IMO, some ADF assets should be used to save lives and property at times, such as helos to aid with evacuation. However, the army is not a disaster relief organisation, it's more of a disaster creation organisation, and that's its primary role.
Honestly this sort of stuff is appalling.
Maybe if you choose to continue living in an uninhabitable flood prone swamp you should be a bit more grateful for any help you’re offered.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
<Putting on my emergency services & disaster response hat on> It has been my experience in the US that the armed forces can and absolutely should have a roles in disaster response, but such roles should be in support of the response and responding authorities, and these role should also be ones that the armed forces normally do and do well, having a greater capability for and experience in than normal civilian operations. These are critical roles like logistics and communications. Now yes, there are certainly civilian logistics and communications resources, but it has been my experience that the 'normal' civilian loggies/comms resources do not usually have the kit or experience to carry out their roles in difficult conditions. A shipping company would certain have experience shipping pallets of food and water to an area, usually by semi, tractor trailer or road train in Australia. However, that same shipping company would probably be hard pressed to get the contents of those pallets to an area where roads and bridges are flooded or washed away. The armed forces OTOH might have vehicles available which could traverse more difficult terrain better, or else utilize other movement assets like heli-lift, to get supplies where they are needed. In a similar manner, armed forces likely have more experience and kit getting comms up and sustained in remote areas. Other supporting roles which are needed when operating under adverse conditions could likely benefit with support from the armed forces, like using RAE personnel to repair/replace damaged sections of roadway or bridges or establish temporary roads and/or bridges. Having said all that though, much of the work which needs to get done during a disaster and then the following recovery operations does really need to be done by civil authorities, often from the local areas though sometimes with outside personnel brought for sizeable events were local personnel will need down time.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Civil Defence and disaster relief are the responsibility of the individual state governments. Those governments can make requests to the Commonwealth government for ADF assistance (usually DACC - Defence Aid to the Civil Community). The State Govt can request specific help but it is up to the CoA to grant the assistance. ADF HQ will have input into what can be provided and where and for how long, but in the end it is CoA decision. The same process applies for overseas disaster assistance.
If the ADF is expected to do this role, as part of its duty, then state governments can stop spending money on things like emergency back up generators and their own disaster relief equipment, and expect the ADF to use the defence budget to stockpile the equipment for them.
Rations, gennies, civil works gear etc....then there are the unions who would want to be part of the re build etc to cash in on the damage repairs....remember the roofer after major hail storms, they cashed up quick.
Also, home owners in places like Darwin and Cairns are expected to prepare them selves for cyclones etc, I know I have my own gear, water treatment, generators, 12v and solar stuff, I use it for camping as well. The ADF can help but it should not be part of their usual duties and expected of them.
Emergency response, including in natural disasters, is a state responsibility in Australia. The Army only deploys on request of, on behalf of and under command of the states.
Some states (e.g. Queensland) have appropriate civil defense units of their own, others do not do so and rely on asking for help. Their decision.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I really do not know enough about Australian disaster response and particularly what the specific laws are regarding authority and responsibility. Having said that though, why would ADF logistics forces relieve the various state and territory gov'ts of their responsibilities to stockpile and maintain mobile generator units, rations, and on so? The ADF will likely be better able to position themselves to move supplies and kit over/through rough terrain to remote or cut off areas where they could be needed, but someone (state gov'ts?) would still need to have and provide the supplies to be moved. The major difference between what the ADF has access to and the civilian authorities, is that the ADF have a number of lift assets which can get into/out of remote areas by sea, air and land, whilst AFAIK no state gov't is going to have anything like C-130's, C-17's, CH-47's or a pair of LHD's and a LSD.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
It is not only the lift assets but also the stored assets, such as tents, stretcher beds, field kitchens etc (Camp Earmark stores) that the state governments utilise in a disaster recovery situation. The communication assets (my area of expertise) tend to be more augmentation of the civil communications (unless it is a significant disaster like Ash Wednesday/Black Friday or Cyclone Tracy etc). That communications augmentation provides additional C2 channels (whether Civil Defence, Police, Fire & Rescue, Ambulance etc can use or access it is always problematic).
I hope a natural disaster never finds your home in the glittering glass tower mate.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
WRT natural disasters in questionable areas for habitation, insurance companies will eventually clamp down on vulnerable areas. The choice will then be stay and have no coverage or move. As for emergency assistance in these areas, even governments may eventually have to draw a line.
If it was Victoria the government would add a fee to your rates and spend half the money collected on a train set. We are getting charged for emergency services to attend a fire on our property now….
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
NSW have a Rural Fire Service with 70,000+ people between paid staff and volunteers, plus the State Emergency Service with over 11,000 people (including both volunteers and paid staff).
As far as I know, the other states all have equivalent organisations, though not of the same scale.
NSW also has a significant fleet of light and medium lift helicopters on charter to the RFS, though I’m not sure how much availability there is during the winter months.
Australia has a significant network of UHF and other repeaters scattered around so communications probably aren’t too bad except in the really remote areas.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not sure about Australia and both the communications infrastructure as well as type/nature of events/disasters, but definitely have experience with what can happen in the US as well as what some of the comms resources are, as well as how they operate and what some of the limitations are.
In terms of cell/mobile phone towers, depending on the area and terrain, excepting for some very rural regions or areas like state/national forests and mountain ranges, there is generally reasonably decent cell/mobile coverage for most populated areas. However, this applies under normal circumstances and not necessarily during disasters for a few potential reasons. One of the common issues encountered during disasters are disruptions in the power grid, and without power, the tower equipment will of course not work (side note: I made the painful realization that many people on Long Island in NY state did not realize that electrical equipment will not work without power following Hurricane Sandy in 2012...) As a result of this, many phone towers in the US have one or more backup sources of power in the event of a grid down situation. Some sites have some sort of generator configuration, others have battery arrays, some sites have a few different options. Unfortunately though, even with backups available they can only keep a tower functional for so long, usually somewhere between 72 and 96 hours. After that the fuel for the generator would usually have been consumed and batteries drained. If grid power can be restored before that time, then things are usually good however should a disaster be a particularly large or prolonged one, it can be quite common for tower sites to start going offline, which can then lead to communications deadzones.
The US also has significant networks of radio towers covering the VHF and UHF bands, with the VHF/UHF repeaters sometimes co-located with cell/mobile towers. These radio towers are normally used to support both emergency services communications as well as amateur radio and again usually have some sort of backup power, but again the situation can become tricksy in large and/or prolonged events.
There is also the very real chance of the actual tower infrastructure itself becoming damaged, again depending on the type of disaster. This was something which happened in portions of the US impacted by Hurricane Helene back in September 2024.
I would be interested to find out what sort of redundancies comms towers in Australia have, as well as how commonly they get damaged in disasters.