Simplify the planning system disaster provisions: That, to simplify and improve the state planning processes especially when anticipating and recovering from a disaster, Government:
• ensure there is a clear line of sight directing councils and planning authorities to include disaster response and resilient settlement outcomes in long term strategic plans (Regional and District Plans as well as Local Strategic Planning Statements). This may require more prominence to be given to Planning for a more resilient NSW: A strategic guide to planning for natural hazards (Department of Planning, Industry and the Environment) as well as a clear link to the risk-based approach to hazard identification and the disaster adaptation plans
• ensure the NSWRA provides the necessary tools and advice to enable planning authorities to incorporate cumulative impacts of potential natural disasters into strategic plans. These tools should ensure the disaster adaptation plans can be given real effect in strategic plans for settlement and local planning controls
• ensure that Ministerial Directions on hazard and natural disasters (directions 4.1 and 4.6 inclusive) are updated to reflect the new risk-based approach to flood planning levels and deliver the disaster adaptation plans to the zoning process
• create specific flood planning provisions as a new chapter in the SEPP (Resilience and Hazards). These provisions would draw the existing flood planning clauses (5.21 and 5.22 in the standard instrument) up into the SEPP
• put the natural disaster clause (5.9 in the standard instrument) into a new chapter in the SEPP Resilience and Hazards, along with objectives to assist councils to use the clause to build back to more resilient standards
• update planning guidance so that wherever possible community facilities, such as might be used for evacuation centres, are located above the probable maximum flood and essential services are located above the flood planning level
• ensure that the strategic land use frameworks and related controls permit new developments only in line with the evacuation capacity both individually and cumulatively
• ensure that the strategic land use frameworks enable higher density flood resilient precincts to locate more development at or above the PMF and use a higher flood planning level to avoid catastrophic costs from extreme flooding, as well as deliver cost-effective controls for individual structures.

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.

Landholders can access information on previous disasters: That, to ensure there is a single source of ground truth to prepare for and respond to emergencies, and to provide people with a better understanding of their individual property and community risk exposure, an online visualisation tool be developed to display, for all land parcels (land titles) in NSW, the extent of known disasters that have affected each piece of land in NSW in the past. This information should be made available through the Planning Portal and, particularly in light of climate change, the data involved should be revised and updated at least every two years and after each major natural disaster.

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.

Caravan parks and manufactured home estates: That, to ensure that permanent residents of caravan parks and mobile housing estates are protected from flood, Government: • prohibit permanent residency in caravan parks and mobile housing estates situated below the risk-based flood planning level. Caravan parks for holiday makers could still be on the floodplain with the provision that, if a flood is imminent, they need to be evacuated • address the issues raised in the 2015 Discussion Paper (Improving the regulation of manufactured homes, caravan parks, manufactured home estates and camping grounds).

Task Force Hawk: That, to ensure disaster readiness, Government establish a high-level Government standing committee, Task Force ‘Hawk’, comprising key Cabinet Ministers, Secretaries and Commissioners that meets, trains and exercises to ensure Government is prepared to respond to any emergency. Task Force ‘Hawk’ should resonate with the community in difficult times to ensure the highest level of confidence in Government’s response.
Further, to improve the preparation for and timely response to disasters, and to ensure the emergency management systems and plans are fit for purpose, effective and appropriate, within 12 months Government, via the SEOCON, ensure all emergency management processes and plans have been updated and implemented.

Relocating communities most at risk with good homes and amenities: That, to empower vulnerable people and communities to relocate, Government through the NSWRA:
• identify and prioritise those communities most at risk from future disasters, and for whom relocation may be appropriate or necessary
• leverage the work done through Government’s homes, cities, manufacturing and skills policies, to collaborate and work with these communities in examining, designing, building and installing affordable, attractive and insurable housing options (e.g. locally fabricated high quality modular homes, or utilising local builders to retrofit and/or relocate existing homes to safer ground) and to enable small housing developments with capacity to grow organically over time
• utilise best-practice policy for rapid urbanism and community-building to establish new settlements. This should include:
— an enquiry-by-design or charrette process led by the Government Architect to ensure that new settlements reflect the aspirations and vernacular of the local community, whilst meeting the technical needs of establishing settlements and delivering infrastructure at low cost. This should also include considering how to repurpose floodplains for community use and benefit, i.e. recreation, sports and energy production as part of the process of returning land below the flood planning level to Government ownership. It should also consider the role of locally manufactured, well-designed and regulated modular housing solutions
— promoting a sense of community by ensuring appropriate amenity (e.g. schools, shops, and services) is available to relocating people and communities at the time of moving to their new settlements
— working with the financial and philanthropic sectors to investigate a special purpose fund to provide continuing support for these communities as they transit through re-establishment.

TFS should engage in discussions with government about the construction of purpose-built State Control Centre facilities for emergency management in Tasmania.

Where safety-lamps are necessary - gas being present for (say) one month after being found in dangerous quantity - they should be securely locked by a man duly appointed, and tampering with them must be punishable by a simple and inexpensive process of law. 

Infringement of the regulations by either party should be followed by a summary form of justice, instituted before two Magistrates.

That, to provide greater clarity for building development, design and approval within tolerable risk levels, the Tasmanian Planning Scheme, including a relevant Riverine Flood Hazard Code, is finalised and approved as soon as practicable.

That the organisations responsible for construction, maintenance and ownership of bridges review their design guidelines and, if necessary, update them to specifically include consideration of debris and flood impacts on bridge design. A review of existing bridges by the responsible organisations could also be undertaken to highlight any potential issues.

That the State Fire Management Committee considers developing a structured, systemic and proactive bushfire hazard reduction program with municipal councils and Tasmania Fire Service; and advises the Government on any legislative or other changes required to implement such a program.

That the Government makes land use planning and building construction to prevent and mitigate bushfire risk a high priority and establishes a means to progress improvements in this area, such as a designated body or group, as soon as possible.

That the Government considers whether a peak body should be established, with authority to effectively implement a bushfire mitigation plan.

That Tasmania Fire Service conducts a review of the fire permit system in the Fire Service Act 1979, and implements change to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system by: • considering whether it is appropriate to authorise persons or organisations to conduct fuel reduction burning during a permit period • providing a better match between the period, area and fire risk • maintaining a timely and efficient process for issuing permits • naming the period in a way that draws attention to bushfire risk • establishing a reporting and accountability process.

That a specific risk prevention and mitigation advisory body be established for the State Emergency Management Committee.

That Tasmania Fire Service or another suitable agency provides information to the community which shows, in simple form, the legislation applicable to approvals for lighting fires on private property and the various relationships between that legislation.

That the Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources consult Aurora Energy on the use of wooden poles for overhead infrastructure with a view to mitigating the risk in bushfires.

That the legislation and enforcement arrangements are reviewed to ensure there are suitable offences and penalties, investigation and enforcement capabilities, and a rigorous approach is taken to breaches of the law.

That the State Emergency Management Committee includes in its planning, the development of contingency emergency management plans for areas of high risk due to local conditions.

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.

There should be interoperability of communications equipment between all trains operating on the New South Wales rail network.

The RMC should be equipped by RailCorp with a transcriber system, or mimic board, or such other system as is necessary to enable identification of the precise location at any time of any train on the RailCorp network.

There must be compatibility of communications systems throughout the rail network. It is essential that all train drivers, train controllers, signallers, train guards and supervisors of trackside work gangs in New South Wales be able to communicate using the same technology.

A dedicated telephone line should be established by RailCorp between the RMC and any Emergency Services Control Centre for use during any emergency.

The ITSRR should conduct its own risk assessment in relation to the risk of any such high consequence, low probability accident and, if necessary, direct RailCorp to conduct a further risk assessment to reduce the level of residual risk to a level ITSRR regards as acceptable.

The risk of abuse of internal passenger emergency door releases should be further reduced by introducing significant penalties for any improper use of such an emergency facility. It should be a criminal offence for anyone to use or tamper improperly with an emergency escape facility in a train.

RailCorp should undertake risk assessments of each of its activities as follows:
(a) identify the features of the system, subsystem or activities that are to be risk assessed and managed, to determine what makes the system work in terms of equipment, infrastructure and human factors;
(b) identify all hazards that may exist within the particular system, subsystem or activity, whether it is a driver safety system, passenger safety system, engineering design system, train maintenance system or involves human factors or performance;
(c) identify what controls are in place to eliminate or minimise the risks associated with any identified hazard;
(d) test the validity of the controls to ensure that the risk is eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level and, if not, institute additional or further control measures;
(e) specify, in safety documentation, the level of any residual risk;
(f) in the case of low probability, high consequence risks retain the services of an independent verifier of the risk assessments and controls to certify that all risks of such potentially catastrophic accidents have either been eliminated, or controlled to the extent identified by the independent expert;
(g) the Board of RailCorp certify that it regards any residual risk of a high consequence, low probability accident as acceptable, notwithstanding the severity of the consequences, by reason of the cost of further measures to control the risk; and
(h) provide to ITSRR records of the processes of hazard identification, risk assessment, risk control, independent verification and certification, and any Board certification relating to any high consequence, low probability accident.

The ITSRR should have permanent access to the RailCorp intranet.

Regular field training exercises should be conducted by RailCorp with the emergency services to ensure that the incident command system and rail displan are able to be fully implemented as quickly as possible and are reviewed and improved.

Maintenance plans on all trains should be revised annually.

All signal telephones must be maintained by RailCorp in proper working order.

To burn, where necessary, at least 33 feet where there is a risk of fire, on the outside of the railway fence, in conjunction with the railway employees.

To link up fallow paddocks and natural fire breaks by ploughing or burning breaks through private or public property, roads, &c.

To prohibit persons throwing lighted cigarettes, cigars and tobacco among any straw, stubble, grass or herbage during the months of September to March in any Bush Fire area, under a penalty not exceeding $10.

To prohibit persons taking into a harvest field or through any grass or bush lands any motor, tractor, harvester, &c., which is not supplied with an approved fire extinguisher or without the exhaust being properly fitted and protected, under a penalty not exceeding $50.

Where possible to build stone or brick fireplaces for the use of travellers, teamsters, and drovers on the camping areas that are mostly used and where there is a risk of fire.

To burn camping areas at suitable water and camping reserves.