Chapter 3The decline of volunteerism
3.1Volunteers are crucial to Australia’s disaster resilience, and it is important that governments prioritise the recognition, retention and recruitment of volunteers to ensure a sustainable future of volunteerism in Australia.
3.2Volunteering is defined as ‘time willingly given for the common good without financial gain’. Volunteers contribute to prevention, preparedness, and recovery activities before, during and after natural disasters. They foster crisis resilience by facilitating social connections, contributing to the development of social capital, and improving access to local supports and services. Volunteers provide this essential support through local, state and territory government services, charities and not-for-profits, informal community groups and online platforms.
3.3This chapter will discuss:
the decline in volunteerism in Australia and the challenge of coordinating offers for assistance during and after a disaster;
proposals for volunteer models to improve the recruitment and retention of volunteers;
how incentives could be used to boost volunteer numbers; and
the mental health impacts of first responders and volunteers during and after disasters.
The state of volunteerism in Australia
3.4According to Volunteering Australia, ‘our nation’s volunteers are the country’s backbone during crisis and emergencies’ with over one million volunteers supporting Australia’s crisis resilience, of which more than 400 000 work directly in emergency response and relief. However, Volunteering Australia noted that it is difficult to estimate the true contribution of volunteers in crisis response efforts in Australia because most of the data is collected in general surveys or in sector-specific data collection.
3.5With some variation between states and territories, volunteers are generally involved in disaster and crisis arrangements across three broad areas, including:
(a)state and territory government emergency management organisations—these include State and Territory Emergency Service (SES) organisations, as well as fire service organisations and ambulance organisations which have official roles in crisis response;
(b)charities and not-for-profits which support crisis prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery; and
(c)providing direct assistance as informal volunteers—informal volunteers are present across prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery, though are typically mobilised in the response and recovery phases. These volunteers are not affiliated with an emergency management organisation but may be coordinated through an informal community group or an online platform.
3.6Those volunteering in emergency response and relief include a resilient and skilled workforce of over 200 000 fire service volunteers, around 25 000 volunteers in SES and 7 500 in ambulance service organisations. An additional 200 000 volunteers are engaged in over 1 000 registered emergency and relief charities. On top of this, many thousands of often ‘invisible’ volunteers help informally and spontaneously to support communities before and after crises.
3.7Unfortunately, the number of people volunteering has been declining in Australia. Volunteering Australia estimates that whilst in 2022 the proportion of volunteers increased, it is still well below the pre-COVID rate of volunteers:
It is estimated that in the 12 months preceding the April 2022 survey, 26.7 per cent of adults volunteered in Australia. This was a slight increase from April 2021, when it was estimated that 24.2 per cent of Australians undertook volunteer work in the preceding 12 months.
However, rates of volunteering are still much lower than the 12 months preceding late 2019 (i.e., pre-COVID) when 36.0 per cent of adults were estimated to have volunteered.
3.8Additionally, Volunteering Australia noted that the number of volunteers in government emergency services organisations had decreased by over 20 000 since 2015–16.
3.9Volunteering Australia’s research reported a number of factors that impacted the likelihood of a person volunteering, including:
those who had volunteered previously are much more likely than those who have never volunteered to volunteer in the future;
those who live outside of a capital city had a higher volunteering rate than those who live in a capital city;
Australians aged 55 years and over were more likely to volunteer than younger Australians; and
the number of young people volunteering has been declining, reporting that the proportion of people aged 18–24 years who had volunteered formally in the previous 12 months fell from 36.5 per cent in late 2019 to 25.6 per cent in April 2021, decreasing to 25.0 per cent in 2022.
3.10For those volunteering in organisations related to emergency services and disaster relief, Volunteering Australia broke down the numbers by age group as follows:
Table 3.1No. of emergency service and disaster relief volunteers by age
18–29 years | 30–49 years | 50–64 years | 65+ years |
17.80 per cent | 26.40 per cent | 19.30 per cent | 36.50 per cent |
Source: Volunteering Australia, Youth Volunteering Key Statistics, August 2023, p. 6.
Factors contributing to the decline in volunteers
3.11The Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience noted that research identifying the challenges of recruitment and retention of emergency management volunteers goes back three decades. Volunteering Australia reported:
Against the backdrop of increasing demand for well-trained, regular, and committed emergency response volunteers, organisations are struggling to sustain viable volunteer workforces…
Concerns that sociodemographic changes such as work-family lifestyle, rural population decline, and preference for more flexible volunteer participation, seem to be coming to fruition and amplifying the problem.
3.12Similarly, research by Blythe McLennan from RMIT University stated:
Volunteer representatives depict a situation today in which emergency response volunteering is being squeezed by pressures on three sides (socioeconomic and demographic shifts, government and organisation expectations and requirements, and community needs and expectations), such that the personal burden of volunteering is increasing.
As a result, a partial mismatch may be developing between organisational expectations on emergency response volunteers, and the motivations and incentives underpinning this volunteering, which increases the risk of a ‘breach of psychological contract’ occurring.
3.13The following table summarises the findings of this study on the key challenges facing volunteers today:
Figure 3.1Key emergency volunteering issues raised by participants
Source: Blythe McLennan, Emergency volunteering 2030: views from emergency response volunteer representatives, Bushfire & Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre, Environmental Scan Report No. 4, 2022, p. 27.
3.14Volunteering Australia’s research found that those aged 18 to 34 were more likely to report financial reasons for not volunteering (25.5 per cent) compared to those aged 35 to 54 years (26.7 per cent) and those aged 55 years and over (9.3 per cent). Additionally, younger Australians were more likely to report a lack of suitable opportunities as a reason they did not volunteer, indicating that younger volunteers may have more difficulty connecting with volunteering opportunities that interest them.
3.15These themes were reflected in evidence provided by some submitters and witnesses who discussed the factors contributing to the decline in volunteer numbers.
3.16Mr Daryl Camp, Regional Director of Queensland SES, acknowledged that communities rely on volunteer workforces to respond to disaster events and discussed the challenges in maintaining a volunteer workforce:
Unfortunately, with increased demand on these volunteer services to respond to the ever-increasing number of events and the longer duration of events, we see a negative impact on volunteer numbers. As volunteer numbers decrease we are also seeing a rise in the number of requests for assistance coming in. We are seeing more reliance on volunteers being deployed into a community to ensure that the response can continue … We may need to consider some new models for volunteering that are more consistent with current volunteering trends.
3.17Tweed Shire Council highlighted the following barriers to volunteering: financial sustainability, a time poor society that trades 24/7 often with a casualised workforce, and ability (including age, skill sets, qualifications, safety and liability). Tweed Shire Council stated that volunteer arrangements need to be flexible and adaptable to overcome these barriers.
3.18Similarly, Disaster Relief Australia (DRA) attributed ‘rigid models of volunteering that require regular attendance and training on-site’ as a contributing factor to the decline in volunteer rates.
3.19Mr Andrew Gissing, CEO of Natural Hazards Research Australia, stated that in order to ensure a sustainable volunteering model for the future there must be a reduction in the administration burden on volunteering as well as greater flexibility to enable people to volunteer.
3.20Anglicare Australia submitted that volunteers thrive in the long-term when the organisations they volunteer with are able to properly support them. Volunteers require a safe workplace, suitability checks, training, management and ongoing support in their roles, particularly as disasters become more frequent and intense placing a greater demand on volunteers to work for longer periods. Anglicare Australia added:
They also need to feel valued and recognised, learn new skills, and have meaningful activities to participate in. In assessing their own volunteering capacity, Anglicare Sydney has recognised that when volunteers are not activated regularly and meaningful[ly], morale and enthusiasm can wane and it can be difficult to maintain engagement. This means that outside of disasters, an ongoing program of engagement, activities, training and planning is needed to maintain volunteer capacity.
3.21Anglicare Australia argued that it is essential that the Australian Government takes a longer-term approach to building the capacity of the community sector to respond to disasters and support the growth and maintenance of a skilled and engaged volunteer workforce. Anglicare Australia called for grant funding to support volunteers, explaining that the funding needed to be not only for the training of volunteers, but also to maintain the readiness of volunteers in non-disaster periods:
Ongoing funding from the Government for the systems and infrastructure needed to effectively train, support, engage and communicate with volunteers is necessary to ensure the sustainability and growth of volunteer-supported services. For example, every person we spoke with or interviewed in our evaluation of the Anglicare [New South Wales (NSW)] South, NSW West and [Australian Capital Territory (ACT)] program recommended a full-time volunteer manager as essential for disaster response and recovery.
Yet for some of our Network members, despite the scale of their contribution, funding for volunteers is confined only to training. They do not receive funding to prepare for or maintain readiness during non-disaster periods. Funding that is provided can only be used for training of volunteers, not for the management and administration of the volunteer program. There is little recognition of the ongoing capacity required to manage, support and maintain volunteer capacity. The maintenance of disaster readiness has been self-funded by organisations, forcing some to reduce their participation in disaster response and recovery. Organisations reflected on the significant burden this places on especially small services, and those in regional areas.
Coordinating volunteers
3.22Despite the decline in the number of volunteers in Australia, another concern raised in evidence was that there was a lot of good will across Australia to help during a disaster, but the issue of poor coordination impacted the efficacy of that assistance.
3.23The Australian Government’s National Coordination Mechanism provides a degree of national coordination by including organisations involved in volunteering in discussions with relevant representatives of both government and non-government organisations to coordinate, communicate and collaborate during responses to crises. Additionally, organisations with volunteers involved in emergency relief and recovery are also represented on the Emergency Relief National Coordination Group, established by the Department of Social Services, which provides advice to government during times of crisis.
3.24However, Volunteering Australia noted that ‘support and planning for volunteer involvement is not consistently included in national crisis management frameworks’ and the model for coordinating the contributions of the charity and not-for-profit sector in crisis resilience ‘has yet to be formalised’. Volunteering Australia stated that volunteers involved in crisis response and recovery will require more comprehensive support from their organisations and from government as roles are becoming more difficult and demanding as disasters become more frequent and severe. Furthermore, coordinating and supporting these volunteers in crisis prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery will require consistent investment in the appropriate platforms and management processes.
3.25DRA noted that whilst there are many organisations with large databases of volunteers, ‘there are very few who can actually put them on the ground and lead them on the day, and volunteers mobilised and well led are a fantastic asset’. DRA highlighted that there is a lot of work that needs to be done behind the scenes in mobilising volunteers and matching them up with the work that needs to be done, but:
… there is no good, integrated data system in Australia where those jobs are fed into a single system and the volunteers are fed into another system and you can marry the two up. The data is just all over the place. And that can potentially keep the ADF in the field for longer than they necessarily need to be.
3.26The issue of coordinating volunteers is particularly prominent when dealing with spontaneous volunteers. DRA defined spontaneous volunteers as:
… individuals or small groups who are not formally associated with any organisation but self-mobilise to assist community members impacted by disasters. This type of volunteering has gained traction in recent years with the rise of social media platforms and communications technology, which has given communities greater access to real time information.
3.27DRA explained that spontaneous volunteers can be a ‘significant force multiplier’, but, despite the best intentions, if unmanaged, they can be a risk to themselves, others and property. Further, whilst many organisations hold large databases of willing volunteers, they lack the capacity and mechanisms to deploy them, making spontaneous volunteering an underutilised resource in Australia. DRA submitted that ‘[i]t is our experience that there is no shortage of volunteers, but rather a lack of infrastructure that allows them to participate how and when they can’.
3.28The Byron Shire Mayor agreed, highlighting the need for improved coordination of spontaneous volunteers:
We know that effective spontaneous volunteer coordination is absent, and this is a statewide issue. If evidence demonstrates repeatedly that community members converge on disaster sites to offer help then we have two options. We can coordinate these volunteers through established systems and accrue the many benefits of the community participating in local action, or we can fail to deliver effective coordination and see some benefits but also harm to individual volunteers and community members, damage to property, disruption to formal responses and, ultimately, a failure to meet community expectations. So we need increased first responder capacity through emergency services and resourced coordination of spontaneous volunteers who show up on the doorstep of our buildings. We need to improve preparedness through local systems and training and, in disasters, teams of paid coordinators that can onboard and oversee volunteers with direct coordination costs met by council and then reimbursed through the existing [Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements (DRFA)]. We wonder how this is not happening already.
3.29Mr Camp also flagged that another issue with coordinating spontaneous volunteers is that they often lack training, do not fully understand the hazards and risks associated with emergency work, have no protective clothing or equipment, and they may have an injury or illness that a coordinator needs to be aware of prior to deployment. Others also raised the issue of insurance coverage when deploying spontaneous volunteers.
3.30Mr Jelenko Dragisic, who previously worked as CEO of Volunteering Queensland and as Regional Manager at the Australian Red Cross, noted a pattern of local communities being flooded with a large number of agencies and people who want to provide recovery assistance but are sometimes turned away because the mechanisms to coordinate the influx of offers to help are not there. Mr Dragisic explained:
The problem lies in the fact that the ‘army’ of helpers can be overwhelming … The capacity for agencies to manage such an influx is limited for several reasons.Firstly, because agencies are busy with the job at hand. Secondly, and less well known, is the fact that, despite good will, people who wish to help still need some level of training and management before they go out into affected areas and have contact with communities.
Furthermore, many people make calls and offer to help but their motivations may be twofold.Along with a genuine desire to help, many people act out of anxiety and a need to mitigate their own emotions. This is a complex issue which remains unaddressed.
3.31Mr Dragisic reflected on his experience in establishing a call centre to facilitate volunteers during the 2011 Queensland Floods:
My team at [Volunteering Queensland] set up a call centre which, with assistance from a few good corporate collaborators, operated from several locations across Australia.The call centre was specifically designed to manage the influx of callers offering to help.It is worth noting this was the largest such operation ever conducted in Australia, leading to the development of a database of over 80,000 volunteers …
A big part of the reasoning behind my development of this database was to ensure that people were able to register their readiness to help initially, but more importantly to establish long term relationships with these potential volunteers and educate them about the way disaster response and recovery work; specifically, the fact that it is not all about cleaning up after a disaster.Many people need assistance months after the event (sadly, for many this extends to years) which means that agencies that provide assistance are in need of helpers, volunteers etc, in later stages.By having this system in place, we were able to provide long term assistance to agencies in need of volunteers.
3.32A representative from Richmond Valley Council suggested that existing non-government organisations and community groups are best placed to coordinate spontaneous volunteers as local governments do not have the capacity to manage volunteers as they are busy with other critical activities such as road access and sewer function. Community groups, on the other hand, manage volunteers on a daily basis and have the foundations to build on to manage spontaneous volunteers in the response and recovery phases of emergency management. The representative added that there are some ‘tried and true models around’ that can be built on—‘why reinvent the wheel’?
Proposed volunteer models
3.33The committee heard a number of proposals for different types of volunteer models to address the need for more boots on the ground to respond to natural disasters. This section highlights a few of these proposals, including the expansion of already established programs and the establishment of new programs. Each of the models targets a different aspect of disaster preparedness, response and recovery, including boosting disaster response and emergency services, resilience building in peacetime, and the recruitment and retention of volunteers.
Expanding the SES model
3.34As states and territories are primarily responsible for emergency management within their jurisdictions, the SES model is a core component of state emergency management frameworks. A significant proportion of the SES workforce is made up of volunteers. Due to the increasing frequency and severity of natural disaster events due to climate change, combined with the decline in volunteer numbers, the resources of SES are being tested. As the statutory authorities responsible for emergency management, it has been argued that these entities should remain a central component of Australia’s emergency response framework and improve their access to appropriate capability and capacity.
3.35The committee heard that a number of SES have introduced reforms to create more flexible arrangements for volunteers in response to the changing socioeconomic circumstances that put pressure on people’s ability or desire to allocate time to volunteering. Additionally, many SES have programs aimed at engaging youth as a part of a strategy to boost volunteer numbers and build resilience in their communities. Additional government support for such programs and consideration of how these strategies could be coordinated and interoperable across states and territories could prove beneficial in building Australia’s disaster resilience and getting more boots on the ground.
3.36The Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC), the national council for fire, land management and emergency service authorities in Australia and New Zealand, advocated that Australia’s current disaster resilience model is not broken and noted that the concept that more resources might be required to deal with increased demand is a familiar and intuitive one, and would be best addressed by reinforcing existing arrangements rather than trying to reinvent them. AFAC explained:
As the statutory authorities with responsibility, under the laws of the various Australian jurisdictions, for emergency preparedness and response, AFAC consider that its members are and should remain the backbone of emergency response in Australia and should be the vehicle through which continuous improvement is delivered … In AFAC’s view there is no undiscovered, alternative model for structuring emergency and disaster response that would provide previously unrealised benefits for the community. The current system provides an agile, community-based workforce for disaster and emergency response that is interoperable across the country and can be, and often is, deployed across jurisdictional boundaries to provide national resilience.
3.37AFAC purported that the challenges and complexities facing the SES in responding to more frequent and severe disaster events is well understood by the sector and argued:
There is no value in duplicating state and territory arrangements with a federal emergency response workforce, whether provided through the ADF or otherwise. If federal funds are available to strengthen Australian response capability and capacity, these should be disbursed by way of funding to existing entities that promote resilience such as the AFAC National Resource Sharing Centre, by funding activities that support national capability such as the development of a national deployment management system and underwriting the costs of interstate deployments of personnel and equipment, or by way of subsidies to state and territory agencies to provide improved training and equipment to their workforces.
3.38Similarly, the NSW SES Deputy Commissioner, Mr Daniel Austin, stated that the agency’s wealth of experience in emergency preparedness and response, as well as highly trained and skilled volunteers and staff, makes the agency and the current state-based emergency management framework ‘the best vehicle to meet the future challenges of climate change and the impacts of disasters on communities, and to improve Australia's resilience and response to natural disasters’. Mr Austin proposed:
Improvements to Australia's disaster resilience could be achieved by building on the current training and recruitment of SES volunteers and the agency's capabilities, and an expansion of programs to educate and collaborate with communities at risk of flooding. There are also new opportunities, such as re-evaluating the roles of spontaneous volunteers to support a coordinated emergency response.
3.39The Western Australian (WA) Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) which coordinates the WA SES agreed, stating:
DFES support the current disaster resilience model and arrangements that have proven effective, noting enhancements that focus on capability development, through standard approaches to training, knowledge, and data sharing would be of benefit for all jurisdictions faced with the challenges of increased events.
3.40On the argument for improved access to equipment, AFAC suggested that a nationally funded training and equipment program would be a valuable addition to improve the capability and capacity of SES:
A good model for this last proposal can be seen in the [United Kingdom (UK)] government’s former New Dimension program, in which central funds were used to purchase equipment that could contribute to national resilience and response. Local agencies accommodated and could use this equipment for ‘business as usual’, but it remained subject to recall if required to combat national emergencies. By way of example in the Australian context, swift water in-water rescue capability has often been stretched in recent flood events. A nationally funded training and equipment program designed to increase this capability in state and territory agencies, on the understanding that this capacity would be made available for interstate deployment in case of need, would be one way to address this.
3.41The Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES) noted that they are one of the largest volunteer organisations in the state with around 34 000 volunteers. QFES acknowledged the challenges of maintaining a sustainable emergency volunteer service due to compounding effects such as an ageing population, the housing and cost-of-living crisis and rigid volunteer models, but submitted that their volunteering strategy is working to address those challenges by exploring and investing in more flexible volunteering options for communities—making sure that systems are in place to attract, retain and support volunteers now and into the future.
3.42The NSW SES also discussed revisions to their approach to managing their volunteer workforce and capability to create a more flexible model and highlighted their Volunteering Reimagined program and Community Action Team (CATs) program. The Volunteering Reimagined program offered more flexible pathways for community to volunteer with the NSW SES by creating different tiers of volunteering. This initiative resulted in their volunteer workforce growing by more than 21 per cent between September 2017 and January 2019. The CATs are able to be onboarded with more generalist skill to operate low risk equipment such as sandbags and are not required to attend regular weekly training. The program also provides caches of equipment to high-risk remote and isolated communities. NSW SES submitted that the CATs have been an effective way to enable a flexible volunteer presence in remote communities and invaluable in providing community information and support.
3.43In addition, a number of SES and Country Fire Services (CFS) across the country offer youth cadet and internship programs which were reported to be successful in developing a positive culture of service and contribution to community, building resilience in young people, and enhancing awareness of and skills in emergency services, with many involved in the youth programs continuing to volunteer as adults in these organisations. These programs are targeted at school age students from ages 11 to 18 and could be considered for further investment and expansion across all states and territories.
A Volunteer Ready Reserve
3.44A new model suggested by Mr Camp, Regional Director of Queensland SES, involves the Commonwealth funding the training of a ‘ready reserve’ of volunteers that can be deployed in any state and territory. Mr Camp proposed that one option to help with the increased demand for volunteers in response to the increasing number and duration of disaster events is to:
… have people trained, equipped and held in reserve to be deployed into areas when required—a ready reserve for each state and territory. This ready reserve could operate under strict guidelines about training, maintaining their skills and their commitment to deploying. To do this effectively we will need funding to recruit, train, exercise and deploy these volunteers, as the states cannot afford this in most cases. The Commonwealth funds training and exercises for counterterrorism. It should be easy enough to run a similar program in conjunction with the states and territories to ensure we have a well-trained and exercised volunteer response resource across the country. The outlay by Commonwealth to support this process will be returned when volunteers can once again be the greatest asset in response to these events across Australia and support their communities. When we look at the process that was followed for terrorism, where the Commonwealth funded training, exercises, extra resources, stockpiles and coordination services, I believe this will work for our volunteer services and other state based services in being able to respond better … To attempt the concept I have described, we will require access to Commonwealth funds that are easy to access and ongoing. The funding should extend to facilities to house current and projected [SES] volunteer organisations in their communities. The extra funding will also need to extend to fleet so that we can have a surge fleet ready to respond.
3.45Additionally, Mr Camp suggested that such a Commonwealth funded and supported model would enable interoperability as the training curriculum will mean everyone across the country is operating under the same system and using similar equipment.
3.46Under the current model, state and territory SES volunteers are deployed not only for major natural disaster events, but also ‘for every other job that comes in during the year’ including community education and engagement. Mr Camp explained:
Across the year, that might mean that they are overworked and, come time for a deployment, they don't have the time to ask their employers for time off, whereas, with the ready reserve that I'm proposing, we can look at the different volunteerism model, and they can sign up to do a certain amount of training and a certain amount of currency through the year so that their skills remain high. And these people don't go to every single thing that happens with the SES. When something big happens, they're called upon to go and help. We might get 30 people from Townsville willing to deploy. If we had these ready reserve units, we might get another 60. The people who do this literally every day, every week, would become the team leaders, and the ready reserve would be the boots on the ground.
The Australian Resilience Corps
3.47The Australian Resilience Corps is a ‘new model for volunteerism’—a national volunteer network established in November 2021 by the Minderoo Foundation, one of the largest philanthropic organisations in Australasia, and founding partner NRMA Insurance. Mr Adrian Turner, Director of the Minderoo Foundation, explained that the Australian Resilience Corps was established as a new volunteer force to fill a gap in the national system to lift resilience to disasters in peacetime—in between disasters:
There are institutions and structures like [Regional Fire Services (RFS)] and SES for the immediate response phase. And for the relief and recovery phase there are organisations like the Red Cross and DRA. DRA is part of the solution; it is not all of the solution. That is why we set up the Resilience Corps, despite investing $9.8 million in DRA, and we have a fantastic working relationship with DRA. They do amazing work. But it is building resilience in peacetime, when there is not a disaster, that is absolutely crucial, and that is the bit that we are focused on. The method we are using is the disaster index. Being data driven, we identify the at-risk community. Over a 12-month period … we developed a framework for engaging the local community. So it is a workshop where the community lead it, they define the areas that they need help in to lift resilience, and then the Corps is mobilised as additional arms and legs … We are not trying to replace any existing volunteer organisation; it is a coordination mechanism.
3.48The Minderoo Foundation submitted that the Australian Resilience Corps connects volunteers to where help is needed, working with and through existing community-led organisations and non-government organisations (NGOs) on the ground to help communities and local councils prepare for natural threats, like fires and floods, before they occur. Minderoo’s target is to galvanise 125 000 Australians by the end of 2025. Mr Turner told the committee:
We think we can be for the country the engine to recruit an enormous number of volunteers that can get exposed to volunteering in peacetime, because not everyone wants to be in front of a fire, or is able physically to be a part of that relief and recovery phase … We think that the Resilience Corps can also be a recruitment pipeline for DRA, SES and RFS. But the thing we have fed back to NEMA is the importance of that coordination mechanism and really good operational data, before, during and after, and making sure there is consistent communication with the community, in both directions.
3.49The model is inspired by organisations in the United States (US) such as AmeriCorps and Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Corps which helps communities in the US prepare for and respond to disasters. Critically, volunteers serving within FEMA Corps are incentivised with training and employment opportunities with the US federal government.
3.50Mr Turner explained that their volunteers are predominantly sourced from the corporate sector, noting that ‘there are about 860 000 hours a year of unused corporate [volunteer] hours’. He added that the program is expanding to university and TAFE students. The Minderoo Foundation has received in principle support from the Group of Eight universities to promote the Australian Resilience Corps to their student bodies and has had meetings with the Department of Education to talk about providing incentives for university and TAFE students to volunteer with the Australian Resilience Corps.
3.51Volunteers complete online training on resilience, de-risking property, landscape management, and disaster-specific mental health. Volunteers are mobilised through ‘musters’ where 30 or 40 people, facilitated by NGO partners and community leaders, are sent to work on the disaster preparedness priorities defined by the local community to reduce the impact of a disaster in the future. Musters can include activities such as fuel load clearing, planting vegetation to prevent flood and fire risk and de-risking properties for vulnerable people. As the volunteers are facilitated by existing NGOs, things like insurance are dealt with by the NGO. Furthermore:
… where there is a need for certification and training, we draw on organisations like DRA or even SES or [Rural Fire Service (RFS)]. When we go in and volunteers are, for example, clearing fuel load, [we ensure] that is [done] with a prior discussion with RFS to make sure that the work that is being done is the most useful.
3.52The Minderoo Foundation made a number of recommendations to government, including, for example:
that the Federal Government and the philanthropic sector co-fund the Australian Resilience Corps including its administrative functions and in community ‘muster’ activities delivered in at-risk communities;
encourage student volunteering from universities, TAFEs, and high schools by providing course credits and incentives to students to join the Australian Resilience Corps;
encourage the public service (at all levels) to complete resilience training with the Australian Resilience Corps and actively volunteer;
promote the Australian Resilience Corps to state hazard and emergency management agencies and state-based disaster volunteering organisations as a recruitment and talent source;
provide incentives to industry bodies such as Royal College of General Practitioners and National Veterinary bodies to promote the Australian Resilience Corps to their members; and
support formal recognition of disaster resilience/preparedness volunteerism through a dedicated award modelled on the National Emergency Management Medal.
A National Emergency Responder Corps (Youth Program)
3.53In its submission, the Duke of Edinburgh International Award – Australia (Duke of Ed) proposed the establishment of a National Emergency Responder Corps (Youth Program) to:
… create a reliable volunteer recruitment pipeline for all emergency responding agencies that will substantially increase the number of trained emergency responders (volunteers) throughout Australia by engaging school leavers to undertake emergency responder training and concurrently complete the requirements of the Duke of Ed Award (Silver or Gold level).
3.54For background, the Duke of Ed program was designed as an organising and accrediting framework for non-formal education and learning. The award program has over 55 000 young Australians involved. The Duke of Ed Framework has three levels including Bronze, Silver, and Gold. Each level is made up of four sections which include physical recreation, skills, voluntary service, and an adventurous journey. At the Gold level participants also undertake a purposeful activity in a residential setting in the company of others who are not their usual companions. The award aims to equip and empower participants to achieve their personal best, take ownership of their own goals and life choices, and become actively engaged with their community and the workforce. The proposed National Emergency Responder Corps (Youth Program) is separate to its award program, but draws upon some of its elements.
3.55The proposed National Emergency Responder Corps (Youth Program) does not require the establishment of a new agency as it would be managed by the Duke of Ed and delivered through existing participating state emergency agencies via their current boarding and training programs, including providing volunteers with the required personal protective equipment. The Duke of Ed has outlined a requirement for $10 million in federal funding to run a three year pilot with up to 5 000 emergency responders registering and completing the program.
3.56The proposed program will target school leavers of 18 years and over to opt in to train and engage in emergency services work for a minimum two years, through one or more of the current volunteer emergency services organisations, as well as engaging in a minimum of two preparedness activities within community. After the two year training period, a condition or opt-in of the program is that participants will be on an availability list for three years, if they do not choose to stay as a volunteer with the respective emergency agency. The National Emergency Responder Corps (Youth Program) aims to achieve:
(a)the stimulation of volunteering in the emergency services by youth under 25 years;
(b)resilience development through skilling up the community, especially through practical skill development, leadership and experience of young adults;
(c)enabling young adults to better contribute to preparing their homes and community in the event of a natural disaster/emergency event;
(d)an increased pool of regular volunteers (with a lower age profile) trained in a range of emergency service organisations to respond during an extended or major emergency; and
(e)an increased pool of trained young people supporting the extended Recovery Phase that follows all major fire and storm/flood related events.
3.57The Duke of Ed suggested that federal, state and territory governments could endorse school leavers to undertake the program, perhaps by being incorporated in TAFE or university offers, by including the option to select and opt in to undertake the Emergency Responder program, and potentially offering a level of TAFE fee or Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) rebate.
3.58The Duke of Ed added that, as a partner of the Minderoo Foundation, it will be able to incorporate the work of the Australian Resilience Corps (discussed above) submitting that:
This connection will serve to efficiently build Australia’s largest network of volunteers, to build a culture where volunteer partners, corporates and community members participate in resilience activities to reduce the impacts of fire and flood across Australia.This could therefore further support the recruitment of regular volunteers for the various emergency service organisations throughout Australia as volunteers who work in preparedness activities could also support response and recovery efforts, where required.
3.59The National Emergency Responder Corps (Youth Program) would incorporate the following elements from the Australian Resilience Corps:
the six online training modules currently available for training Australian Resilience Corps volunteers; and
commit participants to a minimum of two preparedness activities with the Australian Resilience Corps within community.
New Zealand’s Student Volunteer Army
3.60International examples can be useful to explore for their potential to address some of the problems identified in Australia’s volunteering frameworks. One particular youth-led program that has been successful in boosting volunteer numbers was brought to the committee’s attention during its delegation to New Zealand.
3.61The Student Volunteer Army (SVA) is a student movement born from a Facebook page which started following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake where 11 000 students mobilised to assist with the clean-up effort. Today, SVA is a network of tens of thousands of volunteers driven by a desire to help their communities. They have ‘evolved to become leaders of second wave crisis response, helping communities recover after disaster’. Over the past decade, the SVA has supported clean-up and recovery after eight major national crises from collecting and delivering groceries during the COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020 to operating major clean-up operations after the Auckland Anniversary weekend floods, closely followed by Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023. SVA seeks to develop community resilience and preparedness, as well as support community recovery, by:
providing our university clubs with ongoing training, resources and equipment to respond safely and quickly in a crisis;
recruiting and mobilising high volumes of volunteers to support and deliver a wide range of tasks in multiple locations across Aotearoa [New Zealand]; and
working with local and national bodies to deliver safe and effective spontaneous volunteer management in a crisis situation.
3.62The network has no military affiliation and is focused on facilitating community action through youth engagement, preparing for disasters, and service. The volunteers are supported by the registered charity Student Volunteer Army Foundation.
3.63The SVA also has a Service Award program which is nationally recognised and designed to acknowledge the volunteering of intermediate and secondary school students. The five level pin system celebrates the diverse acts of service that students partake in within their local communities. By volunteering and working toward the SVA Service Award, students can add essential skills to their resumes, whilst building confidence and networks.
Incentivising volunteers
3.64It was clear that the factors contributing to the limited numbers of volunteers in Australia was an ongoing problem and that people believed there needed to be consideration from governments on how they could attract, retain and reward volunteers through legislated employment and tax incentives.
3.65An RMIT and Bushfire & Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre study found that strengthening incentives such as tax incentives and volunteering leave arrangements were a part of what participants in the study perceived as a preferred future for emergency response volunteering.
Employment incentives
3.66Evidence received by the committee suggested that legislated employment benefits and support for employers would encourage more volunteers to get involved. Some suggestions included paid leave or time off for volunteering, employment protections, corporate volunteering, and an Australian Public Service (APS) volunteering surge workforce.
3.67Ms Jennifer Westacott AO, CEO of the Business Council of Australia (BCA), told the committee that BCA would be happy to play a greater role in encouraging businesses to promote opportunities for their employees to contribute to community service. Ms Westacott suggested they could showcase good examples of employers providing volunteers leave and flexible working arrangements in a ‘best practice guide’. Ms Westacott highlighted that, during the 2019–20 Black Summer bushfires, some in the business community provided generous leave arrangements such as ‘a minimum of 20 days paid volunteering leave’.
3.68Mr Camp acknowledged that there are some businesses that already offer time off for volunteers, but that it is not across the board. Mr Camp supported the proposition that legislating time off for volunteering, similar to the legal requirement for Army Reservists to be given two weeks off, would be a positive approach.
3.69AFAC acknowledged that a challenge for volunteers is juggling their day jobs with their volunteering, stating that it needs to be easy for employers to release people and that it is really important for volunteers to have protections for their employment in place to keep volunteer numbers strong. AFAC gave the example that in NSW there is a ‘system where we can issue a direction that their employment cannot be affected by them volunteering for the state’.
3.70The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, which was established in February 2020 in response to the extreme bushfire season of 2019–20, identified that whilst some states such as NSW and WA had legislated employment protections for volunteers, it was suggested that employment protections should be increased and standardised across jurisdictions as a volunteers’ employment should not be negatively impacted by their volunteering depending on the state or territory they are volunteering in:
Legislative changes to the Fair Work Act to ensure that individuals are not discriminated against, disadvantaged or dismissed for reasons associated with their volunteer service with an emergency service organisation would harmonise employment protections for volunteers across the country. Legislative changes would also have the effect of acknowledging the value provided by volunteers.
3.71Based on his experience engaging with corporate volunteers through DRA, Mr Geoffrey Evans expressed that he was surprised at just how willing corporate Australia is to donate time despite there being a lack of infrastructure to enable them to do it.
3.72The Royal Commission found that the impact of extended periods away from work was not just felt by the volunteers, but also by the businesses for which they work. It was noted that greater support, recognition and incentives for the employers to make the release of volunteers easier or less impactful on business, such as financial assistance to cover the wage of volunteers who are away for extended periods (particularly for small business), would be beneficial and support volunteer participation. It was also acknowledged that whilst states and territories offer payroll tax exemptions on wages paid to some employees while performing their volunteering duties, such as fire and emergency services volunteers, they are often poorly promoted and are of only minor benefit to employers.
3.73Telstra and TPG Telecom told the committee that they support a number of corporate volunteering opportunities. Ms Lisa McTiernan from Telstra stated:
Telstra has a volunteering program where we offer our staff the opportunity of a volunteering engagement of their choice. That's open to every staff member within the company, and we can set up some specific volunteering opportunities. Staff can get together, in their teams or as a business unit, and go off and do some volunteering as a collective ... [and offer] discrete volunteer leave for staff engaged in voluntary emergency services such as the [Country Fire Authority (CFA)], the New South Wales RFS and SES and so on. So we absolutely support our staff undertaking volunteer opportunities where possible.
3.74The Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs) explained that there is already an Australia Public Service (APS) Surge Reserve where the Commonwealth ‘has the capacity to rapidly deploy Commonwealth public servants into critical roles (primarily administrations roles) to address demand for government services or support, particularly during times of crisis’. Home Affairs noted that the department recently supported the APS Surge Reserve during the 2022 Queensland and NSW flooding events with 147 staff assisting with disaster payments.
3.75However, Home Affairs told the committee that they were considering other ways that the Commonwealth could provide support, such as through a Commonwealth surge capability:
… there may be potential for the Commonwealth government to provide support in different ways, whether that be coordination of existing organisations from local to state and territory government, or scoping the potential of a Commonwealth surge capability.
As you would probably be aware, and we did mention it in our written submission, there is already an APS surge capability that we have used in relation to crises over the last two years, but that is a very specific feature. In terms of administration, we're looking at whether the Commonwealth can do anything extra to assist people on the ground when disasters do occur.
Tax incentives
3.76Whilst there were mixed opinions about whether paying volunteers was an appropriate incentive to encourage more volunteers to step up, many suggested that tax incentives could be a good option to recognise the service provided and support volunteers.
3.77Mr Camp described paying volunteers as a ‘slippery slope’, stating that volunteers normally do it for altruistic reasons, because they want to help their community and make a difference, ‘if we start paying them, we may not get the people there for the right reason’.
3.78On the other hand, Mr Ian Cumming from British Maritime Technology was of the view that there is altruism in paid service, and it is not a disconnected behaviour to be paid and volunteer:
I think that we need to recognise volunteerism is changing … I think there is a recognition that volunteering is diminishing within the Australian context. So, recognising all of those societal behaviours, I think that the model of a paid part-time organisation allows for a more localised effect to be gained at a time pre disaster. I think that could look like the [Army] Reserve looks … [A]s a nation we need to be mature about what the future is going to look like to us, how often these volunteers will be called on in the future and how we need to be as a society prepared to be responsible for some of the work they do. Responsibility will go to keeping their families alive and well paid and fed whilst they are preparing and helping for a disaster that is likely.
3.79Nonetheless, a number of submitters and witnesses suggested that payment to volunteers could be in the form of other benefits such as a tax deductable equipment, licenses, certification and training, or university fee relief, rather than a direct payment for services. The evidence indicated that allowing volunteers to claim the costs of equipment, certification and training provides an incentive for important preparatory steps to be undertaken by not only taking the cost burden off the volunteer who is already donating their time and service, but that it also assists volunteer organisations to encourage more people to get the qualifications they need to support the effectiveness and safety of their operations. Some of these suggestions are outlined below.
3.80Tweed Shire Council reflected on the spontaneous volunteers who stepped in to respond during a recent flood event, submitting:
The question for Government is how to harness this enthusiasm for preparedness in future events, to engage with volunteers to meet surge capacity but not impose considerable commitment on individuals in competition with their day-to-day activities/family commitments ... It may also provide opportunities for State and Federal Governments to consider the offering of various incentives for participation, such as reduced boat licence/ registration fees, tax offsets/deductions, fuel vouchers etc.
3.81Mr Greg Fisk from British Maritime Technology expressed that incentivisation has to happen to get volunteer numbers up, particularly in getting younger Australians involved, and was open to suggestions such as university fee relief or other cash incentives.
3.82Mr Camp explained that some SES locations already receive a small stipend to volunteer each year based on the length of service they have had and suggested that another option would be tax incentives for equipment because volunteers sometimes have to buy their own equipment, but are currently not eligible for a tax deduction because they are volunteers.
3.83The Water Services Association of Australia, the peak industry body representing the urban water industry, submitted that the water sector would support:
… the provision of greater federal funding and support for the training and deployment of state-based volunteer responders; NGO’s and community volunteers, for example, through the provision of tax-exempt payments for volunteers when training or on emergency response operations. These staff could then provide the logistics support necessary to underpin the deployment of industry response and recovery capabilities into a disaster area.
Committee view
3.84The committee recognises the invaluable contributions of volunteers across state emergency services, industry, charities, non-government organisations and volunteer groups. The committee is concerned about the declining number of people volunteering in emergency response and relief and commends the efforts of organisations to boost their numbers by implementing more flexible volunteering arrangements and promoting volunteering through youth programs.
3.85The committee sees value in the Australian Government considering the development of a national, or supporting and expanding state-based, youth programs that provide social interaction and training in disaster related activities, with opportunities for certificate-based learning (for example in chainsaws, boat maintenance, firefighting, abseiling, event management, logistics, communications, and information technology). The program(s) should be promoted through schools, universities and youth associations such as the Police Citizens Youth Clubs, Scouts and Guides. Additionally, it is important that such a program establishes a strong reputation as a quality program that not only does good work but is also a fun group that young people want to be associated with. If a national program is preferred, it should create links with state-based organisations such as the SES and Rural Bushfire Service.
3.86The committee heard evidence that there were a number of issues with coordination and communication within and across volunteer communities and that there is a need for the innovative models of coordination to prevent the duplication of efforts and wasting of precious resources. The committee notes that there were calls for a nationwide database that could mobilise volunteers by matching them up with the work that needs to be done. The committee expects that the Australian Government will continue to work with all volunteers involved in disaster mitigation, response and recovery to improve coordination across civil society.
3.87The committee encourages the Australian Government to investigate ways to strengthen the volunteer workforce, including the introduction of employment incentives and volunteering schemes in the public and corporate sectors. For example, the committee believes that options for developing a leave policy and a tax deductibility policy to provide full time workers with protections when called up for three or more days of disaster emergency support, similar to the protections provided to Defence Reservists under the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001,should be investigated.
3.88The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 to legislate time off for volunteers working with registered organisations and for volunteers to be granted leave from employment, similar to the provisions provided to Reservists under the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001.
3.89Additionally, for volunteers working in SES, Rural Bushfire Service or other recognised community groups, the committee suggests that the Australian Government consider providing tax deductible courses that can be used as part of their emergency volunteering, but it should not be a cost covered by the organisation.
3.90In circumstances where the cost of relevant training is not covered by the organisation, the committee recommends that the Australian Government consider amendments to legislation, policy and guidelines to allow volunteers working in organisations such as State Emergency and Rural Bushfire Services to claim tax deductions for training and courses that are a part of their emergency volunteering.
Mental health
3.91Getting boots on the ground is important, but looking after the mental health of the first responders and volunteers supporting communities is critical for the sustainability and success of any volunteer framework. Evidence received by the committee indicated that there needs to be clearly defined mental health programs tailored specifically for responders to natural disasters. These programs must be free or low-cost, trauma-informed, and focused on prevention rather than as a post-disaster activity. Australia’s first responders and volunteers cannot be left behind.
3.92Volunteering Australia stated that ‘mental health and suicide prevention services are critical during major emergencies’. Similarly, Lifeline Australia, a crisis telephone support service engaging 10 000 volunteers across Australia, submitted that there is ‘consensus that climate change-related disasters are indeed interlinked with mental health and wellbeing’.
3.93The Australian Red Cross expressed that the psychosocial impacts of disasters are significant and linger long after the physical infrastructure in communities is repaired. However:
… they are not well recognised within the emergency management sector or broader community, which means that mitigating or addressing psychosocial harms arising from disasters are not prioritised in policy or funding. It also means that the emergency management sector misses opportunities to minimise psychosocial impacts throughout activations.
3.94Fortem Australia highlighted that Australian communities are highly dependent on first responders, the majority of whom are volunteers, to save lives and protect property when disaster strikes. Fortem Australia explained that supporting the resilience and overall wellbeing of first responders during and after disasters can safeguard their ongoing capacity to respond in times of need. Fortem Australia outlined the mental health impact on first responders and their families:
For many first responders and their families, working in disaster affected regions often comes at a deeply personal cost. Layered on top of traumatic and already highly demanding duties, disaster response works adds an additional burden to individuals on the frontline.
The mental health impact of supporting disaster affected communities often has a long tail, with many first responders experiencing significant psychological distress months or years after responding to a disaster event.
Due to this burden and the long tail impact, there is an urgent need to establish a nationally coordinated and consistent approach to supporting the mental health readiness, response and recovery of first responders working in disaster affected regions.
3.95The X Factor Collective Foundation (now rebranded as the Benefolk Foundation), a national charity supporting the mental health of staff and volunteers in the social sector, also discussed the burnout experienced by emergency response volunteers. Feedback from civil leaders indicated that their teams are exhausted which impacted on service delivery, and that their organisations do not have the extra capacity to provide staff and volunteers with appropriate training to enable them to respond effectively to the trauma experienced during and after disaster events. The X Factor Collective Foundation asserted that these responders need fit-for-purpose mental health training and support—specifically, support that is not generic in workplace mental health but focused on frontline and accidental responders dealing with traumatised clients and communities. The training also needs to be free or low-cost as many of these organisations do not have the budgets for mainstream providers, as well as the need for the training to be easily accessible and flexible with multi-mode delivery.
3.96Both Lifeline Australia and Phoenix Australia – Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health (Phoenix Australia) concurred that due to the impacts of climate change compounding disasters, it is necessary that Australia implements ‘a comprehensive preparedness, response, and recovery workforce model addressing mental health and wellbeing, alongside immediate physical and economic risks’. Lifeline Australia submitted that the approach must incorporate workforce mobilisation of the mental health and crisis support workforce with a particular focus on volunteers.
3.97The Salvation Army and the X Factor Collective Foundation emphasised that this support should be tailored and responsive to community needs, particularly in regional and rural areas.
3.98The importance of trauma-informed training, support and services was something that was raised by a number of submitters and witnesses. Phoenix Australia submitted:
Another critical aspect of building the capacity of the disaster recovery workforce, is ensuring that they have access to a range of evidence-based, trauma-informed and culturally appropriate wellbeing support options when required ... A matched and stepped approach to supporting worker mental health is a widely used public health approach and is supported by the evidence as best-practice. This approach recognises that interventions are most effective when the level of mental health support is matched to the individual’s needs at that particular point in time, i.e. universal interventions made available to all workers to prevent or minimise the impacts of exposure to [potentially traumatic events], early and low intensity support for workers with emerging or low level mental health issues, and specialist mental health and return to work support for those who develop more entrenched and significant mental health issues. Therefore, when considering disaster workforce models, it is vital to also ensure that culturally appropriate, trauma-informed and evidence-based support options are made available across all levels of the matched and stepped care approach, and for all stages of their career lifecycle (including their transition out). However, other inquiries have found that the current public mental health services lack sufficient knowledge regarding trauma and disasters, and are not tailored to adequately support this workforce.
3.99Phoenix Australia recommended:
With the increasing frequency and intensity of disasters, there is an urgent need to take a proactive and systemic approach to better prepare and support the wellbeing of the disaster workforce in order to ensure its ongoing capability and capacity to respond to compounding disasters. This can be achieved through:
supporting disaster organisations to put in place organisation wide practices that mitigate risks to mental health and protect wellbeing. This requires both a system wide and whole-of-organisation approach ranging from improved policies and leadership practices, to upskilling the workforce in disaster relevant practice;
providing a range of culturally appropriate, trauma-informed and evidence-based support options for those in the disaster workforce. This should take a matched, stepped care approach; and
ensuring these improved organisational and support practices are considered for the broader disaster workforce (including those in professions not typically considered high-risk).
3.100The X Factor Collective Foundation highlighted that they provide ‘resilient responders’ training which helps participants understand and build skills around trauma, resolving trauma and healing from trauma for themselves and for others. They have been providing this training in the Northern Rivers in NSW, but would like to be able to offer it to local communities all over Australia. They have also established a Community Well which is a free wellbeing and resilience resource hub built specifically for charities, not-for-profit organisations, social enterprises, and all those that work and volunteer with them, but need help to promote it. Ms Annette Herschtal, Manager of Resources and Advocacy at the X Factor Collective Foundation, stated that they would love to partner with the government on these projects to ‘make the wellbeing of the social sector a national priority, because their resilience is out resilience’.
Committee view
3.101During the course of the inquiry, the committee heard concerns about the lack of appropriate and accessible services to support the mental health and wellbeing of disaster response workers, volunteers, their families, and communities. A number of organisations, community groups and associations also outlined the important work they do in providing mental health support programs for volunteer and frontline workers, but highlighted that they needed more support to continue and expand these services. The committee recognises the importance of this work and believes that it is imperative that the Australian Government continue to focus on building mental health resilience and support for disaster affected communities, as well as for first responders, including the disaster workforce and volunteers.
3.102The committee sees value in the establishment of national disaster mental health hub, similar to the X Factor Collective Foundation’s wellbeing and resilience resource hub. A national disaster mental health hub would provide all stakeholders involved in disaster response and recovery across the country a one-stop shop of relevant and specifically-tailored resources to support their mental health, wellbeing and resilience—before, during and after disaster events.
3.103The committee recognises the integral link between social resilience and social strength in mitigating the impacts of natural disasters, therefore initiatives aimed at building stronger and more resilient communities must be prioritised.
3.104The committee notes the Australian Government’s ongoing program of work to better support the mental health and wellbeing of first responders and disaster impacted communities across Australia. In particular, the committee acknowledges:
the National Disaster Mental Health and Wellbeing Framework launched in June 2023, which guides how mental health and wellbeing can be supported before, during and after disasters; and
the National Mental Health Plan for Emergency Services Workers: 2024–2027: A commitment to continued action that was endorsed at the National Emergency Management Ministers’ Meeting in August 2023, which aims to address the specific challenges faced by emergency services workers and the essential role they provide in supporting disaster impacted communities.
3.105To build on this work already underway, the committee makes the following recommendations.
3.106The committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a national disaster mental health hub to coordinate and provide mental health resources, training, and support for first responders and communities affected by disasters across the nation. This hub should serve as a comprehensive resource centre for addressing the mental health needs of all stakeholders involved in disaster response and recovery efforts.
3.107The committee recommends that the Australian Government design and implement consistent national trauma-informed care principles, ensuring that first responders—both professional and volunteer—receive training and support in these national principles to better address the mental health and well-being of disaster-affected individuals and communities.
3.108The committee recommends that the Australian Government convene a disaster resilience mental health summit to hear from all related agencies and stakeholders to identify solutions to the mental health impacts of disaster.