By Nina O’Brien, Disaster Resilience & Recovery Lead

While every disaster is hard to deal with, responding to a flood in a vast and remote region of Australia has unique complexity.

Right now, parts of Western Queensland are experiencing the biggest flood in more than 50 years. Some places had two years’ rain in just a couple of days. And while rain was much-needed, for many it has turned from a blessing into a curse.

For context, we are talking about nearly 54% of Queensland’s land mass, but with only 1% of the state’s population. In the main, the population of the Local Government Areas (LGA) varies between 266 and 27,836; a modest average of 5,400 people per LGA for the remote and very remote locations. At this stage, it is estimated that for remote and very remote Local Government Areas, nearly 70,000 people in total may be impacted, but they are spread across more than 927727 square kilometres. Yes, that is roughly 2.4 times the size of Victoria, by a southerner’s yardstick.

FRRR Grantees such as Western Queensland Drought Committee Inc. are playing a critical role in the response phase:

We’ve had a lot of people reaching out to either offer support or seek assistance. I have been sharing crucial information with the right parties—whether that’s directing requests for help to those who can provide it, or ensuring that people are aware of resources available to them in the affected areas. The flow of communication has been fast-paced, but necessary, as everyone tries to come together during this crisis.

As the waters recede, the clean-up has begun both on-farm and in the communities that support these vast regions. Many organisations are involved in the immediate relief and recovery phase – federal, state and local government, national response charities, local business operators and community organisations – the coordination of which often becomes complex and exhausting.

Being less visible and less resourced, it is during the medium to long term recovery that we know these communities will especially need support. Local people, government and community organisations will gradually work to return to business as usual, yet be deeply fatigued, emotionally drained and often under-resourced (both in human and financial terms).

As the immense and complex response and recovery process kicks into gear, the deep systemic issues of remote living become apparent – and will remain, long after the initial emotive rush to help. These communities will need our support, now and well into the future.

Having worked with disaster impacted communities in remote Australia, we have observed a few things over the years, which may not be top of mind for those who don’t work in this space day in, day out:

• Disaster has a unique way of shining a light on the real issues – the things long-recognised and tolerated by locals, but the structural inequality due to their geography becomes magnified for all to see.
• The disruption has a profound impact on children, families, school and business communities, and local organisations. An increased focus on ‘just getting by’ can result in less social connection, isolation and decreased wellbeing overall, over many years. It is also not uncommon for families to relocate out of an impacted region due to a downturn in paid work, unmet education needs or opportunities or a lack of suitable housing, leaving fewer volunteers to do the work in already small communities. Many on short-term funded contracts leave, leaving long-term social recovery to local community organisations.
• An increased focus on ‘returning to normal’, coupled with a necessary focus on home and family, often results in reduced time and energy for volunteering in the few, often stretched, local community organisations. These organisations themselves are often also trying to rebuild critical community-owned infrastructure, which is common in remote areas. A temporary shift in funding eligibility is sometimes required so local organisations can pay local people to do the work, so there is less reliance on local volunteers while people get back on their feet.
•  Local economies, many of which are driven by small local business and tourism ventures are highly disrupted and more economically fragile, meaning local people on casual wages have variable income. The simple economics of living in remote areas, where things already cost more than urban or regional locations, makes managing the day to day costs of living even more challenging.
• Freight costs remain higher than many other parts of Australia, at times more than the item itself; restricting access to goods and equipment needed to recover effectively.
• Specialist advice and support is often only available outside the community – leading to long wait times and inevitably higher costs when they are available, as travel costs have to be factored in. This can range from accessing structural engineers to allied health.
•  Housing, often damaged by the disaster, is either unliveable, in short supply, or liveable but with insurance claims not yet resolved. Trades people are typically thin on the ground, meaning lengthy waits for repair, further impacting the health and wellbeing of people.
• Road quality is very variable; sometimes patchy before the floods, now non-existent in some areas, where maintenance and reconstruction cost and logistics massive, further amplifying social and economic isolation.

Looking forward

The points above are just some the issues that FRRR has witnessed as we’ve supported communities long after the immediate response and flurry of activity. We have stood beside and behind disaster-affected regions for more than 25 years, distributing over $76 million for community-led disaster recovery and resilience initiatives in that time. With the help of our partners, since 2017, we have funded 141 projects to the value of over $3.7 million in this region alone, and we need support to do so again.

While flood disasters create serious challenges for remote communities in Australia, informed, considered and collaborative support can significantly aid their recovery and resilience across the disaster cycle. Long-term support is critical to creating vibrant, resilient and sustainable communities that enable our nation to thrive.

If you want to show these remote communities that they aren’t forgotten, please donate to FRRR’s 2025 Disaster Recovery Appeal, and help us to empower the grassroots community groups that underpin these communities.

A quick update: 17 April 2025

As is often the case in disasters, the numbers continue to change on a daily basis and the impact widens.

As at today; Thursday 17 April, here are some updated “Fast Facts” for what this disaster means to remote, rural and regional Australia.

Nationally, 1,902,302 people are potentially impacted across nearly 40 Local Government Areas, in 4 states; QLD, SA, NT and WA, within a vast (conservative) land mass of 1,278,220 km. (That is about 5.6 times the size of Victoria).

For regional and remote* communities, that is:

•  97% of the impacted LGAs,
• 64% of the impacted population, and
• 99.89% of the impacted land mass.

*Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very remote as per the ABS.

We are paying particular attention to the likely recovery needs of remote and very remote people and communities where:

• 106,468 people are potentially impacted, but they are spread across a very vast land mass of 1,178,146 square kilometres.
• 15 small Local Government Areas (LGA), some with populations as small as 266 people (no, that’s not a typo, that’s an entire LGA under 300 people), and some more than 2,000km from their state capital.
• In Summary, and to highlight the unique need in this disaster compared to others: 6% of the potentially impacted population, is spread across 92% of the total land mass.
• Getting the right help, to the right location, to the right person, at the right time, and over an extended recovery time is the challenge in this disaster.

By Natalie Egleton, Chief Executive Officer

According to early reports¹, many people across south-east Queensland and northern NSW believe that the work their communities have done to prepare for future flooding since 2022, made a major, positive difference to how they approached the threat of Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred. Having these systems and processes in place meant many were better equipped and more confident to minimise, mitigate and respond to the extreme weather event. While early recovery has just begun, previous investment in preparedness and resilience-building activities means these communities will also be better able to address the longer-term social, emotional, environmental and economic impacts of the disaster. But addressing these impacts requires more than just money.

Too often, traditional models of recovery fall short in addressing the complex and evolving needs of affected communities. Current disaster funding models are heavily skewed towards built and economic outcomes, with only 12% of Commonwealth disaster funding allocated to social and natural domains since 2018-19². This imbalance must be addressed to achieve sustainable recovery.

According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, rural areas often experience longer emergency response times³ and have higher proportions of vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and those with disabilities. Further, the economic impact of disasters on rural communities can be severe, with many of these regions relying on agriculture, tourism and small business. In terms of disaster, more than 80 percent of these regions have experienced bushfires alone.⁴ Given the number of industries and supply chains that are reliant on these communities, they are clearly the backbone of our nation. Ensuring these communities can thrive beyond recovery is not just a matter of compassion, it is a national imperative.

The current top-down approach to disaster recovery is rigid, making it difficult for local groups to access the necessary resources. FRRR’s recent Black Summer Bushfires, Five Years On report, confirms that a more flexible and community-driven approach yields better results. By allowing communities to define their own needs and priorities, we can ensure that recovery efforts are more effective and sustainable.

Community groups need to be at the centre of the design and development of place-based recovery processes – ones that support collaborative planning and decision-making. The Disaster Resilient: Future Ready program, the latest iteration of which is currently underway in the Burnett Inland in Queensland, is a prime example of how this can work in practice. This program supports local not-for-profits in building capacity and achieving significant social resilience outcomes through flexible, long-term funding, where all those involved come to the table before a disaster.

Recovery support, including funding, needs to be more robust, integrated and adaptive. This requires adopting a holistic perspective that integrates mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery⁵. Immediate relief is crucial, but as recovery takes time, communities need ongoing assistance to rebuild infrastructure, restore services and strengthen social ties. This is where flexible funding becomes essential. It allows for adaptive responses to changing circumstances and ensures that resources are available when communities are ready to use them.

Investing in social capital, enhancing community infrastructure and building local capacity to manage future crises – especially in remote, rural and regional communities – is critical. Research commissioned by the Australian Red Cross and supported by FRRR found that higher social capital in remote areas is equivalent to receiving $3,808 in windfall income annually per person. For a remote community of around 6,770 people, this equates to approximately $25 million.⁶

Pleasingly, the Independent Review of Commonwealth Disaster Funding, also known as the Colvin Review, recently made some practical recommendations to improve disaster funding strategies and the overall recovery framework.⁷

The establishment of a Disaster Management Advisory Council, as recommended by the Colvin Review, would enhance the involvement of the non-government sector in disaster management. This Council should have an action-oriented focus, bridging coordination between philanthropy, government and the corporate sector to leverage different forms of funding and resources. It’s critical however, that in implementing the Colvin Report recommendations, we need streamlined, adaptable and responsive funding processes that can respond to the distinctive needs of disaster-affected communities.

The evolving nature of disasters in Australia demands a corresponding evolution in our approach to recovery. By prioritising social capital, adopting flexible and accessible funding models, and fostering collaboration across sectors, we can build resilient communities that are better prepared for future challenges. Lessons from the Black Summer bushfires and the recommendations of the Colvin Review provide a clear roadmap for this transformation. It is time to act on these insights and ensure that Australia’s disaster response is as robust and resilient as the communities we strive to support.

No single sector of society can solve these complex challenges alone. Cooperation is required between funders, governments and community organisations. By working together, we can reduce funding inequities and streamline support processes. A collaborative approach maximises the impact of available resources and empowers communities to take charge of their own recovery.

---

1. The Conversation, ‘No-one wants to go through this again’: how disaster-stricken residents in northern NSW are preparing for Cyclone Alfred. ↩︎
2. Australian Government National Emergency Management Agency, Independent Review of Commonwealth Disaster Funding ↩︎
3. Australian Government Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Rural and remote health ↩︎
4. Red Cross, 2024 Social Capital Report ↩︎
5. Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience, Australian Emergency Management Handbook ↩︎
6. Red Cross, 2024 Social Capital Report ↩︎
7. Australian Government National Emergency Management Agency, Independent Review of Commonwealth Disaster Funding ↩︎