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

That the Australian Government 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 continue to fund community level mitigation, ensuring at least $200 million per year ongoing.

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 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 a more flexible approach to post-flood grant arrangements, to expand eligibility to include some insured people, including:
- The Australian and state governments, in consultation with local governments and the insurance industry, make design, implementation and communication improvements to recovery programs to avoid future delays due to unanticipated or poorly managed interactions with insurance claims processes.
- The Australian and state governments review eligibility criteria for recovery programs, including grants, to ensure they are fit for purpose. This should include consideration of extending support currently restricted to uninsured people to include some insured people, where justified by local and individual circumstances.
- The Australian Government investigate the advantages and risks of enabling access to the Home Equity Access Scheme for resilience improvements by people who cannot access or afford flood cover.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to work with the states and territories through National Cabinet to ensure that disaster and resilience funding, and non-financial support, are accessible and adequate for all councils, particularly smaller councils. The Committee recommends that the Government work with the states and territories through National Cabinet to ensure more disaster support can be triggered at the sub-Local Government Area level when needed.

The Committee recommends that a climate financing framework be developed in relation to government mitigation and adaptation funding. That this framework create the appropriate incentives for both public sector and private sector investment in mitigation and more resilient buildings and infrastructure. This would include:
- Rigorous project evaluation and prioritisation, including cost benefit analysis and the incorporation of climate modelling.
- Strong project governance including reporting, monitoring and evaluation.
- Post-project price monitoring where appropriate.
- The development of resilience financing where feasible and appropriate.
- The exploration of public-private partnerships to coinvest in new or upgraded infrastructure.

The Committee recommends that the General Insurance Code of Practice provide that final cash settlements:
- Be provided in a template form that is standardised across all insurers. The template should include a clear itemisation of all key elements of the total sum. The template be designed with input from peak consumer organisations and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
- Should include actionable, comprehensive, and transparent quotes.
- Should clearly identify compensation for unforeseen risks and project management risk (as identified in Recommendation 9).

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

The Commonwealth should 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Commonwealth should require state and territory governments to complete complementary disaster risk assessments to inform the Risk Profile and guide priority areas for Commonwealth investment and support. Where they exist, climate risk or adaptation profiles developed at local, state and Commonwealth levels should be used to inform the Risk Profile.

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

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

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

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

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 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 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 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 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).

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

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

The 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 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 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, 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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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 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’. 

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

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

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

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 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 create simpler Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements application processes. 

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.

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.

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.

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

Review disaster recovery and business continuity plans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Committee recommends that the Australian 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 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. 

Decision‐making about well control issues should be professionalised. Industry participants must recognise that decision‐makers owe independent duties to the public, not just their employer or principal, in relation to well control. Risk management in the context of well control needs to be understood as an ethical/professional duty. Self‐regulation contemplates self‐regulation by the industry, not just by individual licensees and operators.

Removal of a barrier must be the subject of consultation between licensees and rig operators prior to removal. A proper risk assessment should be carried out and agreed upon, and documented in writing before removal. Joint written certification as to the appropriateness of removal should take place before removal. Senior onshore representatives of stakeholder entities should be involved in that certification process.

The use/type of barriers (including any change requests relating thereto) must be the subject of consultation between licensees and rig operators prior to installation. A proper risk assessment should be carried out, agreed upon, and documented in writing before installation. Joint written certification as to the appropriateness of the use of particular barriers should take place before installation. Senior onshore representatives of stakeholder entities should be involved in that certification process.

Problems which arise in the course of installing barriers must be the subject of consultation between licensees, rig operators, and contractors (if used). A proper risk assessment should then be carried out and remedial steps (including further testing/verification) should be agreed upon, and documented in writing before the performance of remedial work whenever practicable. Joint written certification as to resolution of the problem should take place before resumption of drilling operations. Senior onshore representatives of stakeholder entities should be involved in that certification process.

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

The 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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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

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

The Committee recommends that the 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.

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 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.

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

The Committee recommends that:
- the 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:
- 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 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 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.

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

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

The Committee recommends that 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 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.