A Framework for Recovery - Other Key Learnings

Proximity to Hobart

It was recognised that the greatest impact from the 2013 bushfires was in the south and proximity to the Hobart office provided relative ease for the coordination of activities. Even so, the distance between locations had communication issues. Feedback shows the importance of ensuring early integration of Information Technology (IT) systems and routine communication channels to help staff feel more connected.

If a large-scale emergency were to occur in a different part of the State, feedback suggests that certain functions could occur in a central office in Hobart but that a regional base for planning and coordination would need to be established, drawing on local expertise and relocating staff from Hobart to key positions if needed.

Coordination of partners

Many formal and informal clubs, groups and individuals provided important local knowledge and support throughout the different phases of the recovery. Appendix Two provides a timeline of the main activities undertaken, and while not all activities are included in the timeline, it illustrates the high level of interaction and provides an indication of the planning and coordination required to enable these activities to occur.

The Active Partners Program was developed early in the recovery process as a mechanism to engage and collaborate with the broad array of organisations involved in the recovery process. In many areas, the process was highly successful and allowed the State and local governments to work effectively with community groups. At the margins, however, further attention could be given to ensuring that all of those involved in the recovery process are aware of activities and have the opportunity to have input into programs. For future emergencies, consideration could be given to dedicating resources to this program to more effectively capture the benefits of broad engagement and collaboration.

Recovery roles and responsibilities

The State Recovery Plan and the arrangements established under the Emergency Management Act 2006 provide the framework for the coordination of recovery at the State, regional and local levels. During the early days of the recovery process, however, it was apparent that recovery roles and responsibilities were not as clearly defined as was required and that many stakeholders experienced confusion and concern about who was doing what and how they could best contribute.

While these issues were quickly resolved, it would be beneficial for the smooth transition to recovery to more regularly discuss and update registers of key positions and organisations that are available to support the recovery process. There was widespread agreement that an annual pre-fire season audit would be a useful planning exercise to:

• Identify recovery partners, local clubs, committees and other groups, and to update key contact details.
• Confirm which groups in each region or community have the capacity to fulfil distinct recovery roles.
• Confirm roles and prepare a register of agreed responsibilities.
• Confirm availability of relevant recovery infrastructure and equipment (such as generators, stretcher beds, and so on)

Hearing from the community

The Taskforce was committed to hearing from the community to ensure recovery activities were addressing community priorities. As Dr Rob Gordon, Consulting Psychologist said, “we need to listen more than we have time for.”

Forums for providing feedback

Feedback from the community was gathered through the formal governance representation at forums such as STAARC. Community meetings, community consultations and surveys were also conducted at various intervals. Organisations involved in the recovery regularly talked between themselves to organise and share resources.

Community consultation

Some community members felt, at times, they just wanted to ‘get on with things’ – they were over-consulted and surveyed-out. Others felt they wanted more opportunity to contribute. Balancing this conflict was difficult and it became clear that different forms of consultation were important to meet the various needs and preferences of community members.

During November 2013, almost a year after the fires, a telephone survey was conducted with 300 community members as part of the review recovery processes. Almost all who were contacted were very pleased to contribute their views (refer to Appendix Three for summary of results). Paper and online forms were also widely distributed at this time through as many channels as possible, but had a very low uptake. This indicates a preference for sharing such views orally, rather than by filling out yet another form.

However, for other consultations, such as the feedback process for the Community Assistance Grants, people preferred paper forms to read, ponder and respond in their own time.

Informal feedback

The community also voiced their stories and opinions informally, and often this provided the greatest detail and information. Regular drop-ins at the Information Service Hubs were encouraged; locals were invited to have a cuppa and a chat and to let the staff know what was happening. Daily teleconferencing link-ups between the DISH and the Bushfire Recovery Unit in Hobart meant that locals’ concerns were translated quickly into action at the appropriate level within government.

Asking questions

Conversations with Bushfire Recovery staff and other organisations on the ground provided an opportunity to dispel myths that sometimes circulated. The 1800 number provided people with easy access to voice their immediate concerns or to ask questions – allowing staff to provide advice and clear up misinformation on the spot or, where necessary, seek follow up.

Keeping the community updated

Community representatives brought wider community views into formal meetings such as STAARC. However, some members of the community reflected that it was difficult to know what happened during the meetings when dissemination of key messages relied on a limited number of busy people. It was suggested that short summary updates of important messages could be produced by Unit staff and disseminated online, via email, Phone Tree or posted on bulletin boards at the hubs. This would make regular updates simple and easy and keep communities informed of key decisions while taking the pressure of community representatives and hub staff.

Although STAARC did receive this feedback and act upon it in mid-2013, it is acknowledged that the routine of sending out communiques following each meeting has not occurred regularly, usually due to time constraints and other priorities. This should be considered a priority in future emergencies.

Grassroots communication

The community survey undertaken for the review revealed that for many people, it is community spirit that is getting them through. This was fostered with grassroots communication and a range of activities organised by the community throughout the region.

Community-managed blackboards were placed in prominent places; they fostered community expression and collective understanding. The SMS Phone Tree – where an SMS message ended with the phrase “Please Forward” – let people stay in touch with key messages. Some people organised themselves into groups and started to meet either formally or informally.

All of these techniques helped the community stay informed, know what and how to get things going, and stay connected with each other.