Thanks for the article, Jim, in which you note that "In recent times there have been major improvements in the quality of warnings from the Bureau of Meteorology and SMS based systems such as Emergency Alert," adding that "... in every event, there are those who ignore the advice."

To this problem, you propose a solution based in thoughful governance: "Risk communication and the information given by political leaders and experts needs to change to reduce the complacency, and in some cases cynicism, in the community."

Alternatively, there is the "free market" Darwinian approach favoured by advocates of small government, which will tend to "weed out" those who both ignore the advice and are not able to deal with the emergency with their own resources.

Good article Jim - I would add three other points:

Firstly, emergency warnings require high quality intelligence gathering to develop the situational awareness to feed the critical emergency warning systems - Emergency Alert, ABC radio, agency websites and social media - even sirens- to name a few. The technology to support intelligence gathering and development of far better situational wareness largely exists - but receives insufficient funding and even agency interest. This must change. Only then do we have a chance of breaking down the cynicism or 'it won't happen to me' attitude of all too many in Australian communities.

Secondly, resilience builds around existing community structures - formal and informal - from the ground up - not from the top down - it is not another layer of bureaucracy and won't work if driven by Canberra, Melbourne Brisbane or Sydney. It must be owned by communities, diverse, agile and particular to each community.

Finally, as you point out, the frequency and severity of events is, in my 20 plus years of experience in emergency management, increasing. Concurrently, society is getting more and more complex and more and more reliant on various technologies. Community expectations are, appropriately, high, and tolerance of mistakes, let alone failures, is limited at best. In this environment, our capacity to adapt and cope will require far more sophisticated partnerships - across government, with communities and I think critically - with the private sector. The time must come when the the private sector is not the enemy - but a full - perhaps even equal partner with government and its agencies in developing and implementiing tools to support our capacity to live safely in what I think will be a complex and changed environment.

Bruce Esplin, AM

Climate change: bringing you the one in one hundred year event every year.

Great Article, thanks for posting

The Heading drew my attention but the content skirted the topic. There is no "new normal" only more people in positions of influence who haven't been around long enough to be able to recall the old normal. When these are then confused by others who put the environment, ecology, the meaning of 100-year events and economics into the equation in warm fuzzy terminology, we get to where we are today.

Take some for instances. Politicians took over the operation of Wivenhoe. It would have worked to everyone's satisfaction had the original Operations Proceedures been followed. Then same politicians spent millions avoiding blame instead of planning from the known results. Now the meaning of 100-year events is being challenged because another river system has had a flood.

Government and Local government here in Queensland have long argued that there should be an imaginary line calculated along the waterfront beyond which dwellings ought not be permitted. Their choice, their calculations. These take cognisance of passing cyclones, tides and a few imagined sea level safety allowances. Councils in recent times have steadfastly used these imaginary lines to remove property owners rights to build, During the recent flood event in Qld. the passing cyclone and easily predicted 2nd highest tide for 2013 coincided to prove water could reach the calculated level for a few hours. No sweat, we accepted it was possible because council said so. Now we have councils saying we weren't prepared and they will revise emergency management proceedures. Council was the body that was not prepared because it had never fully assed the likely full set of risks that occur during a cyclone. Even though these are a regular occurrence ib Qld.

When one of these 100-year events occur it is time to gauge how seriously council have understood their own rhetoric. Another "if" should be added. If it occurs then we (council/government) will make information available in this or that manner. Council being the johhny on the spot has all the authority to do some useful planning and leadership. Sum up what we resouces have and make changes that enhance those. Define the problem before rushing in with more committees. every flood tells us where the levees ought to be placed. Every gale tells us which trees are dangerous and where the must not grow. every bush fire tells us how vegetation could be managed better.

A holistic approach is needed. The South Moreton Bay Islands suffered more than is generally known because council has for 30 years avoided its proper responsibilities. Residents are fully aware of historical tides and water levels. They have for the same 30 years battled over vegetation local laws and conservation policies. This event had trees too near infrastructure down all over the islands bringing down power lines and damaging homes. This in turn interfered with nomal communications while the Premier was using TV and TV maps to give us guidance. All our TV's and PC's were out. Although as it turns out there was no info directed to SMBI other than useless utility phone messages that were wrong in the long term.. Water transport to and from the mainland was disrupted by wind conditions. The actual water that arrived, sea and rain, was immaterial and no problem . It was the lack of communications and power that caused serious hardship. And all that was a result of council's failure to heed requests to rationalise its tree policies. Energex did a fantastic job rejoining their cables but without water transport that was delayed. So our food was spoiled. The problem here is the food shops also lost their stocks and that is still being rectified.

Yes it is time to review our disaster management proceedures. But no more government agencies that pontificate about risk avoidance. Just common sense approach, recognition of past problems and effective use of available resources.

"Community expectations of what government must do for them in the wake of natural disasters are increasing. That is how it should be."

"Improving how we talk to people and broadening our planning assumptions are good places to start"

I agree almost with everything written in the article, however It's not just the term "1 in 100 years" which needs to be re-considered. "Natural disaster", to me implies something which happened last century, or earthquakes and tsunamis. The prevalence of increasingly disastrous floods, fires, storms, droughts etc., can't be dealt with or planned for, until they are termed and explained unashamedly by our political masters, etc

Otherwise we will have further photo-op visions of politicians and mayors standing in front of a mike somewhere saying, "Our hearts go out,, our spirit and mate-ship will pull us together, we will re-build, there's a bit of money."

We can't realistically or fully plan, or respond to ( like the north bundaberg residents who didn't think it was possible..) the new nature, which is not natural, it's altered. Until it is called properly. We should all question these terms, every time we hear them. So that we can move beyond rubbish platitudes, and lies. And sanely prepare.