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.
In coordinating this flood planning level re-determination process, NSWRA should work closely with local councils, DPE, communities, state water authorities and state and national engineering and research organisations. In doing so, the NSWRA should also:
• extend and then maintain the DPE state-wide flood database and associated visualisation interface. This database, which should link to LandiQ, would support:
— monitoring of the flood warning and sensing environment
— monitoring of trends in rainfall activity and impacts, including timing, cause, extent and intensity
— tracking trends and identifying patterns in associated weather and climate signals that contribute to severe floods
— evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of risk mitigation efforts, including land preparation, planning use and management, to enable a better understanding of what works
— simulation of extreme rainfall events and resultant flooding
— identification of ‘at risk’ river and catchment systems for flash flooding
— rapid and effective deployment of resources during a flash flood event
• act as the main coordination point for all NSW hydrological modelling, working with local government, other state agencies, universities, professional bodies (e.g. Engineers Australia) and the Australian Government (especially the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO) to improve future NSW flood risk assessment (and hence accuracy and timeliness of flood prediction) by building more formal connections between the extensive existing physical hydrological modelling (done by various NSW agencies) with the Bureau’s meteorological and climatological research and riverine flood models
• support local councils to improve modelling of and ensure adequate and appropriate alarm systems for flash flooding.

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:
• flood modification measures/flood defence (including dams/ water management; levees; waterway or floodplain modifications; etc)
• property modification measures/flood risk mitigation (including land filling; flood proofing; house raising; optimum zoning; removal of development (buy back schemes/relocation))
• response modification measures/flood preparation (including flood warnings; upgrading evacuation routes; evacuation planning; emergency response and education programs; flood data collection and sharing; etc)
• finance related options (including building standard reforms; restructure and reduction of stamp duty; direct subsidies; government reinsurance pools; etc)
The Framework should build on the preliminary version developed by NSW Treasury and provided to this Inquiry. To support this Framework, Government should also use the NSW Adaptation Fund that can be drawn on during or immediately following a flood event.

That the NSW Government significantly increase its investment in flood mitigation and preparation, including its support of local governments to do the same, by: • increasing ongoing, long term funding and access to technical guidance and assistance for local councils • ensuring that land-use planning and development takes a risk-based approach. 

To increase shared understanding of risks, ensure the coordination of plans and manage risks, dam failure for Paradise Dam be included as a separate risk within the Bundaberg District Disaster Management Plan (DDMP). 

To increase understanding of hazards and manage risks, dam failure for Paradise Dam be included as a separate risk within the North Burnett Local Disaster Management Plan (LDMP). 

To enable entities to have a shared understanding of forecast information for dam failure events during a flood, including flood wave travel time, speed and height, Emergency Action Plans contain protocols and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders for these aspects. 

To ensure enhanced capability integration and enable timely community messaging Bundaberg LDMG in consultation with Sunwater develop additional Emergency Alerts and associated polygons for a Paradise Dam failure and load these on to the disaster management portal. 

To enhance shared capacity and collaboratively manage risk, the Chair of the Bundaberg DDMG use the QERMF process to determine if dam failure for Paradise Dam should be reported as a residual risk in this instance due to known changes in the risk profile to:
- the State Disaster Coordination Group (SDCG) in accordance with their responsibilities under the State Plan
- QFES for ensuring the development of the state-wide risk assessment. 

A strategy should be developed to improve the availability of information to decision-makers and other audiences. Information should be searchable, more specific, timely, and allow stake-holders to find what they want.

Planning and warnings for storm tide should be based on modelling that shows the chances of an event occurring (probabilistic).

Significant effort should be invested to provide disaster decision-makers at every level with a shared understanding of risks, the situation, and capability, so that they can agree on the best decisions for the communities they serve. 

Establish a State-wide resourcing capability to support incident management teams, regional coordination centres, zone emergency centres, relief centres, recovery centres and State control centres. some of the features of such a capability should include: a) multi-agency, cross-government, State-wide pool of incident management and emergency management personnel building on the State incident management team concept currently facilitated by the Country Fire Service, and expanded to include all hazards, multiagency teams with a roster that provides year-round coverage b) a system that enables staff and volunteers from any agency to identify their availability for upcoming shifts c) a rostering system that enables one or more incident management teams, staging areas, regional coordination centres, State control centres and relief centres to develop, maintain and distribute rosters and structure charts in a more coordinated manner d) identifying areas of expertise for key incident and emergency management functions (e.g. public information, alerts and warning, media liaison, logistics and resource management) that would benefit from a coordinated and resource pooling approach and take steps to implement (consider the Mapping Functional Support Group model as a potential service delivery model).

State Disaster Coordination Centre considers requesting a representative from critical infrastructure owners be present as a liaison officer in the State Disaster Coordination Centre during activations for events that may impact on their assets.

A revised Victoria Flood Management Strategy should identify and assign roles and responsibilities for the management and ongoing maintenance of Victoria’s waterways, for the purposes of flood protection and flood mitigation:
• CMAs are confirmed as the responsible authority for the management and ongoing maintenance of waterways, including vegetation management, for the purposes of flood protection; and
• CMAs will negotiate with landholders, councils and other authorities, and conduct agreed flood mitigation works on the basis of beneficiary pays.

Agency incident management preparedness: a more comprehensive approach to planning, including the number of personnel, their training and better use of on-the-ground intelligence in the affected areas that enables immediate and strategic decision-making to be concurrent processes.

Agency incident management preparedness: refining IT tools to process the intelligence.

Agency incident management preparedness: provide clarity and certainty in specific roles and responsibilities for each agency.

the state clarify the role of intelligence cell staff (for example, hydrologists and/or Catchment Management Authority) who are utilised in Incident Control Centres during flood events