Inquiry Search
Rec-ID | Code | Recommendation |
---|---|---|
REC324-4303 | 39 - Disaster Risk Management | Risk-based approach to calculating flood planning: That, to take account of greater knowledge of climate change, Government reinforce its adoption of a risk-based approach to calculating the flood planning level for planning purposes and, through the NSWRA, immediately start a process of revising all flood planning level calculations in the state’s high-risk catchments. Flood planning level re-determinations for all high-risk catchments should be completed within 3 years. These revised flood planning levels will need to be factored into all development applications (in-progress and new) in those high-risk catchments. The risk profile of high-risk catchments should be revisited at appropriate time intervals to check that levels are current. A review should take place if there has been a significant trigger event (i.e. changed rainfall, development) or at least every 5 years. As well as reviewing the flood planning level, this 5-yearly review should include reviewing any floodplain lease conditions and adjusting them as necessary in the light of better knowledge of climate change impacts. In working out a tolerable, risk-based flood planning level, consideration should be given to the PMF, 1% AEP, 0.02% AEP, existing development, approved but not yet constructed developments, and existing and approved but not yet constructed evacuation routes. |
REC324-4305 | 39 - Disaster Risk Management | Cost benefit framework:That, to enable a more systematic prioritisation of investment options in risk mitigation before, during and immediately following a natural disaster event, Government adopt and utilise a Disaster Cost Benefit Framework. This Framework will enable Government to estimate the investment required for any given disaster, starting with flood events, and will enable the fast allocation of funding based on detailed and rapid analysis of flood and property modification, mitigation, preparation, response and finance related options including: |
Rec-ID | Code | Recommendation |
---|---|---|
REC297-1268 | 24 - Govt responsibility | That DPAC becomes the Management Authority for recovery in Tasmania. |
REC297-1255 | 24 - Govt responsibility | That Government establishes a central flood policy unit responsible for coordinating flood policy across all government agencies, including Government Businesses, and ensures that such a unit has a whole-of-government and community focus. |
REC297-1270 | 24 - Govt responsibility | That, in the event of a major emergency such as the June floods, a government department (DPAC or State Growth) be appointed to coordinate infrastructure repair, to the extent that funding allows, for the whole state. Individual entities will still have the right and responsibility to repair and maintain their own assets, but some central oversight and coordination is, in our view, likely to be beneficial. |
Rec-ID | Code | Recommendation |
---|---|---|
REC199-0400 | 24 - Govt responsibility | The state take the necessary measures to clarify roles, responsibilities and cost-sharing arrangements for flood warning systems, including tasking state and regional bodies to be responsible for the flood warning system. This will require engaging with the commonwealth to amend the 2001 arrangements, updating the 1998 floodplain management strategy accordingly and continuing to support commonwealth initiatives designed to improve flood mapping standards and associated issues. |
REC199-0466 | 24 - Govt responsibility | the Departments of Health and Human Services finalise the definition of ‘vulnerable person’ and the list of facility types where vulnerable people are located and ensure that the definition and associated policy(ies) are applicable across ‘all hazards’. |
REC199-0465 | 24 - Govt responsibility | the state undertake major reform of Victoria’s emergency management arrangements to bring about an effective ‘all hazards, all agencies’ approach, incorporating: • clarity of command and control in all emergencies • common operating platforms, including communications and information technology • interoperability between all agencies • regular joint training and exercising by all agencies • the development and implementation of performance standards for each emergency management agency • the development and maintenance of effective planning arrangements at all levels of emergency management • a meaningful monitoring and audit regime for designated standards and planning requirements; and • an effective accountability mechanism to support the maintenance of legislative and other agency obligations. |
REC199-0455 | 24 - Govt responsibility | the state conduct an ‘all hazards’ needs analysis to determine requirements for level 3 Incident Control Centres with a focus on ‘all hazards’ and multi-agency capability. Following this analysis, the state take steps to ensure the availability of sufficient and functional level 3 Incident Control Centres across the state with an ‘all hazards’ and multi-agency capability |
REC199-0444 | 2 - Emergency powers | the state, as a matter of urgency, develop a multi-agency Incident Control Team capability to be readily available for statewide deployment to establish incident control or to relieve functioning control structures. |
REC199-0406 | 24 - Govt responsibility | the state expand the Regional Water Monitoring Partnerships model to include all flood warning gauges. |
REC199-0481 | 24 - Govt responsibility | the state (consistent with recommendation 46) develop a model for determining the capability and capacity of departments and agencies with roles and responsibilities in large scale or protracted emergencies. The issues of capability and capacity should be addressed at all levels of emergency management planning. |
Rec-ID | Code | Recommendation |
---|---|---|
REC177-3291 | 39 - Disaster Risk Management | Removal of a barrier must be the subject of consultation between licensees and rig operators prior to removal. A proper risk assessment should be carried out and agreed upon, and documented in writing before removal. Joint written certification as to the appropriateness of removal should take place before removal. Senior onshore representatives of stakeholder entities should be involved in that certification process. |
REC177-3289 | 39 - Disaster Risk Management | The use/type of barriers (including any change requests relating thereto) must be the subject of consultation between licensees and rig operators prior to installation. A proper risk assessment should be carried out, agreed upon, and documented in writing before installation. Joint written certification as to the appropriateness of the use of particular barriers should take place before installation. Senior onshore representatives of stakeholder entities should be involved in that certification process. |
REC177-3286 | 39 - Disaster Risk Management | Problems which arise in the course of installing barriers must be the subject of consultation between licensees, rig operators, and contractors (if used). A proper risk assessment should then be carried out and remedial steps (including further testing/verification) should be agreed upon, and documented in writing before the performance of remedial work whenever practicable. Joint written certification as to resolution of the problem should take place before resumption of drilling operations. Senior onshore representatives of stakeholder entities should be involved in that certification process. |
REC177-3356 | 39 - Disaster Risk Management | The regulator should pre‐assess and review in a generic sense, and in conjunction with the offshore petroleum industry, available options for well control in the event of a blowout. Being ‘match fit’ in this sense will enable a quicker and more effective response in terms of safety assessment, and will ensure that expectations of both operator and regulator are more readily aligned. |
REC177-3285 | 39 - Disaster Risk Management | Pre‐drilling assessments should include a risk assessment of the worst‐case blowout scenario. |
REC177-3345 | 2 - Emergency powers | NOPSA’s prohibition powers should be extended such that a prohibition notice can be issued where a NOPSA Occupational Health and Safety Inspector believes, on reasonable grounds, that an activity is occurring or may occur at a facility involving an immediate threat to the health or safety of a person. |
REC177-3330 | 39 - Disaster Risk Management | Decision‐making about well control issues should be professionalised. Industry participants must recognise that decision‐makers owe independent duties to the public, not just their employer or principal, in relation to well control. Risk management in the context of well control needs to be understood as an ethical/professional duty. Self‐regulation contemplates self‐regulation by the industry, not just by individual licensees and operators. |