That the Australian Government ensure the National Climate Service has adequate budget allocation to reasonably meet escalating needs for a national climate service capability.

The Outcomes Policy should:
- Outline natural disaster related investment priorities of the Commonwealth and apply to all Commonwealth departments and agencies investment initiatives.
- Ensure appropriate consideration of investment that is scalable, sustainable, effective, equitable, transparent and accessible.
- Give deliberate consideration to funding initiatives across the disaster continuum, and particularly across the four domains: natural, social, economic and built.
- Ensure that all Commonwealth disaster investment is coordinated, monitored and evaluated.

The Commonwealth should clarify the role of the DRFA in the current Commonwealth disaster arrangements. This should be achieved through:
- Reinforcing that the DRFA is a recovery focused funding agreement designed to support state and territory governments to respond to, and for communities to recover from, natural disaster events.
- Acknowledging that the DRFA is not the primary funding mechanism to achieve disaster risk reduction, resilience, and prevention objectives.
- Acknowledging that, wherever possible, recovery measures progressed under the DRFA should still seek to reduce future risk (including betterment provisions) and build future resilience.

The Commonwealth should reconsider, with a view to increasing, the current amount of funding allocated to the DRF, or other similar future programs, to address the disaster risk reduction and resilience priorities identified by the Risk Profile.

The Commonwealth should ensure that all non-self-governing Australian territories are clearly eligible for financial support during and after a natural disaster. Specific reference to external Commonwealth territories should be included in the DRFA, and appropriate triggers for support should be included in all other natural disaster funding related programs.

To the extent possible, where programs are requested to be funded by the Commonwealth that have previously been agreed as part of the Risk Profile, thresholds and administrative arrangements should be streamlined to encourage pre-planning and a risk-based approach.

The DRF should be underpinned by an investment strategy that is informed by the Risk Profile. This should be done through:
- Prioritising state and territory projects that address needs identified through the Risk Profile.
- Introducing an expanded ‘national projects’ stream that the Commonwealth could use to pursue national risk reduction priorities, as identified by the Risk Profile.
- Linking the desired outcomes of the DRF to the Outcomes Policy.
- Aligning the timing and process of decision-making with state and territory governments to ensure proper prioritisation of agreed risk reduction measures.

The Commonwealth should prioritise nation-wide investment in disaster risk reduction and resilience initiatives.

The Commonwealth should adopt an evidence-informed, risk-based approach to Commonwealth disaster funding.

The Commonwealth should review the existing DRFA cost sharing arrangements with state and territory governments, taking into consideration simplicity, equity and the capacity of the individual state and territory governments. Consideration should be given to the appropriate thresholds, reimbursement rates and whether insurance costs should be taken into consideration when determining thresholds.

Disaster funding investments should elevate the role of local First Nations leadership in emergency management through formal recognition and resourcing for their actions and decision-making during disasters.

When designing disaster management outcomes for First Nations communities, the Commonwealth should consider flexible funding arrangements to support community self-determination towards disaster preparedness, risk reduction and resilience as part of the Outcomes Policy.
- Existing relevant programs, such as the National Indigenous Australians Agency administered Indigenous Rangers Program, could be expanded to include specific support for disaster risk reduction, resilience and recovery efforts.

The Commonwealth should clarify and more narrowly define an exceptional circumstances consideration (currently Category D). This should include:
- More narrowly and explicitly defining when the exceptional circumstances consideration can be utilised for recovery objectives consistent with a categorisation that acknowledges short-, medium- and long-term recovery.
- Requiring the completion of a comprehensive impact assessment, or noting if a project was identified as a priority through the Risk Profile.
-Aligning longer term recovery initiatives considered as part of the (current) Category D in conjunction with the Risk Profile.

The Commonwealth should prioritise the redirection of AGDRP funding, which occurs because of a refined role, towards natural disaster resilience and risk reduction program/s.
- The DRF could be a vehicle through which any funding redirected from the AGDRP could be used to progress national disaster risk reduction and resilience priorities.

The Commonwealth should ensure that the Outcomes Policy includes outcomes that directly reference disadvantaged or disproportionately impacted groups to ensure their needs are appropriately considered by disaster funding programs.

The Commonwealth should remove existing current DRFA Category A, B, C, and D and negotiate their replacement with a criteria framework that categorises measures into short- (or immediate), medium-, and long-term recovery initiatives and groups initiatives according to their domain (natural, social, economic and built).

The intent of the AGDRP should be refined to clarify its role in the disaster management funding system. This should be achieved through:
- Prioritising a clear intent statement that clarifies the purpose of the AGDRP.
- De-conflicting the AGDRP and existing DRFA hardship payments.
- Considering the AGDRP as part of a holistic package of support to individuals and families, not in addition to existing DRFA provisions. This should include consideration of the Disaster Recovery Allowance (DRA).
- Aligning eligibility with the clarified role and intent of the AGDRP.
- Strengthening eligibility based on criteria including geographic location, impact zones and reducing the eligibility timeframes.

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.

In light of the fact that NEMA is a small agency with far fewer options than much larger government departments to reallocate resources for their Ministerial Council Secretariats, the Commonwealth should consider supplementing NEMA’s funding for this purpose.
- The NEMA Secretariat should be staffed by a well-resourced team with high-level public policy experience across the preparedness and response and recovery and DRR/resilience agendas.
- The Secretariat should be led by a senior executive, with the high-level policy, communication and facilitation skills and experience, as the core function of that person’s job.
- A significant travel budget should be included for the Secretariate to enable regular in- person engagement with the jurisdictions.
- NEMA should identify options, including incentives, to reduce staff turnover in these critical Secretariat functions.

The Commonwealth should allocate a significant budget to ANZEMC to support implementation of the NEMMM’s five priorities for action. The States and Territories should contribute as well, with their support, such as contributions in-kind and other resourcing, proportionate to the size of the jurisdiction.

Jurisdictions should also contribute resourcing to implement the priorities for action, such as contributions in-kind and other funding, proportionate to the size of the jurisdiction. Funding should not be sourced from the Disaster Ready Fund given the dependence local government has on that funding source.

The Commonwealth should allocate a significant program budget to the Ministerial Council to enable effective implementation of its five national priorities for action.
- To achieve this, it should consider, in consultation with the States and Territories, renewing the Disaster Risk Reduction Package (DRRP) fund, which expires in June of next year and includes a major component focused on national-level efforts to reduce disaster risk.
- An allocation on the order of $10m per year would be a reasonable approximation of the level of funding required to support implementation of the NEMMM’s five national priorities for action.

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.

Where asset management plans at the local, state or territory level pre-identify and cost betterment of assets (improving asset resilience to natural disasters), the Australian Government should share 50 per cent of the betterment component of reconstruction costs following damage from a (eligible) natural disaster.

The Australian Government should fund natural disaster recovery by:
• cost sharing with state and territory governments for community recovery and reconstruction of essential public assets at a rate of 50 per cent above an annual expenditure threshold
• providing funding based on assessed damages and benchmark prices
• providing an option for state and territory governments to purchase ‘top-up’ fiscal support at an actuarially fair price.
Australian Government involvement should be triggered where an annual (financial year) cumulative expenditure threshold of 0.45 per cent of total state government revenue is met, on an accrued basis. A small disaster criterion of $2 million (indexed over time) should be applied to events at the state or territory level.
The Australian Government should also establish a transparent mechanism for exceptional circumstances fiscal support in the event of extraordinary and catastrophic natural disasters that clearly overwhelm a state or territory’s medium-term fiscal capacity.

The Australian Government should develop a formula for allocating mitigation funding to state and territory governments on the basis of where such funding is likely to achieve the greatest net benefits, taking into account the future risks of natural disasters. This should be completed within five years and in consultation with state and territory governments.

The Australian Government should:
• publish estimates (and their confidence ranges) of future costs of natural disasters to its budget in the Statement of Risks. These estimates should be informed by catastrophe loss modelling
• provision for a base level of natural disaster expenditure in the budget forward estimates, in recognition of the fact that there will be some level of Australian Government expenditure on natural disasters each year.

The Australian Government should gradually increase the amount of annual mitigation funding it provides to state and territory governments to $200 million. Initially, this funding should be distributed to state and territory governments in accordance with the allocation under the National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience.

Funding to state and territory governments for community recovery should be provided as untied grants, with a transition period pending the development of a framework to assess community recovery costs. During the transition period, the Australian Government should continue to provide funding for community recovery through a reimbursement model.
Eligible community recovery expenditure during this transition period should be rationalised to counter disaster operations, personal hardship relief and community relief packages. Eligible expenditure should be limited to activities that arise as a direct consequence of a natural disaster and that:
• have widespread community benefits and would be underprovided without government support
• provide targeted longer-term assistance to people who have limited financial resources and have suffered severe losses
• provide personal and financial counselling aimed at alleviating personal hardship and distress arising as a direct result of a natural disaster
• are additional to the normal responsibilities of state, territory and local governments.

That the resources available to the Parks and Wildlife Service, to manage bushfire risk following the recent increase in land under its tenure, is reviewed.

That a new business case for Westgate project should be prepared by an independent party.

That the proposed Chief Executive Officer Portfolio Business be responsible for developing a cost attribution model for portfolio agencies, including the Queensland Police Service, as a priority.

That the Office of Portfolio Business follows the same budget processes as other agencies.

That a budget based on the desired functional accountabilities should be appropriated to the Portfolio Business as part of the Government budget process.

That the funding model for the Portfolio Business is not based on fee- for-service arrangements or notional contributions from the operational services.

That should the Westgate project proceed, that consideration must be given to opportunities to partner the investment with the private and public sectors. The business case should also consider alternative facilities such as Australian Defence Force sites.

That the NSW Rural Fire Service apply for funding from the NSW Treasury for the development of a multi-agency business case for a BRIMS replacement that includes internal management, risk communication, community engagement capability and publishing activities on websites.

That the NSW Rural Fire Service and the NSW Treasury explore ways to ensure that unspent hazard reduction funds be carried over to the next financial year in a timely manner and to ensure that hazard reduction funding has a seamless transition from one financial year to the next.

Apply a consistent cost-recovery model to all services delivered to state/territory fire agencies.

Review and rebalance relative investment in long term climate modelling and medium-term seasonal outlook.

Review level of investment in research activities to free up budget and reduce pressure on computing capacity

Firm up approval processes and funding for any departures from provision of the basic product set

Explore opportunities to re-phase investments in large scale projects and programs such as the Strategic Radar Enhancement Program, the NexGen Forecast and Warning System Products and the Improving Water Information Program.

Explore options to obtain revenue from advertising on the Bureau’s website

The State Government move the responsibility for the management and distribution of the Emergency Services Levy to the Department of Finance.

The State Government move the responsibility for the management and distribution of the Emergency Services Levy to the Department of Finance.

The funding arrangements that support the National Plan should be reviewed to ensure that the costs associated with both preparedness and response capability are equitably shared between the shipping and offshore petroleum industries.

DHHS fund the equivalent of 2 FTE Consultant positions for retrieval duties (1.5 FTE existing, 0.5 FTE new)

RHH Neonatal Emergency Transport Service receive DHHS funding for a Senior Registrar to assume the responsibilities of retrieval staffing, quality assurance, data collection and reporting demands.
(1 FTE new)

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to fund 3 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Senior Registrar positions at the Royal Hobart Hospital (RHH) for the Tasmanian Medical Retrieval Service (TMRS). One registrar in the Anaesthesia Department, one in the Intensive Care Unit and one in Emergency Department is proposed.
(1.0 Existing, 2.0 FTE new)

The State Medical Retrieval Cost Centre (TMRS and NETS) be formed and be supported by the appropriate administrative and resource accountant expertise. This cost centre should be placed with those responsible for its management.

A uniform retrieval charge to the region of referral should be considered. This should be independent of the mode of transport used.