Steps towards strengthening resilience
The road to strengthening resilience following the bushfires is paved with the promise of better policy. Through the now extended Royal Commission it’s starting to take shape. By Tim James.
2020 is shaping as a year we would prefer to forget in many ways, yet we must remember, review and reform public policy to better tackle the challenges we face today and in the future.
Strengthening resilience is the theme the Menzies Research Centre has thrust upon our policy priorities and program this year. In May, the MRC released a research paper Strengthening resilience: managing national disasters after the 2019-20 bushfire season. It focused on bushfires but was also a template for the improved management and mitigation of floods, storms and other environmental disasters. The MRC paper was adopted and submitted by one of Australia’s largest insurers, IAG, as part of its submission to the Royal Commission.
The core recommendations of the report were:
Government funding should prioritise risk reduction which will reduce the need to spend on disaster recovery
Introduction of a National Bushfire Risk Rating (NBRR) system for all bushfire-prone communities, properties and structures
Introduction of a national approach to land use and building codes
Creation of an open access information platform comprising all data required for natural hazard management
Tax reform to improve affordability and increase uptake of insurance
With recent attention and discussion, as well as the commitment to extend the Royal Commission to October, it’s timely to check in on these recommendations and get an early sense of progress. The NSW independent expert inquiry is also coming to a head. Each has received almost 2,000 submissions from the community.
It’s too early to confirm findings but we’re encouraged by what we’ve seen and heard regarding the recommendations in the MRC paper.
That prevention is better than the cure underpins the recommendation for funding to prioritise risk reduction (and reduce the need to spend on disaster recovery). A strong recent contribution from Robert Glasser, a visiting fellow at ASPI, reflected well on the fact that Canberra’s funding for mitigating disaster risk represents about 3% of what the government spends post-disaster. He rightly asserts that investments in disaster mitigation, for instance disaster-risk-sensitive land-use planning, will over the longer term, save more lives and property than investments in disaster response capability. It’s a growing theme among submissions to the Royal Commission.
A recent Canberra Times article following submissions to the Royal Commission asked a fundamental question that is found in the MRC paper: “Should Australia have a bushfire-star rating for homes?” It’s a resounding yes and that is what the Royal Commission have heard from many parties to its proceedings. It noted that the Bushfire Building Council has set up a bushfire resilience star rating system, building on data the CSIRO proposes to pull together, to identify what risks are in a given area. Stay tuned for more on this initiative in coming months.
The lack of consistent national data and need for a national approach to fire monitoring is hitting recent headlines. Current data limitations lead to incorrect results and hinder long-term preparations. “Imagine if every state reported weather slightly differently,” questioned Professor David Bowman from the University of Tasmania. Indeed, a national approach and open access information platform were central propositions in the MRC paper.
In early July the Royal Commission confirmed it would examine the extent to which natural hazard risk is incorporated into decisions about where people live, how land is used and the types of buildings that are constructed. The MRC position that a national approach be taken to land use and building codes based on science and risk is vital for effective adaptation and action. Credit in this area to NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro in calling for a new land management agency and a revamp of land-clearing policies. It’s clear that the status quo is not an option in this area.
As is apparent in current conditions, the MRC recommendation for tax reform is easier said than done. At the same time, the Royal Commission is being informed of concerning levels of under-insurance in communities and the need to make insurance more affordable, for instance through reforming taxes. It’s a worthy and timely challenge for both policy makers in government and in business.
The extension of the Royal Commission is encouraging. It points to the depth and substance of reform opportunities it is opening up and outlining for policy makers. The core themes of the recent MRC policy paper on managing national disasters after the bushfires are being well ventilated and appreciated in a range of forums including the Commission itself. The policy path to strengthening resilience is indeed becoming more clear on the road ahead.