That the Australian Government formalise the National Partnership for Climate Projections as a sub-committee to the Adaptation Working Group and support it through the National Climate Service with appropriate resources to drive the broader co-ordinated work program and achieve national participation.

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 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.

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).

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.

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.

Improvements should be made to encourage investments in resilience and adaptation when rebuilding following a catastrophe or severe weather event (where this is cost-beneficial). This should involve coordination between government and the insurance industry to co-incentivise these investments to create mutually beneficial outcomes for the government, insurance industry and more importantly, the customer and their community.

Standardised guidance should be jointly developed by the insurance industry and government on clean-up processes after a severe weather event. This guidance should be consistent across all insurers and levels of government and communicated to policyholders and other stakeholders in the waste removal process.

NEMA with CCOSC should investigate ways to better integrate and align CCOSC and the NRSC with the national coordination capacity.
- This should include building on the existing arrangements in exceptional circumstances to outpost NRSC staff as liaison officers to the Australian Government National Situation Room.
- This should also include identifying event thresholds that would trigger the need for greater integration.

ANZEMC’s Terms of Reference should be amended to reflect the recommendations above.

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.

ANZEMC should map out the many existing time-limited working groups and reference and advisory groups and the communities of practice, to identify which are no longer required and should be discontinued, which should continue and be officially sanctioned by ANZEMC, which should continue as informal interest groups, and to identify potential gaps.

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 current ANZEMC Sub-committees and other subsidiary bodies should be reconceptualised as “communities of practice” and important sources of expert advice, rather than as national governance bodies.

ANZEMC should establish time-limited, flexible task forces, reporting directly to ANZEMC, to implement NEMMM’s five priorities for action and essential other initiatives, comprised of diverse membership (e.g., government, private sector, academia, civil society), determined by the requirements of the task.

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.

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.

Take immediate steps to eliminate fire boundaries for call and dispatch purposes to create an agnostic approach to the threat of fires from both a departmental and organisational perspective

In recognising the success of the work of both the volunteer based Rural Fire Service and the full time Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) members in joint operations – both agencies should be represented at major briefings or press conferences to reinforce successful integrated collaborative efforts rather than individual agency achievements

Until a single call centre is developed, continue deployments of a senior RFS officer to Fire and Rescue NSW ComCen on a 24/7 day basis. This arrangement should determine the quickest most suitable resource and who is ‘in charge’ of an incident

The Commissioners of Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) and the RFS issue an instruction to FRNSW ComCen that while AVL capability is being made available to the RFS vehicle fleet, no offers of assistance by one agency to the other in combatting a fire is rejected or delayed if what is being offered is appropriate

TFS, PWS and STT should establish a State Air Desk, to be staffed by specialist staff year-round, with responsibility for managing both preparatory and contractual issues out of season as well as aircraft management when fires or other emergency events are occurring.

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

TFS, PWS and STT should work with government and each other to continue to pursue a whole-of-state fuel management and burning program that encompasses all land tenures, meets the range of outcomes required by the state (township protection, risk reduction and landscape-scale burns) and is inclusive of private landholders and local communities as well as all fire agencies.

Tasmanian Fire Service (TFS), Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) and Sustainable Timber Tasmania (STT) initiate a discussion among their Australasian peers about good practice around managing new fire starts in remote terrain, to include issues around identification, predictive analysis, risk management and suppression activities. The outcome should be a document which allows for benchmarking to accepted good practice across Australasia, from which Tasmanian fire agencies can develop protocols against which the management of future events can be tested.

The Departments of Fire and Emergency Services and Parks and Wildlife to investigate and adopt an emergency services resource management system that will enable the registration, tasking, tracking, management and coordination of emergency management personnel, vehicles, plant and aircraft.

The Tasmanian fire agencies consider the development of fire operational guidelines to avoid long-term environmental impacts such as: • • • strategies and tactics that will minimise the impact of fire management activities conditions under which earthmoving equipment and fire chemicals may be used information on seasonal conditions and the times of year when various strategies and tactics should be applied, and fuel management strategies.

The Tasmanian fire agencies develop a joint multi-agency Fire Preparedness Matrix to guide decision-making in response to severe fire weather conditions or capacity issues.

Noting the implementation of Common Incident Command and Control System (CICCS) in SA that fire and emergency services together with police (including through AFAC and ANZPAA), continue to liaise regarding the development of a national incident management.

That the Emergency Management Australia’s ‘Arrangements for Interstate Assistance (Fire and Emergency Services)’ be applied to all future requests for assistance by the SACFS, SAMFS and SASES.

The State establish, for any future incident, integrated incident management teams with GDF Suez and other Victorian essential industry providers, to: • essential industry providers; and require that emergency services personnel work with GDF Suez and other appropriate • implement the Australasian Inter-service Incident Management System.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Director of Aviation Safety meet with industry sector leaders to jointly develop a plan for renewing a collaborative and effective Standards Consultative Committee.

The Marrangaroo Training Area Regional Environmental Officer confer with the local Rural Fire Service at least annually and determine a hazard reduction regime capable of implementation. It is furter recommended all ranges be reviewed in relation to the same issue, that is, that personnel involved in the management of each range under Defence control be directed to confer with local firefighting authorities on at least an annual basis to assess hazard reduction responses to be pursued for that range in subsequent years. 

Range Control Officer Marrangaroo Training Area liase with the local Rural Fire Service units to develop a map indicating the areas of the range likely to contain unexploded ordnance. 

That the Department of Justice conduct an independent review to develop a suitable model for integrated and interoperable emergency management arrangements in Tasmania.

That in multi-agency response and recovery operations, arrangements be made so it is unambiguous who is in charge of these operations.

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 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 Queensland enters into a similar arrangement with Bureau of Meteorology to have an experienced forecaster seconded to Kedron State Disaster Coordination Centre for at least the duration of fire and storm seasons.

That Queensland Corrective Service, the Queensland Police Service and Queensland Health should work together to develop a position that enables prisoners to have timely access to their prescribed medication despite travel between facilities and without the need for costly re-prescription.

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 Chief Executive Officer Portfolio Business in consultation with the Police Commissioner and the Commissioner Fire & Emergency Services should provide the direction for future information and communication technology strategies and acquisitions.

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 systems development in the Queensland Police Service capitalises on the advances made by the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service in recent years.

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 protocols developed by the Queensland Police Service and SES for operations define the respective roles and responsibilities as well as recognise the varying capabilities of SES units across the State.

Review disaster recovery and business continuity plans.

There are a range of opportunities identified from reviewing the three fires that will improve coordination between FESA and DEC, requiring limited resources, potentially generating some efficiencies and reflecting a joint, tenure blind approach to fire management in WA. The MIR acknowledges the progress made through the IBMC in these matters and notes these measures will require ongoing strong leadership. These include: · Clarification and consistent application of the Zone 2 and 2A mobilisation protocols; · Duplicating available information on websites; · Establishing a single State air desk and cross-utilising Air Attack Supervisors; · Completing common training for the conduct of public meetings;· Coordinating IMT training and exercises; · Operating joint IMT‘s during interface fires; FESA utilising the DEC mobile ICC when suitable ICPs are not available; · FESA engaging in daily weather teleconferences with DEC; Engaging a permanent BoM officer to support a common FESA and DEC SOC; · Developing a common ‗Tool Box‘ of forms and operational procedures for fire response; · Developing common jurisdictional arrangements to accommodate interstate support; · Developing a joint FESA/DEC SOC at the new (FESA) Emergency Services facility at Cockburn; · Adopting common and transparent Level 3 IC accreditation · Using a single mapping capability across both agencies and · Using common naming conventions for fires.

The Fire and Emergency Services Authority and the Western Australian Police ensure they receive all necessary legal clarification in relation to Bushfire Responsibilities of Police Officers – Powers Used in Assisting Fire Authorities in Responding to Bushfires, to be promulgated across FESA and WAPOL.

Emergency Management Western Australia establish an inter-agency working group to continue the development of the new single emergency services Act.

Emergency service agencies undertake more consultation and joint exercising involving the Fire and Emergency Services Authority, the Department of Environment, the Western Australian Police, the Department for Child Protection, local governments and volunteers – including Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades. This should include field exercises which test: Evacuation centres Critical infrastructure (including at the local level) Traffic management, including road blocks. Consideration should also be given to involving the community in exercising (see Recommendation 7) and using prescribed burns as exercises (see Recommendation 14) More detailed planning for exercises should be included in a revised WESTPLANBUSHFIRE to be endorsed by the State Emergency Management Committee.

The Fire and Emergency Services Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation develop and finalise their Memorandum of Understanding and commit to working in partnership.

The Fire and Emergency Services Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation develop and finalise their Memorandum of Understanding and commit to working in partnership.

Emergency Management Western Australia and the State Emergency Management Committee amend WESTPLAN-BUSHFIRE to require State Emergency Coordination Group meetings to be held at the State Coordination Centre in West Leederville.

The Fire and Emergency Services Authority, the Department of Environment and Conservation and local governments jointly develop a single, integrated system for fuel load assessment and management.
The system should enable public access to allow members of the community to access information about the fuel load in a given locality.

the state ensure, as a matter of priority, that the State Control Centre is able to function as a fit for purpose, multi-agency emergency management centre. Necessary works to achieve this outcome should have an overarching focus on the implementation of common agency systems and processes to the fullest extent possible.

Triggers and a process for transfer of command and control from DEC to FESA should be developed and documented.

A Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Chief Executives of DEC and FESA would be a valuable statement of joint commitment between the two agencies.

The Interagency Bushfire Management Committee and its sub-committees are the logical central platform for developing and strengthening future joint bushfire strategies and common systems of work between bushfire management agencies in Western Australia.

FESA maintains inter-agency relationships and arrangements, and develops formalised arrangements across the entire emergency management cycle for joint activities such as training, exercises and procedure development.

FESA, in partnership with other agencies and the community, develops Western Australia’s urban interface fire fighting capability and capacity.

FESA and DEC take a whole of capability approach to joint operations, including developing joint doctrine that provides a common and articulated understanding of roles and responsibilities, resources and capabilities

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pre‐drilling assessments should include a risk assessment of the worst‐case blowout scenario.

The Department of Community Safety and Councils develop MOUs to reflect the genuine partnership that exists in present arrangements including an emphasis on the use of the agreed State disaster arrangements to task and deploy SES units following State/Local consultation.

The industry should develop in conjunction with the Regulator a process for addressing the need to maintain the risk profile of a facility moving into extended life operation at the same risk profile as when it was within design life.

Investigate engaging with other agencies involved in emergency management including SES, VicRoads, VicPolice, OESC and DHS to establish a single united emergency information line for Victoria that can be used to provide information to the public from all agencies involved.

The ITSRR should have permanent access to the RailCorp intranet.

Maintenance plans on all trains should be revised annually.

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.

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.