3. A national approach to road infrastructure resilience

Complexity of road ownership and funding

3.1Efforts to address the impacts of climate change and severe weather events on the road network have highlighted the complexities around road ownership and funding arrangements at the federal, state and territory, and local levels of government.

3.2While the Australian Government invests in new projects, and upgrades and maintenance of existing road infrastructure, primary responsibility for planning lies with the state, territory, and local governments as asset owners and managers of Australia’s road network. Local governments own the majority of the national road network, estimated at approximately 75.3 per cent. State and territory governments own the remaining 24.7 per cent.[1]

3.3The Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA) acknowledged that the principal challenge to raising resilience of the national road network is one of coordination, given the breadth of local government councils and road networks through to broader state and territory networks, underpinned by road ownership, and funding arrangements.[2]

3.4Furthermore, given the dramatic increases in the frequency and intensity of severe weather events over recent years, the DITRDCA stressed the importance of collaboration among stakeholders with road infrastructure responsibilities ‘to manage and alleviate the impacts of climate change on the national road network’. [3]

Road infrastructure investment

Commonwealth investment

3.5The DITRDCA highlighted that the Commonwealth primarily invests in infrastructure projects under the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects (NPA)[4] with state and territory governments, sharing responsibility for the National Land Transport Network (the Network). The Network comprises nationally important road and rail infrastructure links and intermodal connections.[5]

3.6They elaborated that Commonwealth funding of new projects, and upgrades and maintenance of existing road infrastructure within the national road network is principally provided under the NPA’s Infrastructure Investment Program (IIP), with targeted subprogram funding provided under the Roads to Recovery (RTR), Local Roads and Community Infrastructure (LRCI), and Roads of Strategic Importance (ROSI) programs,[6] along with Financial Assistance Grants to local governments.[7]

3.7However, with the expiration of the current NPA on 30 June 2024 and consideration of a new agreement[8], ‘the Commonwealth is repositioning its investment towards nationally significant infrastructure priorities to build the nation’s economic, environmental, and social prosperity’.[9] The DITRDCA noted that:

The Government has committed to an Infrastructure Policy Statement and Project Selection Framework that will articulate the Commonwealth’s infrastructure priorities to support Commonwealth’s commitment to increase transparency of the IIP. This will also aim to underpin the identification, selection and reporting of projects to ensure investment decisions are merit-based and informed by a strong evidence base.[10]

3.8The DITRDCA advised that the framework would provide clearer guidance to councils and state and territory governments on assessment and funding parameters, from a first-principles basis, noting that state and territory governments would potentially apply for funding on behalf of councils for standalone projects.[11]

3.9The Government reviewed longer-term policy arrangements for a range of IIP subprograms as part of its 90-day infrastructure investment pipeline review, including the RTR, the LRCI, the Bridges Renewal Program, and the Road Safety Program. These programs were established on a time-limited basis, with their terms expiring over the next 12 to 24 months.[12]

3.10Announced on 1 May 2023 by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, and Local Government, the Independent Strategic Review of the Infrastructure Investment Program reviewed the Government’s 10-year, $120 billion infrastructure investment pipeline, via a consultation process with all levels of government, aimed at building a sustainable pipeline of investment in nationally significant projects, informed by cost-benefit analyses. The review considered projects not yet committed or under construction and excluded those committed as part of the 2022 election.[13]

3.11On 14 November 2023, the Government announced a new Infrastructure Policy Statement which included the decision to fund nationally significant land transport infrastructure projects on a 50:50 basis with state and territory delivery partners.[14]

3.12The Australian Government has directly implemented Recommendation 7 of the Independent Strategic Review of the Infrastructure Investment Program, which states that:

The Australian Government adopt a policy of 50:50 (Australian Government: State/Territory/Local Government) as the standard funding split for all new projects. The Australian Government will retain the flexibility to apply other funding splits (where supported by evidence), particularly in smaller jurisdictions and remote locations.[15]

3.13The Government is returning to a preference of 50:50 funding splits with the states and territories for future investments, enabling an equal share of both benefits and risks across both Australian and state and territory governments.[16]

3.14The Australian Government may consider funding a greater share of projects in jurisdictions with reduced capacity to raise revenue on a case-by-case basis.[17]

3.15The Committee has not been provided with evidence as to the potential impacts of the change in Commonwealth Government policy on project cost sharing with respect to investments in regional road infrastructure projects or regarding building in resilience to climate and safety in road design into road infrastructure project planning and delivery.

3.16As noted in Chapter One, the Australian Government has increased funding under the Roads to Recovery Program from $500 million to $1 billion per year over the next four years. The funding will increase gradually over the four year period.[18]

3.17Anticipating and mitigating the impacts of climate change through the design and delivery of the Government’s infrastructure investments is central to leveraging value for money and ensuring ongoing safety, productivity, and connectivity of Australians and their communities.

3.18The Australian Government has acted on the Independent Strategic Review recommendations to improve efficiency and flexibility of project deliverables on nationally significant freight routes by creating funding streams for corridors, including the Newell Highway and Bruce Highway, for which states and territories will be able to more flexibly manage project delivery schedules according to their priorities.

3.19The recently released Australian Government’s Infrastructure Policy Statement articulates the Government’s intentions to invest in projects to improve the resilience of critical road and rail corridors.[19]

3.20The Committee is aware that a recently released Final Report on a separate Independent Review of the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects reported that:

A number of States indicated that a 50:50 funding split as a one-size-fits-all approach is not always appropriate. This Review heard strong views that there would be a reduction in the State’s investment in regional infrastructure in the absence of an 80:20 funding split. There may be times when the Commonwealth needs to adjust the funding split and should retain the flexibility to do so. The Commonwealth should ensure appropriate arrangements are in place for the future agreement. This should factor in the effects of the CGC HFE [Commonwealth Grants Commission Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation].[20]

State and territory government investment

3.21As noted above, state and territory governments own and manage 24.7 per cent of the national road network.[21] The jurisdictions rely on partial funding from the Australian Government under the NPA for new capital works, upgrades and maintenance of the state and territory road networks, with urban and metropolitan roads attracting a 50 per cent Australian Government contribution, and rural and regional roads attracting 80 per cent funding for agreed projects.[22]

3.22Evidence referenced state and territory joint funding partnerships with the Australian Government to enhance road network resilience. The Australian Government and New South Wales (NSW) Government Regional Road and Transport Recovery Package (RRTRP) under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements provides funding to reinforce and upgrade state and territory and local transport networks damaged or impacted by the February 2022 floods across northern NSW.[23]

3.23The RRTRP funding is provided in addition to the joint Australian and NSW Governments’ Infrastructure Betterment Fund, which supports the repair and rebuilding of public infrastructure, including roads and bridges, to more resilient standards following extreme bushfire and flood events over recent years.[24]

3.24Similarly, significant investment is provided by both the Australian and Northern Territory (NT) Governments to upgrade the Tanami Road and The Outback Way to ensure vital connectivity and alternative access routes for critical supply chain networks between the NT, Western Australia (WA), and Queensland (QLD).[25]

3.25Additionally, evidence noted state and territory funding support for local governments via grants[26] and state-based programs to address climate event impacts. Transport for NSW drew attention to its various programs, including the joint Australian Government and NSW Government funded Regional and Local Roads Repair Program. The betterment program supports councils to complete urgent road network repairs following the 2022 severe weather events, including flooding and storm damage. Every council in NSW successfully received funding allocations under the program.[27]

3.26The WA Local Government Association (WALGA) advised it works closely with Main Roads WA through the State Road Funds to Local Government Agreement to prioritise state funding for roads of regional significance. However, the WALGA noted that, while this funding assists local government regional road groups to maintain their road infrastructure, it would not be sufficient to cover the significant infrastructure damage caused by the severe floods in the Kimberley region.[28]

3.27Representatives of state and territory governments stressed the significant toll on communities as a consequence of extreme weather events over recent years. Repeated flood, bushfire, storm, and persistent wet weather events have placed increasing stress on both infrastructure and communities. Additionally, geographical challenges, such as distance and remoteness, combined with a predominantly unsealed road network, frequently result in the disconnection and displacement of many Northern Territory communities for extended periods of time following severe weather events.[29]

3.28The Victorian (VIC) Government Department of Transport and Planning stressed the crucial connection between infrastructure resilience and community resilience:

Infrastructure and the connectivity it provides can reduce the impact of disadvantage caused by geographic isolation in the regions, improving access to jobs, education, health care and services through transport. It can also support the needs of regional communities, helping people adapt to change, enhancing their quality of life, and lessening the socio-economic disadvantage experienced by some of Victoria’s most vulnerable communities.[30]

3.29This statement was echoed by other jurisdictions. A common concern was the urgent need to focus investment on enhancing resilience to support community connectivity, including Indigenous communities in remote areas, access to essential services and goods supply, and emergency evacuations.[31]

3.30Further, the NSW Government, referencing the Productivity Commission’s 2015 Inquiry Report into Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements, raised concerns that 97per cent of Australian disaster funding is expended on recovery efforts, with only 3per cent invested towards upfront risk mitigation and resilience measures.[32]

3.31Evidence from the WA Government strongly supported this position, emphasising the extensive flood damage across the Kimberley region and the urgent need to focus on resilience and risk mitigation against future extreme flood events. Main Roads WA stated that:

There really is an understanding now of just replacement not always being the best thing to do, because if your piece of road is washed out and you replace it to the current standard, then the next time you get a flood of the same sort you’re just going to lose it again. This idea of making it more resilient to be able to resist the floods into the future is a big deal. That sort of links in to how we use betterment to make things better. In the past when we’ve lost road we’ve probably put it back as it was and lost it again, and that’s historic around the country. I think there’s now an appetite to do better than that with the resilience.[33]

3.32The Committee heard that while there is an appetite to build resilience at both the Australian Government and state and territory government levels, the lack of national guidance to factor in resilience planning and design in funding proposals often presents a barrier for many agencies.[34]

3.33While appreciative of the Australian Government’s investment in state and territory and local road infrastructure networks, representatives of state and territory governments advocated for Australian Government leadership in planning, prioritisation, and investment in resilience outcomes, including:

• developing national infrastructure resilience guidelines to complement the current development of the national Infrastructure Policy Statement and Project Selection Framework to facilitate more focused project funding assessment[35] and demonstrate resilience as part of funding proposal business cases[36]
• including road and broader transport network resilience as a standing item at Infrastructure and Transport Senior Officials’ Committee meetings and Infrastructure Transport Ministers’ Meetings to enable national collaboration on strategic issues and governance arrangements[37]
• providing priority funding for roads of national significance for logistics and freight supply.[38]

Local government investment

3.34It is at the local government level that the effects of national, state and territory and local road infrastructure policy frameworks are most acutely felt.

3.35Many councils and shires service road infrastructure networks ranging across hundreds to thousands of kilometres of sealed and unsealed roads, with hundreds of bridges, culverts and drains. The local road infrastructure network is extensive, complex, expensive to maintain, repair and upgrade, yet essential to community and industry socio-economic sustainability. The effects of severe weather events can have a devastating impact on road infrastructure assets and communities.

3.36In its evidence to the Committee, the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) put forward several recommendations focussed on greater local government investment, including Australian Government and state/territory collaboration on sustainable road maintenance funding models; creation of climate resilient alternative road corridors that are less susceptible to severe weather events; provision of direct funding distribution mechanisms to councils similar to the Roads to Recovery and Local Community and Roads Infrastructure programs to manage climate corridors; greater upfront investment in building more resilient infrastructure; and support for the ALGA’s Pre-Budget Submission road funding proposals. The ALGA also called for Australian Government leadership in driving trials and uptake of innovative pavement technologies and road construction methods.[39]

3.37The Committee heard that financial sustainability is a very real concern for many local shires and councils. With limited sources of revenue[40], lower ratepayer bases, yet substantially larger road asset networks to manage, local governments are heavily reliant on funding assistance from state and territory and Australian Governments to maintain, repair and upgrade roads.[41]

3.38The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) argued that the disproportionate ratepayer base to road asset ratio has been compounded by the state’s current rate capping environment, an extreme inflationary environment within the construction sector, and a growing gap between asset depreciation and renewal spending.[42] The Rural City of Wangaratta asserted that ‘maintaining roads, bridges and drainage infrastructure at their current standards is almost impossible.’[43]

3.39Evidence showed strong support among local governments for the Australian Government’s RTR program.[44] The Canberra Region Joint Organisation (CRJO) noted that the RTR program’s targeted funding model provides a more effective approach to betterment than competitive grant funding models.[45] Further, the WALGA stressed the RTR program is considered ‘a necessary part of the functioning of a local government’,[46] noting the untied funding arrangement provides local governments flexibility in how they appropriately direct that funding.[47]

3.40While appreciative of the RTR program, the Murrindindi Shire Council stated most councils use the funding solely for maintaining assets to like-for-like conditions, whereas communities now expect higher service levels.[48]

3.41The Rural City of Wangaratta expressed concerns about ongoing funding certainty noting that while the RTR funding was relatively consistent, the ad-hoc nature of ongoing funding across targeted grant programs was uncertain, stating:

To give you some idea of the impact that has: we have a 15-year, long-term financial plan that I’ve actually just reconstructed. That’s for all projects right across council. In any one of those years, we’re looking for at least a quarter of that funding, if not up to half of that funding, to come from external parties. Now, we don’t know if that funding exists.[49]

3.42The Eurobodalla Shire Council noted that, in an environment of increasing road infrastructure workforce and skills shortages, funding certainty to support planned works is critical to attracting and retaining professional engineers, skilled asset managers, and maintenance workers.[50] This is particularly of concern where contractors give priority to private contracts paying higher rates, with forward work program certainty.[51]

3.43The Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley (SWEK) stressed the need for funding certainty to enable the development of a road management system to deliver long-term sustainable outcomes through improved road resiliency for remote and very remote communities.[52]

3.44The SWEK also commented that the Australian Government’s Financial Assistance Grants are inequitably allocated across local governments, with some councils underfunded. Some local governments have called for an urgent review of the road component allocation to account for rate differentials and rate capping.[53]

3.45However, there was also compelling evidence demonstrating effective outcomes using Australian Government, state, and local government funding.

3.46The Committee heard evidence from GrainGrowers WA demonstrating the effectiveness of local government collectives working with the state and Australian Government to deliver larger road upgrade projects. The Wheatbelt Secondary Freight Network is an initiative comprising 42 local governments, jointly funded with the WA and Australian Governments under a five-year rolling program, to improve road freight efficiency across key transport networks. Under the first stage of the program, Moora Shire Council delivered approximately 50 kilometres of high-grade cement stabilised upgrades to freight routes, costing approximately $14.2 million. Stage 2 of the program is due to commence in 2024–25, upgrading a further 50kilometres of freight routes.[54]

3.47Additionally, the Scenic Rim Regional Council (SRRC) noted its reliance on, and appreciation for, Australian Government and Queensland Government grant funding. The Council’s evidence demonstrated efforts to maximise its internal budget and external grant funding to improve road asset resilience, conducting regular vehicle-based video asset condition assessments, developing an innovative gravel specification with locally appropriate materials, and partnering with a university through Australian Government funding to monitor gravel loss and to conduct field research to measure dry and wet weather variation impacts on its road network, monitoring conditions and developing solutions to mitigate impacts. The Council highlighted the potential for local governments to work in partnership with universities and research organisations to trial innovative approaches to resilience.[55]

3.48However, while appreciative of past funding, the SRRC recommended expansion of betterment funding to enable further resilience improvements under disaster recovery funding arrangements.[56]

Impact of freight activity

3.49The SRRC further noted that increased freight movement, vehicle activity and community service level expectations across regional locations has increased demands on road infrastructure and council budgets.[57]

3.50Moreover, many local councils and shires are located within agricultural, forestry, mining, and other industry areas, with local roads forming a critical part of the national transport network, providing connectivity between rural and regional areas and state and territory road networks. The Committee heard that heavy vehicle usage on local government roads that are not fit-for-purpose accelerates deterioration and renders those assets more susceptible to weather events.[58] As the SRRC pointed out:

Most heavy vehicles such as semi-trailers and B-Doubles on a motorway start and end their journey on the local road network, often on roads which were originally used for horse and carts.[59]

3.51The WALGA noted that the freight task has significantly and rapidly increased over recent years, straining road infrastructure capacity and local government budgets in trying to maintain those networks, stating that:

There’s often a lot of focus on what people call the key strategic routes, and that is fair and reasonable, but the reality is that every tonne of that grain starts in a paddock somewhere, so it gets onto those strategic networks through the local government network, and there’s a lot of pressure on that.[60]

3.52Further, the Shire of Cue highlighted the impact of mining activity on unsealed road sections, stating that:

The mining activity is extensive, to such an extent that probably Cue has about 700 trucks a day that go through its town. I’m not talking about a little eight-tonne truck, we’re talking quads…They’re there to do a job, and we appreciate that and we try to help and offer the facilities as much as we can. But the issue comes with having to repair roads after we have significant rains.[61]

3.53While not having an issue with mining activity, the Shire of Meekatharra described the impact of mining trucks on road networks as severe. The Shire of Meekatharra explained that they negotiated voluntary road user agreements with mining companies where possible, to address the damage to the road network.[62]

3.54Similarly, the Committee heard the nation’s transition to renewable energy, including the growth of wind and solar farms and transportation of associated infrastructure, such as wind turbine blades and construction modules, could further impact the integrity of rural and regional road networks. The Mid West Development Commission explained it is working with local governments, industry and Main Roads WA to understand the likely increases in freight load from ports across state and local government roads.[63]

Impacts of weather-related road network disruptions on communities

3.55The Committee also heard evidence from the Rural City of Wangaratta about the mental health impacts of floods and disrupted road networks on the community, with increasing degradation of road conditions and difficulties navigating narrow roads used by heavy vehicles taking its toll on members of the community.[68]

3.56The Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (ARCCECE) stressed that climate risks and hazards will grow over time, with road network impacts, including supply chain disruptions, affecting Australian communities, resulting in ‘social, environment and economic cost and prolonged isolation of small towns and rural settlements’.[69]

3.57The Indigenous Reference Group (IRG) stressed the need for place-based disaster resilience strategies, including broadening road funding criteria to include social benefits to support community connectivity and reduce isolation arising from disrupted road networks.[70]

3.58The IRG held the view that no matter how well a road is constructed, due to geography and climate patterns, it is not possible to completely flood-proof road networks. However, it is important to look at place-based options to reduce the time of isolation experienced by communities.[71] The IRG recommended that the Australian Government:

• incorporate Indigenous knowledge into local, state and national disaster resilience policies
• invest in sustainable road repairs to support resilience improvements
• expand the definition of key freight routes to include access to remote and regional populations
• strengthen alternative road networks, including sealing of substitute access routes, including the Tanami Road between Alice Springs and Halls Creek, to improve connectivity and reduce dependence on single access roads.[72]

Prioritising road resilience investment

Maintenance, upgrades and capital investment

3.59The design lives of roads ranges from 20 to 40 years. Bridges typically have design lives of 100 years. Complex long-term lifecycle management that considers the significance of the road network, infrastructure types and materials, traffic loading trends, and changing climate patterns is essential to enabling resilience and cost effectiveness of road infrastructure networks.[73]

3.60The Committee heard evidence from the Institute of Public Works and Engineering (IPWEA) and Austroads concerning the strong correlation between ongoing, effective maintenance regimes and road asset resilience. The IPWEA and Austroads stressed the importance of balancing capital investment, rebuilds, replacements, and road maintenance as part of asset management financial planning.[74]

3.61Engineers Australia noted that ‘maintenance also needs to be prioritised, as often the resilience of these roads is only as good as the maintenance which is undertaken on them’.[75]

3.62The IPWEA further stressed that ‘renewal is just as essential a component to a resilient Australian economy, as is any investment in new infrastructure built in the future’.[76]

3.63However, Austroads asserted that ‘one of the biggest challenges facing road maintenance activities across Australia is to keep pace with the rapidly expanding network’. Further, most state and territory governments have spending caps on road maintenance expenditures, potentially prioritising capital investment over asset management strategies.[77]

Prioritising state and territory investment

3.64Austroads cited the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport, and Research Economics’ (BITRE) published figures on total road expenditure by level of government and state and territory maintenance expenditure on arterial roads and bridges, indicating that for the 20–year period from 2001–02 to 2020–21:

• federal and local government area (LGA) expenditure remained stable, noting there was no visibility of federal and LGA maintenance expenditure in the data
• state total road spending nearly doubled from around $10 billion in 2001 to $18billion in 2021, likely stemming from capital expenditure
• state arterial road and bridge maintenance expenditure provides a good indication of the maintenance effort, given the majority of major roads are state managed
• states’ aggregated road maintenance expenditure has grown from less than $2billion in 2001 to more than $3 billion in recent years, spiking at nearly $4billion in 2022, accounting for 13 per cent of the total road expenditure across those years.[78]
  65. However, Austroads noted that road maintenance expenditure has not kept pace with the increase in the value of the road network over the past twenty years, which has grown by over 40 per cent.[79]
  66. While the total state government maintenance expenditure has increased since 2001, the maintenance proportion of total road expenditure has not significantly changed from 13.1 per cent in 2001–02 to 13.9 per cent in 2020–21.[80]
  67. A recurring theme throughout the inquiry was the need for upfront investment to improve road infrastructure resilience, principally through investment in upgrades and betterment measures or new assets utilising innovative technologies, citing the long-term benefits in avoided repair and reconstruction costs. The Committee also heard evidence from several state and territory government transport agencies that there were substantial maintenance backlogs:
• the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (QTMR) reported that the estimated value of its Maintenance, Preservation and Operations capital renewal investment of the state-controlled road (SCR) network was $6.098 billion as at 30 June 2022, representing about six per cent of the gross SCR replacement cost of $96.1 billion at 30 June 2022[81]
• Main Roads Western Australia reported a maintenance backlog of around $250million, noting it would take about five to 10 years to complete this work[82]
• Transport for NSW noted the last reported backlog figure was potentially $3.78billion, representing just under five per cent of the asset value, which sits at a reasonable benchmark level[83]
• the NTDIPL reported it currently performs less than one per cent of network rehabilitation each year, noting that three per cent would be the ideal figure to maintain an adequate level of road quality.[84]
  68. The QTMR stressed the importance of balancing both maintenance and new infrastructure and upgrades, maintaining both are equal priorities depending on traffic volume and the strategic significance of the road network:

…some corridors require a significant amount of ongoing maintenance, and there's probably a backlog on some of those corridors. Similarly, where we're building new infrastructure and building that new infrastructure to perhaps a slightly higher standard of pavement design for better resilience, where it's heavily trafficked or it's a major commuter route or a major freight route, that is equally a priority. I think this comes back to the challenge of prioritising investment and the criteria for prioritising investment and getting that balance right. From my perspective, having driven around a fair portion of the state and residing in South East Queensland, in Brisbane, I can see that both types of investment are equally necessary.[85]

Prioritising local government investment

3.69The ALGA’s 2021 National State of the Assets Report indicates that council-managed roads have a replacement cost of over $204billion. Of this total road asset, $17.8 billion was rated as being in poor condition, $16billion was rated as having poor function, and $14.3 billion was rated as having poor capacity. The ALGA argued that systemic underinvestment in the local road network is the predominant cause of flood related asset damage.[86]

3.70Similarly, the WALGA commented that there is frequently a ‘gap between what is calculated as the required renewal investment, based on the expected life of various components of the road, and what’s actually invested in it’. The WALGA asserted that the gap is around $200 million per year in WA, based on a quantitative assessment of the capital asset value being run down and not replaced over time.[87]

3.71The ALGA further stressed that, given maintenance backlogs and worsening weather events, particularly repeat events, local councils are finding it extremely challenging to find the resources to restore and rebuild assets.[88]

3.72The Wollondilly Shire Council stated that:

A deteriorating road network and diminishing maintenance funding has led to reactive asset maintenance rather than a systematic approach. Responsible road management is being able to address issues as they arise, unfortunately this has surpassed proactive asset management that would prevent those issues arising in the first place.[89]

3.73Evidence indicated that the majority of local governments are experiencing significant maintenance backlogs, exacerbated by budget constraints due to the impacts of ongoing weather events on local road networks, the current inflationary environment, rate-capping, and challenges contracting skilled workers. The Rural City of Wangaratta reported its maintenance backlog had increased by 280 per cent since the last financial year, with about 1,500 outstanding work orders, based on the local government reporting framework.[90] Further, funds are being brought forward to cover inflation on capital works projects that will impact in future years’ budgets in the order of millions of dollars.[91]

3.74Additionally, the Committee heard that the Australian Government-State Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements (DRFA) require councils to financially contribute in some circumstances to replace disaster impacted road infrastructure which ‘compounds the effect of bringing money forward from other years’ budgets which then reduces the actual maintenance we can complete on our structures as we move forward’.[92] Further evidence on the DRFA is discussed later in this chapter.

3.75While acknowledging the funding assistance for maintenance and targeted improvements provided by both state and Australian Governments, the Great South Coast Councils argued that ‘this funding is not sufficient to achieve the wholesale uplift in road resiliency needed in many parts of the Great South Coast’.[93]

3.76Similarly, the Shire of Pingelly noted that storms over recent years have created a substantial maintenance backlog as road crews are already stretched beyond their capacity. Added to which, the frequency and intensity of severe weather events calls for higher construction standards for roads, drains, and culverts. Additional funds to improve resilience can only be sourced from alternative mechanisms as raising rates would not cover the cost to restore and upgrade the road network.[94]

3.77When asked if more investment is required in road drainage systems to mitigate flood impacts, rather than in roads themselves, the Yarra Ranges Shire Council agreed there is a need for drainage infrastructure funding, noting that drainage is an essential part of road design and construction, comprising around half of funded allocations.[95]

3.78The Shire of Yalgoo commented on the challenges prioritising maintenance and road rebuilds against enhancing resilience to address climate and heavy vehicle damage:

We effectively bleed a good percentage of the Financial Assistance Grants through maintenance and make-safe for the year or two years until we can reconstruct the road to what it was. We are effectively using that to limp along and make those roads usable in some fashion for mining and other users when it would be much more beneficial to have that and be able to put some of it aside for resilience and bring the road back better than it was, using our own resources, ratepayer resources, to do that as well.[96]

3.79The Western Queensland Alliance of Councils (WQAC) added that the cost of treatments and technologies for enhancing flood resilience are frequently prohibitive for most council budgets given the breadth of their unsealed road networks.[97]

3.80The Benalla Shire Council raised concerns about the impact of persistent wet weather conditions significantly delaying maintenance and repair works restricting safe road grading on unsealed roads to restore driving surface and drainage:

It’s hard to quantify it [maintenance backlog] – but one thing I can assure you of is that it certainly has been exacerbated by the recent flood events in the last 18 months to two years. There’s no doubt. We are really struggling. The amount of water that we’ve had even just this winter compared to what we’ve faced previously is having a significant effect. We actually are struggling to get our graders. I’ve had graders stood down for weeks on end because sending them out there now would create more damage than what we’ve got.[98]

The role of road asset data to inform maintenance investment

3.81The Committee heard about the importance of quantitatively capturing and understanding current road asset conditions and future degradation trends to inform evidence-based investment. The WALGA stated that:

It gives you the ability to go back in two, four or six years to see what is actually happening and to really provide a much more objective basis for the case for whatever the appropriate level of investment in renewal and improvement of the road network should be.[99]

3.82The National Transport Research Organisation (NTRO) emphasised the importance of measuring and understanding the road asset condition to inform evidence-based solutions, including appropriate maintenance schedules to reflect increased climate risk.[100]

3.83Austroads further affirmed the role of asset management data in addressing the current national road maintenance challenges and capturing increasing climate risk in future management and investment activities.[101]

3.84However, Austroads stressed there is currently ‘an absence of consistently used standards for Australian road maintenance data, resulting in data that is often siloed, of poor quality, held in varied disparate systems and collected intermittently’. Consequently, data is not maximised or leveraged to inform investment decisions.[102]

3.85Further, the ALGA 2021 National State of the Assets Report notes that one third of councils do not have a current asset management plan. Of the 67 per cent of councils with asset management plans, only 66 per cent are linked to financial plans.[103]

3.86The IPWEA noted that in many cases asset management plans are in place, but not routinely used to inform consultation and planning of capital acquisitions, or ongoing maintenance, rebuilds or replacements works, directed by risk and annual budgets.[104]

3.87Additionally, the Committee heard evidence that not all councils have the capacity to assess asset conditions to inform asset management plans and maintenance regimes. This is particularly a concern when providing evidence of asset pre-disaster conditions as part of DRFA claims requirements.[105]

3.88The Victorian Greenhouse Alliance (VGA) reported that the costs of road asset survey equipment and modelling software to aid data collection and planning are not within reach of many regional councils. Consequently, reactive repair work, rather than preventive and predictive maintenance is frequently employed, leading to greater deterioration and more expensive works over time. The VGA advocated for a shared approach among local council collectives to acquire equipment, knowledge and skills to enable road asset surveys and mitigate climate risks.[106]

3.89Austroads highlighted its work developing the Road Asset Data Standard (RADS, AP-R6733-22), which aims to standardise road asset data recording and sharing methods across Australia and create harmonised understanding and consistency of data definitions.[107] Details around the RADS, road asset data and infrastructure resilience is explored further in the next chapter.

3.90Further evidence on the role of data in national resilience planning and investment is also discussed later in this chapter.

Disaster recovery funding arrangements

3.91The Committee heard repeatedly and consistently of the need to simplify the claims process and include flexibility around betterment provisions to enhance road resilience under the joint Australian Government and state and territory government DRFA processes.

DRFA program overview

3.92The DRFA, administered by the Australian Government National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), is a cost-sharing funding arrangement between the Australian Government and states and territories, with funding provided to jurisdictions on a reimbursement basis. States and territories may claim expenditure for essential public asset emergency works, immediate reconstruction works and/or essential public asset reconstruction works.[108]

3.93The Australian Government may only provide DRFA funding directly to state and territory governments, not local governments. DRFA assistance for local governments is determined by the states and territories.[109]

3.94Under the DRFA, each state and territory government manages its own disaster funding arrangements with local governments which largely mirror the DRFA. Jurisdictions determine the terms and conditions of expenditure, evidentiary requirements, and funding disbursement to councils and state agencies for activated measures following an eligible event.[110]

3.95The DRFA categorises assistance measures under the following categories which represents a different level and type of support:

1Category A: assistance to individuals to alleviate personal hardship or distress arising as a direct result of a disaster. Category A assistance is provided automatically by the states without requiring approval from the Australian Government.

2Category B: assistance to the state, and/or local governments for the restoration of essential public assets and certain counter-disaster operations. Category B assistance also covers assistance to small businesses, primary producers, not-for-profit organisations and needy individuals through concessional loans, subsidies or grants. Category B assistance is provided automatically by the states without requiring approval from the Australian Government.

3Category C: assistance for severely affected communities, regions or sectors and includes clean-up and recovery grants for small businesses and primary producers and/or the establishment of a Community Recovery Fund. Category C assistance is only made available when the impact of a disaster is severe. It is intended to be in addition to assistance under Categories A and B and is usually considered once the impacts of the disaster on affected communities have been assessed. Category C assistance is requested from the states and requires agreement from the Prime Minister.

4Category D: exceptional circumstances assistance beyond Categories A, B and C. Category D assistance is generally considered once the impact of the disaster has been assessed and specific recovery gaps identified. Category D assistance is requested from the states and requires agreement from the Prime Minister.[111]

3.96In its submission the NEMA elaborated on the assistance that is provided under Category B:

Under Category B, states and territories can claim the cost of restoring damaged essential public assets to at least their pre-disaster standard, which is considered to be the condition of the essential public asset and its level of functionality (or utility) prior to the disaster. The assistance also allows the adoption of alternative approaches to the reconstruction of damaged assets, including approaches to facilitate improvements in disaster resilience. This includes through:

• applying modern building, design, and construction standards
• using contemporary construction methods and materials
• adopting a more appropriate type of asset, rather than like-for-like replacement
• relocating a damaged asset to a more suitable site.[112]
  97. The NEMA added that under Category B, emergency and immediate reconstruction works must be performed within three months of the date the damaged road becomes accessible. The larger construction works to restore essential public assets require longer time periods, with estimated claims required within 12 months of the declared disaster event.[113]
  98. Category D provides for betterment of essential public assets to increase resilience against future hazards. Category D is dependent upon state and territory governments seeking the agreement of the Prime Minister to cost-share the measure. Category D includes restoration or replacement of assets to a significantly improved disaster resilient standard, compared to assets’ pre-disaster standards.[114]
  99. The NEMA stated that currently only the QLD and NSW Governments have accessed DRFA Category D for betterment, following the 2022 east coast floods:

• the joint Australian and QLD Government $170 million Betterment Fund was established for areas in QLD affected by the November 2021 and May 2022 floods
• the joint Australian and NSW Government $312.5 million Regional Road and Transport Recovery Package was established to rebuild and improve damaged roads and transport infrastructure.[115]
  100. The NEMA noted that the Category B cost-sharing ratio is 50:50 between the Australian Government and states and territories up to a threshold which then triggers a 75percent Australian Government reimbursement of state expenditure. However, the NEMA advised the threshold arrangements are complex, and ‘dependent upon the relevant year, the disaster and the costs and impacts of that disaster’. Category D assistance is assessed at the time of the request but is generally based on a 50:50 cost-sharing ratio.[116]

DRFA claiming issues

3.101A recurring theme throughout the inquiry was the lengthy disaster recovery funding assessment and claims processes, placing an administrative burden on local governments, particularly when resources are required for local community disaster recovery efforts.

3.102The Indigo Shire Council noted the arrangements are ‘too complex and too slow and do not permit repairs to be effected in a timely manner’.[117] The Shire of Pingelly called for state government staff to assist councils with assessments and claims applications when council resources are diverted to community recovery.[118] The Northern Grampians Shire Council noted that council capacity following disaster events is further constrained by the three month timeframe to submit claims under Category B for emergency works.[119]

3.103The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) commented that interpreting Australian Government and state government policies and programs is often challenging for councils. The DRFA arrangements, in particular, ‘reflect a decline in an understanding of what the operational realities are’.[120]

3.104The SWEK stated that a claim had only just been completed three years after the event.[121] The Shire of Pingelly added that ‘it is not uncommon for local governments to only receive funding 8–10 years after first applying’.[122]

Burdensome evidentiary requirements

3.105Several submitters commented on the challenges that they faced in meeting the requirements relating to capturing evidence of pre- and post-disaster asset conditions, particularly where claims are submitted for successive disaster events. The Shire of Pingelly argued that gaining photographic evidence of road asset conditions prior to storm events is not realistic and resulted in delayed applications and claim refusals.[123]

3.106The CRJO echoed this concern, adding that, in many cases, the scope of recovery and reconstruction works needed to be redesigned due to subsequent disaster events and repeated damage to the same road assets, further complicating and delaying claims processes.[124]

3.107The SWEK told the Committee of the challenges gaining photographic evidence and subsequent assessment delays in remote areas, explaining:

We have to get contracts, so we get engineers to go out…They photograph it. They video-image it. They break it down into all its component parts and the costs. We can’t even get a blade out on the road before we do that. That might be, say, three to four weeks before they can get out there. Then it’s another four to six weeks in compiling all that data. Then Main Roads [WA] have to check it for validity…DFES [WA Department of Fire and Emergency Services] won’t accept that until it’s been reviewed by Main Roads. So, we can be talking about three months before we get validated data, before I get confirmation that I can even send a grader out just to do emergency work…There are remote communities that absolutely need that road to have access. There’s risk of injury. There’s been a death in the last few days out at the Kalumburu community on the road to their landfill.[125]

Workforce issues and DRFA claims

3.108The Committee heard that the ongoing disaster events had reduced the availability of state government claims assessors, further impacting assessment timeframes. The Rural City of Wangaratta stated there was only one assessor responsible for the north-east of Victoria during an 18-month period when council areas simultaneously experienced disaster events. When asked about the typical timeframes for applications and assessments, the Rural City of Wangaratta explained:

It would take 12 months or so for it to be completed. That’s been shown up as completely inadequate, particularly in the last 18 months. We’re still working on the original disaster declaration that was done in October. We still have roads continually impacted over the time. It’s going to road A, taking some photos of that, sending it off, it not getting assessed in time, going back out to road A because we’ve had another rain event, taking more photos of similar or worse damage, it not being assessed, going back out to road A again – without road A ever getting fixed.[126]

3.109The Towong Shire Council added that road construction workforce shortages, compounded by the lengthy claims processes, added to repair and reconstruction delays, stating they are still waiting to complete works 12 months after a severe weather event.[127] The CRJO noted that ongoing peak workload periods created a ‘significant shortage supply for infrastructure design and delivery, and extreme fatigue within the local workforce during recovery’.[128]

3.110The SWEK elaborated, stating that engaging contractors to fix infrastructure is challenging due to workforce shortages and major challenges associated with remote construction activity which results in extended travel times for workers. They added that engaging contractors is extremely difficult, further magnified by mobilisation costs for plant and equipment.[129]

3.111The Central Desert Regional Council (CDRC) explained that allocation of DRFA funding needs to account for the increased costs of working remotely; mobilisation of contractors to remote communities is upwards of $100,000 to $300,000 to complete works.[130]

3.112When asked about restrictions on the use of council labour to undertake asset restoration following disaster events, the Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) advised that QLD has exemptions to allow councils the use of their day labour, further noting that the 2018 DRFA arrangements allowed local councils the option of using their labour or approaching the market.[131]

3.113The NEMA confirmed that states and territories may claim expenditure for essential public asset emergency works and/or essential public restoration works under the DRFA. Under these arrangements, expenditure includes council employees’ day labour and internal plant and equipment. However, councils may not charge a profit margin to undertake the works.[132]

Impacts on local government economic sustainability

3.114The Committee heard that lengthy assessment and funding approval timeframes were taking a toll on the economic sustainability of local governments. The SWEK noted that the region has experienced four consecutive years of disaster events, requiring disaster recovery funding, stating that where ‘we could get 20 per cent upfront, we’re not getting recoups for periods of six months or longer, and our ratepayer base can’t sustain that’.[133]

3.115Similarly, the WALGA noted that progress payments may take months, therefore even with the 20 per cent upfront payment, local governments ‘at times need to slow construction to avoid running out of cash’.[134]

3.116The Benalla Shire Council stated that small councils cannot afford to commence recovery works before they have received disaster recovery funding approval. Even where funding is received, small councils cannot afford to repair the roads again in six months when affected by subsequent multiple events, given the lengthy funding approval timeframes.[135]

3.117The Mansfield Shire Council argued that difficulties navigating DRFA funding guidelines, particularly between emergency versus reconstruction definitions, raised the risk of councils becoming financially exposed where they have already completed works, but claims are subsequently rejected.[136]

3.118The Shire of Pingelly stated that the ‘timing and result is unconscionable. Larger claims may run to the millions of dollars. A smaller local government like the Shire of Pingelly…cannot carry the cost for any length of time’. The Shire argued that claims should be resolved within a maximum three-month period.[137]

3.119Similarly, the Shire of Yalgoo told the Committee that a three-month assessment timeframe by state governments would be acceptable.[138]

Barriers to betterment

3.120Austroads emphasised the critical need for betterment of road networks and infrastructure, given most long-lived assets have been built to superseded standards. Austroads asserted that upfront investment in resilient infrastructure will deliver longer-term cost savings and support community resilience.[139]

Betterment under Category B

3.121Evidence showed inconsistency in the understanding of the Category B program allowances for some betterment provisions for the repair and reconstruction of assets. While some witnesses stated that Category B allows reconstruction of assets using contemporary design and construction methods, others believed that repairs could only be performed to a pre-disaster standard, or like-for-like replacement.[140]

3.122The Benalla Shire Council noted that disaster recovery funding only allows restoration to an asset’s pre-disaster condition and does not allow for any additional value or resilience.[141] Similarly, the Mitchell Shire Council told the Committee that the current funding model for Category B only allows like-for-like replacement and repair of assets, therefore rendering assets vulnerable to future severe weather events.[142]

3.123Conversely, the Towong Shire Council stated that the current DRFA guidelines only limit, but do not preclude local governments reconstructing infrastructure with a view to resilience. However, the Council called for DRFA funding to be linked to a minimum reconstruction standard that allows for likely future disasters to support incremental improvements.[143]

3.124Evidence also indicated some inconsistency across state governments’ interpretation of the DRFA guidelines. The East Gippsland Shire Council explained it had replaced road segments using disaster recovery funding four times over the preceding 12 months but argued that the funding would have been more appropriately directed to upgrading drainage infrastructure. The Council noted drainage works were not allowed under the state’s interpretation of the guidelines.[144]

3.125Both the NTDIPL and the Victorian Government Department of Transport and Planning held the view that that DRFA Category B arrangements only provide for reconstructing assets to pre-disaster function and current engineering standards, but do not allow for betterment options to improve resilience.[145]

3.126Transport for NSW highlighted the need for improved partnership across all levels of government, noting ongoing challenges experienced due to discrepancies in the understanding and interpretation of eligibility criteria, along with onerous and inflexible processes.[146]

3.127Transport for NSW further called for improved clarity in the guidelines and more flexible, streamlined processes to allow for additional betterment solutions under Category B in circumstances where an improvement in asset functionality is supported by evidence-based engineering assessments. Transport for NSW argued this approach would also reduce the administrative burden on councils applying for separate funding under Category D.[147]

3.128The NEMA agreed there was a misconception around Category B allowances, noting that reconstruction of essential assets is not limited to like-for-like replacement. While a road would need to be impacted by a disaster event, betterment options such as the application of modern design and construction standards, along with updated safety standards and more appropriate types of assets are allowed under CategoryB. The NEMA further clarified that Category D provides for significant betterment works in circumstances where the damage is so significant it requires a broader exceptional package, such as widening or significantly raising a bridge.[148]

Betterment under Category D

3.129The DRFA Category D funding provides for betterment packages to support significant infrastructure works. To date, only Queensland and NSW have activated CategoryD provisions under the DRFA program.[149]

3.130However, the Committee heard compelling evidence to support long-term cost benefits and resilience outcomes from betterment works funded under Category D arrangements. The QRA advised that, since the first Queensland Betterment Fund was established in 2013, over 520 projects across 70 local government areas have been approved. A total of $432 million has been allocated since 2013, with $190million for projects currently underway.[150]

3.131While numerous completed betterment projects had subsequently been impacted by disaster events, from an investment of $137 million, around $391 million has been saved in avoided reconstruction costs.[151] The Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ), citing the QRA’s Betterment Paper, stated that ‘of the 480betterment projects completed at the time of the paper’s writing, 375 have been subsequently impacted a total of 1,016 times across 40 events’ and ‘about 81percent of those projects suffered either no damage or only minor, superficial damage’.[152]

3.132As at 30 June 2023, 26 project submissions valued at approximately $50million have been lodged under the Queensland Betterment Fund, with expected delivery of successful projects by June 2024 in conjunction with the 2021–22 natural disaster events repair program.[153]

3.133Similarly, Transport for NSW has established the Disaster Recovery Improvement Program to aid community recovery through the DRFA arrangements with the Australian Government. The program aligns with betterment and funding process recommendations from the Royal Commission into National Disaster Arrangements Report 2020.[154]

3.134The MAV called for a Victorian betterment fund similar to the Queensland and NSW models. As the MAV explained:

I sit here at the MAV and look at what happened in Queensland and New South Wales in the last six months since the October floods with a degree of jealousy, given the extent of investment, particularly in betterment, in Queensland and New South Wales. The state and local governments seem to come together quite naturally with a high degree of trust to say: ‘We need to build these assets back in a better condition. They need to be able to withstand a changing climate.’ In Victoria we don’t have that, and we’ve been lobbying hard at a state level to get some change in the state program. …Betterment is definitely something that we need to be investing in so that we can make sure that investment doesn’t literally get washed away the next time it floods.[155]

3.135Similarly, the SWEK told the Committee of issues accessing funding for betterment to improve resilience, noting:

The federal government, who supply the funding, would say, ‘We don’t have a problem with that.’ The state government, however, have a different view, so we’re often in conflict with them. …there’s not a lot of thinking about what is a good solution or about the downstream impacts for those communities.[156]

3.136The WALGA told the Committee that feedback they have received indicates that there is uncertainty among states as to whether resilience works will be considered eligible by the Australian Government. The WALGA asserted that the Australian Government needs to take a leadership role in working with states on betterment models, similar to the Queensland Betterment Fund.[157]

3.137The WALGA added that the severe floods at Fitzroy Crossing caught everyone off guard, therefore the important lesson moving forward is to ensure that infrastructure is repaired or replaced with betterment in mind.[158]

3.138The IPWEA noted that the higher up-front costs can be a significant barrier to local governments implementing betterment works. If local governments need to make up the funding shortfall for work that includes betterment, they may opt for the lower-cost option, putting the asset at risk of subsequent damage. Local governments may also opt for a like-for-like option as the approvals process is generally quicker than seeking a betterment solution.[159]

DRFA Review

3.139The Committee noted that the DRFA program is currently under review to address recommendations of the former Council of Australian Governments and the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements. A key element of the DRFA Review is an assessment and development of new national guidelines on Category B and Category D provisions to encourage jurisdictions to build back better and facilitate investment in disaster resilient infrastructure.[160]

3.140The DRFA Review is being undertaken alongside a complementary Independent Review on Commonwealth Disaster Funding which will consider how Australian Government disaster funding and investment in disaster risk reduction, preparedness, response, and recovery can support fit-for-purpose systems and community resilience.[161]

Planning for resilience

3.141Evidence highlighted the need for a more systematic approach to incorporating resilience in infrastructure planning frameworks.

3.142The DITRDCA noted the socio-economic importance of resilient transport infrastructure, stating:

Resilient and effective transport infrastructure is pivotal in delivering sustainable outcomes and infrastructure is key enabler to the broader economy, directly supporting economic activity, increasing employment opportunities, and has a multiplier effect on our national economy.[162]

3.143The DITRDCA elaborated that infrastructure resilience extends to the interdependencies between the national transport network, including road, rail, maritime, and shipping.[163] The BITRE’s Road and Rail Supply Chain Resilience Review – Phase 1 conducted an initial assessment of Australia’s critical road and rail supply chain routes and found that north and central road and rail supply chains were more vulnerable to disruption than southern routes due to climate risks and limited alternative access routes, with flooding posing the highest risks. The Review also suggested that while the national road and rail supply chains are largely resilient, the impact of extreme weather events and the COVID-19 pandemic have raised the need to strengthen future resilience.[164]

3.144When discussing resilience, the Freight and Logistics Council of WA (FLCWA) noted that:

Resilience can be seen in two parts: resilience in terms of the here and now of strengthening the network and also resilience in accommodating not only future events but also the growth that will come with that, that those future events might impact on.[165]

3.145The FLCWA held the view that national economic growth will necessitate strategic road network resilience planning and investment to accommodate greater volumes of transport, including heavier vehicle technologies.[166]

3.146Infrastructure Australia, the Australian Government’s independent advisor on nationally significant investment planning and project priorities, noted that the increasingly interdependent and complex asset and infrastructure networks present further challenges to planning and risk-mitigation. Climate-related risks also pose significant threats to transport infrastructure assets.[167]

3.147Infrastructure Australia further stated that ‘Australia lacks comprehensive resilience strategies for its assets and networks’ and that ‘Australian governments often do not effectively incorporate sustainability or resilience into infrastructure projects’.[168]

3.148The Productivity Commission’s 2015 Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements report also commented on the lack of resilience planning stating that disaster spending is disproportionately focused on recovery, with 97 per cent of disaster funding directed towards recovery, compared to 3 per cent invested in resilience building and risk mitigation planning.[169]

3.149The need for a proactive, holistic, risk-based approach to infrastructure planning and investment was also emphasised in Infrastructure Australia’s Australian Infrastructure Plan 2021, asserting the importance of building:

…community resilience to all hazards by considering systemic risks, interdependencies and vulnerabilities in infrastructure planning and decision-making.[170]

Nationally consistent planning and assessment

3.150In December 2022, the Australian Government released a report of the Independent Review of Infrastructure Australia considering Infrastructure Australia’s role. The review recommended the development of a national planning and assessment framework to support consistency across infrastructure assessments to inform investment priorities.[171] Infrastructure Australia is working with the Australian Government to address the report’s recommendations.[172]

3.151The DITRDCA noted that the Australian Government has committed to an Infrastructure Policy Statement and Project Selection Framework (the Framework) to provide guidance on priority projects for funding. The Framework will complement the Australian Transport and Assessment Planning (ATAP) guidelines. The ATAP guidelines, agreed by all jurisdictions, provide nationally consistent guidance for infrastructure project cost-benefit analyses, including resilience parameters, and modelling over an asset’s lifecycle.[173] The DITRDCA evaluates infrastructure project proposals for funding approval, using the ATAP guidelines and methodologies, including cost-benefit assessments typically based on traffic volumes, annual growth rates, traffic delays, road speeds, avoided diversion costs, and crash reductions.[174]

3.152The IPWEA has emphasised the Australian Government’s role in resilience planning is to:

…ensure a pragmatic approach and framework for decision-makers is followed in the commissioning, planning, design, approval, construction, maintenance, management, operation and decommissioning of road infrastructure.[175]

3.153The IPWEA further stressed the critical need for Australian Government planning and investment to focus on renewal of road assets following disaster events, rather than replacing like-for-like.[176]

Maintenance planning and investment

3.154Witnesses and submitters consistently called for government planning to incorporate measures to address the significant maintenance backlog across the nation (discussed earlier in this chapter). Infrastructure Australia’s Assessment Framework outlines the criteria used to review proposals for inclusion on its Infrastructure Priority List. The Priority List includes investment opportunities aimed at assisting planning and project prioritisation across areas relating to resilience and maintenance, including its National Road Maintenance Backlog,[177]identified as apriority project under the 2022 Priority List.[178]

3.155Roads Australia noted that while the National Road Maintenance Backlog priority project is aimed at reviewing road conditions across Australia to inform investment priorities, there is no clear ownership of the project across government.[179] Infrastructure Australia noted that the Independent Review has identified the Infrastructure Priority List as needing reform.[180]

3.156Roads Australia was of the view that there was a dissonance leading to disjointed investments that fail to adequately plan for or prioritise risk or longer-term objectives.[181]

National resilience planning guidelines

3.157While guidelines such as ATAP are in place, Transport for NSW argued that there are currently no specific state or national resilience guidelines to inform infrastructure planning and investment. Transport for NSW called for national leadership in developing national infrastructure resilience guidelines, recommending that:

…a broader Australian perspective is considered, and ‘Road Infrastructure Resilience’ guidelines are developed through an Austroads project, alongside being given consideration through work underway on the national Infrastructure Policy Statement and Project Selection Framework. This would assist in providing more concerted consideration in project funding.[182]

3.158Transport for NSW highlighted the need for a national approach to support targeted and sustained investment in resilience, noting the Australian Government’s critical supporting role in resilience planning across preparedness and response mechanisms.[183] Transport for NSW cited international disaster research findings that ‘for every $1 invested in risk mitigation, up to $10 is saved in recovery’.[184]

3.159Infrastructure WA noted that while there is support at a national level to factor resilience in investment planning, there are no national guidelines to advise agencies on methodologies, including resilience design, to support such an approach.[185]

3.160Infrastructure WA affirmed the need for holistic strategic planning that considers resilience, calling for the Australian Government to incentivise investment through business cases demonstrating resilience measures.[186] Engineers Australia further supported the need to tie resilience measures to project funding allocation to promote a sustainable road network.[187]

The critical role of data in national resilience planning and investment

3.161Investing in data collection and integration is essential to inform resilience investment decision-making.[188] Understanding the health of an asset or network in terms of its adequacy, condition and capacity is critical to understanding how to plan for infrastructure resilience.[189]

3.162Infrastructure Australia noted however that current data is fragmented, uncoordinated, and inconsistent across jurisdictions. Existing hazard and risk data is mainly based on historical patterns and cannot be relied upon to predict future risks to inform resilience planning and decision making.[190]

3.163Infrastructure Australia emphasised that the current gaps and inconsistencies across hazard, risk and road asset data present significant barriers to informing national resilient infrastructure assessment and investment prioritisation.[191] They added that the actual condition of road assets across the country is not well understood due to significant data gaps, greatly reducing the effectiveness of preventive maintenance and investment planning.[192]

3.164Numerous efforts are currently underway to improve data collection and capability across road asset, freight supply, and natural hazard/disaster risks, notably Infrastructure Australia’s Infrastructure Risk Dashboard; the Australian Government’s Disaster Risk Reduction Package; the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Transport Network Strategic Investment Tool; Austroads’ AusRAP; the National Freight Data Hub; and the NEMA’s Disaster Resilience Star Rating model. These data models assess climate and hazard risks, road network performance, road and rail supply chains and freight movements, road safety risk ratings, road closures in response to hazards, and disaster risk and mitigation options.[193]

3.165Road asset data granularity, consistency, frequency and geographic spread, along with standardised frameworks are needed to support data capability, sharing and integration to inform investment decisions. However, given the disparate data models across all levels of government and industry, methods of collection and storage, and definitions, Infrastructure Australia called for investment in the collection, monitoring and integration of national road asset data to inform investment decisions, including proactive and predictive maintenance strategies.[194]

3.166The BITRE Road and Rail Supply Chain Resilience Review – Phase 1 noted that considerable gaps in the consistency of and accessibility of supply chain data impedes the necessary holistic understanding of the freight network required to support decision-making.[195]

Decision-making under uncertainty

3.167Infrastructure Australia stressed the essential role of hazard and risk data in understanding future disaster risks, which in turn inform road infrastructure asset risk management and mitigation strategies.[196] The BITRE further noted the need for a nationally consistent, long-term understanding of climate risks and scenarios to inform planning and decision-making.[197]

3.168However, referring specifically to climate risk, the ARCCECE warned that:

Specific estimates of physical climate risks must consider uncertainty. Trying to provide certainty may be misleading or economically costly for road users and investors.[198]

3.169As discussed in Chapter 2, the ARCCECE further cautioned that, while observations point to more frequent and intense weather events and would support broad planning for increased risks as part of infrastructure planning, there is currently no capability topredict localised place-based climate trends. The ARCCECE further raised the question of probability, noting that there:

…is a high risk of gross overinvestment in resilience in some regions and a failure to account for uncertainty in extreme events in other locations. That’s a wicked problem for you in designing recommendations…[199]

3.170When asked how investment decisions and adaptive strategies could be progressed given the paucity of long-term climate prediction data, Infrastructure Australia acknowledged the challenges predicting future climate trends, but also argued there was scope to ‘leverage the vast availability of data to better understand the adequacy, condition and capacity of our road networks to improve them’.[200]

Driving resilience – a national conversation

3.171The Committee heard of the need for consultation involving all levels of government to identify measures to improve the sustainability and resilience of the road network in the face of severe weather events. Stakeholders called for leadership from governments in prioritising and funding road network resilience investments.

3.172Transport for NSW recommended a coordinated approach to road resilience through mechanisms including the Infrastructure and Transport Senior Officials’ Committee and the Infrastructure and Transport Ministers’ Meeting.[201]

3.173Similarly, stakeholders consulted as part of the BITRE Road and Rail Supply Chain Resilience Review – Phase 1 expressed the benefits of a national approach to ‘encourage the collective resilience conversation and coordination of action to ensure supply chain resilience is considered holistically across the network’.[202]

New Zealand’s resilience initiatives

3.174New Zealand has experienced unparalleled increases in the severity and frequency of extreme weather events over recent years, notably Cyclone Gabrielle which devastated much of the north island in February 2023. The scale and intensity of events are advancing faster than anticipated, increasing funding and resource pressures. New Zealand is assessing resilience measures to support infrastructure sustainability as part of its long-term recovery plan.[203]

3.175While approximately 90 per cent of the state highway network meets minimum asset condition requirements, there is an increasing at risk portion at around nine per cent that is near or below acceptable standards. Increases in population and heavier vehicle usage, along with an expansion of the state highway network, have exposed the network to further risk.[204]

3.176The New Zealand Government Waka Kotahi Transport Agency (WKTA) acknowledged the limitations of completely weather-proofing its transport infrastructure system against all natural hazard events and is focusing on strengthening resilience planning and climate change adaptation measures, in partnership with councils, communities, iwi/Māori, and government agencies. The WKTA has developed a Resilience Framework focused on four objectives: reduction; readiness; response; and recovery. The framework guides and coordinates climate resilience approaches, including asset management and work prioritisation.[205]

3.177The WKTA has rated around 380 identified natural hazard and climate change-related risks to the transport system and recommended multiple system solutions, including improved maintenance and improvement integration across the four resilience objectives, informing investment priorities.[206]

3.178The WKTA’s scenario development has identified the need for upfront investments and longer-term savings to support both asset and community resilience. However, rather than increasing overall expenditure, investment is focused on addressing strategic weaknesses at critical network locations to support ongoing sustainable asset management and maintenance.[207]

3.179Capital projects, maintenance, and renewal works are based on design standards and guidelines that are updated to accommodate innovative technologies and changing climate trends. Standards reflect design and service demands, for example, the ability of a bridge to withstand a 1 in a 1,000 year earthquake, with assets built to withstand the latest future year climate forecasts, rather than like-for-like renewal.[208]

Committee comment

3.180Australia’s existing road infrastructure funding and planning framework is complex and interrelated. The varying levels of government, separation of road ownership responsibilities, and funding partnerships and programs with varying funding formulas and eligibility criteria serve to emphasise the challenges in addressing climate resilient planning and investment across the nation’s roadnetwork.

3.181Australia needs a comprehensive national road infrastructure planning and investment framework that places resilience at its centre. This means prioritising investments to deliver resilient road asset infrastructure, addressing the current maintenance backlog and prioritising preventive maintenance to support resilience against future climate impacts.

3.182The significant backlog of road maintenance across state and territory and local government networks is of grave concern in light of continued and expected climate change impacts. Many local councils are struggling to keep their roads functional and safe and their communities connected.

3.183The Committee notes that the federal and state and territory governments collaborate through national forums including the Infrastructure and Transport Senior Officials’ Committee, the Infrastructure and Transport Ministers’ Meeting, and the National Emergency Management Ministers’ Meeting.

3.184The Committee also acknowledges that the Australian Government is developing its Infrastructure Policy Statement and Project Selection Framework alongside this inquiry.

3.185However, collaboration between the federal and state and territory governments, and taking into account the local government context, is required to facilitate strengthening the resilience of road networks in the face of climatic risks, including severe weather events. A coordinated national approach will ensure policy responses consider national, rural, regional, and remote road network requirements in broader planning frameworks, complementary to the federal government’s development of its Infrastructure Policy Statement and Project Selection Framework and leading up to the new Federation Funding Agreements Schedule.

3.186The 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.

3.187A national understanding of resilience measures to inform road network asset management at all levels of government will aid targeted and sustained investment in asset maintenance and capital works. The guidelines should include betterment measures to reflect future climate risks, growth in freight task and heavy vehicle technologies and link to Austroads Guides and design standards. The Committee recognises the existing ATAP guidelines used by the Australian Government to assess funding proposals. The Committee suggests that the resilience guidelines link to ATAP guidelines to support business case methodologies and cost-benefit analyses as part of funding assessments and complement the development of the federal government’s national Infrastructure Policy Statement and Project Selection Framework.

3.188The 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.

3.189While much of Financial Assistance Grant funding is directed towards local government maintenance works, given significant maintenance backlogs due to severe weather events and rate-capping environments, the current funding allocation of historical shares may not adequately support asset management in some rural, regional, and remote areas servicing larger road networks.

3.190The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a review into the distribution formula of the Financial Assistance Grants road component.

3.191The significant backlog of road maintenance across state and territory and local government networks has exposed the alarming condition of Australia’s road network. Given the existing maintenance backlog, which is compounded by ongoing severe weather events, it is essential that governments take a strategic approach to deliver resilient road asset infrastructure by prioritising maintenance investment.

3.192The 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.

3.193Federal and state and territory government funding programs to support local government road asset infrastructure works should be reviewed to streamline and coordinate application and approval processes.

3.194The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, as part of the development of aFederation 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.

3.195The 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.

3.196The Committee is cognisant that the provision of disaster funding to local governments is a responsibility of state and territory governments. The Australian Government should work with its counterparts to review assessment and claims processing timeframes under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. Streamlined claims processing and funding disbursement would assist local governments to progress emergency reconstruction works in circumstances where smaller councils cannot afford to commence works without upfront funding.

3.197The 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.

3.198Road asset infrastructure damage and increasingly intense and severe weather events necessitate the construction of more resilient infrastructure to ensure ongoing sustainability. Increased access to betterment provisions for resilient infrastructure builds will assist governments to progress resilience measures to meet ongoing service demands.

3.199The 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.

3.200There is inconsistency across state and territory and local governments around the understanding of betterment provisions under Category B of the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. The Committee supports measures that will assist in peoples’ understanding of resilience improvements that may be implemented under this Category. Clarification between emergency versus reconstruction definitions would also aid local government understanding and lower the risk of claims rejections.

3.201The 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.

3.202The Committee recommends that the Australian Government’s National Emergency Management Agency increase awareness and education around betterment options under Category B Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements.

3.203Infrastructure resilience and disaster preparedness, response, and recovery are interrelated, particularly under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. The Committee is of the view that there must be greater cross-agency collaboration and coordination to facilitate national disaster resilience measures.

3.204The Committee notes these recommendations will inform the current review of the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements program to address recommendations of the former Council of Australian Governments and the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements. The recommendations will also inform the Independent Review of Commonwealth Disaster Funding.

3.205The 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.

3.206Collaboration among local government groups has been identified as an effective means of progressing road project works and a means of sharing data collection and workforce skills among councils with limited resources.

3.207Many local governments have limited resources and experience when negotiating voluntary road user agreements with large international corporations to assist with road asset maintenance costs arising from heavy vehicle damage. State and territory government guidance would aid these negotiations.

3.208Effective implementation of a national approach to road infrastructure resilience requires all jurisdictions working together to mitigate this increasingly significant national issue. The Committee encourages greater collaboration across all jurisdictions.

3.209The 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.

Footnotes

[1]Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA), Submission 22, p. 4.

[2]Mr David Hallinan, Deputy Secretary, Infrastructure Group, DITRDCA, Committee Hansard, 2 May 2023, p.26.

[3]DITRDCA, Submission 22, p. 3.

[4]DITRDCA, Submission 22, p. 6.

[5]DITRDCA, Submission 22, p. 3.

[6]DITRDCA, Submission 22, p. 3.

[7]DITRDCA, Submission 22, p. 6.

[8]Note: The new Commonwealth-state agreement will be a Federation Funding Agreements (FFA) Schedule under the FFA Framework. The Framework replaces the previous National Partnership Agreements. Further information is available at: https://federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/federation-funding-agreements-framework.

[9]DITRDCA, Submission 22, p. 6.

[10]DITRDCA, Submission 22, p. 6.

[11]Mr David Hallinan, DITRDCA, Committee Hansard, 2 May 2023, p. 22.

[12]Mr David Hallinan, DITRDCA, Committee Hansard, 2 May 2023, p. 22–23.

[13]Parliamentary Library, Infrastructure pipeline review: a quick guide, 1 June 2023, www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Quick_Guides/InfrastructurePipeline. Viewed 3 October 2023.

[14]DITRDCA, Infrastructure Policy Statement, 14 November 2023.

[15]DITRDCA, Executive Summary, Independent Strategic Review of the Infrastructure Investment Program, August 2023, p. 8.

[16]DITRDCA, Executive Summary, Independent Strategic Review of the Infrastructure Investment Program, August 2023, p. 8.

[17]DITRDCA, Executive Summary, Independent Strategic Review of the Infrastructure Investment Program, August 2023, p. 8.

[18]Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, ‘Roads to Recovery Program, viewed 30 November 2023, < https://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/about/local-initiatives/roads-recovery-program>

[19]DITRDCA, Infrastructure Policy Statement, 14 November 2023.

[20]DITRDCA, Final Report of the Independent Review of the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects, 16 November 2023, p. 36. Viewed 6 December 2023, <https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/nlt-npa-review-report.pdf>

[21]DITRDCA, Submission 22, p. 4.

[22]ACT Government, Submission 19, p. 5.

[23]NSW Government Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 5.

[24]NSW Government Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 6.

[25]NT Government Department of Infrastructure Planning and Logistics (NTDIPL), Submission 26, p. 8. See also Mr Des Snook, Chief Operating Officer, Main Roads WA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 2.

[26]NTDIPL, Submission 26, p. 2.

[27]NSW Government Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 6.

[28]Ms Karen Chappel, President, WA Local Government Association (WALGA), Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 43

[29]NT Government DIPL, Submission 26, p. 1.

[30]Victorian (VIC) Government Department of Transport and Planning, Submission 67, p. 3.

[31]NTDIPL, Submission 26, p. 4. See also Mr Philip Helberg, Chief Executive Officer, Infrastructure Western Australia, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 2.

[32]NSW Government Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 3.

[33]Mr Des Snook, Main Roads WA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 6.

[34]Mr Owen Thomas, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Infrastructure WA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023,p.6.

[35]NSW Government Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 22–23.

[36]Mr Philip Helberg, Infrastructure WA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 9.

[37]NSW Government Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 22.

[38]Mr Robert Pemble, Executive Director, Civil Services, NT Government, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p.4.

[39]Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), Submission 30, pp. 1–2.

[40]Benalla Rural City Council, Submission 76, p. 1.

[41]Strathbogie Shire Council, Submission 16, p. 1. See also Councillor Andrew Whitehead, Mayor, Towong Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 11; and Councillor, Matt Burnett, Mayor, Gladstone Regional Council, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 28.

[42]Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), Submission 48, p. 4.

[43]Mr Marcus Goonan, Director, Community and Infrastructure, Rural City of Wangaratta, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 2.

[44]Mr Leon Schultz, Director, Infrastructure, Wodonga City Council, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 45. See also Eurobodalla Shire Council, Submission 35, p. 4; and the Canberra Region Joint Organisation (CRJO), Supplementary submission 47.2, p. 1.

[45]CRJO, Supplementary submission 47.2, p. 2.

[46]Ms Karen Chappel, WALGA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 46.

[47]Ms Karen Chappel, WALGA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 45.

[48]Mr Vito Albicini, Director, Assets and Environment, Murrindindi Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 23.

[49]Mr Marcus Goonan, Rural City of Wangaratta, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 6.

[50]Eurobodalla Shire Council, Submission 35, p. 4. See also CRJO, Supplementary submission 47.2, p. 1.

[51]Mr Marcus Goonan, Rural City of Wangaratta, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 5.

[52]Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley (SWEK), Submission 42, p. 3.

[53]Mr Nicholas Kearns, Acting Chief Executive Officer, SWEK, Committee Hansard, 24 August 2023, p. 13. See also Mayor Hearn, Benalla Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 43; and MAV, Submission 48, p. 1.

[54]Mrs Tracy LeFroy, National Policy Group, GrainGrowers WA, Committee Hansard, 10 August 2023, p. 3.

[55]Scenic Rim Regional Council, Submission 58, pp. 2–4.

[56]Scenic Rim Regional Council, Submission 58, p. 2.

[57]Scenic Rim Regional Council, Submission 58, p. 4.

[58]Dr Kelvin Matthews, Shire of Meekatharra, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2023, p. 2. See also Mr Nils Hay, Chief Executive Officer, Mid West Development Commission, Committee Hansard, 10 August 2023, p. 2; and Mrs Tracy LeFroy, GrainGrowers WA, Committee Hansard, 10August 2023, p. 2.

[59]Scenic Rim Regional Council, Submission 58, p. 2.

[60]Mr Ian Duncan, Executive Manager, Infrastructure, WALGA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 44.

[61]Mr Les Price, Deputy Shire President, Shire of Cue, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2023, p. 2.

[62]Dr Kelvin Matthews, Shire of Meekatharra, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2023, p. 2.

[63]Mr Nils Hay, Mid West Development Commission, Committee Hansard, 10 August 2023, pp. 7–8.

[64]Mr Marcus Goonan, Rural City of Wangaratta, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 3.

[65]Ms Rachael Gadd, Director, Infrastructure and Environment, Towong Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 17July 2023, p. 4.

[66]Indigenous Reference Group (IRG), Submission 87, pp. 2-3.

[67]Mr Jonathan McLeod, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Northern Land Council, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 21.

[68]Mr Marcus Goonan, Rural City of Wangaratta, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 3.

[69]The ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (ARCCECE), Submission 24, p. 1.

[70]IRG, Supplementary submission 87.1, p. 2.

[71]Mr Troy Fraser, Chief Executive Officer, IRG, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 18.

[72]IRG, Submission 87, p. 5.

[73]Austroads, Supplementary submission 10.1, p. 2.

[74]Mr Ross Goyne, Chair, Asset Management Committee, Institute of Public Works and Engineering (IPWEA), Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, p. 11. See also Austroads, Supplementary submission 10.1, p. 1.

[75]Engineers Australia, Submission 17, p. 9.

[76]IPWEA, Submission 18, p.10.

[77]Austroads, Supplementary submission 10.1, p. 1.

[78]Austroads, Supplementary submission 10.1, p. 10.

[79]Austroads, Supplementary submission 10.1, p. 1.

[80]Austroads, Supplementary submission 10.1, p. 1.

[81]Queensland Government Department of Transport and Main Roads (QTMR), Submission 101, p. 1.

[82]Mr Brett Belstead, Executive Director, Regional Operations, Main Roads Western Australia, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 8.

[83]Mr Thomas Grosskopf, Executive Director, Network and Assets, Transport for NSW, Committee Hansard, 4July 2023, p. 13.

[84]Mr Robert Pemble, Executive Director, Civil Services, NTDIPL, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 4.

[85]Mr Paul Schmidt, Acting Executive Director, Program Management and Delivery, QTMR, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 5.

[86]ALGA, Submission 30, pp. 1, 3.

[87]Mr Ian Duncan, WALGA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 45.

[88]Councillor Linda Scott, President, Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), Committee Hansard, 30March 2023, p. 3.

[89]Wollondilly Shire Council, Submission 59, p. 2.

[90]Mr Marcus Goonan, Rural City of Wangaratta, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 4.

[91]Mr Marcus Goonan, Rural City of Wangaratta, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 10.

[92]Mr Marcus Goonan, Rural City of Wangaratta, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 2.

[93]Great South Coast Councils, Submission 34, p. 7.

[94]Shire of Pingelly, Submission 12, p. 1.

[95]Mr Kim O’Connor, Manager, Infrastructure Services, Yarra Ranges Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 17July 2023, p. 32.

[96]Mr Ian Holland, Chief Executive Officer, Shire of Yalgoo, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2023, p. 5.

[97]Western Queensland Alliance of Councils, Submission 63, p. 3.

[98]Mr Adrian Gasperoni, Manager, Assets and Infrastructure, Benalla Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 17July 2023, p. 44.

[99]Mr Ian Duncan, WALGA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 44.

[100]National Transport Research Organisation (NTRO), Submission 20, pp. 3, 5.

[101]Austroads, Supplementary submission 10.1, p. 1.

[102]Austroads, Supplementary submission 10.1, p. 3.

[103]ALGA, 2021 National State of the Assets Report, <www.alga.com.au/app/uploads/ALGA_NSotA_Summary Report2021>, p. 14. Viewed 9 October 2023. See also ALGA, Submission 30, p. 1.

[104]Mr Steve Verity, Principal Adviser, Asset Management, IPWEA, Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, p. 14.

[105]Mr Adrian Gasperoni, Benalla Rural City Council, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 37.

[106]Victorian Greenhouse Alliance (VGA), Submission 32, p. 2.

[107]Austroads, Supplementary submission 10.1, p. 1.

[108]National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), Supplementary submission 31.1, pp. 1, 5.

[109]NEMA, Supplementary submission 31.1, pp. 9–10.

[110]NEMA, Supplementary submission 31.1, pp. 6–7.

[111]NEMA, Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements (DRFA), https://nema.gov.au/Disaster-Recovery-Funding-Arrangements-DRFA. Viewed 10 November 2023.

[112]NEMA, Submission 31, p. 4.

[113]Mrs Hannah Wandel, Acting First Assistant Coordinator-General, NEMA, Committee Hansard, 23 March 2023, pp.2–3.

[114]NEMA, Supplementary submission 31.1, p. 12. Note: Australian Government and WA Government DRFA funding has been provided for significant reconstruction works to rebuild the Fitzroy River Bridge, following the Fitzroy River floods. Refer media statement: https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/Cook-Labor-Government/Joint-media-statement---New-Fitzroy-River-Bridge-Launching-into-place-20230907.

[115]NEMA, Supplementary submission 31.1, p. 12.

[116]NEMA, Supplementary submission 31.1, pp. 1–2.

[117]Indigo Shire Council, Submission 92, p. 2. See also Shire of Pingelly, Submission 12, p. 1; Roads Australia, Submission 50, p. 12; Northern Grampians Shire Council, Submission 13, p. 2; Murrindindi Shire Council, Submission 69, p. 4.

[118]Shire of Pingelly, Submission 12, p. 1. See also Northern Grampians Shire Council, Submission 13, p.2.

[119]Northern Grampians Shire Council, Submission 13, p. 2.

[120]Mr Troy Edwards, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 37.

[121]Mr Andrew Dover, Chief Executive Officer, SWEK, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 8.

[122]Shire of Pingelly, Submission 12, p. 1.

[123]Shire of Pingelly, Submission 12, p. 1.

[124]CRJO, Submission 47, p. 4.

[125]Mr Paul Webb, Director, Infrastructure and Strategic Projects, SWEK, Committee Hansard, 24 August 2023, p. 10.

[126]Mr Marcus Goonan, Rural City of Wangaratta, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 7.

[127]Ms Rachael Gadd, Towong Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 4.

[128]CRJO, Submission 47, p. 4.

[129]Mr Nicholas Kearns, SWEK, Committee Hansard, 24 August 2023, pp. 8–9.

[130]Mr Leslie Manda, Chief Executive Officer, Central Desert Regional Council (CDRC) , Committee Hansard, 25August 2023, p. 3.

[131]Mr James Scott, General Manager, Integration and Coordination, Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA), Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 4.

[132]NEMA, Supplementary submission 31.1, p. 5.

[133]Mr Paul Webb, SWEK, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 7.

[134]Ms Karen Chappel, WALGA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 42.

[135]Councillor Bernie Hearn, Mayor, Benalla Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 37.

[136]Ms Melissa Crane, General Manager, Infrastructure and Planning, Mansfield Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 18.

[137]Shire of Pingelly, Submission 12, p. 1.

[138]Mr Ian Holland, Shire of Yalgoo, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2023, p. 6.

[139]Austroads, Submission 10, p. 10.

[140]Indigo Shire Council, Submission 93, p. 2. See also Shire of Pingelly, Submission 12, p. 1; East Gippsland Shire Council, Submission 37, p. 8; Mr Rob Burke, Asset Engineer, Eurobodalla Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 18.

[141]Mr Adrian Gasperoni, Benalla Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 47.

[142]Mr Andrew Dodd, Manager, Operations and Parks, Mitchell Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 22. See also Indigo Shire Council, Submission 93, p. 2; Great South Coast Councils, Submission 34, p. 2; Pingelly Shire Council, Submission 12, p. 1; and Northern Grampians Shire Council, Submission 13, p.2.

[143]Towong Shire Council, Submission 77, p. 2.

[144]East Gippsland Shire Council, Submission 37, p. 8.

[145]NTDIPL, Submission 26, pp. 12–13. See also Victorian Government Department of Transport and Planning, Submission 67, pp. 8–9.

[146]Transport for NSW, Supplementary submission 29.1, p. 5.

[147]Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 21.

[148]Mrs Hannah Wandel, NEMA, Committee Hansard, pp. 3–4.

[149]NEMA, Supplementary submission 31.1, p. 12.

[150]Mr James Scott, QRA, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 2.

[151]Mr James Scott, QRA, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 2.

[152]Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ), Submission 56, p. 1.

[153]QRA, Submission 101, p. 3.

[154]Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 21.

[155]Mr Troy Edwards, MAV, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, pp. 22–23.

[156]Mr Nicholas Kearns, SWEK, Committee Hansard, 24 August 2023, p. 12.

[157]Ms Karen Chappel, WALGA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, pp. 42–43.

[158]Ms Karen Chappel, WALGA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 45.

[159]Mr Ross Goyne, IPWEA, Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, pp. 14–15.

[160]NEMA, Submission 31, p. 5.

[161]Ms Hannah Wandel, NEMA, Committee Hansard, 23 March 2023, p. 2.

[162]DITRDCA, Submission 22, p. 3.

[163]DITRDCA, Submission 22, p. 3.

[164]DITRDCA, Attachment 1 of Submission 22, p. 11.

[165]Mr Drew Gaynor, Executive Officer, Freight and Logistics Council of WA, Inc. (FLCWA), Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 17.

[166]Mr Drew Gaynor, FLCWA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 19.

[167]Infrastructure Australia, Submission 80, p. 3.

[168]Infrastructure Australia, Submission 80, p. 3.

[169]Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 3. Citing Productivity Commission, 2015, Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements. Inquiry Report 74, Canberra.

[170]Infrastructure Australia, Submission 80, p. 7.

[171]Mr Steve Brogan, Acting Chief, Policy and Research, Infrastructure Australia, Committee Hansard, 2 May 2023, p. 17.

[172]Infrastructure Australia, Submission 80, p. 3.

[173]Mr David Hallinan, DITRDCA, Committee Hansard, 2 May 2023, p. 22.

[174]DITRDCA, Submission 22, p. 5.

[175]IPWEA, Submission 18, p. 10.

[176]IPWEA, Submission 18, p. 10.

[177]Infrastructure Australia, Submission 80, p. 7.

[178]Roads Australia, Submission 50, p. 9.

[179]Roads Australia, Submission 50, p. 10.

[180]Mr Steve Brogan, Infrastructure Australia, Committee Hansard, 2 May 2023, p. 19.

[181]Mr Sergio Cinerari, Board Member, Roads Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2023, p. 9.

[182]Transport for NSW, Submission 29, pp. 22–23.

[183]Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 20.

[184]Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 20. Citing Staff Smith M, O’Connell D, Hardisty P, Systematically addressing disaster resilience in Australia could save billions. Ecos. 2016.

[185]Mr Owen Thomas, Infrastructure WA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 6.

[186]Mr Philip Helberg, Chief Executive Officer, Infrastructure WA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 9.

[187]Engineers Australia, Submission 17, p. 9.

[188]Infrastructure Australia, Submission 80, p. 5.

[189]Mr Steve Brogan, Infrastructure Australia, Committee Hansard, 2 May 2023, p. 17.

[190]Infrastructure Australia, Submission 80, p. 5.

[191]Mr Steve Brogan, Infrastructure Australia, Committee Hansard, 2 May 2023, p. 17.

[192]Mr Steve Brogan, Infrastructure Australia, Committee Hansard, 2 May 2023, p. 17.

[193]Infrastructure Australia, Submission 80, p. 6.

[194]Infrastructure Australia, Submission 80, p. 6.

[195]DITRDCA, Attachment 1 to Submission 22, p. 57.

[196]Infrastructure Australia, Submission 80, p. 5.

[197]DITRDCA, Attachment 1 to Submission 22, p. 31.

[198]Professor Andrew Pitman, Centre Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (ARCCECE), Submission 24, p. 3.

[199]Professor Andrew Pitman, ARCCECE, Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, pp. 7–8.

[200]Mr Steve Brogan, Infrastructure Australia, Committee Hansard, 2 May 2023, p. 19.

[201]Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 4.

[202]DITRDCA, Attachment 1 to Submission 22, p. 57.

[203]New Zealand Government Waka Kotahi Transport Agency (WKTA), Submission 68, pp. 1–2.

[204]New Zealand Government WKTA, Submission 68, pp. 1–2.

[205]New Zealand Government WKTA, Submission 68, p. 3.

[206]New Zealand Government WKTA, Submission 68, p. 3.

[207]New Zealand Government WKTA, Submission 68, p. 3.

[208]New Zealand Government WKTA, Submission 68, p. 4.