Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 37:49 to 40:51
Officials discuss streamlining evidentiary requirements, standardized recovery packages, and the concept of "betterment" for resilient infrastructure.
Topics: Drought and disaster support, Infrastructure
Speakers: Mr Pat Hetherington, Dr Jill Charker, Senator Susan McDonald, Senator Jana Stewart
I would I would like to hear the officials talk to milestones, dates, commitments, as opposed to further consultation, which, as we know, um, has responded, the councils and states have responded uh unanimously with a rejection of what the government had proposed, which is why the government's had to walk back that 50-50 split, which is my next question. Based on NEMA's disaster management reform discussion paper, and the government's recent decision to abandon the proposed 50-50 cost sharing split with the states and territories. What key reform priorities for the DRFF remain under active consideration and consultation?
Senator, as the as the my colleagues have mentioned already, there are quite a number. So we responded in the first instance to the things that people raised with us the most, the areas of most concern, 50-50 cost-sharing arrangements, can of disaster operations and activation thresholds were the three key areas where people made submissions and raised concerns, and that frankly rightly the government addressed those three areas of concern first and made announcements that you've seen. The remaining areas, as Dr. Charker has started to illustrate, include things like streamlining the process as you appreciate. There are quite a lot of evidentiary requirements associated with the disaster recovery funding arrangements that land with local governments. That's an area that we want to streamline as much as we possibly can. We want to reduce red tape to accelerate the way in which funding arrives and is subsequently assured for local governments and for state governments. That's one area. We're still working through what standardised recovery packages look like. We really want to provide certainty to communities who are experiencing disasters or have experienced a crisis and are in recovery so that they know what's available to them, so that there's no there's no question about whether they can do a thing or not do a thing and whether that will be supported by federal government. So we're still working through that process. There are probably the two big elements, amongst others, which I'll throw to. Dr. Carter.
Yeah, I would just add also the whole issue around betterment, Senator. So when an asset is damaged in a disaster event, sometimes there's a strong case to build it back to a more resilient standard so that when there's future events, it's either less damaged or ideally obviously not damaged. That is an important issue that councils have raised as well as states and territories have raised. There was an initial proposal put on the table back in June about what a possible resilient infrastructure scheme or betterment scheme could look like. We've received again some good feedback across both local and state and territory governments. We're currently working through what some alternatives could be, and we'll continue to do that.
Thank you. I might um Senator McDonald has indicated she's got further questions, but I am going to share the call around and come back to Senator McDonald. Senator Darmanin.