If the retired builder that told me that 30-40% of houses flood affected in Brisbane were built since 1974 is correct. We should impose a levy on the ratepayers in the flood effected council areas because they elected the stupid councilors that allowed the building of homes there.

To allow housing developement in these areas is either incompedence or corruption is involved. I wont accept that the councilors were so believing in global warming that they thought there would never be another flood. The councilors themselves should be made to pay.

How stupid can you get.

Graham:

We've just recently had a world-wide economic disaster that affected Australia nationally and it is unfortunate that the floods came in its wake. Australia has a 200 year history of floods. Authorities continue to permit construction in flood areas. It should be the responsibility of local governments and people who build in flood areas to pay the costs that are related to floods by paying insurance, levys, taxes, and so on, if they continue to live and build in these areas. This last experience is a good example of what the future will bring and it is not the responsibility of those who plan wisely to pay for those who insist on taking risks.

Come now! focus please that rebuilt Church story is not true.
Clean up may be but rebuilt in days not weeks, no one with understanding can think like that, And true the ridiculous idea that the federal government has only given 1 million so far is growing still.
Proof surely some are uninformed.
We have been hit by drought, the GFC now tragic floods.
Tax dollars belong to us all.
I vote for an extra tax, I also vote for a return to surplus ASAP.
To blame government, any for, for the GFC drought bush fires and these floods is uncharitable.
Fully aware my statement here is not agreed to, I truly honestly hold the view Tony Abbott by his obstruction and opposition for its own sake is hurting his own party.
We had levee for other things I find it hard to know, some put a night out in front of donating to this tragic event.
And even more that some oppose our governments planned levee, stay solid Aussie your mates need you.
The country needs to return to surplus and this once of tax is not going to kill.

Just a thought.

I can understand the government using taxpayers' money to rebuild government-owned infrastructure. After all, I doubt you could get an insurance company to cover a bridge against floodwater damage.

But will our money also be used to bail out people who failed to protect themselves? If so, what do we tell the prudent folk who spent their after-tax earnings on insurance?

Does it pay to be a grasshopper, or should we encourage the ant?

Belly,
why should we pay if (a) The Council allowed housing deveopment in flood prone areas and (b) If people bought and built on blocks knowing it was a flood prone area or (c) if Councils failed to inform purchassers that the block was in a flood zone.

It is not just bad luck. Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance!

Far too many persons get away without being responsible for their own actions, and that includes many elected to public office.

For many, many years my local council has had a ban on building homes in flood areas. That is the right and proper course to take.

Since Australia was declared a drought zone many developments have gone up in what were once flood prone areas. Why are these sorts of developments approved? If the insurance companies are astute enough to exclude flood in their policies for flood prone areas (or at greatly inflated premiums) why aren't local councils and governments?

People also have to make smart decisions on where they choose to live and do their research.

Government owned infrastructure will need to be repaired or rebuilt. There are many sections of government that can be cut to offset those costs including withdrawing from Afghanistan and reducing a burgeoning SES within the APS.

On one hand I would argue NO to a flood levy and argue for reductions in other areas of government spending HOWEVER, as is too often the case the cuts won't be made in the deadwood or the frivolous, it will be made at the coalface. And that will affect other important services to the public.