Emergency Management Legislation Amendment (Planning) Bill Exposure Draft

Transcription

1 Emergency Management Legislation Amendment (Planning) Bill 2016 Exposure Draft Submission by David Sherry, Operations Manager Regional Commander For and on behalf of CFA South East Region General Comments The potential exists for the term Municipal and Municipal District to be used interchangeably. If this was to occur, confusion may arise, resulting in unanticipated or unwanted outcomes relating to emergency management. As the intent is to deliver unified and collaborative emergency management planning for mitigation, response and recovery within specified footprints, it is preferable that terminology is consistent and reflective of this intent. The term Municipal is distinctly different to Council. Municipal relates to a specific geographic footprint, whereas Council relates to the governance and administrative structures and arrangements instituted. To this end, the use of the term Municipal, for that level of emergency management, is appropriate and could be the preferred and standardised descriptor used. Retention of the term municipal would allow for existing terms and acronyms such as MEMPC to continue to be used. Municipal and regional emergency management planning must be and must be seen to be owned by the relevant Emergency Management Committee and its member agencies/organisations. Each Committee should view their planning as being the combining of input and expertise for the municipal or regional footprint. This is especially so at the municipal level. The Municipal Emergency Management Planning Committee (MEMPC) is a cooperative body working for the community. The members of the MEMPC share the ownership/custody of the Municipal Emergency Management Plan (MEMP) rather than working for council or seeing the plan as being the responsibility or ownership of council. Council must of course have active representation on and input to the MEMPC and also to the Regional Emergency Management Planning Committee (REMPC). Comments pertaining to specific sections follows:- s. 40A (1) Current arrangements see a standing/ongoing Emergency Response Coordinator appointed for each region and municipality. Is it the intention that this standing arrangement will continue or will it change whereby an Emergency Response Coordinator is appointed upon the circumstance of an emergency requiring same? s. 40A (2) This would suggest that the Municipal/Regional Coordinator may exercise the power to issue directions which concern the allocation of resources responding to an emergency. Does this mean that the Coordinator may override or contradict the directions of an Incident or Regional Controller?

2 s. 54(1)(b) This would seem to mean that the election of a Chairperson of the REMPC must come from the members described in s. 54(1)(a) (i) to (vii). In other words, the Chairperson of the REMPC must originate from a Department or uniformed agency within the Region. This has the potential to create two tiers of REMPC membership, a situation that must be avoided in order to ensure the full commitment from all committee members and the agencies and organisations that they represent. s. 54(1)(b)(i) and (iii) There appears to be a duplication in these two sub sections, in that they both include reference to a person(s) nominated by the Chief Executive Officer of a Municipal Council in response to an invitation from the Chairperson. The current wording creates confusion that should be addressed. s. 54(1)(b)(i) is being interpreted as meaning where there is a collaborative municipal model within the Region, one such Municipality will make such representative nomination whereas s. 54(1)(b)(iii) affords the opportunity for all municipalities within the Region to be nominate a member. Is this the case and the intention? s.55(2) Outlines the functions of the REMPC Chairperson. This role is vital to the successful conduct, performance and deliverables of the Committee. Given the growing complexity and workload imposed upon the REMPC, and more particularly the Chairperson, it is vital that ongoing executive support be provided to the Chairperson and that it be funded by EMV. Consideration should be given to an EMV appointed Chairperson due to workload and to enhance member contribution/participation. s. 57(ba) The draft identifies that the REMPC is to consider any MEMP submitted by an MEMPC for approval. Importantly, s. 57 does not clearly establish that the REMPC is responsible for the actual approval of MEMP s. More explicitness is required regarding the approval requirements and process. s. 59A(1)(a)(i) The draft suggests that Council will be represented by a Senior Officer. This requires further clarification and definition to ensure appropriately qualified and/or empowered Council Officers are appointed to the MEMPC, thus ensuring robustness and commitment. The draft further suggests that the Council Senior Officer be the Chairperson designate for the MEMPC. Whilst not disagreed with, this would seem to be inconsistent with provisions for the Regional and State Emergency Management Committees, where their respective Chairperson is elected by the Committee. Notwithstanding the recommended structure and membership of MEMPC s, the current draft proposes an agency nomination process that cannot occur when there is no initial chairperson (acknowledging that the current draft provides for the Municipal Senior Officer to be the MEMPC Chairperson). s. 59B(2) - Outlines the functions of the MEMPC Chairperson. This role is vital to the successful conduct, performance and deliverables of the Committee. Given the growing complexity and workload imposed upon the MEMPC, and more particularly the Chairperson, it is vital that ongoing executive support be provided to the Chairperson and that it be funded by EMV.

3 s. 59G(2)(b) The responsibilities of the Municipal Emergency Management Officer (MEMO) are quite broad. This has advantages in not being prescriptive or restrictive. In saying this, it is silent in relation to whether the assisting in coordination is intended to include all phases of mitigation, response and recovery. It is also noted that no connection between the future MEMO role and the current Municipal Recovery Manager (MRM) has been written. Is the MEMO intended to combine the Municipal Emergency Resource Officer (MERO) and MRM functions? s. 60AB(c) Establishes that the REMPC will be charged with being the relevant approver of a MEMP. Whilst it is anticipated that the signatory to such an approval will be the Chairperson of the REMPC, this draft is silent on this important aspect regarding approval. s. 60AE Is very broad in its description and requirement regarding the contents of emergency management plans. Further detail will be needed to ensure that Emergency Management Planning Committees develop contemporary and tailored plans. s. 60AE(d) EMMV identifies agency roles and responsibilities. The requirement to include the same within a MEMP and REMP is considered to be an unnecessary duplication. Part 8 It is recognised and acknowledged that Ministerial Guidelines will be developed in conjunction with, and in support of these proposed legislative changes. Without access to such Guidelines, it is difficult to make comment or suggestion regarding Part 8. Indeed, it also makes it difficult to provide more detailed and informed feedback regarding the draft legislative changes. Ministerial Guidelines will undoubtedly contain much of the detail not otherwise included within the draft legislation. Response to Questions in Issues Paper Q1. Is the size and composition of the REMPC s appropriate and workable in practice? If not, how should the REMPC be constituted instead? CFA South East Region considers that the proposal will be appropriate and workable, subject to the establishment of appropriate work groups/sub committees and the provision of effective and funded executive support to the respective REMPC. Optimisation would be further achieved through the appointment of an independent EMV chairperson due to workload. Furthermore, such an appointment would provide for better control and ability to drive REMPC members to deliver responsibilities and goals. It is arguable that the role of REMPC Chairperson be apportioned to EMV Regional Emergency Management Planning Facilitator. Consideration should be given to the possibility of no agency or committee member seeking or accepting nomination for election to the position of chairperson. Ministerial Guidelines must identify the processes to be taken should an REMPC or a constituent member agency/organisation not fulfil their obligations.

4 Q2. Is the size and composition of the MEMPC s appropriate and workable in practice? If not, how should the MEMPC s be constituted? CFA South East Region considers that the proposal will be appropriate and workable, subject to the establishment of appropriate work groups/sub committees and the provision of effective and funded executive support to the respective MEMPC. The Municipal Senior Officer must be a suitable person to fulfil the role of Chairperson in addition to their representative responsibilities. Q3. Is the new model for shared responsibility sufficiently clear and robust? If not, how could this model be strengthened? Without access to the proposed Ministerial Guidelines that will accompany these legislative changes, it is difficult to provide feedback that will value add. Q4. Are the provisions that facilitate collaboration clear and workable in practice? If not, how could they be improved? See response to Q3. Additionally, collaboration will only be as effective as the calibre of the respective committee members and the empowerment that they have to represent their respective organisation and make the necessary decisions. Q5. Are these mechanisms sufficient to prevent conflict between the new emergency management plans and existing plans and arrangements? If not, what additional mechanisms would be desirable? Given the current absence of Ministerial Guidelines, this is a difficult question to answer. In saying this, and based on the currently available information, it is considered that there may be sufficient differentiation between the current and proposed plans and arrangements. Q6. Are these approval mechanisms appropriate? If not, what other arrangements would be preferable? At municipal level, this will be acceptable given the change of ownership/custody of the MEMP from council to the Committee. A considerable workload will be created to develop a new MEMP, be it as a whole new plan or the complex task of modifying and migrating a current MEMP to the new arrangements. At regional level, further clarification is required as to the approval process and the signatories to such approval. A considerable workload will be created to develop a new REMP, be it as a whole new plan or the complex task of modifying and migrating a current REMP to the new arrangements. Furthermore, additional workload will be imposed upon the REMPC arising from the MEMP approval process.

5 Q7. Is a dispute resolution process for the REMPC s and/or MEMPC s desirable? If so, how should this process work? Unintended financial consequence or resource management pressures on agencies and organisations could impact deliverables under the plan. Therefore any dispute resolution process must account for this. Resolution processes to address agencies or organisations failing to adequately or satisfactorily participate in planning, either as a committee member or not, is silent. It is anticipated that Ministerial Guidelines will provide specific and sufficient detail. Q8. If a dispute process is desirable, should this be included in the EM Act 2013, the guidelines, or be established in some other way? It is highly desirable that such a process be included within the EM Act 2013, in order that it has sufficient head or power and is enforceable and compelling. Q9. Are the assurance mechanisms appropriate and sufficiently robust? If not, how could they be strengthened or improved? It is proposed that IGEM will be responsible for ensuring assurance. Insufficient information/detail is available to satisfactorily answer this question. It is preferable that as the Ministerial Guidelines and any other supportive arrangements are drafted, opportunity will be given to examine, consider and provide comment on these. Q10. Is the obligation to comply with emergency management plans appropriate? Should this apply in the same way to these plans at the state, regional and municipal levels? The current draft would suggest that obligations will be appropriate. For consistency and unification, obligations should be applied equally and similarly across the three (3) levels. Q11. Is the process for making urgent updates to emergency management plans appropriate and workable in practice? It is unlikely that a matter or circumstance would be deemed to be so urgent that the integrity of the plan would be challenged or changed, nor require a specific process to be articulated. Many MEMPC s and REMPC s have Executive Committee s established. Depending upon the endorsement/empowerment of the respective EMPC, delegation to enable urgent updates could be undertaken this way. Alternatively, any MEMPC and REMPC could determine its operating arrangements for such matters or circumstances.

6 Q12. Is the role of councils in emergency management planning appropriate and sufficiently clear? If not, how could it be clarified or improved? Councils should not be identified or seen as having ownership/custody of MEMPC s and MEMP s. They are however integral to a successful planning process and the implementation of MEMP s. Councils must ensure that the Senior Officer is the right and correct person to ensure a strong and robust partnership/relationship/connection exists between the MEMPC and Council. Whilst integral to the emergency planning process, at both municipal and regional levels, the changed arrangements and relationship must be acknowledged and respected by Councils and EMPC s. Q13. Is the new role of the MEMO appropriate? Should any other specific roles at the municipal level be included in the new framework? Clarity of roles is required. No mention is made of the MRM. As this draft clearly points to emergency management mitigation, response and recovery, is it proposed that the MEMO be the delegated/appointed role for all phases or will the MEMO role be separate to the MRM role? Given the importance of the MEMO role (and MRM if separate), it is arguable that this (these) position(s) be considered for membership on the MEMPC. It is most unlikely that a Council Senior Officer will be the designated MEMO/MRM. Furthermore, the MEMO is identified as performing coordination functions. This has the potential to create confusion with the role of Municipal Emergency Response Coordinator (MERC). ENDS