The committee recommends that the Australian Government increase the Disaster Ready Fund to $400 million per annum for investment in disaster mitigation and resilience measures.

That the Australian Government review and update the COAG Roles and Responsibilities for Climate Adaptation in Australia.

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

That the Australian Government concentrate on servicing Commonwealth and then state and territory agencies while a strategy to expand to broader services for the public is developed

That the Australian Government develop an intergovernmental agreement on climate data and information.

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.

The Committee recommends that state and territory governments remove state-based taxes on general insurance products and shift the tax burden toward less distortionary taxes. Where state or territory governments reduce taxes or levies on insurers, that insurers commit to passing these savings on in full through lower premiums.

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 that all levels of government should work together to ensure that, as far as is possible, people don’t need to resubmit the same information multiple times for different disaster support. Just as insurers should aim for one point of contact, government should aim for ‘tell your story once’.

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 that the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements be amended to set aside a proportion of funding to be offered to local governments up-front to help facilitate disaster recovery and resilience to ensure councils do not always have to bear the burden of financing repairs up-front.

The committee recommends that the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements and relevant guidelines be amended to enable funds to be distributed for the purpose of building betterment into recovery and reconstruction, ensuring that this funding is available to all jurisdictions.

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.

The Commonwealth should require all Commonwealth government departments and agencies to incorporate natural disaster risk reduction and resilience into department or agency strategic considerations.

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 ensure consistency with state and territory governments by also mandating regular capability assessments of all non-self-governing Australian territories that are administered by the Commonwealth to inform the Risk Profile.
- This should ensure that all non-self-governing Australian territories administered by the Commonwealth are considered in and eligible for disaster management support in the form of the DRFA, DRF and other related funding programs.

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 Outcomes Policy should be subject to periodic review by the Productivity Commission (or a similar entity with an evaluation focus) to provide advice to government on the degree to which the outcomes are being realised and provide suggestions for improvement.

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.

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 engage with state and territory governments on the design and implementation of the Outcomes Policy.

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 Committee recommends that the Australian Government implement options for greater flexibility for betterment funding for resilient infrastructure builds, where structural, economic or social benefits are identified, through Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements eligibility criteria following natural disaster events

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review the funding approval timeframes as part of the joint Australian-State and Territory Government Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government encourage its state and territory counterparts to work with local governments to facilitate local council collectives to deliver road asset management projects and to guide voluntary road user agreement negotiations with industry.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, as part of the development of a Federation Funding Agreements Schedule on transport infrastructure, assess options to improve the alignment and coordination of funding programs and application and approval processes with state and territory partner-funded bodies.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government strengthen procurement project specifications under the new Federation Funding Agreements Schedule for state and territory government co-funded project proposals to include minimum or preferred requirements for the use of innovative road asset technologies and recyclable materials and methodologies to enable sustainable long-term asset resilience and support a circular economy.

The Committee recommends that the National Emergency Management Ministers’ Meeting include infrastructure resilience on its agenda to foster cross-agency collaboration and coordination across the Australian Government.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review funding allocation to support road asset maintenance works under its Infrastructure Investment Program and consider other measures to incentivise increased investment in maintenance works.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government strengthen procurement requirements under the new Federation Funding Agreements Schedule on transport infrastructure for state and territory government cofunded project proposals to incorporate resilience design, minimum road construction requirements, and performance specifications to enable sustainable long-term resilience over an asset’s lifecycle.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to establish consultation mechanisms with local governments to consider road infrastructure priorities at the local level.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a review into the distribution formula of the Financial Assistance Grants road component.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate options to include flexibility to fund preparedness measures through Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements to assist in mitigating against future disaster events.

The National Emergency Manaement Agency:
a. clearly and accurately presents Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements related information in its Portfolio Budget Statements; and
b. develops an appropriate set of Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements performance measures that cover the efficiency and effectiveness of the full range of the National Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements activities

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.

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.

The Australian Government should enhance national preparedness for, and response to, natural disasters, building on the responsibilities of Emergency Management Australia, to include facilitating resource sharing decisions of governments and stress testing national disaster plans. 

Australian, state and territory governments should broaden Category D of the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements to encompass funding for recovery measures that are focused on resilience, including in circumstances which are not ‘exceptional’. 

Australian, state and territory governments should ensure that personal information of individuals affected by a natural disaster is able to be appropriately shared between all levels of government, agencies, insurers, charities and organisations delivering recovery services, taking account of all necessary safeguards to ensure the sharing is only for recovery purposes. 

Australian Government agencies should work together across all phases of disaster management. 

Australian, state and territory and local governments should develop greater consistency in the financial support provided to individuals, small businesses and primary producers under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. 

Australian, state and territory governments should develop national air quality forecasting capabilities, which include broad coverage of population centres and apply to smoke and other airborne pollutants, such as dust and pollen, to predict plume behaviour. 

Australian, state and territory governments should establish an authoritative advisory body to consolidate advice on strategic policy and relevant operational considerations for ministers in relation to natural disasters. 

Australian, state and territory governments should adopt procurement and contracting strategies that support and develop a broader Australian-based sovereign aerial firefighting industry. 

Australian, state and territory governments should restructure and reinvigorate ministerial forums with a view to enabling timely and informed strategic decision-making in respect of:
(1) long-term policy improvement in relation to natural disasters
(2) national preparations for, and adaptation to, natural disasters, and
(3) response to, and recovery from, natural disasters of national scale or consequence including, where appropriate, through the National Cabinet or equivalent intergovernmental leaders’ body. 

State and territory governments should take steps to ensure that there is better interaction, planning and ongoing understanding of Australian Defence Force capabilities and processes by state and territory fire and emergency service agencies and local governments. 

State and territory governments should update and implement the National Framework to Improve Government Radio Communications Interoperability, or otherwise agree a new strategy, to achieve interoperable communications across jurisdictions. 

Australian, state and territory governments should create simpler Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements application processes. 

Each state and territory government should establish an independent accountability and assurance mechanism to promote continuous improvement and best practice in natural disaster arrangements. 

The Australian Government amends regulations so that background checks and the requirement to hold an Aviation Security Identification Card are only required for unescorted access to Security Restricted Areas, not for general airside access. This approach would align with international practice.

The Australian Government appoints an additional Australian Transport Safety Bureau Commissioner with aviation operational and safety management experience.

The Australian Government develops the State Safety Program into a strategic plan for Australia’s aviation safety system, under the leadership of the Aviation Policy Group, and uses it as the foundation for rationalising and improving coordination mechanisms.

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.

State and territory governments should:
• clearly articulate the statewide natural hazard risk appetite in land use planning policy frameworks by identifying the risks posed by natural hazards and specifying appropriate planning controls for each given level of risk
• provide local governments with guidance on how to prioritise competing objectives within land use planning
• provide local governments with guidance on how to integrate land use planning and building standards. Consideration should be given to Victoria’s Integrated Planning and Building Framework for Bushfire in this regard.
State and territory governments should regularly review their published risk appetite and guidance documentation to ensure it is up-to-date, accessible and incorporates relevant hazard information.
Local governments should record the reasoning behind development assessment decisions, where they do not do so already, and (at a minimum) provide this information to the public upon request.

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.

State and territory governments should prioritise and accelerate implementation of the Enhancing Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment Roadmap, including reviewing the regulatory components of vendor disclosure statements. The Land Use Planning and Building Codes Taskforce should be tasked to identify and consider options for regular, low-cost dissemination of hazard information to households by governments and insurers.

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.

State and territory governments should be required to report on the following accountability requirements:
• published risk assessments in accordance with the National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines
• transparent natural disaster liabilities in state and territory government budgets
• asset registers and asset management plans at the state, territory and local government level that incorporate natural disaster risk
• implementation of the Enhancing Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment Roadmap
• effective mechanisms to identify and prioritise mitigation spending based on cost–benefit analysis and transparent decision making.
Specifically, effective mechanisms to identify and prioritise mitigation spending should include:
• project proposals that are supported by robust and transparent evaluations (including cost–benefit analysis, public consultation and assessment of non-quantifiable impacts), and that are consistent with state risk assessments
• considering alternative or complementary mitigation options (including structural and non-structural measures)
• using private funding sources where it is feasible and efficient to do so (including charging beneficiaries)
• transparent ex-post evaluation of mitigation projects.
The Australian Government should continue with the three-yearly reviews of state and territory governments’ insurance arrangements. The reviews, and government responses to their recommendations, should be published.

State and territory governments should develop benchmark prices for the reconstruction of essential public assets and submit these to the Australian Government for approval within one year. In developing these prices, they should consult with local governments and relevant experts, and draw on asset management plans. The prices should be reviewed and updated over time.

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.

State and territory taxes and levies on general insurance should be phased out and replaced with less distortionary taxes.

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.

State governments, where they have not already done so, should provide local governments with statutory protection from liability for releasing natural hazard information and making changes to local planning schemes where such actions have been taken ‘in good faith’ and in accordance with state planning policy and legislation.

The committee recommends that the government develop a process by which the ATSB can request access to supplementary funding via the minister.

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.

Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to review the content of the Government’s digital business website at www.digitalbusiness.gov.au and liaise with the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, which manages the www.business.gov.au, to ensure these business advice sites provide appropriate information regarding business continuity planning in the event of telecommunications outages.

The committee recommends that the Australian Government direct an appropriate portion of the proceeds derived from the auction of spectrum to fund the allocation of 20 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for the purposes of a national public safety mobile broadband network.

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government works with state and territory governments to continue to implement the recommendations of the Productivity Commission report, where possible, to improve coordination in relation to climate change adaptation.

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

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

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce legislative changes required to remove the exemption for general insurers to unfair contract terms laws, and ensure its enactment by the end of 2012.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government allocate additional and continuing funding in the 2012–2013 budget to the Insurance Law Service to establish a consumer advisory position at the Financial Services Ombudsman. The position should be co-funded by the Insurance Law Service and the insurance industry.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Parliament pass the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2011 and ensure its enactment by 1 July 2012. The Committee further recommends that the standard definition of ‘flood’ be included in the definition of Standard Cover in the Insurance Contracts Regulations 1985.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government and relevant State and territory governments jointly allocate additional and continuing funding in the 2012–13 budget to the Insurance Law Service for the mobilisation of a temporary physical presence in areas of need following natural disasters. The service should be available to all persons in an affected disaster area and not subject to means-testing.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government empower the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to regulate claims handling and settlement of financial service providers. This can be achieved by the Treasurer introducing legislation by 1 July 2012 to give effect to the measures contained in Schedule 1, Part 1 of the lapsed Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2010, so that breaches of the duty of utmost good faith in relation to claims handling constitute a breach of the Insurance Contracts Act.
This would enable the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to:
- monitor and regulate claims handling and settlement processes;
- impose sanctions on insurance companies, under Australian Financial Services Licence remedies, on behalf of consumers; and
- negate the current exemption of claims handling and settlement from the definition of financial services for the purpose of the Corporations Act 2001.

State and territory taxes and levies on general insurance constitute a barrier to effective adaptation to climate change. State and territory governments should phase out these taxes and replace them with less distortionary taxes.

Local governments’ uncertainty about their legal liability is a barrier to effective climate change adaptation. State governments should clarify the legal liability of councils with respect to climate change adaptation matters and the processes required to manage that liability.

To help clarify roles and responsibilities of local government for climate change adaptation, the state and Northern Territory governments should publish and maintain a comprehensive list of laws that delegate regulatory roles to local governments. This would assist both state and local governments to assess whether local governments have the capacity to discharge their roles effectively.

Australian governments should implement policies that help the community deal with the current climate by improving the flexibility of the economy. This would also build adaptive capacity to deal with future climate change. This includes reforms to:
• taxes that influence the way resources are used, such as land tax exemptions and conveyancing duty, which could inhibit the mobility of labour or capital
• government transfers that reduce incentives to adjust to changing circumstances, such as reforms to drought support as outlined in the Productivity Commission’s 2009 inquiry
• regulations that impose unnecessary costs or inhibit competition or flexibility and could impede climate change adaptation by reducing the ability of businesses, households or other entities to respond to changing circumstances, such as restrictions to water trading.

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Grants Commission ensures that as part of the current redesign of its data request, state and territory governments are required to include their past insurance and reinsurance receipts for natural disaster insurance premiums. These data must be taken into account by the Commission in determining the states' GST share. 

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.

Further Commonwealth funding for bushfire suppression be made conditional on state fire agencies agreeing to the Commonwealth evaluating and auditing their fuel reduction programs.

ESWG recommends investigation of options to fund NGERAC’s on-going activities including through AEMO’s funding model.

That Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources liaise with Ministers with environmental and planning responsibilities, and if necessary Council of Australian Governments, to ensure that environmental requirements for oil and gas projects are not imposed subsequent to safety assessments and do not increase the risk of major accident events.

That Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources continue to support a duty of care safety case regime for best practice offshore petroleum industry regulation augmented to include regulation of integrity. Since the safety case is at the centre of the duty of care co-regulatory regime, we consider that the requirement for the implementation of the safety case at facilities involved in the exploitation of petroleum resources should be provided for within the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 itself.

That the fees charged in relation to the importation and quarantining of horses be reviewed and fixed without delay having regard to the following factors:
(a) the cost of the drafting, preparation, printing, distribution, publishing, collection, checking, recording and filing of all documents, questionnaires, certificates and forms concerning the importation and quarantining of horses
(b) the cost of employing all people paid by the Commonwealth and engaged in work concerning the importation and quarantining of horses, including the Inspector General and the officer responsible for the importation of horses and their staff
(c) a risk factor that has regard to risks to the Commonwealth, its employees, contractors and all other people, things and animals arising out of, or such as could arise out of, any act or omission for which the Commonwealth might be held liable concerning the importation and quarantining of horses and to the costs that might be incurred by an event or events of the kind that occurred in August 2007
(d) the costs of all drugs, implements, tools, laboratories, establishments, lands, places, buildings and things used or held, licensed or leased or owned by the Commonwealth for or in respect of the importation or quarantining of horses. Depreciation, amortisation, holding and all other costs should be taken into account in calculating these costs
(e) costs and fees charged by other individuals (if any) carrying out the same or similar work to that done by AQIS
(f) any costs of preparing, auditing, reviewing, checking or training in relation to the work instructions and standard operating procedures
(g) an additional and reasonable cost for contingencies of not less than 10 per cent of the sum of all other costs.

That the budgets for airport reception of horses and government controlled and operated quarantine stations be determined so as to be sufficient to fund the operations of the Quarantine Stations in accordance with these recommendations and any further procedures and requirements that are laid down from time to time.

That, until the review of those fees has been completed, the fee charged by the government controlled and operated quarantine stations for thoroughbred stallions temporarily imported into Australia be not be less than $165.00 plus GST a day and the fee for all other horses be not less than $65.00 plus GST a day. No discount is to be allowed for the number of horses in a consignment.

The ANAO recommends that, to ensure that grant conditions are satisfied, EMA enhance procedures to monitor the progress of projects and follow up those behind schedule or not fulfilling funding agreement requirements.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government provide funding support for the ongoing activities of the Australian Coastal Alliance in providing a national information and communication interface between research organisations and local government authorities and other coastal stakeholders.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government:
- expand the list of national priority areas identified under the Caring for our Country program to include climate change impacts on biodiversity
- give consideration in future funding rounds to projects that:
* involve working with state/territory and local governments to improve coastal land use planning
* seek to address loss of coastal habitat as a result of coastal development and population pressures

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government:
- consider the Victorian Government’s model of a sustainable coastal community as part of the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement on the Coastal Zone to be concluded through the Council of Australian Governments
- ensure an early response to the recommendations provided in the Sustainability for Survival: Creating a Climate for Change— Inquiry into a Sustainability Charter report and the Sustainable Cities report

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government give consideration to establishing a separate funding program for infrastructure enhancement in coastal areas vulnerable to climate change. Such funding should be provided according to a formula requiring contributions, either financial or in-kind, from state governments and relevant local government authorities.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the Council of Australian Governments process, examine the establishment of a system of national coastal zone environmental accounts, employing the model developed by the South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government:
- work with the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council and other stakeholders to develop an action plan to:
*ensure that coastal buffers, coastal habitat corridors and high ecological value areas are identified and included in Commonwealth, state and local government management processes
*ensure appropriate infrastructure planning and that land is made available to allow for the migration of coastal ecosystems
*promote cooperative ecosystem-based planning and management approaches across jurisdictions
*implement a nationally consistent coastal and marine biodiversity monitoring and reporting framework
*develop a targeted strategy to address key gaps in knowledge of coastal and marine biodiversity and improve access and sharing of knowledge and data
*develop regional climate change adaptation policies and plans and integrate them into coastal and marine bioregional planning processes
- ensure that all future national coastal zone policy incorporates these priorities, as well as future revised national sustainability, biodiversity, climate change and environmental policy frameworks

To further enhance Australia’s disaster mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery arrangements in the event of possible major coastal disasters, the Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a grants program, the Coastal Natural Disaster Mitigation Program, to fund natural disaster mitigation projects in the Australian coastal zone.
The Committee also recommends that the Australian Emergency Management Committee (AEMC) consider the following issues:
- improved data on coastal disaster risk assessment and vulnerable coastal sites
- improved access and evacuation routes for coastal communities
- improved coastal community awareness of and resilience to natural disasters
- improved coordination of coastal disaster mitigation arrangements with other initiatives currently underway, such as reviews of the Australian Building Code and land use planning policies to take into account climate change impacts
- improved early warning systems for coastal areas in the event of an extreme sea level event (storm surge, erosion, flooding)
The Committee further recommends that the AEMC provide a report on these matters to the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government:
- require that all Ramsar listed wetlands have effective and operational management plans and that resources are allocated by governments to monitor the implementation of these plans
- increase the number of coastal wetlands classified as Ramsar sites, particularly those classified as Nationally Important wetlands
- work with state and territory governments through the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, and in consultation with other stakeholders, to improve the management and monitoring of coastal wetlands, particularly Ramsar sites located in close proximity to development
- improve public awareness about what actions impacting on a Ramsar wetland should be referred to the Minister under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
- ensure that the National Guidelines for Ramsar Wetlands also include modules on the process for nominating Ramsar wetlands
- develop a climate change action plan for coastal Ramsar wetlands and Nationally Important wetlands

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government:
- continue the Local Adaptation Pathways Program as a competitive funding program
- review the program’s guidelines to secure better outcomes by:
* use of consistent methodology for vulnerability assessments
* evaluation of the outcomes of the projects that are undertaken with the grants
* encouraging regional applications from local councils whenever possible

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government urgently commission a detailed climate change vulnerability assessment for Kakadu National Park, in consultation with the park’s traditional owners and other stakeholders and drawing on the results of the ‘first pass’ National Coastal Vulnerability Assessment of the park. This assessment should specifically focus on the vulnerability of Kakadu’s freshwater wetland systems to saltwater intrusion. A key outcome of the assessment should be the development of a Climate Change Action Plan for Kakadu National Park, with coordinated input from the Australian Government and Northern Territory Government, Indigenous land owners, researchers and other stakeholders.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a National Coastal Advisory Council to:
- provide independent advice to government
- advise the new coastal unit within the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
- ensure community input into national coastal zone policy, planning and management

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in considering its response to the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), take into account concerns about the EPBC Act and coastal zone management raised as part of this inquiry—in particular, the need to address the cumulative impacts of coastal development. This could be achieved by numerous means, including:
- a land clearing trigger
- defining coastal ecosystems as a matter of national environmental significance
- making more use of landscape-scale assessments through strategic assessments or bioregional plans

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in cooperation with state, territory and local governments, and in consultation with coastal stakeholders, develop an Intergovernmental Agreement on the Coastal Zone to be endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments. The intergovernmental agreement should:
- define the roles and responsibilities of the three tiers of government—federal, state and local—involved in coastal zone management
- include a formal mechanism for community consultation
- incorporate principles based on strategic regional coastal planning and landscape scale/ecosystem based coastal zone management
- include an effective implementation plan with resources allocated to ensure that objectives are realised
- be overseen by a new Coastal Zone Ministerial Council
- be made public

The ANAO recommends that the Attorney-General’s Department better monitor and account for the expenditure of individual exercise costs under the National Capability Development Exercise Programme, through:
a) the provision of more detailed guidance on, and subsequent monitoring of, the financial reporting required for the exercises; and
b) the provision of committed and actual cost reports for each exercise to the National Counter- Terrorism Committee to allow decisions to be made that will maximise the benefit of the exercise programme for the moneys expended.

The Working Group recommends that the Australian Government consider developing an overarching whole of government disaster plan that clearly articulates authority, roles and responsibilities of agencies, inter-departmental committees and key officials, to link the range of existing Australian Government disaster plans. 

The Working Group recommends that State/Territory Recovery Committees review their membership to ensure that it is reflective of community needs, including representation from the Insurance Disaster Response Organisation. 

The Working Group recommends that participants in the exercises designed to test continuity of executive government plans and procedures should be the office holders themselves. 

The Working Group recommends that all States/Territories and the Australian Government should regularly (annually) test their continuity of executive government plans and contingencies. 

The Working Group recommends the Australian Emergency Management Committee note that: 
• The Catastrophic Disasters Emergency Management Capability Review should be seen as the first phase of a multi-faceted work program
• The work program will need to be conducted over a number of years and deal with the implementation of any accepted recommendations arising from this report
• A collaborative national approach will be required to ensure successful implementation of the recommendations
• The process of researching risk and developing plans to reduce those risks and mitigate the consequences of disasters should be an ongoing iterative process. 

The Working Group recommends that the adequacy of existing national mortuary capability to meet the likely demands of a catastrophic disaster be assessed by State/Territory Coroners. This assessment should also consider the need for a mobile mortuary capability and involve discussions with the Australian Federal Police. 

The Working group recommends that the Australian Government take a leadership role with regard to addressing the national capability issues identified within this review. Further, that the States/Territories recognise and accept the collaborative nature of developing national capability and commit through engagement and consultation to assisting the Australian Government in this task.

The Committee strongly recommends that the New South Wales, Victorian and Tasmanian Governments abolish the Fire Levy tax they impose on home and business insurance premiums (wherever applicable), making it payable through household rates instead. Any cost savings gained by the insurance industry through relief from collecting Fire Levies should be passed on to policyholders through reduced premiums. At the same time the Committee urges the Insurance Council of Australia to run ongoing education campaigns to increase public awareness on bushfire preparedness, including the need for insurance.

The Committee recommends that, for the purpose of communications for the police, ambulance and fire brigades, any rental costs associated with the use of radio sites under the care, control or management of the Commonwealth, state, territory or local government be waived, other than for the ongoing cost associated with the use of power at the site.

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth through the Council of Australian Governments ensure that states and territories have adequate controls to ensure that local governments implement required fuel management standards on private property and land under their control.

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth should commit funding for aerial fire fighting beyond the 2003–04 season on the proviso that the Australasian Fire Authorities Council and the state and territory governments make a commitment to:
- Rapid initial attack of all wildfires during the bush fire season regardless of tenure.
- Deployment on long term contracts of a mix of aircraft, including fixed wing.
- Deployment of aircraft on a nationally coordinated risk analysis basis to be updated as each fire season unfolds.
- Provision of nationally coordinated full ground support.
- Development of training arrangements for air crews, ground support crews, incident management teams and fire fighters to a national standard.
- Development of systems of effective aerial control of fire bombing operations.