That the NSW Government continue to support councils to undertake their functions in respect of addressing climate change where necessary, such as:
- assessing the need for additional funding
- making sure councils have appropriate skills to assess large and complex proposals.

That the NSW Government continue to work through the NSW Reconstruction Authority to develop a state policy for managed relocation in situations where this may be a viable solution for communities or specific sites.

That the NSW Government develop a more comprehensive and coordinated climate adaptation framework which can be implemented at local scale which:
- integrates climate resilience and preparedness measures into all aspects of planning and development
- identifies climate risks and prioritises specific actions being taken to reduce those risks.

The Committee recommends that PCS receive adequate funding for the 2023-24 EPSDD BOP to ensure all access maintenance activities listed as Priority 1, and that these activities are completed.

The Victorian Government advocates for stronger telecommunications service reliability outcomes from the Australian Government, and associated telecommunications reviews.

Distribution businesses annually attest to the Minister for Energy and Resources. The attestation should include specific reference to, but not limited to: Review of emergency management practices including but not limited to review of risks and risk controls and testing of revised controls following all major events and exercises.

The Victorian Government to work with the Commonwealth Government and telecommunications carriers to ensure that there are appropriate arrangements, via existing services or alternatives, for communities to stay connected for 72 hours without network power supply.

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 efficacy and impact of the Flemington Racecourse flood wall be considered as part of Melbourne Water’s review of mitigation in the Maribyrnong River catchment announced following the updated flood modelling.

That the Victorian Government increase funding for training of volunteers to boost the capacity of State Emergency Service units and Shepparton and Echuca and Moama Search and Rescue squads to respond during emergencies.

That the Victorian Government ensure that major flood mitigation measures be assessed and reviewed to ensure they perform as intended.

That the Victorian Government adapt policies and funding models to prioritise betterment initiatives, including ensuring that financial resources are allocated effectively to meet long-term needs of at-risk communities, and in doing so work with the Commonwealth Government to achieve this goal.

That the Victorian Government fund the pilot of a ring levee development program in Northern Victoria to protect house and curtilage in flood-prone areas.

That the Victorian Government develop community-based initiatives and resource-sharing mechanisms, fostering resilience and solidarity among towns facing challenges from environmental disasters. These should ensure timely and effective responses to future crises, leveraging collective strength and kindness to aid in the recovery process.

That the Victorian Government prioritise investment in betterment projects to improve the resilience of mitigation infrastructure, and in doing so work with the Commonwealth Government to achieve this goal.

That the Victorian Government pay its bills on time, especially following natural disasters.

That the Victorian Government ensure that the state’s existing culvert infrastructure in high-risk flood areas is fit for purpose, and that the Government also consult with local councils and other relevant stakeholders and prioritise betterment in any upgrade works deemed necessary.

That the Victorian Government work with the Commonwealth Government to ensure the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements are not unduly burdensome.

That the Victorian Government evaluate the criteria and funding arrangements for financial assistance post-disaster with a view to:
a. better aligning support with costs of recovery
b. proposing options for quickly deploying support mechanisms according to the scale and complexity of the event.

That the Victorian Government further investigate options for increasing outlet capacity at Lake Eppalock. This investigation should involve:
- conducting a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate financial feasibility
- extensive stakeholder engagement to gather input from affected parties and communities
- examination of environmental effects
- environmental risk assessments to understand potential impacts on local ecosystems, wildlife and water quality
- reviewing water-sharing arrangements to ensure: –appropriate adjustments to maintain equitable water distribution and –compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.

That the Victorian Government ensure regional catchment management authorities, with local councils, are funded and resourced to conduct and implement up to date flood studies on a regular basis.

That the Victorian Government simplify the application process for disaster recovery funding. This could include reducing paperwork, providing hands-on assistance and investigating technology to streamline processes.

The NSW Reconstruction Authority repurpose the funding previously provided for one-off spontaneous volunteering grants to each local council to support a more comprehensive, targeted approach to building community capability to support informal volunteering comprised of:
a. The provision of training and support to councils in high disaster risk areas to support them to build their capability to coordinate community based informal volunteers.
b. The engagement of an expert, external organisation to coordinate, train and support informal volunteers in the recovery stage of disaster events when it is warranted by the scale of the disaster, volunteer interest and potential risks.
c. Grants to support businesses, non-government organisations and community groups in high disaster risk areas with locally developed initiatives to build community resilience and capability.

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 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 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 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 the Australian Government consider measures to reduce household level risks, including whether it would be appropriate to extend the Bushfire Resilience Rating Home Self-Assessment App to flood risks.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 develop an agreed methodology to underpin the Risk Profile that would identify at-risk communities, capabilities, and assets.

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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 propose that the Infrastructure and Transport Senior Officials’ Committee, in consultation with Austroads and other relevant stakeholders, progress the development of national road infrastructure resilience guidelines to inform asset management and project investment.

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s Transport Network Strategic Investment Tool be utilised by the Australian Climate Service to examine projected impacts on strategic road network routes.

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 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 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

Melbourne Water should investigate long term sustainable flood mitigation options for the Maribyrnong River.

Melbourne Water should take account of the best estimates of the impact of climate change when setting flood levels for planning and development and the application of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.

Melbourne Water should investigate the feasibility of installing one way valves on the outlets from the street and yard drainage from Evergreen Avenue (Rivervue Retirement Village).

To ensure that the LEMA Review leads to improved LEMA processes and outputs that are responsive to the needs and capacity of the WA LG sector, WALGA recommends that the Department of Fire and Emergency Services and SEMC approve and secure funding for a three-year LEMA Improvement Project to implement the LEMA Review improvement actions (August 2023 – August 2026).

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.

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.

The Inspector-General of Emergency Management recommends the following changes to the ways that ‘resilience’ is reflected in Queensland’s Disaster Management Arrangements:
a. That the Disaster Management Act 2003 be amended to include a definition of ‘resilience’ that reflects the Queensland Government’s endorsed definition within the Queensland Strategy for Disaster Resilience, clarifying that Resilience functions incorporate activities related to the phases of Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery.

That the Queensland Reconstruction Authority leads state-level hazard and risk functions, including the design and delivery of a risk assessment tool that is locally appropriate, costeffective and fit for purpose.

The Inspector-General of Emergency Management recommends the following change to the way that Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements are supported through Queensland’s Disaster Management Arrangements:
a. That the Queensland Reconstruction Authority be Queensland’s lead agency coordinating Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. Ministerial responsibility for activation of Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements should transfer from the Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister for Fire and Emergency Services, to the Minister responsible for the Queensland Reconstruction Authority.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

That the NSW Government work with local governments to identify alternative routes to vulnerable roads, and that the NSW and Australian Governments fund the construction of these important routes to improve evacuation and access options in times of disaster.

That the NSW Government advocate through the National Cabinet to widen eligibility under the Disaster Funding Recovery Arrangements to allow local councils to build back better.

That the NSW Government allocate funding to the improvement of the Pitt Town Evacuation Route and other key possible evacuation routes in Sydney's northwest.

That the NSW Government consider entering into a service agreement with an organisation that has the resources and capacity to manage donations and activate quickly during natural disasters.

That the NSW Government significantly increase its investment in flood mitigation and preparation, including its support of local governments to do the same, by: • increasing ongoing, long term funding and access to technical guidance and assistance for local councils • ensuring that land-use planning and development takes a risk-based approach. 

That the NSW Government ensure that flood affected individuals can continue to access financial assistance for as long as there is demonstrated need. 

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

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’. 

State and territory governments should have a structured process to regularly assess the capacity and capability requirements of fire and emergency services, in light of both current and future natural disaster risk. 

Australian, state and territory governments should develop arrangements that facilitate greater inclusion of primary healthcare providers in disaster management, including: representation on relevant disaster committees and plans and providing training, education and other supports. 

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. 

The National Disaster Risk Information Services Capability should include tools and systems to support operational and strategic decision making, including integrated climate and disaster risk scenarios tailored to various needs of relevant industry sectors and end users. 

Australian, state and territory governments, in consultation with local governments and the private sector, should review supply chain risks, and consider options to ensure supply of essential goods in times of natural disasters. 

Australian, state and territory governments should support the implementation of the National Disaster Risk Information Services Capability and aligned climate adaptation initiatives. 

Australian, state and territory governments should produce downscaled climate
projections:
(1) to inform the assessment of future natural disaster risk by relevant decision makers, including state and territory government agencies with planning and emergency management responsibilities
(2) underpinned by an agreed common core set of climate trajectories and timelines, and
(3) subject to regular review. 

The Australian Government should establish a standing entity that will enhance national natural disaster resilience and recovery, focused on long-term disaster risk reduction. 

Government consider adopting a similar model to NSW for the management of emergency costs and reimbursements within ACT Government agencies.

Government consider an alternative funding arrangement for extraordinary costs borne by Government agencies in combating emergencies such as bushfires.

That Government work with other Australian governments to provide long-term funding certainty to AFAC, including the National Resource Sharing Centre (NRSC) and the National Aerial Firefighting Centre (NAFC).

That as a matter of urgency, in order to accelerate and finalise a State-wide strategic fire trail network, the NSW RFS Commissioner and Bush Fire Coordinating Committee (BFCC):
- set a deadline for Bush Fire Management Committees to complete all outstanding Fire Access and Fire Trail (FAFT) Plans for submission to BFCC for approval, and a related deadline for BFCC consideration of these
- assess the completed suite of FAFT Plans to identify high-priority trails of relative strategic importance across the State for urgent construction or upgrades with particular reference to the needs of upcoming fire seasons
- enforce completion of annual fire trail condition assessment reporting by relevant landholders. Following this, the BFCC should, as part of its standard business, undertake an audit of all FAFT Plans and annual fire trail condition assessment reports
- develop a single asset management system to capture the outcomes of annual fire trail condition assessment reporting on a tenure-blind basis to support BFCC strategic and budgetary prioritisation and inform funding allocation to agencies for capital works programs
- commission a review of FAFT Plans, with particular assessment of containment line potential, following a significant bush fire event in their area, as part of the planned review of BFCC Policy and NSW RFS Standards in 2020-21.
Where it is not feasible to construct a fire trail completely on public land, and private landowners are not satisfied with proposed negotiated arrangements to construct the trail across their land, Government should negotiate acquisition of an easement interest, with appropriate compensation, over private land.

That Government, acknowledging that a strategic approach to planning for bush fire will take time, and in order to protect, prepare and build resilience into existing communities better, should immediately:
- prepare, in association with the insurance sector, a model framework and statutory basis for the establishment of an enforcement, compliance and education program which adopts a risk-based approach to routine inspection of local bush fire prone developments to ensure that every local development on bush fire prone land is prepared for future bush fire seasons in accordance with bush fire protection standards of the day, that account for worsening conditions
- ensure local government is resourced to enable effective audit, enforcement and compliance powers in respect of local developments and assets on bush fire land
- consider the introduction of subsidies for property owners to undertake site mitigation works to reduce bush fire risk and work with the Insurance Council of Australia to develop an agreed set of measures to insure against with a view to risk reductions resulting in lower insurance premiums
- review vegetation clearing policies to ensure that the processes are clear and easy to navigate for the community, and that they enable appropriate bush fire risk management by individual landowners without undue cost or complexity.

To enable entities to have a shared understanding of forecast information for dam failure events during a flood, including flood wave travel time, speed and height, Emergency Action Plans contain protocols and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders for these aspects. 

To ensure enhanced capability integration and enable timely community messaging Bundaberg LDMG in consultation with Sunwater develop additional Emergency Alerts and associated polygons for a Paradise Dam failure and load these on to the disaster management portal. 

To enhance shared capacity and collaboratively manage risk, the Chair of the Bundaberg DDMG use the QERMF process to determine if dam failure for Paradise Dam should be reported as a residual risk in this instance due to known changes in the risk profile to:
- the State Disaster Coordination Group (SDCG) in accordance with their responsibilities under the State Plan
- QFES for ensuring the development of the state-wide risk assessment. 

To increase shared understanding of risks, ensure the coordination of plans and manage risks, dam failure for Paradise Dam be included as a separate risk within the Bundaberg District Disaster Management Plan (DDMP). 

To increase understanding of hazards and manage risks, dam failure for Paradise Dam be included as a separate risk within the North Burnett Local Disaster Management Plan (LDMP). 

The state’s arrangements for disaster management, including recovery, are articulated in the Disaster Management Act (2003), the Queensland Reconstruction Authority Act (2011), the State Disaster Management Plan and the Queensland Recovery Plan. To enable state-level arrangements to better support community-led recovery and to improve Queensland’s recovery governance
arrangements:
a. State-level roles and responsibilities of:
i. the Leadership Board Sub-committee (Recovery)
ii. the State Recovery Policy and Planning Coordinator
iii. the State Recovery Coordinator
iv. the Queensland Reconstruction Authority
v. functional recovery groups
for coordinating and reporting on recovery should be made more distinct from each other, and any overlap between them removed for greater clarity. Roles and responsibilities should be published on relevant websites.
b. A capability that delivers the effectiveness of the State Disaster Coordination Group and its supporting apparatus for response should exist for recovery. The capability should support coordination and reporting, and improve communication arrangements and sharing of operational information between functional recovery groups and agencies. Such a capability may be established by revising the State Disaster Coordination Group terms of reference and membership, or investigating the capacity for Queensland Reconstruction Authority to deliver it.

A strategy should be developed to improve the availability of information to decision-makers and other audiences. Information should be searchable, more specific, timely, and allow stake-holders to find what they want.

Planning and warnings for storm tide should be based on modelling that shows the chances of an event occurring (probabilistic).

The outputs of these capabilities should be shared and actively inform the disaster management sector, including response operations and the creation of warnings and public messaging.

The future risk of bushfires to Queensland communities should be re-evaluated as part of the 2020 State Risk Assessment in light of recent and emerging science, events and lessons.

We recommend that, in the absence of stand-alone catchment management authorities, the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning as a matter of priority, establish what funding is reasonably required and complete all elements of the Brisbane River Catchment Flood Studies.

Discontinue the automatic allocation of Fire Warden powers to Council and Committee members and substitute an option for members to be appointed as Fire Wardens.

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

The Committee recommends the State Fire Commission be fully reimbursed for the costs of the State Emergency Service transfer in years 2014 to 2017.

Engage with industry bodies to explore opportunities to better understand and manage risks.

Assess vulnerability of ecosystems and species to coastal inundation.

Investigate the costs and benefits in enhancing the current Tsunami detection buoy network.

Review all hazards response and recovery plans to ensure they address likely earthquake consequences.

Advocate for an National Notifiable Diseases Database.

Assess options for managed coastal retreat.

Review environmental risks associated with hazardous uses within flood prone areas.

Review Ambulance Tasmania surge capacity.

Improve understanding of the allocation of ownership across government, business and individuals.

Investigate the costs and benefits of delivering a public education and awareness program.

Actively manage riparian vegetation to manage flood dynamics.

Pro-actively manage landslide areas.

Improve the understanding of the vulnerability of critical infrastructure.

Investigate the costs and benefits in enhancing the current Tsunami warning arrangements with signage and audible warning systems at key exposed locations (e.g. Port Arthur and Kingston Beach).

Identify and anlalyse the location of critical infrastructure within defined flood areas.

Improve maintenance of flood mitigation infrastructure.

Identify and analyse statewide storm hazard risk.

Utilise coastal mapping to assess need for coastal defences.

Ensure sufficient investment in controls across the PPRR spectrum with a focus on Prevention and Mitigation.

Develop enablers and capacity for Tasmanian earthquake risk owners.

That the Department of Justice & Regulation broadens Budget Paper 3 response time measures to more comprehensively cover emergency responses to fires, rescues and other emergencies.

That the NSW Government commit to and fund a long term program of prescribed burning based on the recommendation of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission of an annual rolling target of a minimum of five per cent of public land per year, and that the NSW Government commit to extending the funding for the National Parks and Wildlife Service five year hazard reduction program past 2016.

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.

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.

Western Australia Health should develop and agree with St John Ambulance a new funding model for emergency ambulance services focusing on standards, performance and allocation of risk

Western Australia Health should collate and centrally monitor financial data including the cost to government of IHPT

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 duplication of infrastructure be costed and taken into account when considering whether to proceed with the Whole of Government network.

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 Government cease drawing from South Australia Police or other Community safety and emergency service budgets to fund the Directorate and instead merge its work and functions with the pre-existing South Australia Fire and Emergency Services Commission for zero total State and other Community safety and emergency service budget impact.

That the Government increase the budgets of all emergency services and community safety organisations, including: i. seeking Federal funding where appropriate (and assisting at no cost volunteer organisations with the grants application process); and ii. considering, with full public and cost benefit analysis, reviewing the effectiveness and efficiency of the Emergency Services Levy; and iii. consider including St John Ambulance Australia SA Ltd in the bodies to benefit from the Emergency services Levy if the funding of other Community Safety and Emergency services providers is improved in line with this recommendation.

That the Government resume funding for the helicopter surveillance service rather than by fixed-wing aircraft along Adelaide, South Coast and other high-risk coastlines during summer recreational periods for monitoring shark and other rescue situations, to bring the State back into line with interstate best practice.

That the Government adequately fund Community Safety and Emergency Services budgets so that fire-bombing aircraft are available on call for rapid deployment throughout Autumn and Spring at short notice to bomb fires at the earliest and safest possible opportunity.

That the Government cease drawing from South Australia Police or other Community safety and emergency service budgets to fund the Directorate and instead merge its work and functions with the pre-existing South Australia Fire and Emergency Services Commission for zero total State and other Community safety and emergency service budget impact.

That the Government increase the budgets of all emergency services and community safety organisations, including:
i. seeking Federal funding where appropriate (and assisting at no cost volunteer organisations with the grants application process); and
ii. considering, with full public and cost benefit analysis, reviewing the effectiveness and efficiency of the Emergency Services Levy; and
iii. consider including St John Ambulance Australia SA Ltd in the bodies to benefit from the Emergency services Levy if the funding of other Community Safety and Emergency services providers is improved in line with this recommendation.

That the State Government contribution towards the construction of Brigade sheds be changed from $10,000 to a maximum of 25 percent, subject to the approval of the Deputy Chief Officer, Rural Fire Service Queensland.

When a local Rural Fire Brigade requests an equipment and maintenance levy from a local government authority, that authority will either supply the brigade’s equipment and maintenance costs or raise the requested levy. The amount to be collected is to be agreed between the local Brigade and the local government authority.

That the current Urban Fire Levy be changed to the Queensland Fire Levy.

That the State Government contribution towards the purchase of operational vehicles is to be retained at 80 percent but that the District Inspector can recommend full Government subsidy of vehicles for Brigades experiencing financial hardship.

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.

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

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

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 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 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 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.

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.

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 relevant authorities work with community service organisations in both planning responses to and responding to extreme weather events, in particular those organisations that provide vital services to vulnerable groups.

The Territory and Municipal Services Directorate should annually (and on a cumulative basis) track and report on funds allocated for, and spent on, its Bushfire Operations Plan to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services.

The Territory and Municipal Services Directorate should enhance internal monitoring of its implementation of bushfire management activities and spending under the Bushfire Operations Plan by routinely reconciling figures in this plan with those in the Directorate’s corporate financial system.

The Ministers for Emergency Services, Environment and Police provide additional funds in the 2013-14 Budget so that the State’s emergency response agencies can implement a Psychological First Aid approach to preparing staff to deal with critical incidents and disasters, as is used in other Australian jurisdictions.

A revised Victoria Flood Management Strategy should identify and assign roles and responsibilities for the management and ongoing maintenance of Victoria’s waterways, for the purposes of flood protection and flood mitigation:
• CMAs are confirmed as the responsible authority for the management and ongoing maintenance of waterways, including vegetation management, for the purposes of flood protection; and
• CMAs will negotiate with landholders, councils and other authorities, and conduct agreed flood mitigation works on the basis of beneficiary pays.

The state government should provide core, ongoing funding to the responsible authority for the FloodSafe community education program. Funding should be provided for education about prevention, response and recovery phases and include information on rates notices about the height of particular floods.

The state government review the current funding approach used for the operation, maintenance and upgrade of river gauges, with a view to improving the river gauge network.

The funding model for works on levees and their ongoing maintenance be revised, to be primarily based on the beneficiary pays principle. The state government should give consideration to wholly funding, or contributing to, the initial upgrade of high priority levees to an agreed standard. The construction of any new public levees will be the subject of a cost‐benefit analysis to be undertaken by DSE and the public authority, and be supported by a floodplain management study. Levees deemed low priority will be wholly the responsibility of the beneficiaries.

Regulators can help to achieve improved outcomes by considering the issues identified by this review

Fire services can improve outcomes by initiating discussions with landfill operators about fire management planning and emphasising the critical importance of water supplies and early intervention

Emergency Management Queensland should develop and implement a new formula for the distribution of its recurrent SES subsidy, which takes into account relevant factors including the size of a local SES contingent and the population, area and natural hazard risk profile of the local government area concerned.

Prepare a formal proposal for the creation of pastoral/Indigenous Lands Fire Management Teams.

Investigate the application and cost of the creation of District Coordination Officers to key high demand brigade districts.

A specialist investigation be conducted, using expertise from NT Treasury, to identify more appropriate ways to optimise the use of available funding for bushfire management.

Identify where Australian Government funding is available and apply for funding for integrating weed management, controlled burning, bushfire management and carbon farming initiatives.

That a cost benefit analysis of an integrated ICT desktop and portable capability including iPads and iPhones for all operational personnel be conducted.

PowerWater Corporation be consulted with the intention of establishing a Memorandum Of Understanding for the maintenance of PowerWater land for the purpose of coordinated fire reduction.

That the concession holder of the rail corridor be approached to formalise a Memorandum of Understanding for the maintenance of the railway corridor for the purposes of fuel load reduction.

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.

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

Review disaster recovery and business continuity plans.

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 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.

As part of the current revision of its contract template for sponsorship agreements, Tourism WA should ensure that:
- Risk management plans are submitted for approval with all relevant agencies and local and state authorities no later than two months prior to a sponsored event being staged.
- Milestone payments should be linked to the strict adherence of this deadline 
- Evidence of approval of the risk management plans by all relevant local and state authorities is provided to Tourism WA by the event organiser.

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.

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.

Funding be sought to enable the State Fire Management Council to take a greater coordination role for bushfire risk management and mitigation.

The Committee recommends the provision of substantial funds to improve road infrastructure in the Mitcham Hills to be spent over the 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 budgets.

that QFRS cover the cost of annual vehicle inspection certificates for rural fire brigade registered vehicles.

that the for Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services ensure that the formula for distribution of funding as recommended above allows rural fire brigades to control any donation or sponsorship funding raised by individual brigades.

that the for Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services undertake a thorough review, including consultation with rural fire brigades, regarding the proposed formula for distribution of funding.

that the for Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services implement system of fire levies for landholders situated in urban, iZone and village brigade areas.

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 State replace the Fire Services Levy with a property-based levy and introduce concessions for low-income earners.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

To improve Centrelink’s preparedness for responding to future disasters, the ANAO recommends that Centrelink include disasters that impact on multiple Areas in its emergency and business continuity test exercise program.

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

That port/channel managers should be able, within the general context of the pricing/cost recovery arrangements established under the Port Services Act 1995 and pricing determinations made by the Essential Services Commission, to recover the reasonable costs of meeting their statutory obligations (as per recommendation 26) through charges for prescribed service applied to port users. 

That emergency services are responsible for funding the development of the emergency services marine emergency response capacity/capability to meet their statutory obligations. 

That port/channel managers are responsible for funding the preparation of marine emergency risk assessments and marine emergency response arrangements and ensuring the availability of identified marine resources in support of response to a marine emergency, to meet their statutory obligations. 

That the Victorian Government establish a five year rolling fund which allows unused prescribed burning monies to be rolled over into future financial years for the purpose of subsequent prescribed burning activities.

That the Victorian Government provide recurring funding for a significant increase in regionally-based, permanent, or long-tenured, fire management personnel dedicated to the prescribed burning program. The increase in personnel should be consistent with the level required to achieve an annual prescribed burning target of 385,000 hectares.
The pool of available personnel should be suitably diverse and possess a wide variety of disciplines and skill sets, including practical skills. The Department of Sustainability and Environment and its partner agencies should also increase the proportion of personnel with specialist tertiary qualifications, including fire behaviour specialists, forest scientists, landscape ecologists and conservation biologists.
The Department of Environment and Sustainability and its partner agencies should also prioritise the development of programs to reduce the level of staff turnover and the problem of the ageing workforce, through more effective succession planning.

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.

That Biosecurity Australia undertake and complete within 12 months a non-regulated but formal import risk analysis relating to the importation of horses from the countries and regions from which Australia currently permits such importation, and make such recommendations for any changes to policies for importation as are warranted by its risk analysis to the officer responsible for the importation of horses and the Executive Director of AQIS.

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.

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.

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 notes that major initiatives relating to climate change adaptation risk assessment and infrastructure are currently in progress. Given that much of Australia’s infrastructure is in the coastal zone and the particular threats facing the coastal zone from climate change, involving significant socioeconomic costs, the Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure there is a comprehensive national assessment of coastal infrastructure vulnerability to inundation from sea level rise and extreme sea level events.

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 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government undertake a study into the human and resourcing needs of local governments to effectively plan for and adapt to the impacts of climate change
- this study be carried out in conjunction with the Australian Local Government Association and the National Sea Change Taskforce

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 coastal based Natural Resource Management bodies seeking funding under the Caring for our Country program have coastal and marine priorities, as well as coastal zone management principles integrated in their management plans.

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 Department of Climate Change, in collaboration with the Queensland Government, CSIRO and Indigenous communities in the Torres Strait, undertake a major study into the vulnerability of the Torres Strait to the impacts of climate change and provide assistance in the development of an adaptation plan.

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.

That consideration be given to the establishment of a ‘Heritage Reserve Fund’ that might underwrite urgent initial repairs to private heritage listed properties.

That the ‘opportunity cost’ for Local Authorities in meeting the 25% contribution to the restoration of eligible public assets damaged by a natural disaster event be considered when FESA and Main Roads Western Australia, in consultation with Western Australian Local Government Authority, investigate a more equitable means of calculating the local government contribution to road and infrastructure restoration costs as recommended in Recommendation 1.

That the Department of Treasury and Finance, in consultation with FESA, consider alternative funding arrangements to alleviate the need for FESA to ‘underwrite’ NDRA costs during the year.

That, in tandem with their consideration of local government cost sharing arrangements under WANDRA (refer Recommendation 1), the Fire and Emergency Services Authority and Main Roads Western Australia also establish ‘exceptional circumstances’ criteria to provide for additional assistance to local government where it may be warranted in order to avoid undue financial pressure caused by delays to secure reimbursement.

That Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia and Main Roads Western Australia, in consultation with the Western Australian Local Government Association, investigate a more equitable means of calculating the local government contribution to road and infrastructure restoration costs. In particular consideration should be given to regulations applying in the eastern states i.e. Queensland.

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

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.

The SA Country Fire Service to analyse the Coroner’s Report into the Wangary Bushfire 2005, and consider the relevant recommendations from this report in the implementation of the Ministerial Bushfire Management Review recommendations.

The SA Country Fire Service investigates the establishment of a Minister’s Bushfire Risk Management Reward Scheme.

We recommend that NSW Health continue with its good work and consider a more structured and systematic approach to the planning and risk assessment of major infectious diseases to assist transparency and decision making.

We recommend that NSW Health continue with its good work and consider building on influenza pandemic preparedness planning to develop broader contingency plans to address the emergence of other new, highly transmissible and/or severe infectious diseases.

That the Department of Primary Industries should provide specific information on levies to contributing producers through a separate document, rather than rely on standard audit documents and annual reporting requirements.

That the Department of Primary Industries continue to pursue improvements to consultation with industry and accountability mechanisms to further build trust between industry and government, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the OJD Program.
The Committee notes that the new governance arrangements for the OJD Program include the appointment of a Fund Administrator. The same requirement will apply to any future disease control program. The Committee is concerned that producers may have been unable to readily access information regarding the expenditure of levies for the OJD Program and other animal health programs, particularly when multiple sources of funding are involved.

The Committee encourages the Department and the Rural Land Protection Boards to discuss the need for funding of poultry surveillance activities in the context of reviewing the Memorandum of Understanding between the two parties.
While some sectors of the industry are concerned with Government’s expectation that primary producers will contribute funds to the management of animal diseases, the Committee considers this is in accordance with the economic principle that the beneficiaries of services should pay for them. The processes for establishing disease control funds require the consultation and commitment of affected producers and have robust accountability processes.

That the Department of Primary Industries restore the level of discretionary testing funds provided to District Veterinarians to previous levels and maintain these in the future in real terms.

That the Department of Primary Industries consider applying discretion to the use of user charging policies for testing in times when farm incomes are affected by external circumstances such as widespread drought.

That the ACT and NSW authorities conduct a comprehensive risk analysis based on the most up to date knowledge relating to fire behaviour and spread in order to establish the degree of risk to each others' jurisdiction from fires ignitting in the other jurisdiction and to ensure that both jurisdictions remain fully informed and participate in risk assessments, the development of suppression strategies, and the development and dissemination of community information messages or warnings

That the ACT Government allocate sufficient funds to enable full-time and volunteer firefighters to participate in relevant courses and programs

That the Emergency Services Agency adopt a more rigorous risk management approach to incident management and prediction – with particular emphasis on the development of improved community information strategies and protocols

That protocols and arrangements between the ACT and NSW require that each jurisdiction be fully involved in examining and planning for the threat posed by any fire likely to affect one or other jurisdiction and in coordinating the response to that fire

The Committee recommends that government consider options for assistance (including cost sharing) for farmers to fence native vegetation areas on private property affected by the Wangary fire.

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.

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 and the States/Territories use the survey templates compiled in each of their jurisdictions during the capability review workshops, and the scenarios to consider their current and future capabilities, to respond to and recover from large scale disasters. 

The working group recommends that a similar project to the Review of Australia's Ability to Respond to and Recover from Catastrophic Disasters be established to consider the longer term consequences of catastrophic disasters and their resulting recovery implications. Key aspects of such a review would include:
• Researching the likely longer term consequences of catastrophic disasters/emergencies,
• Consideration of Australia's capacity from all perspectives to address the long term recovery consequences of a catastrophic disaster/emergency.

The Working Group recommends that in addition to existing disease control and pandemic management plans, States/Territories should consider developing a pandemic emergency management plan that considers the impact of pandemic disease broadly, encompasses all government and private sector agencies and addresses:
• Continuity of government
• Continuity of essential services and lifelines
• Maintenance of community functions
• Continuity of business and commerce.
Where possible, pandemic emergency management planning elements should be built into existing ‘all hazards’ plans and these should also consider those specific elements identified above.

FESA should: in addition to its current initiatives, develop and implement structured programs (with clearly identified objectives, target groups and time lines for achievement) aimed at:
- increasing the level of adoption of AIIMS by local governments and volunteer Bush Fire Brigades
- improving local government bushfire emergency and response planning.

That DPI prepares guidelines, both internally and externally with Treasury, about funding arrangements for an outbreak.

That the State Disaster Management Group supported by the Department of Emergency Services ensures that State-wide a robust disaster risk management process is established that includes the aggregation of relevant information from local, district, functional and threat specific plans to develop a hazard risk profile for Queensland.

To enhance disaster risk management planning processes, it is recommended that the State Disaster Management Group supported by the Department of Emergency Services develop a suitable performance management system to ensure local, district, functional and threat specific Disaster Management Plans are —
• current, accurate and operationally adequate;
• based on appropriate risk identification, analysis and treatment;
• subject to appropriate review, testing, evaluation, and reporting; and
• linked to overall State-wide strategies for Disaster Management.

That DSE assesses the environmental and monetary cost of establishment and rehabilitation of temporary tracks, per 100 km, constructed during firefighting operations, and compare this with the recurrent costs of a program of maintaining existing tracks.

That Government reviews the funding for DSE for the 2004-2005 fire season to ensure that appropriate resources are available for fire prevention planning and preparedness.

That the financial arrangements incorporate full cost recovery for prescribed burning to be undertaken over a number of weekends utilising Project Firefighters, CFA volunteers and MFESB members.

When the research into prescribed burning and optimum fire protection described in Chapter 11, and the financial analysis of appropriate funding levels for prevention and suppression recommended in Chapter 15, are completed, DSE should develop a business case with Department of Treasury and Finance for assured funding to an agreed level over a three-year rolling cycle.

That CFA, DSE and MFESB continue to develop the partnership approach for fire safety with Local Government, industry and communities. 

That the financial models incorporate changes in public land use, particularly ‘Our Forests Our Future’, and the subsequent changes in fire management priorities.

That Government funding for Community Development Officers engaged in community support and rebuilding incorporates flexible resources to enable the purchase of services from a range of providers to ensure choice for those requiring support.

That DSE, with adequate resourcing, moves to a 12-month cycle of fire management to establish and maintain a more appropriate and balanced work program of prevention/mitigation and suppression.

That Government supports the immediate development of financial models to analyse and determine the appropriate level of investment in fire management planning, preparedness and suppression on public land.

That DSE includes the cost of tracks, as above, in the development of financial models to analyse and determine the appropriate level of investment in fire management planning, preparedness and suppression on public land.

That DSE and CFA as part of their long term planning, and in conjunction with the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology, consider ways in which evidence for climate change and El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle impacts on the likelihood of unplanned fire, can be better incorporated into preparedness and response planning.

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 state and territory governments be required to regularly perform risk assessments to the land within their jurisdictions to ensure that bushfire prone areas are accurately identified
and can be appropriately managed. This should include possibly prohibiting, or at least limiting, reticulated development in these areas. If building is effectively prohibited on land previously zoned for residential
or commercial building, state and territory governments, in conjunction with local councils, should adequately compensate the affected landholders.

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 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.

The Committee recommends that an equitable funding system be implemented which relates premiums to:
• Risk covered; and
• Standard of Fire Cover.

The Committee recommends that the Government act urgently to make the existing system of funding the fire services fair and equitable to all Victorians.

The Committee recommends that the Government act urgently to make the existing system of funding the fire services fair and equitable to all Victorians.

That the cost of a Bureau of Emergency Services Telecommunications centre be recovered through user charges.

That the cost of a Bureau of Emergency Services Telecommunications centre be recovered through user charges.

The Committee recommends that any change to the funding system reflect in a reduction of the total price charged to consumers through premiums by the insurance industry.

The Committee recommends that any change to the funding system reflect in a reduction of the total price charged to consumers through premiums by the insurance industry.

The Committee recommends that an equitable funding system be implemented which relates premiums to:
• Risk covered; and
• Standard of Fire Cover.

A fund be established to subsidise the purchase of equipment for bush fire brigades but that the granting of subsidies depend upon a certificate being received from the Bush Fires Board that the brigade in question is of a standard that will be available at all times for effective use and that adequate facilities are available for its storage and maintenance at a centre suitable for the brigade.

It is recommended that an annual grant be made to the Association for distribution among the brigades for the purposes of purchase of equipment of which the brigades are in urgent need.