IGEM Report 1: 2017-18 - THE CYCLONE DEBBIE REVIEW

The Cyclone Debbie Review

Community engagement Engagement seems to have been done particularly well in North Queensland. Before Debbie, as for other cyclone seasons, significant educational programs were dedicated to raising public awareness. They covered seasonal hazards and the need to prepare well, and resulted in residents heeding advice from local groups in Debbie-related evacuations. This empowered individuals to take ownership of their own preparedness and increased the overall community’s resilience for Debbie and flooding hazards. The early availability of evacuation maps on council websites also enabled effective evacuation of communities. Whitsunday in particular has put considerable effort into its evacuation zones and public messaging. The effectiveness of such work was evident in the relatively low numbers presenting at cyclone shelters and evacuation centres. Many local residents self-evacuated to stay with family and friends. In Mackay, people moved to hotels on higher ground. Only a very few of our community survey respondents saw room for improvement. In the cyclone-affected areas of Mackay and Whitsunday around seven per cent of respondents wanted either more information or education about how to prepare and where to evacuate to, or more evacuation centres or cyclone shelters. 124 Our community survey of permanent residents revealed that, in the Whitsundays, only four per cent of those who evacuated went to an official evacuation facility, and in Mackay two per cent. Residents perceived their choices to be more comfortable than the centres and viewed the centres (correctly) as a place of last resort. In the planning and engagement for evacuation during Debbie there was increased awareness of the needs of vulnerable people. The DCCSDS reported a substantial shift towards better support for their needs and arrangements. At both the local and state levels the needs of different communities had been pre-identified. Special consideration had been given to the evacuation of: • older people living at home alone • people with disabilities • people with hearing or visual impairment • single parents with young children • large families • people with identified illness, e.g. on a dialysis machine • people newly arrived to the area, the state or even the country such as tourists or migrant workers. Greater engagement of vulnerable people was also achieved in Debbie, by leveraging pre-existing relationships across statewide networks. These relationships included the National Disability Insurance Scheme stakeholders. Service providers including the Australian Red Cross, RSL Care, BlueCare, industry peak bodies, state agencies, advocacy groups, and other local community centres all contributed. Each assisted in getting information about Debbie to the more vulnerable residents of Queensland by using their own networks to increase the reach of the messaging. This increased ability to get clear messages to the vulnerable has been informed by the work of the DCCSDS. The development of the “vulnerabilities framework,” 125 People with vulnerabilities in disasters – a framework for an effective local response , assisted this process. The framework aims to help identify and engage people likely to be vulnerable in disasters, and the stakeholders who know them or provide services to them. This approach is indicative of how sharing information outside of traditional channels, can be utilised to increase community resilience to disasters. Where local groups had directly engaged the aged care sector, for example, care homes understood the warnings. In directed evacuations they were able to enact their previously exercised evacuation plans, and use pre-arranged transport options.

Themes

109

6 THEMES

EVACUATION: In Debbie • Planning • Community engagement