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

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

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government 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 road asset infrastructure resilience planning and investment frameworks be made a standing item on the Infrastructure and Transport Senior Officials’ Committee meeting agenda.

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

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government 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

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

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

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state, territory and local governments and road agencies, including Austroads and the National Transport Research Organisation, to address existing road asset data gaps by developing a comprehensive understanding of the road networ

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 re

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 ass

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 managem

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government collaborate with state and territory governments, the scientific community, and industry to revise national road infrastructure design and construction standards, allowing for:

The National Emergency Manaement Agency:
a. clearly and accurately presents Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements related information in its Portfolio Budget Statements; and

The National Emergency Management Agency:
a. establishes targets, monitoring and reporting for the time required to complete the assurance and acquittal processes; and

The National Emergency Management Agency establish monitoring and reporting arrangements that demonstrate performance against the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements’ principles.

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water develop a plan to address lessons learned from the Wildlife and Habitat Bushfire Recovery Program.

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water develop a stakeholder engagement plan, including maintaining an up-to-date list of stakeholders, to ensure appropriate engagement in future wildlife and habitat disaster recovery programs.

For future emergency response programs, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water develop requirements for service provider reporting that enables output and outcome data to be compared or aggregated to provide assessment of progress at the program level.

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water implement the guidance on risk management prepared in response to the internal audit recommendation, for all sub-programs within the program.

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water review its procurement processes to ensure that the department keeps adequate documentation of procurement approvals to ensure compliance with the PGPA Act, PGPA Rules, and departmental guidance.

Melbourne Water should review their flood models every five years and update them at least every 10 years and after the occurrence of a major flood.

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 consult with the Bureau of Meteorology to develop rainfall forecasts more frequently than six hours.

Melbourne Water needs to ensure that rainfall runoff and flood models are calibrated to observed flood information.

Melbourne Water should ensure that their rating curves, which represent the relationships between river levels and corresponding river flows, extend also to rare and extreme flood events and have been derived using established bestpractice.

Melbourne Water should take account of the change in land use and projected changes to land use when setting flood levels for planning and development and the application of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.

Melbourne Water should adopt forecasting tools which enable forecasts to be made within a total of no more than 60 minutes.

Melbourne Water should seek the approval of the Minister for Planning to apply interim planning controls designating the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay in locations where flooding occurred, pending the update to the Mid Maribyrnong flood model.

Melbourne Water should use the hydraulic model being developed (expected to become available in April 2024) to determine (and be subjected to independent peer review) the impact of the Flemington Floodwall and the efficacy of the associated downstream compensatory works.

Melbourne Water should investigate how it came to be satisfied with the reduction of the flood levels and finished floor levels at the Rivervue Retirement Village as specified in the endorsed plans dated 2 June 2009.

Melbourne Water should commission an independent expert review and audit of their forecasting system with the aim of identifying areas where forecast accuracy, warning times and model run times could be improved.

Melbourne Water should immediately update the Mid Maribyrnong flood model with a modern two dimensional flood model developed in accordance with Melbourne Water guidelines and use this model to set new design flood levels.

Melbourne Water should have a protocol that enables flood forecasting at intervals at less than two hours when prudent to do so by reason of the responsiveness of the catchment for significant events.

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).

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

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 imple

WALGA recommends that as part of the LEMA Improvement Project a position be established within WALGA to work closely with the DFES SEMC business Unit to pilot new LEMA approaches with LG to ensure:
- LGs are supported in the transition to a new LEMA model;

WALGA recommends that the State Government increase the EM resourcing for LGs who currently lack EM capacity and capability. This includes:
- Expanding the CESM Program to all LGs to provide LGs additional support to fulfil their LEMA requirements.

WALGA recommends the State Government develop a simpler and streamlined State Emergency Management Framework with improved communications, guidance and digital tools for LGs to assist them to meet their LEMA obligations This includes:

WALGA recommends that the SEMC abolish the current one-sizefits all LEMA model template and develop a suite of LEMA guidance material and practical tools. New LEMA guidance and resources should:
- reduce the LEMA administration burden for LGs

WALGA recommends that the State Government develop new LEMA approaches that focus more on building the EM capacity and capability of the LG sector through the provision of training, exercising support and targeted investment rather than compliance. This includes:

Where policy terms are known, or expected, to create bottlenecks or claims handling delays during periods of high claim volumes, insurers should consider how or if the policy terms or associated claims processes can be changed.

The ICA should consider introducing a baseline category as part of the Insurance Event Management Plan to support industry and community preparedness for extreme weather events.

Insurers should improve data capture, modelling and reporting to assist with identifying and mitigating against factors that impact their ability to progress claims in response to a catastrophe, including bottlenecks (e.g. hydrology reports).

Insurers should conduct operational and economic stress testing to identify and understand vulnerabilities within their product portfolio, operations and dependencies on market conditions when responding to catastrophes.

Post event reviews should be completed within 12 months of the initial event and should have clear outcomes, actions and owners to drive areas of identified improvements. Insurers should consider getting an “outside-in” view of performance as part of any review.

Insurers should improve the consistency of the customer experience through decision making, by enhancing governance and quality assurance standards.

ICA data capture To provide greater transparency on the industry’s response to catastrophes, the ICA should develop a data dictionary to enhance industry-wide reporting and investigate the feasibility of extending data capture to other claim outcome measures such as closure rates, quality and com

Standardised guidance should be jointly developed by the insurance industry and government on clean-up processes after a severe weather event.

Insurers should improve the ways they embed a “voice of customer” into their operations, through a customer advocate or alternate means, and take meaningful action to incorporate lessons learned.

Insurers should consider triaging to accelerate claims in a catastrophe, including batching, automating and bulk processing cohorts of claims.

The type and level of relief provided to insurers in an Extraordinary Catastrophe should be considered, as should the consequences for fair and efficient claims handling. This includes:

Onboarding, training and competency frameworks to prepare new hires for claims and complaint handling roles during a catastrophe should be reviewed or established.

Improved coordination between insurers and government is required when access to government disaster funding requires evidence of an insurance claim status.

Communication should be improved through a holistic review and improvement of the customer journey before, during and after catastrophes.

Insurers should review the manual processes that result in bottlenecks during catastrophes, to consider how digitisation or re-engineering would improve claim processing.

Insurers would benefit from an integrated infrastructure that allows them to understand, track and monitor claims, including third-party supplier involvement, to enable improved decision making and better interaction and information provision to customers.

To support customer communication, insurers could consider an app or portal for customers to self-serve information on claim process, status, time to next update, key contact details etc. Further advancements could include the ability to extract claim details for third-parties (e.g.

Advanced technologies Insurers should consider the commercial feasibility of technologies such as machine learning, automation and generative AI to improve handling times and customer experience, particularly in the context of responding to a catastrophe

Insurers should review the effectiveness of the definition, identification and support of vulnerable customers during catastrophes.

An objective definition of an Extraordinary Catastrophe should be developed. This definition should be based on factors such as the type and scale of a weather event, the size of the population impacted and the macroeconomic conditions.

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).

Catastrophe plans should contain sufficient detail on: event declaration protocol, roles and responsibilities, resourcing strategy, communication strategy, logistical management, risk management, staff health and safety measures, reporting and governance to act as a reliable course of action and

Workforce planning functions should be reviewed or bolstered, where necessary, to support better management during catastrophes.

Resourcing models for catastrophes should be diversified to mitigate against risks and dependencies in the labour market and broader economic conditions. Resourcing models should consider more than one channel to increase skilled capacity (e.g.

That an Emergency Relief Subcommittee of the State Disaster Coordination Group and the State Recovery and Resilience Group be established to reflect a strong partnership arrangement to address all aspects of Emergency Relief.

That the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service be appointed as the Chief Executive of the Disaster Management Act 2003.

That the Queensland Police Service undertake a capability assessment of the State Emergency Service, Marine Rescue Queensland, and the broader disaster management sector, for the present and future. This should include a review of the Queensland Disaster Management Training Framework.

That the final composition of the Emergency Relief subcommittee’s inner and outer core membership be a joint responsibility of the Queensland Police Service, the Queensland Reconstruction Authority and the Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, in consulta

That the Disaster Management Act 2003 be amended to reflect the new role and function of the Queensland Disaster Management Committee.

That the term ‘Emergency Supply’ be changed to ‘Emergency Relief’ in the State Disaster Management Plan.

That there should be one State Disaster Management Plan that succinctly describes all of Queensland’s Disaster Management Arrangements, supported by separate sub-plans across the Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery comprehensive model, including Resilience, mirroring the new governanc

That a State Disaster Management Group is established within the Disaster Management Act 2003.

That the Queensland Police Service, Queensland Reconstruction Authority and the Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning develop an Emergency Relief strategy.

That all training associated with the Queensland Disaster Management Training Framework should, wherever possible, identify and utilise pathways to achieve nationally recognised qualifications.

That the roles and Terms of Reference of all current state and national disaster management committees that are non-hazard specific, and that reflect state disaster management arrangements and policy, be tabled at the Reform Implementation Taskforce for discussion and consideration of future repr

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:

That the Disaster Management Act 2003 be amended to establish the position, role and functions of the State Recovery Policy and Planning Coordinator.

That the Reform Implementation Taskforce seeks clarity on all Memoranda of Understanding and agreements that are currently in scope as a result of the proposed Machinery of Government changes.

The Inspector-General of Emergency Management recommends the following action linked to disaster management preparedness messaging:

That documents and plans that support the operationalisation of Queensland’s Disaster Management Arrangements is updated to encourage and enable cross-border disaster management engagement and relationships at officer-level, council to council, and district to district.

That any open Queensland Fire and Emergency Services recommendations made by the Inspector-General of Emergency Management, that are not hazard specific, transition to the Queensland Police Service at a time to be identified by the Reform Implementation Taskforce.

That all Local and District Disaster Management Groups who share a border or borders with other states or Territories conduct collaborative disaster management planning and exercising.

That the Reform Implementation Taskforce determines the most appropriate agency to manage the ongoing whole-of-government coordination of implementation and reporting on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements.

That, in the 2027/28 financial year, the Inspector-General of Emergency Management partner with the Queensland Police Service and Queensland Reconstruction Authority to review the implementation of the Machinery of Government changes, and revised Queensland Disaster Management Arrangements.

That, for the recommendations arising from this review, the Office of the Inspector-General of Emergency Management is involved in consultation prior to the finalisation of the government action plan, to align intended actions with the intent of the recommendations.

That this Review report be returned to the Office of the Inspector-General of Emergency Management to monitor, evaluate and report on progress and implementation of the recommendations that are accepted in whole or in part by government.

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 changes to the ways that ‘resilience’ is reflected in Queensland’s Disaster Management Arrangements:

That the State Disaster Coordination Group revert to a single Chair arrangement (chaired by a Senior Queensland Police Officer), focused on response and the aspect of preparedness for, and resilience in, response.

That a State Recovery and Resilience Group be established and embedded in the Queensland Disaster Management Arrangements alongside the State Disaster Coordination Group, to focus on disaster management functions outside of response.

That, to support the State Recovery and Resilience Group, the Functional Recovery Groups expand their remit to incorporate resilience and be renamed Functional Recovery and Resilience Groups.

That clear lines of reporting be established between any appointed State Recovery Coordinator and the State Recovery Policy and Planning Coordinator.

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 Commonwealth Government should direct the Secretaries Board to ensure the overall coherence and efficiency of the Government’s resilience efforts, spanning both the climate adaptation/disaster risk reduction and the national security domains.

ANZEMC’s Terms of Reference should be amended to reflect the recommendations above.

The Commonwealth should allocate a significant program budget to the Ministerial Council to enable effective implementation of its five national priorities for action.

The Commonwealth should identify the longer-term resourcing and organisational requirements to build coordination capacity for relief and early recovery.

NEMA with CCOSC should investigate ways to better integrate and align CCOSC and the NRSC with the national coordination capacity.