Recruitment incentives are needed to boost the number of emergency services volunteers to respond to natural disasters and take the pressure off the ADF.
Recruitment incentives are needed to boost the number of emergency services volunteers to respond to natural disasters and take the pressure off the ADF.
I keep seeing commentary saying that we shouldn’t use the ADF for disaster relief.
We have an organisation full of people with exactly the skills and organisation required that we maintain at great expense and barely use. Can someone give me a sensible explanation why it’s not a good idea to use them for disaster response.
On a second note I know for a fact that small scale politics and wasteful spending are endemic in volunteer emergency services. I’m not sure what reform is needed but something certainly is. I’m about to re-enter a volunteer fire brigade for the first time in years so I’m sure I’ll be full of opinions in a few months.
I disagree with the small scale politics. On small levels people tend to be leaner with their spending as they actually see it. On higher levels they look at the number of thousands or millions being spent rather than individual dollars. Though this probably changes depending on industry and region.
I’m on the fence regarding the ADF being used in times of need. On one hand if the ADF are tied up sorting out a natural disaster then they can’t perform their core function of protecting Australia’s borders, on the other hand we aren’t at war so why shouldn’t they help. If they were scaled up or to add a federal ‘ses’ (fes?) then I’d be onboard
100% agree on the ADF front. Logistics is supposed to be what the military is good at, and if responding to disasters is affecting their readiness, then we need to increase their resources.
I’m also 90% sure that if the ADF stopped doing emergency response, next budget cycle someone will push for reducing their excess headcount now that they are replaced by volunteers.