UNSW Sydney Media Release
With climate disasters on the rise, a new report urges governments to rethink housing policy – starting with local leadership, flexible planning, and long-term resilience strategies.
As climate-related disasters become more frequent and severe, a landmark national research inquiry led by UNSW Sydney’s Professor David Sanderson is calling for a fundamental shift in how Australia prepares for and responds to disasters – beginning with housing policy and local government empowerment.
The full report “Housing policy and disaster: better coordinating actors, responses and data”, was released today by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).
Conducted in collaboration with researchers from RMIT and Curtin University, the two-year-long inquiry draws on policy analysis, literature reviews and case studies from seven post-disaster recovery events across four states. It also included insights from community members, government officials, and industry leaders.
Local governments are in the frontline
A central finding of the report is that local government is uniquely positioned to lead disaster resilience efforts but is currently under-resourced, under-supported, and under-recognised in national disaster frameworks.
“Local governments are on the front line when disasters strike. They know their communities best and are often the first to respond and the last to leave,” says Prof. Sanderson, a disaster response and risk reduction expert from UNSW’s Faculty of Arts, Design & Architecture.
“But they can’t do it alone. We need to give them the tools, authority, and data they need to lead effectively. Right now, we have too many top-heavy organisations who only come into contact with communities after a disaster. We need to change that through long-term investment in local leadership, both before and after a disaster.”
A fourth ‘R’ for fesilience
Traditionally responsible for “rates, roads and rubbish,” local governments are now being urged to adopt a fourth ‘R’: resilience.
This expanded role would see local governments take a proactive role in disaster risk reduction – planning for, mitigating, and recovering from disasters with a focus on long-term community wellbeing.
“This resilience remit is about improving local ownership of decisions to manage how disaster affects local communities,” Prof. Sanderson says. “It’s about flipping the structures – more local capacity.
“It’s not just about responding to crises – it’s about preventing them and managing recovery in a way that builds back stronger. The best way to achieve this is through locally owned decision making.”
Better coordination, smarter planning
While bushfire risk has been increasingly integrated into planning policies, the report found that other hazards – like floods and cyclones – remain under-addressed.
Key recommendations include:
- Embedding disaster risk reduction into housing and settlement strategies
- Smarter zoning and building standards
- Flexible planning rules to enable rapid response and recovery.
The report also highlights the need for clear, pre-disaster policies – such as managed retreat, buyback schemes, and temporary housing guidelines – to avoid reactive decision-making in the aftermath of crises.
Better data, better decisions
A major barrier to effective disaster management is the lack of reliable data. In work led by Curtin University’s Dr Francesca Perugia, the Inquiry found that inconsistent data standards, limited availability, and poor quality undermine trust and hinder decision-making.
“Accurate and up-to-date data is crucial for making effective decisions and managing risks,” said Dr Perugia. “We need to develop national data standards and governance systems to ensure that all levels of government can access and trust the information they need.”
Empowering local government
The report stresses that local governments must be given the political authority, financial resources, and technical support to lead disaster resilience efforts.
“Local governments already do the best they can to support their communities,” said Prof. Sanderson. “But they’re overwhelmed and under-resourced. We need to invest in their capacity – not just in crisis response, but in long-term planning and prevention.”
This includes simplifying complex planning processes, clarifying intergovernmental responsibilities, and ensuring that local voices are central to disaster policy development.
Coordinated policy and recovery
The Inquiry also highlights the need for stronger coordination between housing, planning, and emergency management agencies. Currently, fragmented responsibilities and differing risk assessments between agencies hinder effective disaster response.
Key policy recommendations include:
- Make disaster resilience a core planning priority.
- Develop transparent and fair buyback schemes for homes in high-risk areas.
- Treat temporary housing villages as a last resort, with clear plans for post-recovery use.
- Embed “build back better” principles into rebuilding efforts, such as elevating homes above flood levels or using fire-resistant materials.
A call to action for state and federal governments
While local governments are on the front lines, the Inquiry makes clear that all government must step up – investing in local capacity, coordinating data systems, and leading policy reform.
“State, territory and federal governments can invest in better prepared communities and better recovery by building local government political authority and capacity in all aspects of disaster management,” the report states.
The final report, “Inquiry into housing policy and disaster: better coordinating actors, responses and data,” is available at www.ahuri.edu.au.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
A fourth ‘R’ for fesilience
Perhaps UNSW should return their AI Bot to Temu, it’s a dud !
We should look at building bioceramic dome housing. It is water-resistant, fire-resistant, takes only days to assemble, portable and costs kess than half what conventional homes cost.
As it stands, Local Govts are subservient to States. As such, they are prone to idiosyncrasies of state funding, and planning laws. And with both state and local govt political leanings (which can be different). So often such factors work against efficiency and sustainability, and such idiosyncrasies may be constraints depending on regional attributes, including geography, demographics and ability to accommodate, support and maintain further services.
Local Govt already have their ‘statutory’ meetings open to the public, but much is done behind closed doors – increasingly so these days, where meetings are suspended or truncated because of disruption by ‘activists’. The notion of ‘Town Hall Meetings’ is fine, but many factors, including those mentioned (above) are likely to leave gaps between community desires and the ability to deliver.
So the tasks of achieving ‘resilience’, even without the effects of climate change seem to be be prodigious. Not least, the re-framing of laws, procedures and grant schemes.