The committee recommends that the Australian Government pursue the matter of land use and planning laws, including the feasibility of prohibiting future development in high-risk areas, through the Housing and Homelessness Ministerial Council and other relevant ministerial council arrangements.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet include in the Australian Government Crisis Management Handbook criteria for the publication of plans to appropriately inform stakeholders of crisis arrangements.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with State, Territory and local government through National Cabinet to ensure that further development does not occur in areas of 1-in-100 flood risk or greater. The boundary for no future development should take account of climate modelling of future increases in risk, in addition to current estimates of risk. The Committee further recommends that the Australian Government explore mechanisms that it can adopt to give effect to this unilaterally, including:
- Publicly disclosed risk information at the individual property level, including for new developments. This could be through a range of mechanisms, including:
- a portal informed by data provided to the Commonwealth government through the Hazards Insurance Partnership for all property released for development.
- A regulatory mechanism to discourage banks from loaning for further development at a 1/100 risk or higher (such as risk rating banks’ capital to appropriately reflect flood risk; an agreement between government, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, and major banks that such loans will not occur, or other regulatory mechanisms). These measures could apply to lending to both developers and to residential purchasers.
- Access to any flood pool (or subsidies) would not be available to properties approved in high-risk areas after the creation of the scheme.

The Committee recommends the Australian Government collaborate with state governments to implement measures to repurpose areas with high flood risk for alternative purposes, including returning developed land into a predeveloped state or repurposing land for recreational or agricultural use.

The Committee recommends the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to review the operation of existing buy-back schemes to ensure they are targeted appropriately and to evaluate the outcomes for households that have received assistance.

The Committee recommends that state and territory governments develop buyback and resilience programs for households with very high flood risk and where alternative mitigation measures are unlikely to manage the risk. The Australian Government should consider working with state and territory governments, including through co-funding models, where appropriate.

The Committee recommends that building codes and planning rules be strengthened and future-proofed to improve the resilience of communities and households, consistent with Recommendation 2 of the Actuaries Institute’s Funding for Flood Costs report.
- This should take into account not just current flood risks, but also projected increases in risks based on climate modelling
- Consideration should be given to the publication of a freely available disaster risk rating system.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state, territory and local governments through National Cabinet to ensure that publicly disclosed risk information at the individual property level is available through the property conveyancing process or mandated in state rental agreement regulation.

The Commonwealth should introduce a systematic and consistent approach to measuring and evaluating the impact of disaster programs against the nationally determined outcomes specified in the Outcomes Policy.

The Minister for Emergency Management should deliver an annual Statement to Parliament that:
- Defines the Commonwealth’s role in prioritising risk reduction, prevention, resilience, and mitigation against natural disasters.
- Outlines the national natural disaster risk reduction investment priorities.
- Reports against nationally agreed natural disaster risk reduction and resilience investment outcomes.
- Updates Parliament on the progress of disaster impacted communities where Commonwealth programs and investment are involved.

Each jurisdiction should be allowed a maximum of three senior officials on ANZEMC to enable the inclusion of these jurisdictional responsibilities (see Appendix F for Summary of State and Territory responsibilities).

NEMMM should co-convene a joint Ministerial Council meeting with climate change adaptation ministers to promote greater coherence between NEMMM’s resilience work and climate adaptation—two key components of a future national resilience strategy. This should be a face-to-face meeting.

The government members of ANZEMC should be senior officials (Commissioners, Deputy Secretaries or Heads of Agencies) from agencies that have the lead jurisdictional responsibility for preparedness and response and resilience and recovery.

The ANZEMC workplan and meeting agendas should be explicitly organised under two headings: “Disaster Resilience and Recovery” and “Preparedness and Capabilities Policy”.

ANZEMC’s core mission should be narrowed to:
1) Supporting the NEMMM, particularly to identify its five priorities for action and ensuring they are implemented; and
2) Providing a forum for key senior officials to address other nationally (e.g., cross- jurisdictionally) pressing, emerging and longer-term challenges.

Given the importance of NEMMM’s work, meetings should occur quarterly and be in-person at least twice yearly, be of sufficient length to allow for issues to be properly canvassed and discussed and be preceded by an opportunity for the NEMMM members to meet informally alone together.

ANZEMC should meet four times each year, including twice face-to- face, with one of the in-person meetings devoted predominantly to “Disaster Resilience and Recovery.” The face-to-face meetings should be preceded by an opportunity for the ANZEMC members to meet informally.

NEMMM agendas should ensure that discussion of urgent tactical challenges don’t crowd-out consideration of the strategic challenges.
- NEMMM should request ANZEMC, facilitated by NEMA, to conduct “stress-testing” scenario planning of the consequences (e.g., exhausted emergency workers, insufficient emergency housing and shortages of trades people) of year-on-year increases in consecutive and intensifying national-scale disasters.

The Australian Building Codes Board, working with other bodies as appropriate, should:
(1) assess the extent to which AS 3959:2018 Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas, and other relevant building standards, are effective in reducing risk from natural hazards to lives and property, and 
(2) conduct an evaluation as to whether the National Construction Code should be amended to specifically include, as an objective of the code, making buildings more resilient to natural hazards. 

State, territory and local governments should be required to consider present and future natural disaster risk when making land-use planning decisions for new developments. 

All governments should put in place best-practice institutional and governance arrangements for the provision of public infrastructure, including road infrastructure. These should include:
• stronger processes for project selection that incorporate requirements for cost–benefit analyses that are independently scrutinised and publicly released
• consideration of natural disaster risk in project selection and asset management planning
• a clearer link between road-user preferences and maintenance and investment decisions.

The committee recommends that building codes incorporate mitigation measures that take into account foreseeable risks from extreme weather events.

The committee recommends that credible and reliable flood mapping activities and the development of other information that would best inform landowners or prospective landowners of potential risks from extreme weather events are prioritised and used to inform land use planning laws.

The Council of Australian Governments’ Building Ministers’ Forum should provide formal direction to the Australian Building Codes Board to:
• monitor projections of climate change risks to buildings
• revise the standards in the National Construction Code to take into account these projections where this delivers a net benefit to the community.
This body of work should be transparently and formally incorporated in the Australian Building Codes Board’s annual work program.

As a priority, state and territory governments should ensure that land-use planning systems are sufficiently flexible to enable a risk management approach to incorporating climate change risks into planning decisions at the state, territory, regional and local government levels. Consideration should be given to:
• transparent and rigorous community consultation processes that enable an understanding of the community’s acceptable levels of risk for different types of land use
• the timeframe of risks and the expected lifetime of proposed land use
• the costs and benefits of land use.
State and territory governments should provide appropriate guidance to local governments to implement these provisions in local government schemes.

The Commonwealth consult with local, state and territory government planning authorities on the development and dissemination of a house loss risk index for households in Australia's highest risk bushfire areas.

The Committee recommends that the Building Code of Australia, including cyclone building codes, be revised with the objective of increasing resilience to climate change.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider the benefits of adopting a nationally consistent sea level rise planning benchmark and, if so, whether this be done on a statutory basis or otherwise. The outcomes of this consideration should then be included as part of the action plan for the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement on the Coastal Zone.

The Committee notes the Council of Australian Governments initiative (through the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council) to develop state-specific climate change planning policies by mid 2011, to inform local governments and regional planning responses to climate change. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that the outcomes of this initiative are included as part of the action plan under the proposed new Intergovernmental Agreement on the Coastal Zone.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government:
- continue working with the Queensland Government and local councils under the existing Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement to improve land use planning in the catchment
- commission analysis of the Great Barrier Reef as a case study for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) in Australia. The study should draw out possible directions for ICZM in Australia with regard to:
* addressing challenges associated with climate change impacts on biodiversity
* declining water quality from catchment runoff and loss of coastal habitat from coastal development and population pressures
* building cooperative partnerships between Commonwealth, state and local government, and other stakeholders
* establishing governance and institutional frameworks

The Committee recommends that Standards Australia review the clarity of AS3959–1999: Construction of buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas to ensure that all relevant stakeholders can interpret and apply the Standard in the way it is intended.

The Committee recommends that Standards Australia incorporate building maintenance into AS3959–1999: Construction of buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas, perhaps renaming it as AS3959–1999: Construction and maintenance of buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas.

The Committee recommends that Emergency Management Australia and the Australian Communications Authority work with state and territory bush fire authorities to ensure that that district communication plans
have regard for the amount of radio traffic that may be generated under the most severe conditions.

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth seeks to ensure that the Council of Australian Governments resolve when asset protection zones will be located on private land and when on public land and gain assurances that adequate maintenance of zones will be enforced.

The Committee recommends that:
- As a short term objective, the use of ‘40’ channel UHF CB equipment be adopted for coordination and interoperability of communications at fire ground level.
- As a longer term objective a national communications plan be developed and incorporate the provision of low powered VHF channel allocations for the purpose of ensuring compatible fire ground communications between all agencies on a national basis.
- That the use of UHF CB between units on the fire ground be included in communications planning for intra-state and interstate deployments.

The Committee recommends that the state and territory bushfire agencies ensure that, on a district basis, communications are addressed within the district operations plans and that the plans are capable of easy adoption to incident action plans.