That the NSW Government enhance land use planning processes to take into account climate change risks, including the development of clear guidelines about where homes and infrastructure should and should not be located.

That the NSW Government consider implementing:
- all of the recommendations of the statutory review of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016
- planning instruments that provide for the retention and creation of deep soil, native tree cover and habitat in urban areas
- guidelines for a clear and transparent process for when the Minister for Planning will refer a development to the Federal Minister for the Environment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).

That the NSW Government:
- implement statutory planning controls to mitigate the urban heat island effect, either through legislation, changes to the Sustainable Buildings SEPP, and/or any other relevant instruments
- advocate for changes to the National Construction Code, through the Australian Building Codes Board, to help ensure that infrastructure is resilient to climate change impacts.

That the NSW Government consider amending the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to make the powers to consent authorities to modify or revoke development consents in the public interest, and that if a consent authority exercises the power to revoke a development consent, that no compensation is to be paid by the consent authority to the aggrieved person.

That the NSW Government look into strengthening Development Control Plans so that provisions within Development Control Plans bear greater weight when considered in the Land and Environment Court and so that they can be enforced.

That the NSW Government seek to amend provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 relating to historical developments to:
- increase the threshold required for developers to have undertaken action in commencing physical works in order to prevent their development consent from lapsing after 5 years
- consider a mechanism with appropriate thresholds for consent authorities to assess whether a historical development consent should be reassessed, and
- consider giving power to consent authorities to revoke or modify historical development consents, where it can be demonstrated that the development will have significant social, environmental or cultural impact not previously identified or that has been changed from the time of approval.

That the NSW Government review deemed refusal appeals under section 8.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and consider the impacts that deemed refusal appeals have on local councils, particularly in relation to the costs incurred in defending these appeals and the strain that this has on council resources.

That the NSW Government in partnership with local Aboriginal land councils and other Aboriginal land holders, in land claims processes to identify and activate land suitable for development and progress any necessary rezonings to enable that development and where parties agree, consider land swaps where lands are not suitable for development due to biodiversity and climate change constraints.

That the NSW Government consider implementing a system for when the Minister for Planning may request the Independent Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing for any development.

That the NSW Government consider ways to improve the independence of the assessment of planning proposals and development applications, without increasing the time taken to assess such proposals.

That the NSW Government give effect to the right of First Nations people to self-determination and the principle of free, prior, informed and ongoing consent in the New South Wales planning system, including in relation to:
- development applications and planning proposals
- culturally appropriate consultation and
- protection of cultural heritage and connection to Country.

That the NSW Government review the need for legislation amending the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or a state environmental planning policy to consider climate change within the planning system alongside the need to deliver development outcomes, including housing diversity, supply of industrial land and critical infrastructure.

That the NSW Reconstruction Authority consider issuing guidelines which clarify the scope of its powers to make planning decisions under the NSW Reconstruction Authority Act 2022 and how the Authority will consider existing planning controls, environmental standards, and Aboriginal cultural heritage protections under the state's existing planning framework.

The committee recommends that the Australian Government pursue the matter of land use and planning laws, including the feasibility of prohibiting future development in high-risk areas, through the Housing and Homelessness Ministerial Council and other relevant ministerial council arrangements.

The Commonwealth should require state and territory governments to complete complementary disaster risk assessments to inform the Risk Profile and guide priority areas for Commonwealth investment and support. Where they exist, climate risk or adaptation profiles developed at local, state and Commonwealth levels should be used to inform the Risk Profile.

The Commonwealth should develop an agreed methodology to underpin the Risk Profile that would identify at-risk communities, capabilities, and assets.

The Commonwealth should use the results of the Risk Profile to work with state and territory governments to identify and prioritise disaster funding.
- The outcome of the Risk Profile should inform decision making elements in response to requests for Commonwealth funding, either directly or via co-contribution. Specifically, the results of the Risk Profile should also form a core consideration for future DRFA, and DRF decision making, as well as any other future programs.
- The Risk Profile should inform other Commonwealth programs, such as infrastructure investment, National Construction Code enhancements, climate change initiatives and the like.
- Understanding the Risk Profile will also allow the Commonwealth to place conditions or requirements on funding approvals that are consistent with a more strategically aligned approach to risk reduction and resilience.
-The Risk Profile should be used in concert with the Outcomes Policy to direct funding towards projects that advance risk reduction priorities, and which contribute to the outcomes the Commonwealth is seeking to achieve with its disaster funding.

The Commonwealth should lead the development of a Nation-wide Natural Disaster Risk Profile (Risk Profile) to enable the Commonwealth to identify risk reduction and resilience priorities and allow the Commonwealth, states, and territories to address agreed risk. The Risk Profile should:
- Be reviewed (including methodology) every five years but updated annually.
-Be led by NEMA and supported by PM&C.
- Encompass all components of natural disaster risk (hazard, exposure, vulnerability and response) with consideration of risk across all domains (natural, social, economic and built).
- Include consideration of the capacity and capabilities that exist to mitigate risks along with consideration of the capability to embed resilience.

In compiling the Risk Profile, the Commonwealth should draw upon existing activities including, but not limited to, the National Climate Risk Assessment and the High-Risk Weather Season Outlook.
- The Risk Profile should incorporate national perspectives on risks and opportunities across the natural, social, economic and built domains, in the context of current and anticipated natural disasters.

The Commonwealth should introduce a systematic and consistent approach to measuring and evaluating the impact of disaster programs against the nationally determined outcomes specified in the Outcomes Policy.

The Commonwealth should mandate regular capability assessments of local governments by state and territory governments.
- Where possible, these assessments should form part of the local or regional Disaster Management Plans.
- Priority should be placed on assessing capability, capacity and investment requirements, as well as assessing any barriers to enabling locally led action, including disadvantaged, or disproportionately impacted communities.
- These assessments should help inform broader capability needs considered as part of Recommendation 6.
- Consideration should be given to complementing these local government capability assessments with data held by Regional Development Australia, managed by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA).

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), jointly with the CoordinatorGeneral of National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), should co-chair a coordination mechanism between Commonwealth departments and agencies to promote natural disaster risk reduction and resilience.
- This mechanism should ensure Commonwealth decision makers understand the role of relevant programs, with a view to avoiding duplication and ensuring better program information sharing and alignment.
- In establishing this mechanism, PM&C and NEMA should consider all current Commonwealth emergency and disaster management forums to ensure alignment. This includes reviewing respective terms of reference, frequency at which they meet and the appropriate balance between emergency response coordination and a wider Commonwealth focus on disaster risk reduction and resilience coordination.

To support a comprehensive risk-based approach, the Commonwealth should require state and territory governments to develop local or regional Disaster Management Plans. These Disaster Management Plans should:
- Identify the readiness of a region to handle a disaster event (including considerations of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery).
- Include risks and strengths that are specific to that area in the natural, social, economic and built domains.
- Contain information that can be used to inform state and territory risk assessments, inform response activities in advance of disaster events, or help inform resource and funding requirements for recovery, disaster risk reduction, and resilience.
- Recognise and accommodate the lived experience, increased cost, risk and complexity of delivering disaster management services to remote communities, and to First Nations communities.

That the Queensland Reconstruction Authority leads state-level hazard and risk functions, including the design and delivery of a risk assessment tool that is locally appropriate, costeffective and fit for purpose.

The Inspector-General of Emergency Management recommends the following changes to the ways that ‘resilience’ is reflected in Queensland’s Disaster Management Arrangements:
a. That the Disaster Management Act 2003 be amended to include a definition of ‘resilience’ that reflects the Queensland Government’s endorsed definition within the Queensland Strategy for Disaster Resilience, clarifying that Resilience functions incorporate activities related to the phases of Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery.

Each NEMMM agenda should have a standing item on disaster risk reduction/resilience and at least one full meeting each year should be devoted to Disaster Resilience and Recovery. Some jurisdictions have established separate ministers responsible for recovery and resilience, and they should be invited to attend these recovery and resilience meetings.

NEMMM’s leading role in the wider national resilience effort should focus on disaster risk reduction, and it should engage as a core stakeholder in a wider range of other resilience issues. It should further elaborate this focus with respect to:
- Prospective risk management (higher infrastructure standards, environmental protection, etc.),
- Corrective risk management (retrofitting, reinforcing, and remedial measures),
- Compensatory risk management (risk financing and transfer), and
- Reactive risk management (early warning systems and effective response and recovery).

The state’s arrangements for disaster management, including recovery, are articulated in the Disaster Management Act (2003), the Queensland Reconstruction Authority Act (2011), the State Disaster Management Plan and the Queensland Recovery Plan. To enable state-level arrangements to better support community-led recovery and to improve Queensland’s recovery governance
arrangements:
a. State-level roles and responsibilities of:
i. the Leadership Board Sub-committee (Recovery)
ii. the State Recovery Policy and Planning Coordinator
iii. the State Recovery Coordinator
iv. the Queensland Reconstruction Authority
v. functional recovery groups
for coordinating and reporting on recovery should be made more distinct from each other, and any overlap between them removed for greater clarity. Roles and responsibilities should be published on relevant websites.
b. A capability that delivers the effectiveness of the State Disaster Coordination Group and its supporting apparatus for response should exist for recovery. The capability should support coordination and reporting, and improve communication arrangements and sharing of operational information between functional recovery groups and agencies. Such a capability may be established by revising the State Disaster Coordination Group terms of reference and membership, or investigating the capacity for Queensland Reconstruction Authority to deliver it.

Exercise time-critical decision making processes within the context of an earthquake scenario.

Improve information about electricity demand during heatwaves.

Develop and exercise Severe Storm Emergency Management Plan.

Continue the Fuel Reduction Program.

Review environmental risks associated with hazardous uses within flood prone areas.

Develop linkages between landslide risk assessors and building engineers/structural works.

Include consideration of coastal inundation in land use planning for new developments and uses.

Review Ambulance Tasmania surge capacity.

Develop enablers and capacity for Tasmanian earthquake risk owners.

Exercise heatwave arrangements with a focus on the public administration sector and management of vulnerable people

Establish emergency services ICT redundancy arrangements for damage loss of communications infrastructure.

Continue the development and implementation of community level Bushfire Mitigation Plans.

Raised access routes.

Further development of Landslide Hazard Banding of the State (MRT).

Improve the understanding of the vulnerability of critical infrastructure.

Establish arrangements to enable the buy-back of specified landslip prone land.

Review all hazards response and recovery plans to ensure they address likely earthquake consequences.

Locate and design new public infrastructure so that it can continue to operate during flood events.

Undertake inter-agency severe storm exercises.

Monitor effectiveness of new Land Use Planning and Building System reforms to evaluate effectiveness of delivering desired outcomes.

Promote the use of Water Sensitive Urban Design in stormwater systems.

Nuance the exercises for flood / dam-break / debris flow to incorporate consideration.

Utilise coastal mapping to assess need for coastal defences.

Ensure landuse planning and building systems, including appeal mechanisms, are transparent, equitable and integrated at the municipal, State and national levels.

Assess options for managed coastal retreat.

Improve maintenance of flood mitigation infrastructure.

Engage with industry bodies to explore opportunities to better understand and manage risks.

Actively manage riparian vegetation to manage flood dynamics.

Monitor effectiveness of new Land Use Planning reforms to evaluate effectiveness of delivering desired outcomes.

Assess vulnerability of ecosystems and species to coastal inundation.

Pro-actively manage landslide areas.

Review building controls to ensure they are adaptive to changing coastal inundation risks.

Build flood capable infrastructure.

Advocate for an National Notifiable Diseases Database.

Identify and anlalyse the location of critical infrastructure within defined flood areas.

Make property level information on landslide hazards publicly available

Identify and analyse statewide storm hazard risk.

Develop, implement, review and exercise inter-agency community evacuation and recovery plans across the State.

Incentivising safer sites (charge people less rates and discounts for defensive actions by land managers).

Improve understanding of the allocation of ownership across government, business and individuals.

Review and exercise the Tasmanian Mass Vaccination Plan.

That the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority critically reviews:
- the current Computer Aided Dispatch 9.1 upgrade project against business case objectives, including system and network reliability and system redundancy, once the project is completed
- the ESTA Triple Zero telephony platform telecommunications upgrade project against business case objectives, including system and network reliability once the project is completed.

That the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority reclassifies its State Emergency Communications Centres as critical national infrastructure.

All governments should put in place best-practice institutional and governance arrangements for the provision of public infrastructure, including road infrastructure. These should include:
• stronger processes for project selection that incorporate requirements for cost–benefit analyses that are independently scrutinised and publicly released
• consideration of natural disaster risk in project selection and asset management planning
• a clearer link between road-user preferences and maintenance and investment decisions.

Government in conjunction with the CFS identify the ownership of disused railway corridors which may pose a significant fire risk and ensure the agency or individual responsible for the land complies with legislative requirements. 

A thorough consultative process be developed and implemented between the CFS and local government. This will determine how bushfire management planning can enable improved process and practice to mitigate bushfire risk, and ensure that fire permits are issued and complied with.

That the obligation (following the passage of the Fire and Emergency Services (Review) Amendment Bill 2009) for Chief Fire Officers (CFS & MFS) to require State agencies to clean up fire risk on their land, and to make similar requests to Commonwealth agencies, be strongly implemented.

That the obligation (following the passage of the Fire and Emergency Services (Review) Amendment Bill 2009) for Chief Fire Officers (CFS & MFS) to require State agencies to clean up fire risk on their land, and to make similar requests to Commonwealth agencies, be strongly implemented.

Those final determinations of disaster management districts include consultation with the Local Government Association Queensland, the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service and other Government departments.

That the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service examine alternative contractual arrangements with building owners which would reduce the need for physical attendance at alarm activations.

That the Inspector General Emergency Management be empowered to provide an assurance to Government that the disaster management system is both appropriate and capable of dealing with complex events.

That the Queensland Police Service Disaster Management Unit is to be permanently located at the State Disaster Coordination Centre to work on a day to day basis with the proposed new Department of Fire and Emergency Services.

That the Commissioners of Police and the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service review the current district disaster boundaries as a matter of urgency in-line with the findings and recommendations of the Auditor–General’s report into the Queensland disaster management system.

That the NSW Rural Fire Service hold discussions with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and Local Government NSW on ways to improve compliance with development consents under section 76A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

If recommendation 1 is not supported by the Australian Government, the committee recommends that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy issue a Ministerial Direction to the Australian Communications and Media Authority to allocate as a minimum requirement, 20 MHz in the 800 MHz band for the purposes of a public safety mobile broadband network.

The committee recommends that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy take appropriate measures to secure, for public service agencies, priority access to an additional 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for public safety purposes.

The committee recommends that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy issue a Ministerial Direction to the Australian Communications and Media Authority to allocate 20 MHz of contiguous spectrum in the 700 MHz band for the purposes of a public safety mobile broadband network.

The committee recommends that credible and reliable flood mapping activities and the development of other information that would best inform landowners or prospective landowners of potential risks from extreme weather events are prioritised and used to inform land use planning laws.

The committee recommends relevant authorities work with community service organisations in both planning responses to and responding to extreme weather events, in particular those organisations that provide vital services to vulnerable groups.

The committee recommends that building codes incorporate mitigation measures that take into account foreseeable risks from extreme weather events.

The Ministers for Health, Emergency Services, Environment and Police provide additional funds to their agencies so that a detailed exercise is held on a regular basis based on a disaster that will create the worst outcome for the State.

Review disaster recovery and business continuity plans.

As a priority, state and territory governments should ensure that land-use planning systems are sufficiently flexible to enable a risk management approach to incorporating climate change risks into planning decisions at the state, territory, regional and local government levels. Consideration should be given to:
• transparent and rigorous community consultation processes that enable an understanding of the community’s acceptable levels of risk for different types of land use
• the timeframe of risks and the expected lifetime of proposed land use
• the costs and benefits of land use.
State and territory governments should provide appropriate guidance to local governments to implement these provisions in local government schemes.

The Council of Australian Governments’ Building Ministers’ Forum should provide formal direction to the Australian Building Codes Board to:
• monitor projections of climate change risks to buildings
• revise the standards in the National Construction Code to take into account these projections where this delivers a net benefit to the community.
This body of work should be transparently and formally incorporated in the Australian Building Codes Board’s annual work program.

The Department of Human Services should regularly test recovery plans with partner agencies. 

To improve Centrelink’s preparedness for responding to future disasters, the ANAO recommends that Centrelink include disasters that impact on multiple Areas in its emergency and business continuity test exercise program.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government:
- continue working with the Queensland Government and local councils under the existing Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement to improve land use planning in the catchment
- commission analysis of the Great Barrier Reef as a case study for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) in Australia. The study should draw out possible directions for ICZM in Australia with regard to:
* addressing challenges associated with climate change impacts on biodiversity
* declining water quality from catchment runoff and loss of coastal habitat from coastal development and population pressures
* building cooperative partnerships between Commonwealth, state and local government, and other stakeholders
* establishing governance and institutional frameworks

The Committee recommends that:
- the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government undertake a study into the human and resourcing needs of local governments to effectively plan for and adapt to the impacts of climate change
- this study be carried out in conjunction with the Australian Local Government Association and the National Sea Change Taskforce

The Committee recommends that the Building Code of Australia, including cyclone building codes, be revised with the objective of increasing resilience to climate change.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider the benefits of adopting a nationally consistent sea level rise planning benchmark and, if so, whether this be done on a statutory basis or otherwise. The outcomes of this consideration should then be included as part of the action plan for the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement on the Coastal Zone.

The Committee notes the Council of Australian Governments initiative (through the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council) to develop state-specific climate change planning policies by mid 2011, to inform local governments and regional planning responses to climate change. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that the outcomes of this initiative are included as part of the action plan under the proposed new Intergovernmental Agreement on the Coastal Zone.

The Committee recommends that the Department of Climate Change, in collaboration with the Queensland Government, CSIRO and Indigenous communities in the Torres Strait, undertake a major study into the vulnerability of the Torres Strait to the impacts of climate change and provide assistance in the development of an adaptation plan.

The Committee recommends that coastal based Natural Resource Management bodies seeking funding under the Caring for our Country program have coastal and marine priorities, as well as coastal zone management principles integrated in their management plans.

The Committee notes that major initiatives relating to climate change adaptation risk assessment and infrastructure are currently in progress. Given that much of Australia’s infrastructure is in the coastal zone and the particular threats facing the coastal zone from climate change, involving significant socioeconomic costs, the Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure there is a comprehensive national assessment of coastal infrastructure vulnerability to inundation from sea level rise and extreme sea level events.

The Committee recommends that the responsibility for land management issues lie within a single portfolio, specifically the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services.

The Committee recommends that the ESA hold discussions with NSW with a view to developing a joint exercise program with the NSW Rural Fire Service on an ongoing basis.

The Committee recommends that the ESA develop a schedule of proposed exercises as a five year rolling plan, in order that all the elements of emergency services are able to be tested over that time and in differing
situations.

The Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner convene a working group of key emergency services and emergency management agencies to develop a flow chart based on scenario testing, to support decision making and the assessment of response requirements to medical, hazardous materials and CBR emergencies including their transition from one type to another.

The working group recommends that a similar project to the Review of Australia's Ability to Respond to and Recover from Catastrophic Disasters be established to consider the longer term consequences of catastrophic disasters and their resulting recovery implications. Key aspects of such a review would include:
• Researching the likely longer term consequences of catastrophic disasters/emergencies,
• Consideration of Australia's capacity from all perspectives to address the long term recovery consequences of a catastrophic disaster/emergency.

The Working Group recommends that the results of the scenario modeling be presented to the Australian Emergency Management Committee (AEMC) upon completion, and that AEMC form Sub Working Groups of State/Territory emergency management representatives as appropriate to be tasked with considering response and recovery capability (both state/territory and national) against the identified consequences. 

The Working Group recommends that State/Territory emergency management plans should explicitly take the need for rapid assessment of damaged physical infrastructure into account. The importance of rapid physical infrastructure assessment in ensuring the supply of utilities including sewerage and drainage, electricity, water and gas to residential structures and other types should be recognised and considered. 

The Working Group recommends that in addition to existing disease control and pandemic management plans, States/Territories should consider developing a pandemic emergency management plan that considers the impact of pandemic disease broadly, encompasses all government and private sector agencies and addresses:
• Continuity of government
• Continuity of essential services and lifelines
• Maintenance of community functions
• Continuity of business and commerce.
Where possible, pandemic emergency management planning elements should be built into existing ‘all hazards’ plans and these should also consider those specific elements identified above.

The Working Group recommends that Emergency Management Australia and the jurisdictions through the AEMC develop a three year rolling national exercise strategy aimed at testing the response and recovery aspects of large scale disasters. 

The Working Group recommends that the Australian Government and the States/Territories use the survey templates compiled in each of their jurisdictions during the capability review workshops, and the scenarios to consider their current and future capabilities, to respond to and recover from large scale disasters. 

That the State Disaster Management Group supported by the Department of Emergency Services ensures that State-wide a robust disaster risk management process is established that includes the aggregation of relevant information from local, district, functional and threat specific plans to develop a hazard risk profile for Queensland.

To enhance disaster risk management planning processes, it is recommended that the State Disaster Management Group supported by the Department of Emergency Services develop a suitable performance management system to ensure local, district, functional and threat specific Disaster Management Plans are —
• current, accurate and operationally adequate;
• based on appropriate risk identification, analysis and treatment;
• subject to appropriate review, testing, evaluation, and reporting; and
• linked to overall State-wide strategies for Disaster Management.