What Happened to Queensland's Disaster Management Arrangements?: From ‘Global Best Practice’ to ‘Unsustainable’ in 3 Years

Abstract

The Queensland Police and Community Safety Review (PACSR) 2013 headed by Mick Keelty was tasked by the Queensland government to examine the State's emergency management practices and processes. Commissioned before any crisis, the PACSR was still collecting evidence when extensive flooding occurred across many regional centres of Queensland in 2013. It was the subsequent management of this event, and selected evidence from earlier inquiries that underpinned many of the findings in the final PACSR report. Keelty recommended institutional and organizational restructuring that included the abolition of a department, and the tasking of the fire and rescue service with additional oversight and audit functions. PACSR argued too much emphasis was placed on relationships, which made disaster management in Queensland potentially unsustainable in the longer term. Some of the findings replicated those of earlier inquiries (O'Sullivan 2009;QFCI 2012), including the apparent reluctance by police to implement communications systems that are interoperable with other emergency agencies. This reluctance to embrace new technologies indicates institutional and cultural barriers to reform. Despite this, the Police and Fire and Rescue services have been given additional responsibilities by the Newman government, based on Keelty's recommendations. PACSR did not appear to evaluate some of the best practice aspects of the 2010-2011 flooding event, whereas some suggest the report had a predetermined element to it (Byrne 2014). In finding that too much emphasis was placed on informal relationships and networks in 2013, and concentrating on structural reforms instead, this paper argues that the PACSR discounted many features that current crisis literature notes as important for a successful disaster management response.

Policing in pandemics: A systematic review and best practices for police response to COVID-19

“… Author (Year) (Health) Emergency Findings Andersson and Lindström [ 61 ] Training exercises Explores collaboration during an emergency training exercise, finding that boundaries were often along institutional lines. Arklay [ 62 ] Flooding Compares institutional and leadership differences within emergency services between two disasters. Berlin and Carlström [ 63 ] Multiple Examines learning during collaboration exercises, suggesting that challenges to collaboration are present in all multi-agency environments.…”

“…A first step in any coordination and planning effort is deciding on the setup of adequate structures and hierarchies. Arklay [ 62 ]; who analyses differences in institutional setup and leadership in emergency services between two disasters, finds, that there can be significant obstacles to a more coherent and collaborative structure. Not only can restructuring agencies create uncertainty and division amongst the staff and further power imbalances between agencies, it can also lead to overt rejection by staff and long-term failure of restructuring measures [ 62 ].…”

“…Arklay [ 62 ]; who analyses differences in institutional setup and leadership in emergency services between two disasters, finds, that there can be significant obstacles to a more coherent and collaborative structure. Not only can restructuring agencies create uncertainty and division amongst the staff and further power imbalances between agencies, it can also lead to overt rejection by staff and long-term failure of restructuring measures [ 62 ]. The latter can especially be problematic, if restructuring efforts cause additional workloads or financial or resource strain [ 62 ].…”

“…Not only can restructuring agencies create uncertainty and division amongst the staff and further power imbalances between agencies, it can also lead to overt rejection by staff and long-term failure of restructuring measures [ 62 ]. The latter can especially be problematic, if restructuring efforts cause additional workloads or financial or resource strain [ 62 ].…”

Nonprofit and public sector interorganizational collaboration in disaster recovery: Lessons from the field

“…Collaboration in emergency management occurs when people from different organizations create and sustain relationships that encourage trust, build consensus, produce, and share ownership of a collective objective (FEMA, ; Kamensky & Burlin, ). A willingness to collaborate is an indispensable tool in emergency management to deal with uncertainty and complex extreme events (Arklay, ; Waugh & Streib, ).…”