The warnings were not excessive. We might not be so fortunate next time

While the preparation for the cyclone must be applauded, it is clear not everyone has been fortunate as the long, hard journey of recovery will now only begin.

As we assess the damage and commence the clean-up, it is imperative that we do not become complacent.

Science tells us that this will happen again, and we may not be as fortunate next time.

The need for urgent action is clear.

Some may argue the warnings were excessive. This is not the case. Authorities were faced with a deeply complex and uncertain scenario involving millions of people.

The precautionary principle means we prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Giving communities time to prepare has no doubt saved lives and minimised damage. It was the right thing to do.

While Alfred was the first significant cyclone to make landfall in the area for decades, scientists have long feared the reoccurrence of the 1954 cyclone that crossed the coast at Coolangatta with category 3 strength and record flooding.

With coastal development now stretching from Noosa in the north to Ballina in the south, Alfred was not as bad as it could have been.

The strong winds, category 1 in strength in some places, have caused major disruptions.

The cascading impacts are immense; lifelines such as power, roads and telecommunications are the heartbeat of our communities.

At the peak of the event nearly a quarter of a million people were without NBN and 170 Telstra mobile sites were offline. The power outage was the largest in the state's history according to the Queensland Premier.

As the disaster passes, our recovery plans must heed the lessons of the past. A combination of recovery solutions is required, tailored to suit the needs of local people and their specific risks.

Research shows that community connection, communication, local capacity for action, flexibility in disaster adaptation, and personal control over decision-making are key aspects that influence how people manage adversity.

Enabling positive changes in these areas will help improve disaster preparedness and recovery. We must build back better.

Climate change and decisions to build in high-risk areas are worsening natural hazard risk.

There is more we must do to reduce the risk of disasters. For those who cannot afford their insurance premiums, reducing the underlying risk is the best approach.

Improved flood defences, working with natural landscapes, raising homes, or retrofitting them for flood and cyclone resilience make sense.

For every dollar invested in retrofitting flood-prone homes with hazard-resilient materials, five dollars is saved in response and recovery.

There are ways to minimise essential service disruption. We could investigate burying powerlines underground to prevent damage during severe storms.

This is expensive but could be an option to consider where conditions are suitable and communities are willing to pay the cost.

Where safety issues exist and communities risk living in a constant state of recovery, we must engage in participatory dialogue about relocating them. These are life-changing decisions that should not be made during the response stage.

We must build smarter and avoid placing more people and homes in harm's way.

The recent parliamentary flood insurance inquiry recommended that development should not occur on high-risk floodplains.

READ MORE:

This call has been echoed by several other inquiries since the 2022 floods.

It is time for us to be courageous and proactive. We need bigger and bolder thinking, informed by science, to create a more transformative model of change. We cannot simply wish this problem away.

Change will not be without challenges, but for the millions who stared down Alfred and the countless towns and regions that have faced repeated disasters in recent years, it is urgently needed.

Together, we can ensure Australians remain safe, protect our environment and the places we love by harnessing the scientific knowledge and adapting our infrastructure.