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

The Cyclone Debbie Review

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION As a severe tropical cyclone, Debbie crossed the coast in the Whitsunday area on Tuesday 28 March 2017. The impacts of this slow-moving weather system were immediately felt by local communities and Mackay. Over the coming days, strong winds and torrential rain resulted in significant damage to homes, infrastructure and agriculture across the region. Major flooding isolated or impacted many communities. By the night of Thursday 30 March Debbie’s rainfall in the south east corner of Queensland led to rapid-onset flooding affecting communities within the Scenic Rim, Gold Coast and Logan council areas. As Debbie continued her track south into Northern New South Wales, Queensland’s Disaster Management System (the System) moved from response to recovery. The impact of Debbie across a large area of Queensland is now well documented and the vast recovery effort underway will continue into the future. The Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) reports that damage to agriculture in Queensland following Debbie will exceed $1 billion and in excess of $1.5 billion to coal exports. Debbie resulted in three events which at times were concurrent: • Cyclonic impact and consequential damage including major flooding, • Rapid-onset flood events in the south eastern corner of the state, and • Slow-onset flood events in Central Queensland, particularly Rockhampton. The Office of the Inspector-General Emergency Management (IGEM) was tasked by the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Minister for Corrective Services with examining these three events, not from the perspective of any individual agency or disaster management group but how the System as a whole responded.

To inform this report we engaged with 80 entities. We also actively sought the views of 1,200 members from impacted communities in order to validate our collective actions and inform future strategies. The disaster management sector is experienced at reviewing “how things worked” following operational activity. While local lessons are often identified, lessons for the broader system are less so. Shortcomings have stemmed from attention on what went wrong. Lessons, good practice and innovation emerging from Debbie must continue to inform continuous improvement. Our perspectives of this review are that leadership at all levels of government and non-government are committed to ensuring the best community outcomes. Queensland’s size and decentralised nature underpins its local leadership of the management of disasters. Local governments across Queensland differ in many ways. All have the same responsibility, but their practical capability and capacity varies. Twenty-two disaster districts support local governments and local disaster management groups. Supporting the disaster districts and providing direction about disaster management are a range of state-level committees, groups and agencies. At their peak sits the Queensland Disaster Management Committee (the QDMC or Committee). The Committee is chaired by the Premier of Queensland.

The QDMC is supported by the State Disaster Coordinator (SDC) and the State Disaster Coordination Group (SDCG). The SDCG comprises senior officers from all Queensland Government departments, the Queensland Reconstruction Authority, and the Public Safety Business Agency (PSBA). Non-government organisations and commonwealth agencies are standing invitees. Energy Queensland’s two electricity distributors – Energex and Ergon – along with Telstra, Optus, and dam operators SunWater and Seqwater are included. All governments strive to ensure the communities they serve value, or receive value from, the services that they deliver. Building and maintaining community confidence and participation in the System, as public value changes over time is difficult. For all levels of government, maintaining trust with communities is key to both engaging people and delivering disaster management community outcomes. If information given to the community about disaster events does not meet its needs, it can lead to confusion, unrealistic expectations and ineffective or unsafe responses. Community engagement should not just refer to the one-way provision of information. For the community to accept they have a role, collaborative engagement requires honesty and transparency. Realistic expectations must be set. When the government’s management of disaster response is implemented alongside an empowered community, there is a greater chance that activities will be better targeted, received and sustainable.

Its standing members are ministers, supported by “attending officials,” who are senior public servants.

Notes a. Throughout this review, we refer to the weather caused by this event by the name given to the cyclone by the Bureau – Debbie.

9

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction