The Federal Government’s Disaster Ready Fund is heavily oversubscribed and needs more than twice its current funding to protect communities from future natural disasters, the Australian Local Government Association says.

The fund currently provides $200 million a year, matched by states and territories, but the association says at least another $250 million is needed.

President Linda Scott says while councils welcome the fund, it is “vastly insufficient” given the number of potential mitigation projects across the country.

“Our communities have been repeatedly hit by floods, fires and cyclones over the past two years, with more than 60% of local government areas affected,” Cr Scott said.

“We have to better prepare for the increasingly frequent and more severe natural disasters we are experiencing, and local government is calling for an extra $250 million of federal investment in disaster mitigation.”

Cr Scott says investing in mitigation “makes economic sense and significantly reduces the costs governments incur during the recovery process”.

“Given these large-scale mitigation projects can cost tens of millions of dollars to plan and deliver, Australia needs to significantly increase its investment in emergency preparedness,” she said. “For example, the Bundaberg East flood levee – proposed by Bundaberg Regional Council and funded by the Federal and Queensland governments – will cost around $175 million alone.

“As a nation, we urgently need to boost our investment in disaster mitigation to protect our homes and communities, and save lives.”

The Insurance Council of Australia has welcomed the comments.

“Well done, Australian Local Government Association, for its advocacy on this important issue,” it posted on LinkedIn.

“Reducing current and future risk is the ultimate goal in a country like Australia, where we have every indication risk will continue to increase, not decrease.

“This means ongoing investment in critical mitigation infrastructure like floodways and levees, stronger homes built in the right locations, and an expansion of home buyback schemes where the risk is too great.”