It hasn’t taken long for the Queensland Government to appoint Justice Cate Holmes to head a Royal Commission into the floods. Her two direct deputies are former Queensland police commissioner Jim O’Sullivan, and Phillip Cummins, described as a “dams expert”, and the chairman of this global NGO of dam-builders (PDF). Interesting.
I was not a huge fan, to say the least, of the efforts of the bushfire Royal Commission here in Victoria. As noted in response to its final report, the commission failed to make any serious attempt to analyze the costs and likely benefits of its recommendations. As such, its costliest recommendation (replacing a certain class of power lines) was put off for further study by the former Brumby government, and has been completely hollowed-out by the incoming Baillieu government.
Clearly, this kind of Royal Commission not only needs technical expertise, it needs to appreciate the notion of cost-benefit analysis. While it’s a sample size of one, the Victorian experience shows that a commission headed by lawyers and senior bureaucrats doesn’t necessarily have such an appreciation.
I hope, for his sake, that the police commissioner was at his post at all critical times. No doubt Anna Bligh has read Christine Nixon’s new book “John Brumby: My Part in His Downfall” and will act swiftly if necessary.
I’m not sure if it’s a Commission’s place to do that, Robert. Deciding on cost-benefit tradeoffs is properly the place of Parliament and Cabinet, I should think.
But tacitly they would be doing cost-benefit tradeoffs anyway. A Royal Commission might not recommend, for example, that every building in Queensland be refitted with stilts.
Climate Spectator had this interesting article on past and future action on the Queensland and Australian flood situation. It looks at some of the misunderstandings re dams and other strategies for reducing flood peaks and reducing the impact when they do occur. Most of what is talked about is large scale stuff but we also need to think about the small scale fixes that would have made a lot of difference. In this context I couldn’t help thinking about a friend of mine in a block of units that will be without power for days because the switchgear for the electrical supply is in the below ground (flooded) carpark. The comments of Professor Andrew Short, Director of the Coastal Studies Unit at the University of Sydney sums it up well:
More can be found in this collection of flood related items from
the Australian Science media Centre. (This website looks like a very good source of quality science media releases.
Jacques, the bushfire Royal Commmission made a number of recommendations which involved the expenditure of large amounts of money. That’s as you’d expect – while there might be a few cheap and easy things that can be done, most of those will already have been. As such, if such expensive recommendations are to be made – and there’s going to be political pressure to adopt them in full – they should have the same level of justification you’d expect for any other very expensive government program.
If royal commissions can’t do that, well, what the hell is the point of spending $15 million and a year on the damn things in the wake of natural disasters, where the star chamber powers of the commission aren’t particularly relevant?
Jacques, technically I think you are correct, the RC should be able to consider all the options, and it is up to the executive government to decide which ones to take up at which cost. But as Robert says, the politics of the matter do matter, and there is an absurd and irrational media generated expectation that a government will implement all (100.0%) of the RCs findings, no matter what the cost, no matter how effective they are, no matter whether they are right or wrong. So these Commissioners are supposed to be sophisticated people, they ought to be able to be attuned to this fact, and without cutting special deals or anything, they ought to be able to have a reality check of what really is cost-effective and feasible.
Their recommendation for fixing up the power infrastructure didn’t meet that test. Their rec
It is a matter of when, not if. But it is also a matter of who will pay for it, especially if it doesn’t happen while I own it. I was one last time Brisbane flooded, so buying a property with the electrics out of the reach of floodwater wouldn’t have been high on my list of things were I buying in Brisbane. I had never heard of the 1974 flood until this one. People get complacent.
Royal Commissioners are constrained by the terms of reference of the Royal Commission.
In the case of the 2009 Royal Commission into the Victorian Bushfires, the Commissioners were given very broad terms of reference. Particularly:
It would have been within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission to recommend that all permanent human habitation in certain areas be proscribed, that all eucalyptus trees be eradicated, or that large areas of the landscape be paved over with concrete.
The Commissioners did nothing of the sort. Instead, they attempted to balance these priorities against others that are not stated in the terms of reference, such as the assumption that human habitation will continue and that the eradication of eucalyptus trees etc., is neither possible nor desirable.
As such, the Commissioners have tacitly acknowledged that bushfires will continue to occur and that people will be burned to death. The Commissioners have in their mind an acceptable level of death and destruction of property. This is a moving target subject to influences over which the Commissioners have no control.
Indeed, the Commissioners could have discussed the importance of climate change but they did not.
It is up to executive government to decide what recommendations are to be accepted and how they are to be implemented. I imagine that Brumby sighed with relied when he read the the RC made no maximalist recommendations and declined to raise the spectre of climate change.
I imagine that Bligh hopes for a similar judicious, cautious, partial, ameliorative report that tacitly accepts future floods from her Commissioners.
More sense from today’s climate spectator
Royal Commissioners are also constrained by their training – in law. The ACT bushfire inquiry was another example of taxpayers funding monstrous amounts of legal huffing and puffing with little of value to show. Royal Commissions are almost always a waste – there are much better and more efficient ways of learning lessons from catastrophes etc.
I was living in Canberra for the 2003 fires and then Melbourne for those in 2009. The key issue is that the inevitable approach of “royal commissions” (or similar), and of the (adversarial) lawyers involved (particularly “counsel assisting”), is not to look for solutions, but rather to look for someone to blame. This allows the media to rake over the coals of controversy for a very long time after the event, and encourages the individuals affected by the disaster to keep looking backwards, rather than moving forward. Our governments and public authorities need to be held to account, but that should be done in the context of how to prevent a repeat in the future, not wallowing in a witch-hunt that primarily serves to keep the lawyers in clover.
‘Counsel assisting’ is the gig of a lifetime. $10k a day for the duration – it’s life changing. Not to mention the limelight where they can make their names as aggressive cross-examiners, unconstrained by the usual rules of evidence.
I’m hoping that the Federal government does consider a levy as a response to the floods for no other reason than the forlorn hope that I might get to see Simon Crean at a press conference announce a “levee levy”.
Agree with John S on the Canberra Bushfire Royal Commission – it became part blame game and part eotional catharsis for those families most seriously effected.
The Victorian Bushfires Commission should be taken as a copybook example of what not to do. It was called to forestall criticisms from the media; Counsel assisting and their Juniors appeared to exhibit bias; a few “so called experts” were treated as gurus but the greatest failure as far as I’m concerned was taking evidence from those who were affected by the bushfires while most of them were still suffering the effects of grief and loss.
I’ll read Christine Nixon’s book with interest. I think she was treated very badly amid a total lack of understanding of what teamwork and delegation really involved.
Although I know it is useless to hope that the media will not exploit each and every angle they can to wring a sensationalist headline from the proceedings it would be good to see a more mature approach.
As for levees, in regard to New Orleans, they’ve been building them higher and higher, artificially constraining a river that will, like any waterway, change its course given the opportunity to do so. As much of a visual treat as it may be to walk along a roadway and see ships travelling far above you, it also means a hell of a lot of water waiting for something to break to find its own way. Katrina provided just such an opportunity. “Higher and stronger” only gets you so far. The only real solution is to build above the flood plain, but nobody ever does; it’s inconvenient to the required continuous growth of commerce. I haven’t been to Brisbane, so can’t say what the river’s like through there, but if the potential for flooding is as high as the current experience suggests, unless it’s Venice you’re after, maybe something more like the Thames flood control system is needed than mere levees.
It might have made more sense if Anna had taken more time sorting out what issues really needed to be considered by a royal commission and what might be better handled by other mechanisms. One of the problems with Royal commissions is that time is wasted explaining technical detail to lawyers with no or inappropriate technical knowledge. It might be better to have separate inquiries dealing with specific issues. For example, there is a need for an inquiry into power supply issues conducted by people who are able to understand power supply issues.
I am concerned that the only technical person on the royal commission is the chairman of an organization that is large dam focused. He may be OK but we may be getting a very dam focused enquirer.
I can understand why Bligh wanted to commit to an inquiry instead of getting bogged down on arguments about when it was needed – but the scope and details should have been left until the crisis was under control and people had time to think.
The Australian Science Media Centre had this to say about managing crisis.
I have just spent day in Redbank, outside Ipswich, assisting with my local volunteer bushfire brigade (from the Gold Coast).
You can’t imagine the stuff we saw, well maybe you can, we don’t have a TV so haven’t seen a lot of the coverage, but this was jaw dropping. Six metres of water through some areas…yes there were houses and businesses there.
Today was especially shocking. A block of 42 units, about 2/3 of them affected to various degrees ranging from a little bit of water to 2/3 of the way up the upstairs windows.
All the gyprock was being ripped out, afterwards we were hosing down inside. But not upstairs because the floors are chipboard! There were piles of shit…stoves, sinks, washing machines, microwaves, clothes, fish tanks, you name it. People’s lives were waiting for a bobcat to dump them in the back of a tip truck.
The point of this is that the Royal Commission should be looking at how these places got built where they did. How come the developers made their millions and now taxpayers are paying for the cleanup, volunteers are giving their time (not just us firies, plenty of locals were there), and YOU are expected to donate to the flood appeal.
But of course the terms of reference won’t include such matters because the fucking developers have funded the politicians in the first place.
The way development has been done is, literally, criminal. Of course money talks and the criminals will get away with it.
JohnD,
Why are there no levees to protect properties in the low lying areas?
Answer; if such were built they would seriously impact upon the property values of the mansions built closer to the river. The levees would need to be about 3m high and river views would go.
Huggy.
Huggybunny:
Then build levees with portholes.
Problem solved.
Stop it, terangeree. I’m laughing so much that it hurts.
(and crying still)
…because the next thing you know the mansion-owners would be enlarging the portholes…
(the alternative remedy to Sydney- and Melbourne-watersiders who just cut down those pesky trees)
in which case, in a broad sense, I suppose the whole activity is just going full circle.
Huggy; The experts say that levees should be well back from the river banks so you don’t force the river into a narrow channel. So the logical thing is to let the mansions retain their view by putting the levees further away from the river where they should be. Sounds like a win/win?
I had a look at a place I work on out at Sherwood. The river height there would have been about 7m above normal. Levies are not practical. The house was built since 1974 on what used to be the back yard of a house with a very large block backing onto the river. The water just stopped short of the ground floor, but 1974 would have been a problem.
The notion of levies is ridiculous in this situation. The subdivision should have never happened.
I think there really was an expectation on the part of the public and the real estate industry that Wivenhoe would ensure that it never happens again. Planners should have known better.
It is insulting to SEQ Water workers to imply that the unprecedented rainfall could have been foreseen. To put it into perspective, it tooks months of unusually heavy rainfall to bring all the dams in SE Qld up to their normal storage levels. It took only ONE day in January to eat right into the flood mitigation capacity. Hard decisions had to be made quickly. The gates were opened, but the inflow exceeded the maximum possible release rate for a while there. Physics and natural laws can be cruel.
To say with the benefit of hindsight that the gates should have been opened before the rain began, which is essentially what I’ve heard the Opposition saying this week, is plain daft.
They should pull their heads in and congratulate the workers for what they accomplished, for if the LNP had been in charge, it would have been lots, lots worse.
Nope.
The Thames Barrier designed to prevent sea water from flowing upstream. It has no beneficial effect on fresh water flowing downstream.
BTW, according to Wiki:
That’s a nice measure of the increasing impact of sea level rise.
Campbell Newman dismisses suggestions of levees:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/a-levee-is-nonsense-says-mayor-20110118-19v9p.html
Pedantry alert.
Katz@ 26: “In the 1980s there were four closures [of the Thames Barrier], 35 closures in the 1990s, and 75 closures in the first decade of this century That’s a nice measure of the increasing impact of sea level rise.”
Actually it’s almost as much a measure of the impact of the fact that London is sinking at a rate of around 2mm annually, as of sea level rise which around the UK is about 3mm annually. If you want a measure, or at least an indicator, of the increasing (or not) impact of sea level rise on London, try the decision in 2009 that the Thames barrier has 40 years more life than was originally thought – it will not need to be replaced till 2070 as the impact of subsidence/sea level rise is that much less than originally planned for.
Sorry, like I said, pedantic, and certainly I am not accusing Katz of being misleading in what is an accurate comment on the role of the Thames Barrier. But there is an awful lot of confusion in the big wide world about the difference between sea level rise and subsidence, and the difference between sea level rise that may be attributable to AGW and that which has been happening for centuries, which, as a card-carrying pedant (or, as I prefer to think of it, science-based observer) I have a tendency to jump on.
More substantively than the above, while I agree that battalions of smart-arse lawyers, and superficial, sensation-based media coverage of their antics, is intuitively not the most effective way to come up with answers to better water and flood management policy and practice, what, in the non-intuitive world, is the option?
There clearly needs to be an independent enquiry. There are plenty of issues about the operation of Wivenhoe by a government corporation already in the public arena, and for that reason alone – let alone the Government’s record over 12 years of utter neglect of infrastructure, including water infrastructure – it can’t be left to government channels to pursue. The vested interests are already out there pontificating – from Bob Brown who knows that the blame is with the coal miners to @25 who believes that no inquiry is needed to know that the LNP would have handled it worse. Not to mention those on other threads who think that the issue is that Anna was so, so empathetic and that that absolves her Government from any scrutiny at all.
In the Australian system what actually are the alternatives to the current sort of inquiry if it is to be fully, and clearly, independent, and have sufficient powers to require the attendance of witnesses and the presentation of documents?
Am I the only person incidentally to think that the clause in the ToR attempting to bully the insurance industry sticks out like the dog’s proverbials as a diversionary strategy, and really shouldn’t be there in an enquiry ostensibly about preparations for, and response to, an emergency?
Almost, but not quite.
Does anyone have a view on what the likelihood is of those low-lying areas being built on again vs maybe being set aside for public space or some other use?
For example, the Tamworth flood plain areas are used for playing fields and there are levees to protect the town CBD and industrial areas.
I’ve been reflecting on some of the sights I saw around Fairfield, where people who lived quite a ways back from the river seemed to be taken by surprise by the flooding under their houses – lots of small expensive things covered in mud, when upstairs was well high and dry. There haven’t been any minor floods on the river for years, so people haven’t had the experience of seeing a few cms of water in their back yards and realising how flood prone they are. Maybe we should be engineering a minor flood every few years for practice.
d
wozza’s ghost, not sure what windmill you’re tilting at, but I thought the strong consensus around here was to welcome an inquiry.
Fair enough, wilful, I came into the thread latish and was reacting more to Robert’s original post, which did raise questions, albeit of course legitimate ones, about this sort of inquiry, than to the later comments which I might have taken more note of. I’m not actually tilting at anything (except possibly that one ToR); it was intended as a genuine query as to what alternative forms of inquiry might meet the purpose if Robert’s doubts are valid.
Mind you, some of the stuff on the political cheapshots thread in particular suggests that acceptance of an inquiry in principle is one thing, but acceptance of the corollary that there will be hard questions, and views put that are not widely shared around here, may be another. We shall see, I guess, in due course.