Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 1:00:48 to 1:05:11
Officials provide updates on the 15% resilient infrastructure scheme for betterment and the establishment of the Disaster Reform Advisory Group to facilitate local government input.
Topics: Infrastructure, Drought and disaster support
Speakers: Dr Jill Charker, Senator Susan McDonald
So Senator, the retention of counter disaster operations and support for cost sharing with that. Um we'll see, as per the Treasurer and the Minister's announcements, um, the same measures that are currently included in counter disaster operations. So CDO is a pretty broad bucket. It includes, for example, but not exhaustively aerial operations, for example, for fire activity, it includes sandbagging for flood activity, it might include evacuation of people, um, it might include clearing pathways for ingress and egress of people's properties or other facilities. It is a really broad bunch of activities which can form part of counter-disaster operations, and the government's indicated that that will be retained.
Okay. So on notice, if you could provide that list of measures, please. Um we had some commentary around the 15 per cent resilient infrastructure scheme or the betterment funding. Um I see it would provide the states and territories with access to additional resilience and betterment funding of up to 15 per cent, which would be cost shared 5050 with the Commonwealth. Um given the discussion paper said the 15 per cent ceiling was the starting point for engagement. Can NEMA clarify where this engagement is currently up to? Is the 15 per cent being reconsidered? And what is the feedback from state and local governments been about the adequacy of the 15%?
So generally, Senator, um the views have been first of all uh welcoming of uh some fairly predictable um standardised way to approach betterment. So one of the challenges with the current system has been that different states and territories have varying levels of access or seek varying levels of access to betterment. Um the proposal for this resilient infrastructure scheme was a way of saying how can we standardize and make a predictable source of betterment expenditure available to all states and territories? That's the the issue we're trying to try to grapple with. Um the question then comes is well what size should that be and how should that money be a portion? Should it be a certain amount of a given asset? So if a bridge were damaged, for example, should it be the amount that it costs to fix that bridge, uh some proportion of that on top, or should it be if a series of assets were damaged in a particular event, bridges, roads, etc., i.e. a program of work, should should that amount be uh some proportion of that cost? Um the initial position put forward in June was as you noted for a 15 per cent amount for an asset for an eligible public asset that was damaged. The feedback that's been received from states and counts states and territories and some councils has been some in some instances 15 per cent is not enough for betterment. In other instances, states sought more flexibility to manage a suite of assets that was damaged rather than betterment for an individual asset. That feedback has been provided to us through all the engagements we've outlined and through the written submissions that we've received, and we're reviewing that, and that will be um a matter for further government consideration.
All right. I'll put some more questions on notice with regard to that. Um I asked you earlier about the disaster reform advisory group with the local councils on notice if you can provide when the group was formed, who it reports to, what councils sit on the advisory group, um in terms of its membership, how is the membership decided? Was there a process for the selection criteria? Uh does it have a terms of reference? Could that be tabled? How often has it met since it was established, and when is its next meeting scheduled? Can minutes for the meetings please be provided? In terms of the time frame, how long will this advisory group be active for? And given the importance of disaster recovery funding reforms, how will the government ensure that councils can have the opportunity to provide input into and are informed of outcomes from the disaster reform advisory group? I want to turn now to the closure of disaster relief Australia.