Submission to the Review of 2010-11
Flood Warning and Response
Municipal Association of Victoria
May 2011
© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2011.
The Municipal Association of Victoria is the owner of the copyright in the publication
Submission to the Review of 2010-11 Flood Warnings and Response.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any
means without the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of Victoria.
All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should be
addressed to Claudia Laidlaw at claidlaw@mav.asn.au.
The MAV can provide this publication in an alternative format upon request, including
large print, Braille and audio.
While this paper aims to broadly reflect the views of local government in Victoria, it does
not purport to reflect the exact views of individual councils. This submission has been
prepared by the MAV for distribution and comment to members.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 3
MAV Recommendations ........................................................................................ 4
Role of Local Government in Emergency Management ...................................... 5
3.1 Emergency Management Act 1986 vs EMMV – policy vs reality ........................... 5
3.2 SES State Flood Response Plan for Victoria......................................................... 7
3.3 Growing Community Expectations – Council as the „closest/central agency‟......... 7
3.4 Recommendation .................................................................................................. 8
Theory in EMMV does not work well in practice .................................................. 8
4.1 Structure ............................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Resourcing and Capacity ...................................................................................... 9
4.3 Command and Control ........................................................................................ 11
4.4 Relief and Recovery............................................................................................ 12
4.5 Recommendation ................................................................................................ 12
Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements ............................................................ 12
5.1 Reform is Overdue .............................................................................................. 13
5.2 Narrow Scope of Eligible Expenditure ................................................................. 14
5.3 Inefficient reimbursement invoicing requirements................................................ 14
5.4 Funding of Betterment Works.............................................................................. 15
5.5 Use of council staff/contractor shortages............................................................. 15
5.6 Recommendation ................................................................................................ 16
Role of Catchment Management Authorities ..................................................... 16
6.1 Recommendation ................................................................................................ 16
The Human Cost of Municipal Emergency Management................................... 16
7.1 Recommendation ................................................................................................ 17
Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 17
Appendix A – Emergency Management Agency Roles, Part 7: EMMV ............. 18
Appendix B – Victorian Floods Review: Terms of Reference ........................... 19
References............................................................................................................ 20
2
1
Executive Summary
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) welcomes the opportunity to provide input to
the Review of 2010-11 Flood Warnings and Response.
Victoria has experienced several severe flood events from September 2010 to February
2011. The recent January-February floods, including the storms and flooding in the
aftermath of cyclones Anthony and Yasi, affected a majority of councils across the State.
Close to 30 municipalities and 100 townships were impacted by the January floods. More
than 6,000 requests for assistance were received by the State Emergency Service from
across 70 municipalities during the February storms and flash floods.
The role of the Victorian local government sector in emergency management is changing
and expanding. Community expectations of performance have continued to grow for all
tiers of government, but this has particularly applied to local government. Service
expectations, recent major emergency events, and new legislation have increased the
risk of non-compliance or under-performance for municipalities in emergency
management.
Recent events have shown that municipalities often step into the breach during and after
an emergency to provide a range of services that individuals and communities
desperately need. Municipalities also continue to provide additional recovery assistance
long after a natural disaster has occurred, and when a service provider cannot deliver,
the community often expects council to step in as a provider of last resort.
With these increased expectations comes a financial and resource burden. Small regional
shires with low rate-bases often struggle to invest up-front in emergency management
planning and staffing, instead focusing their limited budgets on more basic and tangible
services with immediate and visible benefits for the community. Despite having greater
capacity, larger municipalities also suffer long-term financial effects of recovery and repair
works following a natural disaster.
This gradual increase in responsibilities in the relief and recovery phases goes well
beyond the requirements outlined for local councils in the Emergency Management Act
1986. The demand for emergency management services has a significant impact on
municipalities‘ capacity to carry out their normal business during and after emergency
events. It can lead to other essential services breaking down, with significant knock on
effects. Municipalities that suffer natural disasters are often unable to adequately
resource the Municipal Emergency Coordination Centres (MECCs), commence vital relief
and recovery works, while maintaining other essential business services simultaneously.
This submission focuses on the adequacy of service delivery by Federal, State and local
governments as per the terms of reference identified by the Review. This submission also
examines aspects of flood response and recovery funding that MAV members have
identified as areas requiring significant reform and improvement. The MAV has
encouraged flood-affected councils to also make individual submissions to this Review.
3
2
MAV Recommendations
Review and amend the role of municipal councils in the Emergency Management
Act, Emergency Management Manual Victoria and SES State Flood Response
Plan for Victoria, to better reflect municipalities‘ current capabilities, and provide
communities with greater clarity regarding council responsibilities.
As a matter of urgency, update the Natural Disaster Financial Assistance (NDFA)
guidelines and simultaneously improve municipal reimbursement arrangements.
Develop better coordination of emergency management. Future local emergency
management planning should be flexible and designed on a sub regional
geographical footprint of one or more municipalities. Planning should be
sustainable, and incorporate local knowledge and networks.
Further develop an all-hazards, all agencies approach to emergency management
planning.
Improve structural support for local emergency management by strengthening the
regional and state-wide emergency management levels, with stronger emphasis
on regional-based planning and coordination.
Create a universal reimbursement claims template for councils and agencies to
use after a natural disaster.
Encourage greater relationship-building among local branches of agencies, ahead
of emergency events.
Standardise, streamline and define data collection and sharing among agencies
involved in response and recovery activities.
Increase DHS funding and resources to enable officers to carry out local
coordination, relief and recovery obligations under the EMMV.
Review the Water Act, Local Government Act and the Catchment and Land
Protection Act to clarify responsibilities for the maintenance of waterways, creeks,
floodways, drains and other essential mitigation infrastructure. The MAV also
suggests that an increase in targeted funding for CMAs be considered, so that
they can undertake essential maintenance and repair work.
Increase resources for municipalities to train their staff in emergency management
practice and maintain their skills by providing inductions, courses, attainment of
qualifications, regular exercises and other professional development opportunities.
Improve the support mechanisms available to municipal emergency management
staff.
4
3
Role of Local Government in Emergency Management
The role of local government in emergency management has evolved significantly in
recent years. Current legislation and policies have developed on an ad hoc basis as
emergency events occur. This has resulted in a lack of consistency in all-hazards
emergency management planning for all agencies, including the local government sector.
The 2010-11 floods have exposed weaknesses in the structural support for municipalities
to undertake their designated roles. The MAV and its member councils believe that it is
therefore time to review the current policies and practices regarding the role of agencies
and local government in emergency management.
This section of the submission will focus on the conflicting, and at times, outdated
expectations of councils‘ roles in emergency management as defined in three key
documents:
Victorian Emergency Management Act 1986,
State Emergency Response, and Relief and Recovery Plans – Emergency
Management Manual Victoria (EMMV), and
State Flood Response Plan for Victoria 2007.
It will also examine the disparity between the principles underlying these documents and
what actually occurs during and after emergency events.
3.1
Emergency Management Act 1986 vs EMMV – policy vs reality
The Emergency Management Act 1986 details what is required under statute for
municipalities to prepare for and respond to emergency events. In short, local councils
must appoint a Municipal Emergency Management Planning Committee (MEMPC) which
must prepare and maintain a Municipal Emergency Management Plan (MEMPlan).
MEMPlans must be audited by the Victorian SES Director (or his/her delegate) every
three years and councils must respond to the audit within three months. Further, each
council must appoint at least one Municipal Emergency Resource Officer (MERO) who
coordinates the use of municipal resources needed for the response to and recovery from
emergencies.1
The Emergency Management Act 1986 contains a number of misnomers. It should be
noted that although it is called a ―Municipal Emergency Management Plan‖, MEMPlans
are in fact multi-agency plans for the municipal district, with all relevant response, relief
and recovery agencies expected to contribute to the drafting and be accountable for the
execution of the plan. There has been a growing expectation that the process of building
the plan (which by legislation places a burden directly on the municipality and the council)
has progressed to responsibility for its execution and delivery.
The most recent version of Chapter 6 of the EMMV goes some way to clarifying the
shared responsibility of planning and execution. However, the feedback from local
government is that there is little, or at least variable, understanding of this principle
among other agencies. Further, the fact that councils alone are audited for MEMPs
promotes the perception that the MEMP is a council plan. This lack of shared
accountability is likely to be a contributing factor to the scarcity of current municipal flood
plans.
1
Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents, Emergency Management Act 1986,
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/
5
The section of the Act that requires the nomination of a MERO was more relevant when
councils owned plant and equipment (particularly heavy earth moving equipment) that
could be used during and after an emergency event. However, in the mid-1990s, councils
were required to undertake competitive tendering for a wide range of services that had
always been provided by the council. As a result, there was a significant transfer of
council resources to the private sector, and the council equipment that had been used for
a range of emergency response and recovery activities was no longer available in most
municipalities.
At this time, municipal amalgamations were also occurring. The increased corporatisation
of municipalities, combined with a less hands-on role of senior executives, saw
emergency management roles downgraded within municipalities as the resource role
decreased. This resulted in a loss of emergency management corporate knowledge, with
some councils also outsourcing the MERO role. The role of the MERO as described in
the Act does not meet the demands of the modern day municipality, nor the expectations
of other emergency management agencies and the community.
The Emergency Management Act 1986 focuses predominantly on emergency response,
when in reality the role of local councils is much broader. In contrast, Parts 3, 4 and 6 of
the EMMV are much more prescriptive concerning the local government role and go far
beyond the responsibilities outlined in the Emergency Management Act 1986. EMMV Part
4 states that:
“As the closest level of government to the affected community, municipal councils will
take a lead in ensuring the local provision of emergency relief. ... Municipal councils
should identify and negotiate with local agencies that are able to provide these [relief and
recovery] services (or lead the provision of these services in conjunction with others) as
part of the planning process.”2
This section of the EMMV also refers to a Municipal Recovery Manager (MRM), however
the Emergency Management Act 1986 does not mention the MRM role.3
At first glance, the basic rationale for local government taking a central role in emergency
relief and recovery is reasonable and supported by many municipalities. Councils are
indeed close to their local communities and often have access to good local knowledge
and resources. In addition, councils deliver a variety of health and community care
services through a networked arrangement with a diverse range of private and
government providers. However, the EMMV indicates that councils are expected to play a
key role in relief and recovery, without considering the council‘s short-term or long-term
capacity to do so. It also fails to identify any structural support mechanisms that enable
consistent delivery of relief and recovery services across the State. The difference in the
level of detail and emphasis between these two documents is significant and greater
clarity about the role of local government and other agencies is urgently needed.
Furthermore, the current post-emergency reimbursement arrangements for councils, and
the limited budgets that many municipalities operate on year-by-year, means that this
increased level of expectation in the delivery of emergency response and recovery
services must be met with commensurate funding arrangements.
2
Victorian Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner, State Emergency Relief and Recovery Plan –Emergency
Management Manual Victoria,
http://www.oesc.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/OESC/Home/Policy+and+Standards/OESC++Emergency+Management+Manual+Victoria+%28PDF%29 p4-14 and 4-15.
3
See Appendix at page 18 of this submission for a list of municipal responsibilities as outlined in Part 7 of the EMMV.
6
3.2
SES State Flood Response Plan for Victoria
The Victoria State Emergency Service (SES) State Flood Response Plan for Victoria
2007 further adds to the expected role of municipalities. The SES plan includes a long list
of tasks that local councils are required to carry out. Many of these tasks go beyond a
council‘s limited capabilities during and after an emergency, and in fact contradict other
emergency management documents.
One example of this is that councils must provide ―...resources as available and needed
by the community and response agencies.‖4 The language used in the State Flood
Response Plan is too broad, the qualifier „as available‟ is open to interpretation and lacks
clarity or alternatives if availability is exceeded. In an emergency, this makes it difficult for
a municipality to prioritise the use of its finite resources while still delivering essential
services to the community and response agencies. When a municipality provides
resources as required, (either council resources or through an external provider), MAV
members have reported widespread confusion regarding whether the requesting agency
or the council, is responsible for the costs incurred. At the same time, Section 7 of the
EMMV – Emergency Management Agency Roles – acknowledges that the list of
responsibilities for Municipal Councils is ―indicative only...Most of the activities in the list
below are carried out by councils in close conjunction with, or with direct support by,
Government departments and agencies‖.5
An example of a contradictory task is the description of the responsibility for
communications. Part 3 of the EMMV refers to the Control Agency being responsible for
broadcasting warnings during an event.6 However the State Flood Response Plan for
Victoria 2007 states that councils should ―facilitate the delivery of warnings to the
community [and the] provision of information to public and media‖.7 This lack of clarity has
the potential to create confusion between agencies and increase risk during an
emergency event.
The SES has acknowledged that the 2007 plan is out-of-date and it is currently being
reviewed. However, this document – which exists in addition to the Emergency
Management Act 1986 and the EMMV – still clouds the definition of agency roles in
emergency response, relief and recovery. It provides further evidence of the need for an
all-hazards, all agencies approach to emergency management planning.
3.3
Growing Community Expectations – Council as the ‘closest/central agency’
Natural disasters such as the 2009 bushfires and the 2010-11 floods have highlighted the
community‘s growing expectation of the role that councils play during and after an
emergency. The councils most often impacted by emergency events in recent years are
smaller rural shires. Their low revenue bases and large land areas further hamper their
ability to respond to community and government expectations.
Community expectation of the role of local government in emergency management
continues to expand. In the absence of a clear role definition in line with capacity,
4
Victoria State Emergency Service, State Flood Response Plan for Victoria 2007, p18.
http://www.ses.vic.gov.au/CA256AEA002F0EC7/page/Listing-ses+publicationsState+&+Regional+Flood+Tsunami+and+Earthquake+Emergency+Plans?OpenDocument&1=30Publications~&2=~&3=~&REFUNID=E513F5997ABBD80CCA2573DE00754C0E~
5
EMMV, p7-60.
6
7
EMMV, p3-28.
Victoria State Emergency Service, State Flood Response Plan for Victoria 2007, p18.
7
councils often take on extra responsibilities to meet the needs of the community. On
occasions where lead agencies are not present or unable to fulfil their role, councils have
felt the need to meet those responsibilities. Feedback from flood-affected municipalities
has indicated that the common community expectation was that the local council was the
central response and coordinating agency, rather than the SES, Victoria Police or DHS.
Council officers in a number of municipalities report that in the months
that followed the 2010-11 flood events, it became increasingly difficult to
walk down the street without being confronted by local residents
regarding flood recovery activities. In the absence of Government
departments and other recovery agencies in flood-affected townships,
many council recovery staff feel that they bear the brunt of ongoing local
frustration, which in turn takes a toll on staff morale and resilience.
3.4
Recommendation
Future emergency management planning should be flexible to accommodate the unique
circumstances and capabilities of each of the agencies at the municipal level. Planning
should be sustainable, and incorporate local knowledge and networks. Ultimately, the
development of an all-hazards, all agencies approach to emergency management
planning would result in better responses to emergency events and better outcomes for
individuals and communities.
The MAV proposes that a review be undertaken, with input from local government, to
amend the role of municipal councils in the Emergency Management Act, Emergency
Management Manual Victoria and SES State Flood Response Plan for Victoria:
to better reflect municipalities‘ current range of capabilities and capacity,
to provide absolute clarity in the role of agencies and the delineation of those roles
and the expectation upon municipalities to support them,
to provide communities with greater clarity regarding the role of councils and
agencies, and
to acknowledge the day-to-day role of municipalities to provide essential services
and the need for this to be maintained during emergencies.
4
Theory in EMMV does not work well in practice
4.1
Structure
The current arrangements for emergency management control, command and
coordination focus on a tiered approach operating at the state, regional and local
(incident) level. The place of the municipality in this structure is not always consistently
described. The recent introduction of Emergency Management Teams (EMTs) to operate
at all three levels draws the natural collection of multi-agency personnel away from the
Municipal Emergency Coordination Centre (MECC). The EMMV clearly describes the role
of the EMT as being tasked by the Incident Controller ―to provide resources in support of
those (incident) strategies‖.8
During these flood events, there were situations where the Incident Controller was
located at the regional level spanning very large areas of the State. In these
8
EMMV, p3-18.
8
circumstances, there was no effective capacity to task the provision of resources at the
local level because there was no ‗local‘ incident EMT. The role of the MECC to support
resource provision at the local level was therefore rudderless and with no effective
linkage to an EMT.
MAV member councils advise that during the 2010-11 flood events, the
structure of Emergency Management Interdependencies flowchart in
Part 4 (Figure 6) of the EMMV did not operate as intended. In particular,
the role of local government sits outside the EMT, when in practice local
councils played a central role in the staffing and operation of the MECC.
As a result of this structural flaw, many councils did not receive up-todate information that was essential to flood preparation, evacuation and
the transition to recovery. In other cases, some councils had the most
up-to-date information, but were unable to communicate it to the control
agency as they were not sure where it was located, or the Incident
Control Centre was so remote (at the regional level) that it was out of
touch with the local situation.
The structure specified in both Parts 3 and 4 of the EMMV suggests that EMTs for major
emergencies operate at all three tiers of emergency management. If this is the preferred
arrangement then the necessity and relevance of the MECC in its current form is called
into question.
Evidence provided to MAV by its members highlighted that MECCs operated with varying
degrees of success during the floods. MECCs were rarely supported by all agencies, they
often operated without direction from the emergency management structure that was in
place. In some circumstances MECCs were seen as the control centre for the
emergency, being the only organised facility operating at the local level. It would seem
that all agencies have limited capacity to support the structural arrangements in their
current form.
As the management of the floods moved into recovery, the three-tiered structure was
evident, however the MAV believes organisational capacity would be better supported at
the municipal and regional levels to localise recovery as much as possible. Supporting
the local and regional recovery structures should increase coordination between
agencies, and improve the relevance of communications and recovery services that are
tailored to individual communities‘ needs.
4.2
Resourcing and Capacity
Under the current EMMV policy, councils are responsible for setting up and staffing the
MECC, and covering much of the cost of its operation. Many items are not ordinarily
reimbursable under the Natural Disaster Financial Arrangements, and the council must
meet the costs out of its own budget. This under-resourcing of MECCs leaves councils at
a financial disadvantage for providing an emergency management service, which itself
appears to be supported by other agencies in an inconsistent way.
Small regional municipalities often lack the capacity to respond to emergencies while also
carrying on normal council business and services. Councils are increasingly expected to
behave as emergency management agencies with inbuilt redundant capacity. In reality,
municipalities have a significant array of services they deliver to their communities. Many
9
of these services are essential to the ongoing health and well-being of the community and
at-risk individuals. Councils‘ provision of resources in support of response agencies is
limited by the need to maintain these other essential services. Small municipalities in
particular – and the local government sector in general – can only support an emergency
to the extent that other essential service delivery requirements continue.
A number of MAV members contend that recovery funding guidelines
are constructed to meet the objectives of the funding body and not the
objectives or needs of the community. Often the funding is announced
early when the community is not ready to start the recovery process and
their needs have not been established.
Feedback from councils suggests that strategic and practical long term
planning for recovery is made difficult by irregular short term funding
announcements.
Councils are also required to coordinate volunteers to assist in the clean-up and recovery
phase.9 This provision is predicated on the notion that local government knows the local
volunteer resources well, and has all the contacts and necessary management and
logistical capacity. This is a reasonable proposition. However this capacity does not
extend to managing significant external resources, (whether formally organised or adhoc) that arrive often unannounced and with the expectation of service and logistical
support.
One council reported that large numbers of volunteers were sent to the
municipality to assist with flood cleanup activities. While this effort was
appreciated, the council found that the volunteer coordination process
was difficult, resource-hungry and time consuming. To ensure the
continuity of other council-led recovery activities, the council resorted to
outsourcing the volunteer coordination task to the local Community
House, and provided a $10,000 grant to undertake the role.
The State opened a volunteer registration service, but did not coordinate the allocation of
volunteers and materials to match the requests for assistance from those in need. Floodaffected councils were expected to organise this locally, but were only covered by liability
insurance if the volunteers were undertaking ‗council-owned‘ recovery work. In future, any
volunteer efforts should be established from the outset to either:
Comply with councils insurance policies which allow coverage for volunteers
where the Volunteer Workers are working on that activity or project, within the
scope of their agreed duties, for and on behalf of the Council (including activity on
private property where appropriate permission/approval has been sought), or
The State take responsibility for volunteer coordination efforts (as occurred after
the Brisbane floods), or
The State funds volunteer coordinator positions managed by councils to execute
these tasks as occurred after the Victorian flood events in early 2011.
Many municipalities were confronted with complex insurance and personal liability risks
associated with tasking volunteers to undertake recovery works on both private and
public land.
9
EMMV, p4-14.
10
4.3
Command and Control
The vast geographic areas affected by the 2010-11 floods and the control structure
adopted by the SES meant that there was often a significant geographic distance
between the Incident Control Centre (ICC) and affected communities, and consequently
the MECCs and other local centres. This distance meant that the MECCs were often the
only formal response coordination structures in the immediate area, which left towns and
individuals vulnerable to avoidable errors. Councils have cited examples of towns where
the police and local SES units had no local control mechanisms, or were unable to assist
in the staffing of the MECC.
MAV member councils reported a number of significant issues with the
SES, including accessibility, capacity and resourcing during the 2010-11
flood events. Councils report that local SES units had little or no capacity
to fulfil their role as the control agency. In one municipality, the sole SES
unit had only seven volunteer members, with no ability to take command
and control at the local level.
Municipalities also advise there was confusion regarding SES and
agency roles, a lack of coordination for important actions such as
community meetings and the issuing of warnings, as well as informed
decisions regarding evacuation. A significant number of councils
experienced difficulty in establishing contact with the local SES, while in
other cases significant SES operational decisions were not
communicated back to the MECC.
The EMMV is absolutely clear in relation to the expectations of what happens at the state,
regional and incident (local) levels. However, during the floods of January in particular, it
was evident that:
The allocation of responsibilities at the incident level and the regional level were
blurred.
There was a lack of clarity of roles among the MECC, the control agency, the
incident EMT and other support agencies.
There was lack of clarity about who pays for equipment or works ordered by
response agencies and organised through the MECC.
There was limited capacity across the emergency management sector for
agencies to support the three levels of emergency management.
There was a lack of consistency in the way support agencies and utilities operate
at these levels of emergency management. Some have capacity at all levels,
some have strong regional capacity, but no local capacity. Others have strong
state capacity and local capacity, but no regional capacity. This structure depends
on interaction at all levels of all relevant agencies. Many agencies and support
organisations simply do not have this structural or organisational capacity.
Whilst it may appear that the MAV is critical of State Government agencies in their
support of municipalities, in many instances it was a lack of resourcing and the decisions
regarding how those limited resources were used – not a lack of willingness – that limited
support.
11
4.4
Relief and Recovery
Large flood events have caused significant damage to public assets. Their duration and
the length of the subsequent recovery period (often weeks or months), have resulted in
substantial additional costs for municipalities. Many municipalities have found it difficult to
claim relief and recovery related costs, and while the cost of many community and
individual recovery services are significant, they are often not reimbursable.
Consultation with a variety of municipalities from across the State has also shown a great
variation in the quality of support and assistance provided by the Department of Human
Services (DHS). A number of DHS regions have been shown to have had limited and
inconsistent capacity and performance during and after the 2010-11 flood events. This
has been a source of great frustration for municipalities in those regions, as they have
been required to step into the void and essentially perform as the central (or sole)
recovery agency.
4.5
Recommendation
The MAV suggests that improvements can be made to the structural support for councils
by strengthening the strata model at the local, regional and state emergency
management levels. In too many instances, regional level planning was a substitute for
local planning, and for some agencies that lacked regional capacity, this planning was
carried out at state level, too far away from the local impact of the emergency.
Furthermore, the MAV believes that local emergency planning should be decoupled from
the municipal geographical footprint, and a more flexible capacity and risk-driven model
adopted. In this way, regional emergency management planning would be supported at
the local level by a number of local (sub-regional) emergency management plans. Each
local plan would be based on one or more municipal areas. As such, local capacity is
pooled, agencies are not required to support multiple municipal structures, and local
planning is more appropriately aligned to the incident level, which often spreads across
more than one municipality.
Local government emergency management planning is already trending towards this
approach. For any significant incident, the capacity of agencies to respond stretches
beyond the municipal borders, so the artificial allocation of this geographical footprint
presents an unrealistic coordination and service delivery arrangement. Put simply, the
municipal geographical footprint may not be the best model for local emergency
management planning.
At the same time, regional planning needs to be reinforced and resourced so that there is
consistent engagement at this level and appropriate information flow occurs up and down
the line of command among state, regional to local levels. This requires agencies and
utilities to commit to the regional model and empower individuals to take action and drive
guidance and support to the local level.
5
Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements
The MAV has identified a number of areas of Victoria‘s current natural disaster
reimbursement arrangements that require significant improvement.
12
5.1
Reform is Overdue
Under the current Natural Disaster Financial Assistance (NDFA) scheme administered by
the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF), only council costs related to
emergency protection works and essential asset restoration are guaranteed for
reimbursement.10 Under the current policy, councils cannot claim for the use of their own
staff to undertake these works (as contractors are often scarce), and the reinstatement of
most community assets and provision of recovery-related services are also excluded from
the scheme.11 The reimbursement arrangements are often extended on an ad hoc basis
at the discretion of the Victorian Treasurer following a major natural disaster.
As a consequence, councils are required to make financial commitments well beyond
their forecasted budget estimates with no guarantee of reimbursement following a natural
disaster. With the increasing incidence of natural disasters due to climate change, the
current arrangements need to be reformed to provide budgetary assurance for councils
and reduce reliance on ad hoc State Government relief packages. Additional factors such
as large geographic areas, small populations and long road networks leave many
councils susceptible to long-term financial distress following natural disasters. It is
essential that these councils are not exposed to further financial challenges through
inconsistent reimbursement of emergency expenditure.
The MAV has long advocated for improvements to the NDFA scheme. The organisation
has written on behalf of its members to successive state governments since 2003
requesting that the guidelines be reviewed and amended.
A review of Victoria‘s Natural Disaster Financial Arrangements for Municipal Assistance
commenced in 2008. In April 2008, an Options Paper was published by the Office of the
Emergency Services Commissioner (OESC), which outlined four possible models for
reimbursing municipal councils following emergency events. This Options Paper
acknowledged the vitally important role municipal councils play in planning for,
responding to and recovery after emergency events:
“Without the committed involvement of municipal councils in emergency response and
recovery, emergency operations would be significantly impaired resulting in
consequences that are more adverse for the affected community and the local
economy.”12
In July 2008, the MAV lodged a submission in response to this Options Paper, indicating
that Option 4 was the organisation‘s preferred model, due to its capacity to provide a
continued level of budgetary certainty for councils following emergencies.13 However, the
NDFA Review was never completed and as a result, councils have been left with an
outdated system of reimbursement following natural disasters.
10
Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance, Natural Disaster Financial Assistance website,
www.dtf.vic.gov.au/CA25713E0002EF43/pages/bfm-natural-disaster-financial-assistance
1
Ibid.
12
Office of the Essential Services Commissioner, Reforming Victoria‟s Natural Disaster Financial Arrangements for
Municipal Assistance – Options Paper (State of Victoria: Department of Justice, 2008), p9.
13
Municipal Association of Victoria, Submission to the Reforming Victoria‟s Natural Disaster Financial Arrangements for
Municipal Assistance Options Paper (Melbourne: MAV, 2008), p2.
13
5.2
Narrow Scope of Eligible Expenditure
Member councils in flood-affected areas have advised that the scope of eligible
expenditure under the NDFA guidelines is too narrow, given the expanded role councils
are now expected to play. Under the EMMV, municipal councils are expected to lead
community relief and recovery efforts, without any reimbursement available through the
NDFA for the associated costs incurred. This places councils under significant financial
stress and can delay recovery activity.
The experience of one north-western municipality is a good example of
the narrow scope of eligible expenditure after a natural disaster. The
shire has found that ‗response‘ and ‗infrastructure repair‘ are much
easier to quantify under the NDFA guidelines than ‗recovery‘.
The shire reports that the support and advice provided by the regional
VicRoads representatives was excellent, and helped the organisation‘s
understanding of the guidelines and claimable items. However, while the
immediate damage repair to assets is a tangible marker of what work is
immediately required, the impact of the flood on the community is not
acknowledged in the NDFA guidelines.
The four pillars of recovery; built, natural environment, economic and
social provide the foundation for recovery planning, but are funded
differently. For social and economic recovery costs, councils are
required to apply for State Government grants with bureaucratic
guidelines and set timelines for delivery, which can delay the
municipality‘s ability to provide recovery services (though the local
experience suggests that recovery activities in all areas need to
commence at the same time as the response).
Four months after the local flood event, the shire is still awaiting the
confirmation of grant funding and State Government verification that the
proposed recovery functions are legitimate.
MAV member councils acknowledge that they have a key role to play in local emergency
management planning and delivery and have expressed a genuine commitment to do
whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of their communities. However, in order to do
this effectively, a sustainable funding model is needed. Given the limited financial and
resource capacity of many municipalities and the growing number of council
responsibilities, a broadening of the NDFA guidelines and streamlining of approvals and
payments is necessary.
5.3
Inefficient reimbursement invoicing requirements
Councils also advise that the current reimbursement arrangements for flood-affected
municipalities are inefficient and slow. The scale of the 2010-11 floods and the
cumbersome reimbursement process highlights the need for an urgent review of existing
invoice processing systems. Flood-affected municipalities appreciated the 50 per cent
upfront payment arrangements recently announced by the State Government. This option
should be incorporated into the standard NDFA policy, rather than being provided on an
ad hoc basis at the Treasurer‘s discretion.
14
A number of councils have reported difficulties in securing reimbursement for the cost of
resources ordered by the MECC at the request of emergency service agencies. Under
the EMMV, these costs should be met by the agency, not the municipality.
A further complicating factor is the lack of consistency between states in processing,
funding and reimbursing municipalities for costs during the relief and recovery phases
after an emergency event. This lack of consistency limits the essential requirement for
seamless emergency management across state borders, causing unnecessary
community anxiety and gaps in service provision.
5.4
Funding of Betterment Works
Councils affected by the 2010-11 floods have requested a review of the NDFA guidelines
in relation to betterment works. Currently, there is a restriction on funding for the
―increase in functionality‖14 of essential infrastructure such as bridges. However, given the
widespread and repeated damage caused by successive floods, a reassessment of these
betterment limitations would be appropriate. Under the Commonwealth Natural Disaster
Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) Betterment guidelines, provisions are made
for improving an essential public asset to a more disaster-resilient standard (see text box
below).15 A similar future-proofing provision should be considered for permanent inclusion
in the Victorian NDFA guidelines.
Commonwealth essential public asset betterment
3.6.5 In this Determination betterment, in relation to an asset, means the
restoration or replacement of the asset to a more disaster resilient standard
than its pre-disaster standard.
3.6.6 Betterment of an asset will be considered an eligible measure if:
a) the asset is an essential public asset; and
b) the state informs the Secretary of its decision to restore the asset to a more
disaster resilient standard, and of its reasons for doing so; and
c) the Secretary is satisfied with the cost effectiveness of the proposal; and
d) the Secretary is satisfied that the increased disaster resilience of the asset
will mitigate the impact of future natural disasters.
5.5
Use of council staff/contractor shortages
Flood-affected councils have also identified the need for greater flexibility in the NDFA
reimbursement policy to allow for the use of council staff for recovery works and
programs when required. In many rural areas, contractors are not readily available which
can result in significant delays, escalated restoration costs and a lost opportunity to use
local knowledge and boost local employment.
The MAV suggests that for remote rural shires, with little access to contractors or
materials, there may be a need to allow the use of council staff beyond the initial 72 hour
period if the council can demonstrate measures taken to outsource the work at a
reasonable cost were unsuccessful.
14
Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance, Natural Disaster Financial Assistance FAQs website,
www.dtf.vic.gov.au/CA25713E0002EF43/pages/bfm-natural-disaster-financial-assistance
15
Commonwealth of Australia Attorney-General‘s Department, Emergency Management in Australia, Natural Disaster
Relief and Recovery Guidelines 2011, p5,
http://www.ema.gov.au/www/emaweb/emaweb.nsf/Page/EmergencyManagement_RecoveringfromEmergencies_NaturalDi
sasterReliefandRecoveryArrangements_NDRRAGuidelines?open&query=ndrra
15
5.6
Recommendation
The MAV acknowledges that the State Government has made recent efforts to remedy
some shortcomings in the NDFA guidelines, by expediting the processing of invoices
between VicRoads and DTF for essential road restoration and repair works following the
2011 floods. There is also a precedent for amending the NDFA guidelines. After the 2009
bushfires, the list of claimable expenses was extended to better reflect the range of
activities that councils were expected to undertake.
However, relief and recovery funding after natural disasters is still provided on an ad hoc
basis at the discretion of the Treasurer, which means there is no certainty of
reimbursement for councils and their partner recovery agencies. This can create a lag
between the emergency event and the flow of essential additional funding that councils
need to deliver vital services and boost community resilience.
The MAV therefore recommends that the State Government simultaneously update the
NDFA guidelines and improve municipal reimbursement arrangements as a matter of
urgency.
6
Role of Catchment Management Authorities
Consultation with flood-affected municipalities has shown a varying degree of
engagement with local Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) before, during and
after the 2010-11 flood events.
Some councils report that the local CMA was able to provide useful warnings, predictions
and real-time updates ahead of a flood event, while other councils struggled to establish
contact and gain vital flood level information in time.
In many cases, municipalities also report that CMAs do not have the capacity or
resources to undertake the volume of work expected of them. After more than a decade
of drought, the 2010-11 floods have revealed a lack of clarity regarding the agency
responsible for maintaining and repairing flood mitigation infrastructure such as drains
and levees. In some cases, this has led to misdirected community frustration with the
local council.
6.1
Recommendation
Whilst it may be beyond the Terms of Reference this Review, the MAV suggests that a
review of the Water Act, Local Government Act and the Catchment and Land Protection
Act be undertaken to clarify responsibilities for the maintenance of waterways, creeks,
floodways, drains and other essential mitigation infrastructure. The MAV also suggests
that an increase in targeted funding for CMAs be considered, so that they can undertake
essential maintenance and repair work.
7
The Human Cost of Municipal Emergency Management
Staff burn-out is a critical issue for municipalities undertaking emergency management
tasks. MAV consultation with its members has consistently revealed that in the months
and years that follow an emergency event (such as the Black Saturday bushfires or a
major flood/s), council staff involved in response, relief and recovery activities are prone
to fatigue, absence, illness, and in some cases, prolonged leave or resignation due to
stress.
16
Council staff are expected to take on this extra work in addition to their substantive roles,
as there is little or no additional funding available for dedicated emergency management
staff. These employees often bear the brunt of community pain, loss and anger in the
aftermath of a natural disaster. For a number of councils, the cumulative impact of
multiple events and the ensuing staff turnover has led to lost institutional knowledge and
a need to consequently train new employees that hold voluntary emergency management
responsibilities. Councils have reported struggling to recruit existing employees into
voluntary emergency management roles.
7.1
Recommendation
The MAV recommends that the State Government examine ways of increasing resources
for municipalities to train their staff in emergency management practice and maintain their
skills by providing inductions, courses, attainment of qualifications, regular exercises and
other professional development opportunities. The MAV also suggests that the support
mechanisms available to municipal emergency management staff be improved.
8
Conclusions
The 2010-11 floods have exposed weaknesses in the structural support available to
municipalities to undertake their designated roles in emergency management, as well as
weaknesses in the overall framework. This Review presents an opportunity for the State
Government to assess the responsibilities of each agency involved in emergency
management and provide a clearer definition of roles, accountabilities and relationships
among agencies.
Amendments to the emergency response, relief and recovery models must acknowledge
and incorporate existing relationships among councils and agencies and the local
knowledge they possess. This will also enable councils to build greater resilience within
their communities and among neighbouring communities.
If local councils are expected to play an ongoing and increasing role in the planning,
coordination and delivery of emergency management services, serious reform of the
current municipal reimbursement arrangements must be considered. Councils cannot be
expected to continue delivering the current breadth, depth and duration of emergency
relief and recovery services without the certainty of reimbursement for costs incurred in a
time of crisis.
A solution needs to be found to the limited capacity of local government to respond to the
increasing demands to deliver services in emergency response, relief and recovery,
(especially given that sometimes the designated agency has proven unable to meet their
responsibilities). It may be that either or both of the following need to occur:
greater support be provided to State Government agencies so that they can carry
their share of the load at a local level
some contraction of the services expected and required of municipalities
Furthermore, where it is clear that local government is best placed to be the service
provider, then appropriate arrangements to fund, train and support the sector are
essential, while recognising the role of the municipality to continue delivering a broad
range of essential community services on a day-to-day basis.
17
9 Appendix A – Emergency Management Agency Roles, Part 7: EMMV
Municipal Councils
This is an indicative list. Refer Part 6 of the Manual for a more detailed description. Most
of the activities in the list below are carried out by councils in close conjunction with, or
with direct support by, Government departments and agencies.
Prevention / Mitigation / Risk Reduction Activities
· Perform municipal functions under Local Government, Fire, Health, Building, and
Planning legislation e.g. planning, building, occupancy.
· Identification and assessment of hazards/risks.
· Provision of community awareness, information and warning system(s).
· Identification and assessment of risks using a community emergency risk management
framework.
· Implementation/coordination of specific risk treatments for identified risks and exposed
elements in the community. Including, flood/fire management, maintaining a register of
at-risk groups, fire risk reduction (private and council lands).
Response Activities
· Provision of available resources needed by the community and response agencies.
· Establishment of MECC - facilities and staffing.
· Provision of facilities for emergency services‘ staging areas.
· Facilitate the delivery of warnings to the community.
· Provision of information to public and media.
· Coordination of the provision and operation of emergency relief (includes catering,
emergency relief centres, emergency shelters and material needs).
· Clearance of blocked drains and local roads, including tree removal.
· Support to VicRoads for partial/full road closures and determination of alternative
routes.
Recovery Activities
· Provision of information services to affected communities, using e.g. information lines,
newsletters, community meetings and websites
· Provision and staffing of Recovery/Information Centre(s).
· Formation and leadership of Municipal/Community Recovery Committees.
· Post-impact assessment — gathering and processing of information.
· Survey and determination regarding occupancy of damaged buildings.
· Environmental health management — including food and sanitation safety, vector
control, such as removing dead animals (domestic, native or feral) from waterways.
· Oversight and inspection of rebuilding/redevelopment.
· Provision and management of community development services.
· Provision and/or coordination of volunteer helpers.
· Provision of personal support services, e.g. counselling, advocacy.
· Coordination of clean up activities, including disposal of dead animals (domestic,
native and feral).
· Provision/coordination of temporary accommodation.
· Repair/restoration of infrastructure, e.g. roads, bridges, sporting facilities, public
amenities.
· Organisation, management or assistance with public appeals.
18
10 Appendix B – Victorian Floods Review: Terms of Reference
In accordance with its terms of reference, the Review of the 2010-11 Flood Warnings and
Response will examine:
the adequacy of flood predictions and modelling
the timeliness and effectiveness of warnings and public information
emergency services command and control arrangements
the adequacy of evacuations of people most at-risk, including those in health and
aged care facilities
the adequacy of clean-up and recovery efforts
the adequacy of service delivery by federal, state and local governments
the adequacy of funding provided by state and federal governments for
emergency grants.
19
11 References
Commonwealth of Australia Attorney-General‘s Department, Emergency Management in
Australia, Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Guidelines 2011
http://www.ema.gov.au/www/emaweb/emaweb.nsf/Page/EmergencyManagement_Recoveringfro
mEmergencies_NaturalDisasterReliefandRecoveryArrangements_NDRRAGuidelines?open&query
=ndrra
Municipal Association of Victoria, Submission to the Reforming Victoria‟s Natural Disaster
Financial Arrangements for Municipal Assistance Options Paper (Melbourne: MAV, 2008)
Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance, Natural Disaster Financial Assistance
website, www.dtf.vic.gov.au/CA25713E0002EF43/pages/bfm-natural-disaster-financial-assistance
Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance, Natural Disaster Financial Assistance
FAQs website, www.dtf.vic.gov.au/CA25713E0002EF43/pages/bfm-natural-disaster-financialassistance
Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents, Emergency Management Act 1986,
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/
Victorian Office of the Essential Services Commissioner, Reforming Victoria‟s Natural
Disaster Financial Arrangements for Municipal Assistance – Options Paper (State of
Victoria: Department of Justice, 2008)
Victorian Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner, State Emergency Relief and
Recovery Plan –Emergency Management Manual Victoria,
http://www.oesc.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/OESC/Home/Policy+and+Standards/OESC++Emergency+Management+Manual+Victoria+%28PDF%29
Victoria State Emergency Service, State Flood Response Plan for Victoria 2007
http://www.ses.vic.gov.au/CA256AEA002F0EC7/page/Listing-ses+publicationsState+&+Regional+Flood+Tsunami+and+Earthquake+Emergency+Plans?OpenDocument&1=30Publications~&2=~&3=~&REFUNID=E513F5997ABBD80CCA2573DE00754C0E~
20