That the Victorian Government pay its bills on time, especially following natural disasters.

That the Victorian Government work with the Commonwealth Government to ensure the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements are not unduly burdensome.

That the Victorian Government evaluate the criteria and funding arrangements for financial assistance post-disaster with a view to:
a. better aligning support with costs of recovery
b. proposing options for quickly deploying support mechanisms according to the scale and complexity of the event.

That the Victorian Government ensure regional catchment management authorities, with local councils, are funded and resourced to conduct and implement up to date flood studies on a regular basis.

That the Victorian Government simplify the application process for disaster recovery funding. This could include reducing paperwork, providing hands-on assistance and investigating technology to streamline processes.

That the Victorian Government increase funding for training of volunteers to boost the capacity of State Emergency Service units and Shepparton and Echuca and Moama Search and Rescue squads to respond during emergencies.

That the Victorian Government adapt policies and funding models to prioritise betterment initiatives, including ensuring that financial resources are allocated effectively to meet long-term needs of at-risk communities, and in doing so work with the Commonwealth Government to achieve this goal.

That the Victorian Government prioritise investment in betterment projects to improve the resilience of mitigation infrastructure, and in doing so work with the Commonwealth Government to achieve this goal.

The Committee acknowledges the increased funding for the community legal sector recently announced. While the focus of this funding will be for family violence services, the Committee recommends that an appropriate proportion be dedicated to natural disaster services.

The Committee recommends a more flexible approach to post-flood grant arrangements, to expand eligibility to include some insured people, including:
- The Australian and state governments, in consultation with local governments and the insurance industry, make design, implementation and communication improvements to recovery programs to avoid future delays due to unanticipated or poorly managed interactions with insurance claims processes.
- The Australian and state governments review eligibility criteria for recovery programs, including grants, to ensure they are fit for purpose. This should include consideration of extending support currently restricted to uninsured people to include some insured people, where justified by local and individual circumstances.
- The Australian Government investigate the advantages and risks of enabling access to the Home Equity Access Scheme for resilience improvements by people who cannot access or afford flood cover.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to work with the states and territories through National Cabinet to ensure that disaster and resilience funding, and non-financial support, are accessible and adequate for all councils, particularly smaller councils. The Committee recommends that the Government work with the states and territories through National Cabinet to ensure more disaster support can be triggered at the sub-Local Government Area level when needed.

The Committee recommends that a climate financing framework be developed in relation to government mitigation and adaptation funding. That this framework create the appropriate incentives for both public sector and private sector investment in mitigation and more resilient buildings and infrastructure. This would include:
- Rigorous project evaluation and prioritisation, including cost benefit analysis and the incorporation of climate modelling.
- Strong project governance including reporting, monitoring and evaluation.
- Post-project price monitoring where appropriate.
- The development of resilience financing where feasible and appropriate.
- The exploration of public-private partnerships to coinvest in new or upgraded infrastructure.

The Committee recommends that the General Insurance Code of Practice provide that final cash settlements:
- Be provided in a template form that is standardised across all insurers. The template should include a clear itemisation of all key elements of the total sum. The template be designed with input from peak consumer organisations and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
- Should include actionable, comprehensive, and transparent quotes.
- Should clearly identify compensation for unforeseen risks and project management risk (as identified in Recommendation 9).

The Committee recommends the Australian Government continue to fund community level mitigation, ensuring at least $200 million per year ongoing.

The Committee recommends the Australian Government consider measures to improve the affordability of flood insurance for existing policyholders with high flood risk properties, including the appropriateness of a government supported reinsurance arrangement. Any interventions to improve the affordability of flood insurance should be pursued in accordance with to the following interdependent principles:
- Affordable cover for even high-risk properties. Flood insurance should be available to all Australian homeowners and body corporate lot owners at an affordable price, but with conditions.
- Price signals. Any assistance to affordable insurance should not compromise price signals against full cost of risk. This could be achieved by partial (but not full) reduction of the premium and/or a gradual phasing out of some assistance.
- Cross-subsidies. Any scheme of reinsurance support or subsidies should minimise cross-subsidisation through premiums where possible as this could raise issues of fairness (for example, low-income households cross-subsiding higher risk high-income households) and could be economically inefficient in that it may create a disincentive to insure.
- Phase-out. That any scheme involving public funding being devoted to a reinsurance pool or subsidies, should be phased out over time in line with ongoing investment in community and household mitigation to reduce the underlying risk over time.
- The underlying risk: no new developments. Governments at all three levels should commit to arrangements (including more public disclosure) to ensure that no new developments occur in high-risk areas.
- The underlying risk: community mitigation. Federal and State governments should commit to ongoing investment in community mitigation. This should include a guaranteed minimum annual investment level and the development of rigorous business cases.
- The underlying risk: household mitigation. Households and small business should be provided with information on mitigation options and their premiums should be reduced immediately when they undertake such mitigation.

Improved coordination between insurers and government is required when access to government disaster funding requires evidence of an insurance claim status. Improvements should focus on removing unnecessary information requirements, agreeing the format and nature of information required, and alignment on timeframes.

Housing and development funding options: That, to empower vulnerable people and communities to avoid significant impacts from flood as well as drive broader investment in adaptation, Government through NSWRA:
• consider establishing a NSW Mitigation Fund as a form of secured finance as a lien on title, such as rates-based or utility-based financing, to allow the Government to harness private sector monies to deliver cost-effective flood-resilient retrofits for existing dwellings
• investigate whether trading mechanisms for development rights, renegotiation with developers with existing rights, or uplift value capture to fund buy-outs could reduce existing and anticipated development in areas of greatest flood risks, with an initial focus on the Northern Rivers region and the Hawkesbury-Nepean. In doing so, Government should:
— ensure that tradeable rights facilitate the construction of additional homes in line with regional plans, in particular the Government’s six cities vision developed by the Greater Cities Commission
— fund voluntary property purchases in identified locations through the issuing of tradeable development rights
• work with the insurance industry to ensure that works are undertaken such that they would improve access to lower cost insurance products, improving upon existing guidelines from voluntary house raising schemes
• ensure that local delivery partners provide a seamless consumer experience in a cost-effective manner, whilst meeting community expectations for consumer protection and responsible lending
• consider how the NSW Mitigation Fund mechanism can address other adaptation and mitigation opportunities such as improving flood resilience for structures in areas of extreme risk and reducing emissions and bills whilst improving human health outcomes through energy efficient retrofits and home electrification.

That the NSW Government advocate through the National Cabinet to widen eligibility under the Disaster Funding Recovery Arrangements to allow local councils to build back better.

That the NSW Government allocate funding to the improvement of the Pitt Town Evacuation Route and other key possible evacuation routes in Sydney's northwest.

That the NSW Government consider entering into a service agreement with an organisation that has the resources and capacity to manage donations and activate quickly during natural disasters.

That the NSW Government ensure that flood affected individuals can continue to access financial assistance for as long as there is demonstrated need. 

That the NSW Government work with local governments to identify alternative routes to vulnerable roads, and that the NSW and Australian Governments fund the construction of these important routes to improve evacuation and access options in times of disaster.

We recommend that, in the absence of stand-alone catchment management authorities, the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning as a matter of priority, establish what funding is reasonably required and complete all elements of the Brisbane River Catchment Flood Studies.

In order to further build on the value for money review work being undertaken by the National Disaster Recovery Taskforce (on behalf of the Australian Government Reconstruction Inspectorate), the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)  recommends that the Taskforce:
(a) apply greater scrutiny to project cost data, particularly in circumstances where the data provided for review includes lump sums; and
(b) develop the capacity to independently benchmark actual cost data for Queensland reconstruction projects.

The funding model for works on levees and their ongoing maintenance be revised, to be primarily based on the beneficiary pays principle. The state government should give consideration to wholly funding, or contributing to, the initial upgrade of high priority levees to an agreed standard. The construction of any new public levees will be the subject of a cost‐benefit analysis to be undertaken by DSE and the public authority, and be supported by a floodplain management study. Levees deemed low priority will be wholly the responsibility of the beneficiaries.

The state government should provide core, ongoing funding to the responsible authority for the FloodSafe community education program. Funding should be provided for education about prevention, response and recovery phases and include information on rates notices about the height of particular floods.

The state government review the current funding approach used for the operation, maintenance and upgrade of river gauges, with a view to improving the river gauge network.

Emergency Management Queensland should develop and implement a new formula for the distribution of its recurrent SES subsidy, which takes into account relevant factors including the size of a local SES contingent and the population, area and natural hazard risk profile of the local government area concerned.