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

Inspector-General Emergency Management

The 2015 Review of Local Governments’ Emergency Warning Capability specifically identified the importance of pre-populated and crafted messages. We note that many pre-planned campaigns have been developed but still many ad hoc campaigns were issued during Debbie for areas where the risk of inundation would have been known. Campaigns that were approved and issued in a timely manner through the SDCC were most often ones where the local group had pre-prepared and had also been tested. Many of the councils contacted by the Office of the IGEM identified that they had pre-planned and populated campaigns available, some indicating that one of the preparatory tasks they undertook as the event approached was to review these messages and polygons. Watch Desk staff also contacted many of the northern councils in the potential path of the cyclone to review and preload their messages should they be needed. These processes enabled these campaigns to be approved and issued much quicker. When we looked at campaign details we concluded that there are varying factors that can cause delays. Some delays were for EAs produced ad hoc , not from those that were pre-prepared. We saw and heard examples where polygons had to be resubmitted because of wrong format, and where delays resulted from Watch Desk staff difficulty relating the polygon to the system’s map. Other issues arose when the message needed changing. We saw several campaigns with email exchange between SDCC and local group before the message content was agreed. One council thought this back-and-forth in communications lost valuable time. The result was that a flood warning came out just minutes before the follow-up message to evacuate.

While we consider that most campaigns were done in a timely manner for the event , we do note that complex events requiring warnings to multiple sites can be slower. When issues with campaigns need drawn-out resolution and approvals, the Queensland centralised approach can further delay campaigns. In New South Wales and Victoria, EA operators are often deployed forward to work directly with incident controllers to prepare and disseminate Emergency Alerts. We heard a standard time frame to issue an EA in Queensland is 30-40 minutes. We also heard from a Victorian forward deployed operator that their normal time to issue an alert is 7-8 minutes – within 15 minutes being the aim. If it takes more than 15 minutes, the operator said they “would be nervous.’” We understand that software that could resolve the polygon format issues is available in the Kedron GIS unit. We also heard from both Watch Desk Staff and from local groups that indicate not enough is known about EA. In many debriefs councils raised the problem of unintended people receiving the SMS. These comments perhaps signal a lack of awareness about how the SMS location based service works. We also note that the issuing of alerts along local government boundaries at times resulted in people on one side of a river receiving a warning while those directly across the river did not. This failure to coordinate warnings along catchments has been noted in previous IGEM reviews and remains a significant risk. The content of messages sometimes caused problems, with both councils and communities indicating that people were unsure what action to take when receiving the warnings. In some places the message “go to higher ground” ran the risk of sending people through flood waters. When community respondents were asked to identify key improvements for emergency warnings, 31 per cent of respondents suggested the provision of more detailed and clear information on topics like road closures and evacuation centres.

Themes

94

The Cyclone Debbie Review

Lessons for delivering value and confidence through trust and empowerment