Worst Natural Disaster in Queensland History - Essay Example

?INTRODUCTION The article begins with an introductory ment by the Premier describing the nature of the ‘worse natural disaster in Queensland history. She praises the dedication and fortitude of resident Queenslanders, whose state suffered 37 casualties. The Premier and a military official summarize the effects of the tropical cyclone and the flooding it caused. The article is a summary of an Economic and Environmental Reconstruction plan. The officials summarize the eight-hundred million dollar price tag, and offer encouragement and hope for a new revival and reconstruction of the area. An overview frames the challenge, providing an itemization of the damage, the casualties, the insurance costs the total numbers of homes, businesses, industries (even coal mines were adversely affected) damaged in the cyclone. There is an undercurrent not simply of recovery, but also an objective to guide Queensland that it might be rebuilt better than it was before. The Reconstruction initiative is divided into three sections: first being to frame the problem, put the crisis from the cyclone into the proper context. A blow-by-blow account of the path taken by the floodwaters is given, to further put the damage into perspective. But in addition Australia being Australia, the official paper also calls upon the aboriginal community further assistance and support in the reconstruction endeavor. Sixth principle lines of reconstruction will receive specialized attention: the human and social costs, economic damage, environmental damage, building recovery, transportation infrastructure, and there will be a community liaison effort. The disaster occurred between July and December 2010, the progression of the cyclone including its origin and molting strength as it traveled from ocean to land gathering its power is followed. Its effects on the native water supplies and the cities most immediately impacted are described. The document appears to be intended mainly for government officials. In all honesty, the document is too long for casual consumption by the public and would only be useful for those whose time, and effort will be spent in the recovery. Section 2, outlines the legal responsibilities for the reconstruction Authority. “Priority of Reconstruction effort will be directed by The Authority through a consultative process that is guided by the operation Queenslander construct and informed by community, local government, industry and both state and Commonwealth requirements.” P.12 Much of the recommendations must flow from the local, ground level. It is here that real people are forced to make life and death decisions based on immediate, community need. While a government committee must decide large-scale resource allocation, the decisions must begin with people on the ground. An confident expert must be on the ground with the experience to make the right call, and the will to do so quickly, as Klein (1998) describes on page 2. There's no time for a committee vote when disaster or accident victims are bleeding out. Real people on the local level are the ones that must act quickly, and decisively, and them pass on their recommendations to higher administrators. (Klein, 1998 p.2) Competent professionals are needed capable of recognition-primed decision-making; where there is no debate; simply action borne of experience and training. A situation in which a problem is recognized, rather than options weighed. (Klein, 1998 p.16) To support this kind of decision-making in a crisis, it seems wise to begin the information-recommendation process at the level of individual communities, then filtering up towards higher agencies. SUMMARY The sort of language used in operation Queensland makes it is the kind of document that would be employed when lawyers and government administrators must be assigned and delegated responsibilities. Regular citizens should find the document accessible, but few would have need to wade through it unless they were directly involved in the efforts described herein. A lot of the pages contained photos of the damage, fallen trees skeletal buildings, and signs half submerged by floodwaters. Color-coded maps showed areas worst hit. Beginning with two letters of hope and encouragement from the Premier of the state, and a major-general. The paper talks about the project that’s being created, the laws that govern it, what kinds of powers the agency has, and what all of its responsibilities are. It talks about a mission statement for the local government talking about what’s going to get fixed, where and how. The paper maps out different phases, recovery – which has a lot of short-term goals. Disaster response, making sure everybody has been rescued, with benchmarks for success. Then it moves into Reconstruction. Buildings are going to be rebuilt construction projects for the flood damaged towns, and the monitoring of progress. They want to maintain a ‘momentum’ of progress until they are ready to hand off control to the next stage. Stage number three is a transition process away from reconstruction. The goal is to gradually return control over what remains of the recovery process back into local hands. The paper uses graphic diagrams supporting the pictures showing gears in motion all driving a machine for recovery. The machine is shaped like the geographic boundaries of Queensland. There are plans for the state as a whole, under the control of the recovery Authority, which filters down into local–level plans that are submitted to the authority. These are meant to be local roadmaps that advise the larger agencies on what each town actually needs. The local plans are supposed to feed into six broad implementation plans. And out of these estate plan is created. Another plan is to identify areas where industry, the local governments, and the economy are interconnected with each other, and how the disaster has hurt their relationships with each other. The next goal is to bring together these leaders to meet and discuss ways they can get back to their peak efficiency. While it is necessary to have immediate decisions in the midst of a crisis; there are bound to be situations in which no single person has all the answers; and problems for which relevant facts remain unknown. Deliberation and consultation must take place where these interconnected agencies are involved; because planning and discussion are the best options for a brewing crisis before a complete overview of the disaster is apparent. (Klein, 1998. p.22) Next, there’s more description of the state plan, with milestones used to measure its progress, with graphs, and more disaster photos to describe what needs to be done, and when it needs to be accomplished by whom. There were six areas of progress that are mentioned in the beginning, and in the last part of the document the six overall goals are connected with the three phases the recovery, reconstruction, and the transition – colorful graphs diagram how a list of six goals are to be accomplished during the different phases of the rebuilding process. The rest of the planet describes ways to implement the recommendations, and organize the respective parties. The document ends with a glossary. ANALYSIS While there is undoubtedly a strong necessity for recovery from the effects of the cyclone and subsequent flooding, the Queensland recovery plan is fundamentally a political document. It could inform the public, but the length of the document and technical details of organization would require a lengthy present it can with video support. Politicians giving his speech before a crowd of constituents would result in a more condensed summary. But it is perhaps unreasonable to suppose that an initiative that must be organized fundamentally on the level of national government could ever be free of political implications. And this document in particular begins with a preamble by the premier of Queensland. A nod is given to the aboriginal population during the exhortation for all Australians to unite harmoniously during the recovery effort. Such salves are a democratic necessity, not simply in terms of securing actual support for a given government program, but also to prevent offending interest groups and minorities that might otherwise raise criticisms or cast aspersions upon the motivations of those in power. The document casts a wide net in its attempts to motivate and unite Australians. The authors and political advisers are no doubt also aware that while the potential to offend certain groups may exist, this too can serve as an opportunity to build bridges, literally and metaphorically – and strengthen alliances. The initiative is structured along the lines of delegating responsibility for the reconstruction effort with a touch of legalese in the way that the responsibilities and powers are delineated. It is important to iron out what agency or project is responsible for a given priority in order to avoid jurisdictional head-butting. It is important to minimize what might be termed Naturalistic decision making; (Klein, 1998) when goals are less clearly defined. Without clear procedures, problem-solvers are required to make it up as they go along. In a large-scale operation, this leads to considerable inefficiency. A delineated hierarchy in Operation: Queenslander is needed to spell out responsibilities; to avoid the uncertainty that arises with uncertain goals. (Kleing, 1998 p.5) The specificity of the document seems all for more regimented than what might be included in an address to the general public, yet undoubtedly the document is far smaller in scope than might otherwise be encountered in more complex legislation. Summaries and legislative proposals brought before the Congress of the United States can in many instances extended through hundreds, or thousands of pages in order to satiate the white collar scavenging of lawyers and bureaucrats hungry for various loopholes. By comparison a document of this size seems positively microscopic, but this is likely due to the limited scope of the actual damage, specific to Queensland. Had the cyclone inflicted considerable damage across territorial lines within the scope and complexity might of necessity multiply. Such a document would most likely an exponential increase in complexity do not as a result of operational difficulties, but simply out of political/legal considerations that would subsequently escalate. There is also a sense within the document that underscores the cynical principle of not letting a crisis go to waste. Any disaster, if handled properly can strengthen relations, and make interest groups indebted to each other and government in more convoluted ways. In several places there is both the assurance, and the goal of making Queensland even better than it was before. This stated objective being a laudable goal to be sure, requiring considerable infrastructure development that in all probability would be stalled or back-burnered under happier conditions and safer times. For the savvy investor, or canny politician the hard truth reveals itself that any economic situation could be beneficial to someone. Even in times of seeming disaster, there are invariably ways to profit – and individuals who will find it, either actively or inherently as a result of their positions. Anyone wishing to secure their position in public office will feel obligated to find this silver lining in the midst of cyclones both literal and metaphorical. The text does not contain controversial statements or ideological theories, it is in the interest of all Australians to lend their approval to any such effort, and the authors of the document take this into account. The most central assumption being that the vast majority would be willing to unite during Queensland’s time of need. There is little that can be thought of as argumentative. And in such cases, there can ultimately be little room for ideological dueling. On the most cynical level the key question is: who might be able to leverage the reconstruction effort to their advantage, and how? Thus authority must be carefully delineated and itemized in the attempt to bring together volunteers, local officials, and the state government towards the fulfillment of the needed objectives. OPINION A bottom-up organizational paradigm makes sense for Operation: Queenslander, in light of studies that show a reluctance by commanders in life and death situations to abide by the recommendations of researched committees. (Klein, 1998. p.8) There exists a hesitancy among first-responders, or military unit-commanders to give credence to long-winded, sociological research, even if that research was intended for their benefit. Rather than a deliberative body making recommendations to rescuers in the field, it was deemed more appropriate to take the advice of the local-level rescuers to the higher administration, in terms of framing the larger policy. Still, there is a possibility that initiatives of this sort, and happy documents such as this one with brightly colored graphs and pictures the tug at the heartstrings could prove also to be mere window dressing. The project as outlined herein does appear to be superficially effective at delineating responsibilities for its stated purpose. But there remains a lingering possibility that in the final analysis much more backroom dealing and labyrinthine webs of dense, legal language will at some point be required, if not already being utilized. Operation Queenslander is the sort of report one might expect to hear in an office of bureaucrats, instilled with pleasing platitudes and high hopes. It would appear to be a good starting point, yet it is probable that more depth may eventually be required should governmental or inter-agency conflicts become manifest. Will disagreements develop for example, during the integration of local interests into the six overarching objectives, which themselves must be integrated into a larger state policy? At the local level, recommendations are meant to be forwarded to the recovery Authority for operation Queenslander, that they might be implemented into actionable policy. Here then, there may still exist the potential for individual rivalries. Care must be taken to orchestrate which towns and districts receive what level of aid at what time. Will drama develop during the Authority’s decision-making process as it attempts to meet the varying needs of different districts who will all want needed supplies and relief for themselves and their own before it is granted to anyone else? Should internal rivalry for relief/resources become problematic between different hard-hit districts, there remains the possibility of conflicts of interest between the officials managing operation Queenslander if they themselves are not selfless enough to be rid of bias. In a worst-case scenario, one might speculate on the necessity for larger oversight from outside the state, yet that would prove politically undesirable in many circumstances if the people affected did not receive sufficient voice concerning the amelioration of their own distress. Taken on the whole, operation Queenslander is likely to prove effective in a political environment with limited rivalries and competing, fundamentally incompatible interests. CITATIONS Klein, G. 1998. Sources of power: How people make decisions. Chronicling the Strengths used in making Difficult Decisions. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Operation: Queenslander. 2011. The State Community, Economic and Environmental Recovery and Reconstruction Plan 2011–the State Community. Queensland Reconstruction Authority. Economic and Environmental Recovery , Reconstruction Plan 2011– Read More