The National Emergency Management Agency document its consideration of Crisis Arrangements Committee advice on gaps and priorities for whole-of-government exercising, as well as the annual analysis undertaken to review and update the list of identified hazards under AGCMF, to inform the development of the annual national exercise program. This should include ensuring that exercises consider both natural and all-hazard scenarios.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet:
- document a process for annual administrative updates that provides a consistent approach including ensuring appropriate records of engagement and input are maintained; and
- ensure significant issues are documented to be considered in comprehensive reviews of the AGCMF

That the Australian Government regularly monitor against the new Statement of Expectations (refer Recommendation 4.1 and KPIs in Box 7) to ensure the National Climate Service is meeting expectations.

That the Australian Government publish all National Climate Service strategic documents by default to provide transparency on the National Climate Service’s program and timelines for implementation.

That the Australian Government require the National Climate Service to develop and publish a climate services roadmap, describing how to build to a national capability with explicit and ambitious time frames.

That the Australian Government deliver National Climate Risk Assessments through the National Climate Service on a regular program, aligned to the Intergenerational Report.

That the Australian Government establish a mechanism within the National Climate Service to track user experience and satisfaction which gathers user needs and preferences, to guide the development of future products and services.

That the Australian Government task the Climate Change Authority with a regular review of the National Climate Service against the KPIs

The Committee recommends that for each declared event, insurers be required to report the number of unresolved cases after 12 months to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the overarching strategy for resolving these cases. This report should include the total number of outstanding claims and the most common reasons for the delay.

The Committee recommends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission publish quarterly insurer and brand level data on their performance on the metrics recommended in Recommendation 51.

The Committee recommends that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission develop and define key outcomes measures for the consumer experience, including:
- Communication (outcome measures)
o Overall customer satisfaction, such as a customer satisfaction score o Consumer comprehension of communications (random sample)
- Claims processing
o Average time taken to respond to a customer after first making an enquiry or initiating a claim
- Vulnerable customers o Proportion of customers identified as vulnerable (BAU, quarterly)
o Proportion of customers identified as vulnerable (designated events, monthly)
- Internal dispute resolution o Proportion of total cases that involved internal dispute resolution
o Average time taken to resolve internal dispute cases
- External dispute resolution
o Proportion of total cases that were referred to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority
o Success rate at the Australian Financial Complaints Authority
- Cash settlements
o Proportion of resolved cases that are final cash settlements
- Claims acceptance rates
o Percentage of claims acceptedPercentage of claims closed (at key points in time, for example 6 months, 12 months, 18 months)
- General Insurance Code of Practice Compliance Breaches of the General Insurance Code of Practice per thousand claims by clause, insurer, and brand.

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 insurers report case management key performance indicators to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

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

The Commonwealth should use reporting established by the Outcomes Policy to inform requirements associated with international obligations (e.g., the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction).

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 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 embed regular sharing of lessons learnt from program outcomes between state and territory governments, and the Commonwealth, to develop a continuous improvement culture.

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

The National Emergency Management Agency:
a. establishes targets, monitoring and reporting for the time required to complete the assurance and acquittal processes; and
b. develops procedures for finalsing claims when requested information is not provided in the timeframes established under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018 ministerial determination

The Commonwealth together with the States and Territories should identify their shared high-level resilience objectives and develop indicators to monitor national progress in achieving them. The ANRR should also provide annual updates on progress in achieving the objectives.

The ANRR should be a National Cabinet product focused on climate and disaster risk as well as other key resilience risks agreed by the Commonwealth and the jurisdictions.

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 First Secretaries, on behalf of the National Cabinet, should oversee (via a subordinate Deputy Secretaries Group) the development of an annual Australian National Resilience Report (ANRR) that combines the Ministerial Council resilience reporting, existing resilience strategies in jurisdictions and new initiatives.

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).

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

The next iteration of NEMMM’s Five Priorities for Action should be explicit and measurable, bold but achievable and focused on national outcomes, rather than outputs. They should:
- Be formulated in terms such as “By 2026 we will have established…which will have reduced…”, etc.
- Be developed through a process that includes consultations with key stakeholders, including First Nations organisations, civil society, the private sector, foundations, and key entities active in the emergency management space, such as Australian Red Cross and the National Council for Fire and Emergency Services (formerly the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council or AFAC).
- Be highly compelling for each jurisdiction, large and small.
- Directly address our rapidly accelerating disaster risk environment, in which we can anticipate yearly, national-scale disasters with preparedness, response, recovery and resilience occurring simultaneously, year-round.
- Include at the approval stage the initial estimates of the resourcing required to achieve the outcomes and the sources of the funding.

At least once each year, coinciding with the production of the ANRR, the National Cabinet should evaluate progress in bolstering national resilience.

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. 

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 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. 

The ANAO recommends that the Department of Defence take steps to strengthen the priority afforded by Defence units to meeting these reporting requirements.

The committee recommends that in relation to mandatory and confidential reporting, the default position should be that no identifying details should be provided or disclosed. However, if there is a clear risk to safety then the ATSB, CASA and industry representatives should develop a process that contains appropriate checks and balances.

The committee recommends that where a safety action has not been completed before a report being issued that a recommendation should be made. If it has been completed the report should include details of the action, who was involved and how it was resolved.

The committee recommends that the ATSB prepare and release publicly a list of all its identified safety issues and the actions which are being taken or have been taken to address them. The ATSB should indicate its progress in monitoring the actions every 6 months and report every 12 months to Parliament.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) recommends that the Australian Government Reconstruction Inspectorate and the National Disaster Recovery Taskforce seek to maximise the benefits from their value for money review activities by obtaining more timely and comprehensive information on project progress and completion from the Queensland Reconstruction Authority, to enable the preliminary value for money assessments to be finalised based on the scope and cost of works that were actually delivered (rather than estimates).

To strengthen its oversight of Queensland reconstruction progress, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)  recommends that the National Disaster Recovery Taskforce:
(a) monitor revisions to scheduled project completion dates, and raise with the Queensland Reconstruction Authority any issues and anomalies, as appropriate; and
(b) adopt a more pro‐active approach to requesting timely progress and completion reporting documentation from the Queensland Reconstruction Authority according to planned and reported actual completion dates.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) recommends that the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport improve its monitoring of the delivery of the Natural Disaster Recovery Work Plans for Queensland and Victoria by:
(a) seeking from each state the project level data that is required to report to Ministers on reconstruction progress in the manner required by each National Partnership Agreement (or as may otherwise be agreed); and
(b) undertaking analysis of relevant data that has been reported by each state over time to identify significant trends and other matters of importance, and updating this analysis as and when further data is reported.

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 disaster recovery and business continuity plans.

The successful installation of every barrier should be the subject of written verification within and between licensees and rig operators; and should be the subject of explicit reporting to the relevant regulator(s).

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.

Licensees should be subject to an express obligation to inform regulators of problems which arise in the course of installing barriers, even if they consider that well integrity is not thereby compromised. The information should be provided by way of special report, rather than included in a standard reporting document (such as a DDR). The information provided should include risk assessment details.

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.

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.

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.

The ANAO recommends that Centrelink:
(a) develop performance measures against which its business continuity management preparation and response can be regularly monitored and assessed by the Business Continuity, Crisis Management and Security Sub-committee; and
(b) provide reports to the Business Continuity, Crisis Management and Security Sub-committee on the findings and implementation of there commendations of post–implementation review reports on business continuity incidents, including IT-related incidents.

The ANAO recommends that the Business Continuity, Crisis Management and Security Sub committee:
(a) endorse an annual program of scheduled testing for business continuity plans, including relevant Disaster Recovery Plans for all services and systems assessed by the agency as being business critical; and
(b) receive performance reports on the completion and key results of plan testing.

In order to identify key business processes and provide for the regular comparative assessment of Maximum Allowable Outage periods (MAOs), the ANAO recommends that Centrelink:
(a) commission a formal Business Criticality Review of its operations, including National Support Office, Area Offices and its service delivery channels; and
(b) establish a process for the annual review and endorsement of MAOs determined by branches to ensure that they represent a collective view on the relative criticality of the services that Centrelink provides.

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.

The current KPI measures used by the Regulator and industry need to be reassessed and the performance indicators need to be related to the risk profiles of the industry. The industry needs to develop the indicators, which need to be agreed and measured by the industry in discussion with other stakeholders. The KPI's selected should be published in comparison with the worldwide offshore industry and with other industries. NOPSA should continue discussions with Australian Safety and Compensation Council (ASCC) with a view to adopting their goals. 

That the officer responsible for the importation of horses prepare a report to the Executive Director of AQIS that:
(a) identifies (by category) all non-AQIS personnel involved in the importation of horses, including post-arrival quarantine, from countries other than New Zealand
(b) identifies the requirements in respect of biosecurity that AQIS has of those people
(c) identifies the source of those requirements—for example, by import conditions, agreement or understanding, whether formal or informal, with AQIS, and compliance agreement under s. 66B of the Quarantine Act 1908
(d) assesses whether compliance with those requirements can be and is adequately being enforced
(e) recommends measures to be taken to rectify any shortcomings.

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 there be established the position of Inspector General of Horse Importation, the duties of that position being:
(a) to check, by inspection and audit at least once every 30 months, that operations and procedures at each approved pre-export quarantine premises are documented and being complied with
(b) to check, by inspection and audit from time to time at the Inspector General’s discretion, that import conditions covering the period until horses arrive at an airport in Australia are being complied with
(c) to check, by inspection and audit at least once every 30 months, that operations and procedures applying from when horses arrive at an airport in Australia until the completion of post-arrival quarantine are documented and being complied with
(d) to report in writing at least once every 12 months to the Minister responsible for quarantine on the results of such inspections and audits and such other related matters as the Inspector General thinks necessary.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) recommends that, in order to assist management decision making and to inform Parliament about performance, Emergency Management Australia (EMA) develop and report appropriate measures for its key emergency management activities and outcomes.

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 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 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 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 ANAO recommends that, to ensure the outcomes of evaluations are effectively used to enhance the national counter-terrorism arrangements, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet take appropriate measures to ensure:
a) the continuous improvement process for the counter-terrorism arrangements is strengthened and made transparent. Key areas for improvement in this regard include:
• a more strategic approach to the determination of desired outcomes,
• a more strategic and systematic approach to the setting of evaluation objectives and performance information and assessment mechanisms,
• increased analysis of actual performance against objectives, and
• amoresystematicmonitoringandfollow-up of evaluation outcomes and recommendations; and
b) sufficient and skilled resources are assigned to undertake the data management and analysis required.

The ANAO recommends that, to provide better information to contribute to strategic assessments, decisions and reporting, the Attorney-General’s Department, with input and guidance from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet:
a) centrally coordinate and amalgamate the issues and recommendations arising from the various reviews and exercises; and
b) provide strategic analyses of this information.

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 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 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 Department of Transport and Regional Services review its record keeping practices to show the type of emergency for which assistance is provided through the Natural Disaster
Relief Arrangements.