What happened to Queensland's disaster management arrangements?: from 'Global Best Practice' to 'Unsustainable' in 3 years

Arklay, Tracey (2015) What happened to Queensland's disaster management arrangements?: from 'Global Best Practice' to 'Unsustainable' in 3 years. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74 2: 187-198. doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12122

Author Arklay, Tracey
Title What happened to Queensland's disaster management arrangements?: from 'Global Best Practice' to 'Unsustainable' in 3 years
Journal name Australian Journal of Public Administration   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1467-8500
Publication date 2015-02-01
Year available 2015
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/1467-8500.12122
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 74
Issue 2
Start page 187
End page 198
Total pages 12
Place of publication Richmond, VIC, Australia
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
Language eng
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.
Keyword Disaster management
Government inquiries
Political leadership
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ
Additional Notes Published online 5 February 2015

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Institute for Social Science Research - Publications
Official 2016 Collection
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article
Scopus Citation Count Cited 1 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 17 Feb 2015, 10:35:39 EST by System User on behalf of ISSR - Research Groups