Orloff,  2011;  Swygard  &  Stafford,  2009).    

The  responsibility   for   this  recovery  process  must   fall  primarily   to  organisations  supporting  volunteers  

during  their  service,  as  government  provisions  are  frequently  unable  to  meet  this  need.    

The  Queensland  Recovery  Guidelines  (2011)  is  a  report  issued  by  the  State  Disaster  Management  Group  

(SDMG),  which  outlines  the  state’s  long-­‐term  recovery  provisions.  These  guidelines  were  implemented  

in  the  Queensland  2013  Flood  Recovery  Plan,  which  details  the  state  and  local  government’s  response  to  

the   damage   caused   by   Tropical   Cyclone   Oswald.     The   Recovery   Plan   also   aligns   with   many  

recommendations   made   in   the   Australian   Guidelines   for   the   Treatment   of   Adults   with   Acute   Stress  

Disorder  (ASD)  and  Post-­‐Traumatic  Stress  Disorder  (PTSD).      

 

Elements   of   the   long-­‐term   recovery   guidelines,   however,   are   not   being   implemented   in   current  

government   plans.     The   Guidelines   cite   the   need   for   expanded   rural   mental   health   services,   family  

therapy  and  a  plan  to  deal  with  the  interconnectedness  of  socio-­‐economic  disadvantage  and  poor  mental  

health.   These   concerns   are   not   explicitly   addressed   in   the  Recovery   Plan,   nor   is   it   clear   how   services  

which   currently   are   provided   for   will   continue   to   be   funded   beyond   2013.     Therefore   there   is   a  

disconnect  between  the  mental  health  needs  of  volunteers   in  disasters,  as  acknowledged  by  the  SDMG  

and  Volunteers  Australia,  and  provision  of  robust  and  long  term  services  in  this  area.  

 

The   importance   of   volunteers   in   the   disaster   recovery   process   has   received   increased   recognition   in  

recent  years.  During  the  2011  flood,  the  Brisbane  City  Council  (BBC)  made  specific  provisions  for  the  use  

of  ‘spontaneous  volunteers’,  defined  as  individuals  who  seek  to  contribute  to  the  disaster  recovery  effort  

on   impulse  but  are  unaffiliated  with  any  recognised  volunteer  agencies  (Brisbane  City  Council,  2012b,  

11).   Given   the   potentially   disruptive   effect   these   volunteers   may   have   on   co-­‐ordinated   disaster  

management   plans,   the   BCC   relied   on   a   framework   contained   in   a   Red   Cross   report   titled  Managing  

 

Spontaneous   Volunteers   in   Emergencies   when   incorporating   the   volunteers   into   the   recovery   effort  

(Brisbane  City  Council,  2012b,  11).  The  Brisbane  City  Council  also  relied  on  Volunteering  Queensland’s  

existing   volunteering   management   structure   in   directing   spontaneous   volunteers   to   the   agency   for  

registration  (Brisbane  City  Council,  2012b,  11).  

 

Although  the  long-­‐term  psychological  effects  of  natural  disasters  have  been  well  documented  in  relation  

to   individuals  who  have  suffered   injury  and  personal   loss,   there   is  a  paucity  of   information   regarding  

mental  health  and  disaster  volunteerism.    The  speed  and  unpredictability  of  natural  disaster  situations  

obstructs  effective  monitoring  the  mental  health  of  volunteers,  and  precludes  the  possibility  of  obtaining  

useful  data  prior  to  the  event.    

 

Parallel  research  does  help  to  understand  this  area,  however.    Volunteering  Queensland  reports  (2011)  

consistently   highlight   health   and   safety   concerns   as   a   key   issue.   The   high   prevalence   of   PTSD   in   fire  

fighters  is  another  indicator  that  exposure  to  stressful  and  traumatic  events,  like  natural  disasters,  may  

be   detrimental   to   the   health   of   volunteers.   One   international   study   analysed   the   health   of   volunteers  

following  Hurricane  Katrina  in  the  United  States.    Responders  reported  low  usage  of  personal  protective  

devices  and  over  25%  reported  stressful  psychological  symptoms  (Swygard  &  Stafford,  2009).  Another  

study   found   that   following   the  World   Trade   Centre   collapse,  many   volunteers   developed   respiratory  

problems  thought  to  be  linked  to  the  exposure  of  airborne  pollutants.  This  led  to  the  development  of  the  

World   Trade   Centre  Monitoring   Program   for   rescue  workers   and   responders.   However   this   program  

came   about   9  months   after   the   disaster.     The   available   research   suggests   that   exposure   to   a   natural  

disaster  through  volunteering  may  be  detrimental  to  an  individual’s  mental  and  physical  health.    

 

It   is   therefore   recommended   that   organisations   using   volunteers   as   a   resource   in   their   recovery  

operations   take   active   measures   to   mitigate   any   potential   psychological   harm   suffered   by   these  

volunteers  resulting  from  their  participation  in  the  recovery  effort.    This  would  take  the  form  of  a  six-­‐

month  recovery  plan,   following  up  with  volunteers  post-­‐disaster.     Increased  efforts  should  be  made  to  

identify  and  register  contact  information  for  spontaneous  volunteers,   incorporated  into  NGO’s  existing  

volunteer  databases.    The  recovery  plan  would  then  communicate  multiple  times  with  those  affected  by  

a  particular  disaster.  

 

 

Primarily,  briefing  sessions  and  preparation  materials  for  volunteers  prior  to  deployment  should  refer  

to  the  potential  psychological  effects  of  volunteering  and  available  resources  such  as  those  produced  by  

the  Department  of  Health.    Subsequently,  as  the  psychological  effects  of  a  traumatic  event  manifest  over  

time,  it  is  important  that  the  organisation  maintains  contact  with  their  volunteers  across  the  prescribed  

six-­‐month  period.   In   the  short   term,   this   contact  may   take   the   form  of  a   follow  up  email   thanking   the  

individual  for  their  participation,  linking  them  to  general  mental  health  resources  and  normalising  and  

validating  their  potential  mental  health  responses.    

 

It  is  recommended  that  the  subsequent  email  contain  a  ‘mental  health  check’.  Email  has  been  chosen  as  

the   proposed  method   of   delivery   as   it   is   the  most   reliable   for   potentially   transient   populations.   The  

‘mental   health   check’   is   informative   as   opposed   to   diagnostic   and   should   be   inquisitively   framed   to  

encourage   individuals   to   consider   if   the   criteria   are   relevant   to   their   situation.   The   email   should   also  

include  a  list  of  online  resources  and  information  about  the  mental  health  resources,  which  are  available  

through  Queensland  Health,  and  NGO’s  such  as  Lifeline.  

 

 

CONCLUSION  

 

The   implementation   of   higher   standards   of   preparation   and   public   health   recovery   in   the   event   of  

natural   disasters   in   Queensland   will   greatly   mitigate   their   impact,   and   empower   communities   with  

ongoing  resilience.    A  better  understanding  of  the  effectiveness  of  disaster  management  arrangements  

in   local   areas   will   allow   communities   to   better   prepare   for   destructive   events,   and   ensures   that  

government   funds  are  used  most  effectively.  At   the  private  end,   the  BCP  recommendation  realistically  

provides  a  method  of  preparation  that  significantly  reduces  the  negative  impacts  that  disasters  can  have  

on   a   community.   Natural   disasters   are   unavoidable,   therefore   Left   Right   recommends   emphasizing  

public  health  to  reduce  their  adverse  effect.  

In  spite  of  the  devastating  disasters  suffered  in  recent  years,  Queensland  has  remained  strong  in  the  face  

of  hardship.  This  is  due  to  the  dedication  and  collaboration  of  NGOs,  government  organisations  and  the  

great   many   volunteers,   which   have   provided   enormous   support   to   organized   recovery   efforts.     In  

furtherance   of   the   support,   well-­‐being   and   resilience   of   the   community,   Left   Right   makes   the   above  

recommendations  set  out  within  this  paper.      

 

REFERENCES  

Australian  Red  Cross  2013,  Apply  first  aid  (HLTFA311A),  Carlton,  Victoria,  viewed  26/09/13,    http://www.redcross.org.au/apply-­‐first-­‐aid-­‐hltfa301c.aspx        

 

Australian  Civil-­‐Military  Centre,  2012.    Future  directions  in  civil-­‐military  responses  to  natural  disasters.  

 

Australia  Emergency  Management  Institute  2011,  Handbook  1  –  Disaster  Health  Accessed  at  http://www.em.gov.au/Documents/AEMHS%201%20Disaster%20Health.PDF    

 

Australia  Wide  First  Aid  2013,  Apply  First  Aid  |  One  Day  Course  |  HLTFA311A,  Ipswich,  Queensland,  viewed  26/09/13,  http://www.australiawidefirstaid.com.au/apply-­‐first-­‐aid.html  

 

Auf  der  Heide,  E  1989,  Disaster  response  Principles  of  Preparation  and  Coordination,  CV  Mosby,  St.  Louis,  viewed  24/04/13,  

http://www.coe-­‐dmha.org/Media/Disaster_Response_Principals.pdf    

 

British  Insurance  Brokers’  Association  2011,  The  value  of  business  continuity  planning,  research  results,  London,  UK,  viewed  1/9/2013,      http://www.biba.org.uk/UploadedFiles/391thevalueofbusinesscontinuity.pdf      

 

Clay,  R  2013,  ‘Mental  Health  First  Aid’,  Monitor  on  Psychology,  vol.  44,  no.  7,  p.  32.  

 

Department  of  Communities,  Child  Safety  and  Disability  Services,  2012,  2012  Volunteering  Report,  viewed  26/04/13,    http://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/communityservices/volunteering/documents/2012-­‐report-­‐on-­‐volunteering.pdf    

 

de  Ville  de  Goyet  C,  Marti  RZ,  Osorio  C  2006,  ‘Natural  disaster  mitigation  and  relief’,  In  Jamison  D,  Breman  J,  Measham  A,  et  al.,  (eds.),  Disease  Control  Priorities  in  Developing  Countries,  World  Bank,  Washington,  DC.  

 

Jameti,  M  and  von  Ungern-­‐Sternberg,  T  2004,  Disaster  insurance  or  a  disastrous  insurance:  natural  disaster  insurance  in  France,  CESifo  Working  Paper  Series  1303,  CESifo  Group,  Munich,  Germany.  

 

Keelty,  M.J  2013,  Police  and  Community  Safety  Review:  Sustaining  the  Unsustainable,  Brisbane,  

 

Queensland,  viewed  1/9/2013,  http://statements.qld.gov.au/Content/MediaAttachments/2013/pdf/Police%20and%20Community%20Safety%20Review%20Report.pdf  

 

Keys,  C  L  1991,  ‘Community  analysis:  some  considerations  for  disaster  preparedness  and  response’,  The  Macedon  Digest,  6,  2,  13-­‐16,  available  online  http://www.ses.nsw.gov.au/content/documents/pdf/research  papers/42904/Community_analysis_some_considerations_for_disaster_preparedness_and_response.pdf      

 

Medicare,  2013,  viewed  2/9/2013,  http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/incentives/telehealth/  

 

O’Sullivan,  et  al.,  2010.  Report  on  a  Review  of  Disaster  Management  Legislation  and  Policy  in  Queensland  http://www.emergency.qld.gov.au/publications/pdf/consultants%20dm%20report%20final.pdf  

 

Orloff,  L  2011,  Managing  Spontaneous  Community  Volunteers  in  Disasters:  A  field  manual,  CRC  Press,  Boca  Raton.  

 

Picard,  P  2011,  Combining  incentives  for  prevention  and  social  solidarity  in  natural  disaster  insurance,  Ecole  Polytechnique,  Brussels,  viewed  1/9/2013,  http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/insurance/docs/natural-­‐catastrophes/conference-­‐20111018/picard_en.pdf        

 

Queensland  Department  of  Community  Safety  2011,  State-­‐wide  Natural  Hazard  Risk  Assessment  Report  3:  Current  exposure  of  property  addresses  to  natural  hazards,  Brisbane,  Queensland,  viewed  26/09/13,  http://www.disaster.qld.gov.au/Disaster%20Resources/Documents/Report%203.pdf  

 

Queensland  Department  of  Justice  and  Attorney-­‐General  2013,  Duties,  Brisbane,  Queensland,  viewed  26/09/13,  http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/workplace/law/whslaws/duties/index.htm#.UkUr2bw9D8A  

 

Regional  Australia  Institute  2013,  The  centrality  of  business  recovery  to  community  resilience:  from  disaster  to  renewal,  Barton,  ACT,  viewed  on  1/9/2013,  http://www.regionalaustralia.org.au/wp-­‐content/uploads/2013/08/From-­‐Disaster-­‐to-­‐Renewal.pdf    

 

Safe  Work  Australia  2012,  First  Aid  In  The  Workplace  Code  of  Practice,  viewed  27/09/13,  http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/693/First%20aid%20in%20the%20workplace.pdf      

 

 

Sabesan,  S,  2013,  ‘Practical  aspects  of  telehealth:  are  my  patients  suited  to  telehealth?’  Internal  medicine  journal,  vol.  43(5),  pp.  581  

 

State  Disaster  Management  Act  2003,  (Qld)  

 

St  John  Ambulance  2013,  Nationally  Recognised  Training,  Barton,  ACT,  viewed  26/09/13,  http://www.stjohn.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=25  

 

Volunteering  Queensland  2011,  Submission  to  Queensland  Floods  Commission  of  Inquiry,  Brisbane,  Queensland,  viewed  23/04/13,  http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0018/2835/Volunteering_Queensland.pdf    

 

Volunteering  Queensland  2012,  Kilcoy  plans  ahead,  media  release,  Brisbane,  Queensland,  viewed  1/9/2013,  http://www.volunteeringqld.org.au/web/index.php/news-­‐media/newsmenu/media-­‐centre/media-­‐releases/1031-­‐kilcoy-­‐plans-­‐ahead      

 

Workplace  Health  and  Safety  Act  2011  (Cwlth).