Publications

The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements (RCNNDA) was established on 20 February 2020 to examine natural disaster management arrangements and the legal framework for Federal Government involvement in responding to national emergencies. The Queensland Government actively and fully participated in the RCNNDA, providing eight state witnesses over nine days and almost 30,000 pages of material.

The RCNNDA final report, which was tabled in Federal Parliament on 30 October 2020, acknowledged the many positive unique features of the well-tested Queensland Disaster Management Arrangements, including the recovery leadership taken by the Queensland Reconstruction Authority and improvements delivered through the independent Inspector-General Emergency Management.

After comprehensive consideration of many complex and difficult issues, the RCNNDA final report made 80 recommendations focused on improvements to national preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery. The Queensland Government subsequently supported or supported in-principle 69 recommendations that were directed at state and territory governments, or require involvement from state and territory governments, with the exception of recommendation 21.2 (a single national approach to fundraising laws) which was 'noted'.

Implementation of RCNNDA recommendations is ongoing and the Queensland Government continues to work closely with our partners in government and non-government agencies to improve outcomes for Queenslanders and Australians when it comes to preparing for, responding to, and recovering from natural disasters.

The Queensland Government released its sixth progress report on 24 September 2024, with 42 recommendations now delivered.

Many of the recommendations require national collaboration on complex, long-term projects, such as operational communications and national interoperability, all-hazard warnings, disaster risk information and data sharing. Queensland is working with the Australian, state and territory governments through national working groups and the National Emergency Management Ministers Meeting to deliver these reforms.

Queensland Government Response to the RCNNDA (PDF, 313 KB)

Queensland Government Implementation Progress Report 2021 (PDF, 322 KB)

Queensland Government's Second Implementation Progress Report - May 2022 (PDF, 364 KB)

Queensland Government's Third Implementation Progress Report - November 2022 (PDF, 149 KB)

Queensland Government's Fourth Implementation Progress Report - July 2023

Queensland Government's Fifth Implementation Progress Report - January 2024

Queensland Government’s Sixth Implementation Progress Report – July 2024

Disaster Management Reviews

From November 2014 through to May 2015 Queensland endured several significant weather events – including Severe Tropical Cyclone Marcia, Tropical Cyclones Nathan and Lam, as well as their devastating effects such as the related flooding in the Callide Valley.

Five key government agencies undertook six evaluations seeking to improve disaster responses.

Additionally, the Inspector-General, Emergency Management (IGEM), a role established in 2013 to provide assurance of public safety in the area of disaster and emergency management, undertook a further five reviews. These reviews and their recommendations are available on the IGEM Reviews and Reports page.

These evaluations resulted in 160 recommendations and of these recommendations, 103 (65%) have already been delivered and as a result, Queensland was well placed to respond swiftly to recent disaster events. Improvements include:

A new Immediate Hardship Assistance—Essential Services grant, for people who have lost one or more essential services, such as power, for more than five days. A $150 grant is available per person or up to $750 for a family of five or more.
An online grants portal for people experiencing immediate personal hardship following a disaster, is currently in development. This will allow people who have been impacted by a disaster to apply, be assessed and receive payments direct to their bank account without having to queue for hours at a recovery centre.
A revision of roles and responsibilities, with Queensland Reconstruction Authority now coordinating whole-of-government disaster recovery, resilience and mitigation policy including flood risk management.
The creation of a standing state recovery coordination role, to be filled by an existing senior executive officer. This role will facilitate better coordination of recovery planning and preparations across the range of agencies involved in the long term recovery of individuals and communities impacted by disasters.

Remaining recommendations will be progressively implemented over the coming months, taking note of lessons learned from Severe Tropical Cyclone Debbie.

Further information is available by clicking on the links below:

Performance Review of the Flood Warning Gauge Network in Queensland

The purpose of the Performance Review of the Flood Warning Gauge Network in Queensland was to evaluate the adequacy of the hydrometric gauge networks used for flood warning in Queensland in order to identify and prioritise potential areas of improvement.

The Performance Review found that gauging stations of varying technical standards had resulted in the reliability of data used for flood forecasting and warnings being of variable quality. There were no consistently applied standards for instrumentation, monitoring and data collection for gauges used for flood warning.

Queensland Government agencies are on track to implement the recommendations of the report focussing initially on local councils with very high and high priority settlements identified for improved flood warning infrastructure. Implementation includes validation of the outcomes of the state wide review with respective local councils and the formation of a cross-agency forum to oversee improvements in the strategic and operational arrangements of the Queensland flood warning gauge network.

Performance Review of Flood Warning Gauge Network in Queensland (PDF, 9 MB)

Appendices

A - Glossary (PDF, 67 KB)

B - Project Terms of Reference by DNRM (PDF, 550.2 KB)

C - TOR Checklist (PDF, 67.1 KB)

D - Settlement Maps

E - Priority determination methodology (PDF, 88.3 KB)

F - Prioritisation results - summary (PDF, 136.9 KB)

G - Prioritisation results - detailed (PDF, 80.9 KB)

H - Compilation of known tech standards including title page (PDF, 79.9 KB)

I - Gauge owners (PDF, 37.3 KB)

J - Basin Maps

K - Network Improvements (PDF, 20.2 KB)

L - Flood Warning Network details by settlement (PDF, 366.3 KB)

M - Travel time calculation by subbasin (PDF, 13.9 KB)

N - Consultation Report (PDF, 1.4 MB)

O - Gauging site inspection checklist (PDF, 114.2 KB)

P - Asset condition assessment (PDF, 342 KB)

Q - Typical gauge components (PDF, 543.3 KB)

R - Flood Warning and evacuation (PDF, 231.3 KB)

S - Flash flood analysis (PDF, 75.3 KB)

T - Settlements without gauge boards (PDF, 40.6 KB)

U - Sensitivity analysis (PDF, 96.4 KB)

V - Prioritisation of Settlements without a Flood Forecast Location (PDF, 430.9 KB)

V - Prioritisation of Settlements without a Flood Forecast Location Part 2 (PDF, 327.3 KB)

D - Settlement maps

J - Basin Maps

Archived Publications

In May 2013, the Office of Economic and Statistical Research (now the Queensland Government Statistician's Office) conducted the first Queensland Community Preparedness Survey, a standalone questionnaire specifically designed to meet the data requirements of the Queensland Disaster Management Sector.

Survey products available:

A summary report (PDF, 718.7 KB)on key findings and implications prepared by the Office of Inspector General Emergency Management.
The full report (PDF, 2.1 MB): Queensland Community Preparedness Survey Report May 2013.
Data Graphs of Regional Results (PDF, 159 KB)

FINDINGS

Queensland households believe they know the local risks from natural disasters and take basic steps to help cope with disasters (e.g. have building insurance; have a battery operated torch and radio; and have enough medications and food for three days);
In reality Queenslander’s responses show that they are not as prepared as they believe they are (e.g. they had not discussed what to do if the home was at risk; they had not developed and documented their household emergency plan; they had no access to a hard-copy list of emergency contact phone numbers);
Approximately 30% of Queensland households had taken some steps to be better prepared in the previous 12 months prior to the survey, mostly in response to recent disaster events (Note: these results are not comparable with 2012 results. Refer to the Full Report (pages 30 and 49) for details);
Complacency remains a key issue in the 10% of Queensland households who thought they were unprepared;
Cultural background, household tenure and type may affect how some people prepare; and
South East Queensland households generally demonstrated lower levels of preparedness than other regions in the state.

IMPLICATIONS

Implications are for future efforts to focus on:

Encouraging people to ‘Get Ready’, based on the risks they know they face;
Households with children;
Landlords and tenants of rental properties; and
Households that usually speak languages other than English in the home.

In May 2013, Emergency Management Queensland (EMQ) commissioned the Queensland Community Preparedness Survey (QCPS) to measure community preparedness for natural disasters. The Government Statistician’s office collected similar information as part of the 2012 Queensland Regional Household Survey (QRHS).
The 2013 QCPS is specifically designed to better meet the needs of disaster management and resilience officials, in particular the District Disaster Management Groups (DDMGs), Local Disaster Management Groups (LDMGs) and local councils. As such, changes were made to the QCPS instrument, including:

Making the survey more regionally specific, by increasing the data sets from 10 to 15, to align with the new 15 Queensland Police Service Districts (in effect 1 July 2013).
Improving levels of data accuracy via changes to survey respondent selection and question design.

The sampling difference and changes to questions, between the 2012 QRHS and the 2013 QCPS, means that direct comparisons between years are not possible, except where explicitly stated.

METHOD

In May 2013, the Government Statistician’s office conducted the first Queensland Community Preparedness Survey, a standalone questionnaire specifically designed to meet the data requirements of the Queensland Disaster Management Sector.
The survey used up to 21 questions to collect information in the areas of:

disaster risk management;
disaster preparedness;
motivation to prepare for natural disasters; and
household demographics.

The survey was conducted by telephone, and resulted in 3,934 useable responses. The response rate for the survey was 50.0%. This report and the QCPS May 2013 full report present comparisons with baseline (2012) QRHS data where appropriate.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS - STATE-LEVEL
Queensland households still believe they know their local risk
A large majority of Queensland households felt they had:

a good understanding of the types of natural disasters that could occur in Queensland and the chances of them occurring (98%); and
a good understanding of how a disaster might impact their local area (95%).

Queenslanders continue to over-estimate their preparedness when it comes to household disaster planning
Figure 1: Estimated percentage of households that had taken specific preparedness measures

Almost three quarters (73%) of Queensland households believed they were either prepared or very prepared for a natural disaster and the majority of households had taken more general preparedness measures. However, responses to questions about more focussed disaster preparedness measures show lower preparedness:

92% did not have a documented emergency plan, an increase from 89% in 2012;
73% did not keep emergency items stored as an emergency kit;
59% did not include a household member with a current first aid certificate;
44% had not discussed / decided what they would do if their home was at risk from storms, cyclones, flooding or bushfire;
43% had not pre-arranged to stay with family or friends in case they needed to evacuate their home;
41% did not have access to a hard-copy list of disaster-related emergency contact phone numbers (like the SES, local council, neighbours, energy provider, family/household contacts etc.); and
39% would not have enough drinking water to last three days, an increase from 34% in 2012.

Figure 1 above shows further detail on households’ preparedness measures.
Approximately 30% of Queensland households had undertaken new preparedness measures in the previous 12 months
Almost three in ten Queensland households had undertaken one or more of the disaster preparedness measures addressed in the survey, for the first time in the 12 months prior to the survey. Of those that had taken new steps, the most common steps taken were:

discussing / deciding what to do if the home was at risk (18%);
identifying the strongest room in the home (16%);
preparing a list of emergency contact numbers (16%);
having enough food to last three days (16%); and
stored enough drinking water to last three days (15%).

Respondents who had taken new preparedness actions were asked what had prompted them to do so (multiple responses were allowed). The most common reasons were categorised as being due to ‘recent local events’ (25%), ‘recent Queensland disasters not affecting you/your household’ (24%), and ‘recent disasters you/your household have personally experienced’ (24%).

Complacency remains as an ongoing barrier to preparedness

Approximately 10% of households self-reported to be unprepared or not at all prepared for a natural disaster. Of those, 37% had not thought about preparing for a natural disaster, and 33% felt they were unlikely to be affected.

Cultural background may affect the type of preparedness measures taken by Queensland households

The responses to a number of questions illustrated statistical differences between households that usually spoke English at home and households that usually spoke a language other than English (LOTE). In the majority, English speaking household responses were consistently higher than LOTE, with one exception, that LOTE households were more likely to have implemented one or more new preparedness measures in the previous 12 months (see Figure 2).

Household tenure and type may affect the types of preparedness and planning measures taken by Queensland households

The range of household types and the range of household tenures demonstrated significant differences in preparedness measures taken by households. These differences were found between:

owner-occupied households and households that rent (see Figure 3);
households with children and those without children (see Figure 4); and
multi-person households and single-person households (see Figure 5).

Figure 2: Estimated percentage of households by language that had taken specific preparedness measures

Household tenure
Owner-occupied households showed higher levels of preparedness compared to households that rent, with one exception; households in rented accommodation demonstrated higher percentages for implementing new preparedness measures in the last 12 months (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Estimated percentage of households by tenure that had taken specific preparedness measures

Household type

Households without children demonstrated higher levels of preparedness measures compared to households with children, with two exceptions; households with children were more likely to include a member with a current first aid certificate, and more likely to have taken some new measure in the previous 12 months (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Estimated percentage of households by type (with and without children) that had taken specific measures

Statistical differences were found between single households and multi-person households across a range of preparedness measures. Multi-person households were more likely to implement household protection measures (such as securing outdoor items, having current insurance etc.) whereas single person households were more likely to implement preparedness planning measures (such as deciding what to do if home is at risk, pre-arranging accommodation in case of evacuation and developing a documented household emergency plan etc.). See Figure 5 for further details.

Figure 5: Estimated percentage of households by type (single person and multi-person) that had taken specific measures

Higher socio-economic households are generally more likely to have first aid kits, but less likely to have documented emergency plans or emergency numbers
Annual household income appeared to be positively associated with some preparedness measures, and negatively associated with others. For example, households earning $110,000 or more were more likely to have a first aid kit than households earning less than $23,000, but less likely to have a documented emergency plan or a list of emergency numbers.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS REGIONAL-LEVEL
The QCPS 2013 methodology increased the regional datasets to 15, providing greater detail at a regional level. Figure 6 depicts the number of responses per region, ranging from 251 (Ipswich, Mackay) to 288 (North Brisbane). The 15 regional datasets align with the new Queensland Police Service Districts (in effect 1 July 2013). The 2012 QRHS survey utilised ten regional datasets aligned with the SA4 Australian Bureau of Statistics statistical areas.

Figure 6: Map of regions indicating the number of survey responses

South East Queensland households were generally less prepared than other regions in the state

Households in South East Queensland Regions generally demonstrated lower levels of preparedness than the rest of the state across the following measures:

self-assessing their level of disaster preparedness as ‘very prepared’ or ‘prepared’ (See Figure 7);
to have had enough food for three days (See Figure 8);
to have had enough drinking water for three days (See Figure 9);
kept preparedness items as an emergency kit (See Figure 10)
checked their roof for damage or weakness (See Figure 11).
identified the strongest room in their home (See Figure 12);
discussed and decided what they would do if their home was at risk (See Figure 13); and
made arrangements for members to stay with family or friends (See Figure 14).

Figure 7: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that believed they were prepared or very prepared

Figure 8: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that considered they would have enough food for three days, if cut off from services without warning

Figure 9: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that considered they would have enough drinking water for three days, if cut off from services without warning

Figure 10: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that kept preparedness items as an emergency kit

Figure 11: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that have checked their roof for damage or weakness

Figure 12: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that have identified the strongest room in their home

Figure 13: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that have decided what they would do if their home was at risk from storms, cyclone, flooding or fire

Figure 14: Regional results – estimated proportion of households that have pre-arranged for members to stay with family or friends if evacuation is required

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this survey indicate that future disaster and emergency management arrangements and resilience building activities should concentrate effort on:

Households with children;
Landlords and tenants of rental properties, both public and private; and
Households that usually speak languages other than English in the home.

Future efforts need to move beyond encouraging general preparedness measures (such as have a torch, radio, food etc.) to encouraging more focused disaster readiness measures that relate to local risks, such as:

Discussing and deciding on what to do if home is threatened by natural hazard;
Documenting household emergency plans detailing what to do, where to go, who to contact; and
If residing in evacuation or flood zones, pre-arranging to stay with family or friends located in safer locations.

*This publication was produced prior to the current government.

Last updated:: 2 March 2023

Publication	Author	Date
Paradise dam preparedness review- report 1: 2019-20 (PDF, 11.3 MB)	Office of the Inspector-General Emergency Management	23/12/2019
QLD Government response to IGEM paradise dam preparedness report (PDF, 648 KB)	Queensland Government	23/12/2019
Attachment J - paradise dam community survey (PDF, 3.21 MB)	Office of the Inspector-General Emergency Management	23/12/2019
DIY Using sandbags to protect your home and business (PDF, 18.5 MB)	State Emergency Service	11/11/2021
State Earthquake Risk Assessment (PDF, 8.88 MB)	Queensland Fire and Emergency Services	31/07/2019
Tsunami Guide for Queensland (PDF, 5.72 MB)	Queensland Fire and Emergency Services	31/07/2019

Publications

Current

​Publication

​Author

​Date

Queensland Disaster Management 2016 Strategic Policy Statement

Disaster Management Standards and Assurance

Queensland Government Response to the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements

Disaster Operations Activities

Queensland Disaster Management Committee

General publications

National publications

Disaster Management Reviews

Community Recovery Review

Review of the Queensland Disaster Relief and Recovery Guidelines

Queensland Reconstruction Authority Operational Review

Report into Aspects of Response and Recovery Initiatives (TC Marcia &amp; TC Nathan)

Performance Review of Flood Risk Management Arrangements in Queensland

Review of Cyclone and Storm Tide Sheltering Arrangements

Review of State Agency Integration at a Local and District Level

Review of Local Government's Emergency Warning Capability

Callide Creek

Review of Seqwater and SunWater Warnings Communications

Performance Review of the Flood Warning Gauge Network in Queensland

Appendices

Performance Review of the Flood Warning Gauge Network in Queensland

Appendices

D - Settlement maps

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I/J

K/L

M

​N/O/P/Q

R

S

T/U/V

W/X/Y/Z

J - Basin Maps

A/B

C/D

E/F/G

​H/I/J/K/L

M/N

O/P/Q/R

​S/T/U/V

W/X/Y/Z

Archived Publications

Queensland Community Preparedness Survey May 2013 – Household Preparedness for Natural Disasters

FINDINGS

IMPLICATIONS

METHOD

Household type

IMPLICATIONS

Publication

Author

Date