While many are bashing the insurance companies for not paying out on the floods, they forget that the insurance companies are facing multi billion dollar claims that can threaten their survival.

An actuarial college of mine mentioned that the particular institution she was doing work for simply refused to offer flood insurance to houses and businesses built in the flood plain, stating that it was not possible to create a package with affordable premiums for such a high risk. She likened this to the reluctance to sell life insurance to cancer sufferers.

Personally, I believe that the fault lies entirely with the councils who gladly sold this land without even the simplest requirement to build up the houses to a safe level.

Thats why we have ants to feed grass hoppers.

An interesting thing in Rocklea was that the Bunnings store, which was built around 10 years ago, suffered minimal flooding thanks to being built on an elevated pad, while houses nearby on blocks of similar nominal natural ground level that had not been built up were significantly flooded.

It's a simple equation for owners in flood-affected parts of Brisbane: the place will flood about every 40 years and so the total cost of ownership will be affected to that extent. If you are going to live in those areas, then you have to be prepared to replace flood-damaged goods about that frequently. If the last flood occurred 20 years ago, there's a good chance that you will have to do so within the next 20.

I'm looking for a new business premises and I'll be considering flood-affected proerties. I'll certainly be taking the likely damage to the business into account if I make an offer on one.

It should be possible , though difficult , to achieve some standard clauses to cover various losses arising from "flood "[ however defined ] and related events such as "water damage "[ however defined ] . The Insurance Council of Australia , with the Law Council of Australia ,and other professional bodies , representing engineers , architects and builders , could convene a panel to draft such clauses . If it is concluded that some properties cannot be insured at all , government could acquire these at market value [ disregarding their risk of flooding ] and the owners could leave , such properties never again to be occupied and suitably rezoned . On insurable land , owners who choose not to insure adequately against flood and related damage should be refused any government assistance , in the event of future flooding . Many citizens hold interests in insurance companies , through superannuation , so payouts by insurers affect their interests .

For many the problem seems to be the clauses that give the appearance of offering coverage while actually restricting it. On top of that the insurer reserves the right to interpret clauses as it wishes. It is a joke of long standing that the consumer finds out after the event what they should have been informed of before paying the premium.

However it isn't only insurance companies that deliberately hide many of their qualifying conditions behind an opaque pane of glass, because from what I have heard, Centrelink is a master of it. Maybe our culture has changed and now there are many more claimants who live by their wits and would take advantage of conditions wherever they can. Perhaps more are litigious too and with the free help of guvvy funded advocates.

The flood related issues are many and separate from insurance.
I was offered a good? deal,
A rebuilt home on 4 times the land here.
For less than I paid a fool may have bought it, not me it was rebuilt after floods.
Insurance is very costly here, but it could have been worse, flood policy's was $300 more.
But it has never flooded here, can not water levels would need to be 25 meters more than ever.
But insurance is raw profits based a great deal is made from it.
And most Australian groups sold the risk to over seas firms.
Added to the last cent any loss will over time see profits higher.
Now flood plans, can we always avoid building on them?
Some are the very reason we live near them, we can hope for better policing better building even more mitigation but we can not conquer nature.
We, all of us,may however take a different stand if the victims numbers included us, strange are we not?

As someone in the insurance industry said;
"You cannot insure against a certainty."

Shadow Minister:

Your comment: I believe that the fault lies entirely with the councils who gladly sold this land…

To whom did councils sell the land and in what shire did that occure please?

What about a national insurance scheme. like a medibank private.
All properties are insured at the one shop, and covered for all disasters. Communism at work, but it could be the only way some people will get insurance.

Diver Dan,

In 74 when the floods were higher, a couple of hundred houses were flooded. Then it was recommended that those properties were purchased by the state and the flood plain excluded from construction unless mitigation policies were put in place.

In 2011, with a smaller flood thousands of houses were flooded. The only sellers of land and issuers of permits were the councils.

A597,

Your proposal would mean that people in safe houses would pay for the insurance of those in flood plains, and the cheap flood insurance would be an incentive to build in flood plains. A prime example of why communism failed.

I feel sorry for those flooded out, but they bought on a flood plain
and so took the risk. If you can believe what the warmists say today
then it will happen again and again only worse.
If you do not believe the warmists then it will happen again and again.

Frankly if they rebuild I am reluctant to insure them by paying Julia's
levy. It is either jack up a metre or so above the highest expected
level or tear down and abandon the site.

The land should be sold for horticultural farms. It will be good soil
after a couple of floods. Also it will be idealy placed to supply local
fruit and vegetable markets in the future.

My system would not fail as much as the insurance system has now. It would be incentive for the govt; to flood proof known areas of flooding.
With rising sea levels there is going to be a lot of water proofing going on. Should this be done as a nation or left to the expense of affected property holders. With a national insurance system, there would be money in the pot to undertake these works.

a597

What you are asking for is a permanent flood tax.

There are properties for example in Rockhampton which have alwys been known to be within flood zones, but because houses were built on high blocks, out of rushing water, the residents were happy enough with the infrequent inconvenience. That was acceptable risk management for back when and to today, most residents don't mind.

Many of the houses that recently flooded in Brisbane were in areas that developer and politician alike represented as 'flood free' through the flood mitigation of Wivenhoe. However the water in Wivenhoe was held at a high level through other political considerations, to provide long term storage of drinking water to make up for a population that had grown like topsy through federal government "Big Australia" policies (to which the electors are opposed anyhow) and for the lack of construction of new dams because of short term political needs (to win the next election).

Few commenting on OLO seem aware that the very sudden and large build-up of flood water in Brisbane was because of the last minute large scale release of water from Wivenhoe, which instead should have been retaining and slowly releasing.

As per usual it was not simply the breach of one control that increased the catastrophe, it was a number of political decisions, each seen as OK risk management at the time, even though the risks of political embarrassment and election loss for political parties were placed ahead of the risks of flooding and loss of life and property. As well, political leaders were able to look the other way because the Water Commission could be blamed, while their political dead hand still steered decisions.

Corn flower there is a thread about that dam, lets hear it for old Joe.
We will hear more about it too.however am I right in thinking, as a bush bred lad,a full dam runs over in any case?
I admit to not knowing the story of the dam, but warn rain water farm dams in a flood can be destroyed if they do not release water in an over flow.
Back on subject it is mans nature to take risks, but not all this damage was risk taking,we live by rivers sea and floods are like Bushfires not something we can truly control.

It is one word, 'Cornflower', too easy for most.

What I wrote is relevant to flood insurance.

Taking Rockhampton again as an example, since the Fitzroy River Barrage was built, engineers have been able to accurately predict the level of (reduced) flooding on the Yeppen Flood Plain. The flood plain is good agricultural country and farm houses are built on it, paying attention as farmers do to flood heights. In other words they manage risk and they are suitably and reliably informed to do so.

For the many Brisbanites whose houses were unexpectedly flooded recently, it is unlikely that many of them would have expected flood being above what the Wivenhoe was said to prevent. That the Council and State governments either overestimated Wivenhoe's protective capacity or didn't adequately warn home owners and home buyers is relevant.

In any case, many home owners would have assumed adequate flood protection in their home policies, not realising that they were limited to a particular type of 'flash' flood or whatever and even then to a maximum of $25k if they were lucky enough to fit within the insurer's interpretations of its own words and in hindsight.

It is unreasonable to expect that home owners in SEQld could have had the perfect knowledge to effectively manage their risks without firm, comprehensive and simply-expressed advice from government and insurers.

Besides, risk assessment and risk management are skill sets of the engineers who should have been enabled to give independent advice to government, to the insurers and to the public.

I have misgivings about the replacement of engineers with generalists in management positions in public bodies. I am also concerned that short term politics gets in the road of appropriate long term policy. To be blunt, it is another area where public policy is not evidence-based and it should be. It is also another instance where political cronyism or social 'imperatives' such as affirmative action is resulting in a watering down of the criteria that should be essential for senior jobs that really do require professional skills and demonstrated experience in the field.

I don't know how you get a flood tax out of an insurance scheme. House and contents on a national insurance.

a597 some of us were smart enough to choose a home, in an area where it would not be subject to flood.

Some of us were smart enough to choose a home not surrounded with bush fire prone scrub.

If a national insurance scheme were instituted, which forced us to pay higher premiums to cover the extra cost to cover those stupid enough to do either of those things, we would be relieving governments of a duty they have undertaken for many years.

Relieving a government of some of it's obligation in such a way, is merely paying a new tax by another name.

A597,

Any compulsory payment to a government fund is a tax.

If a national flood insurance is not compulsory, those not in danger of flooding will simply not buy it, leaving once again only those at risk with huge premiums.

Hasbeen/Shadow Minister thank you both.
Your fiscal responsibility is on display.
Your concerns for the victims past present and future.
It seems you are a help to regional growth by reminding us we should rebuild some where else.
Showing us the difference between Abbott's permanent tax on business, lets not call it a levee, for rich women to have children is forever but much needed.
And helping to pay for recovery is not.
For reminding us the proposal is to waste the money paying for government things, like water power roads schools hospitals , all that stuff we do not need, or do we?
However most of all, at a time my party is not on its game, thanks awfully for showing us why yours can not be trusted have a great weekend, some will not but who cares.

Oh Belly can't you get off your party horse for once ?

It has got nothing to do with party horse it is common sense. All you do is condemn ideas ,you don't come up with anything yourself.
Maybe you are waiting for Abbott to put more than three words together so you can have some guidance. A couple of cyclones in the area now, which may be a concern.

A597
Huh ?

I deliberately started this thread as a separate one from the flood tax, and to this end have avoided politics, however, belly and a597 have been unable to resist having a go.

The issue here is that there are thousands of houses that have been built on a flood plain.

The options are:
1 pay a hefty premium, if the insurance companies are prepared to insure,
2 Accept that the houses will be flooded every 40 years or so, or
3 Flood proof the houses by:
A - Building or expanding the dams
B - building levies to protect the houses
C - Building the houses to be flood proof (ie on raised foudations)

I believe that option 3C is by far the cheapest and easiest to implement without scrapping all the houses and infrastructure.

Now BAZZ we know who one another are, in fact you are the only person I do know here.
I have always respected the work you have done in our hobby.
But hold on! consider how STUPID your remark is.
BE HONEST MATE.
Have you ever got in to your side? have you not seen me get into mine.
You have developed strange views in the last 18 months, one I question.
Your peak oil posts baffle me, how can such a bright bloke think like that it however is your right.
Bazz can you look me in the eye be honest, and say my opinions are ALP only.
Do me a favor, I do it every day, HOLD YOUR SELF ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERY THING YOU SAY.
My opinions and views are mine you insult both off us with your comment, me because you infer my comments are not mine you? mate because any one who EVER reads my posts knows it is both silly and quite wrong.
73,s old man you can do better than that.

Option 1 should be to ensure that the environment can easily sustain the population by putting a clamp on reckless immigration. It is the big end of town that has its skyscrapers in flood zones, demands more consumers to ensure growth of business and provides the capital to develop cheap low-lying land (which coincidentally includes good farming land).

After all, it was business interests that insisted on (say) Rockhampton being where it is. A better site was proposed but was vigorously and successfully resisted by business.

As for the land for residential housing, home buyers took what they were offered and there were always incentives, such as the availability of facilities - or certain lack of facilities if they chose to live elsewhere.

The same story is true of other cities. For example, Joh Bjelke Peterson's government forced through applications by large business interests to exploit (the popular word back then) salt water marsh land on the Gold Coast. That the land was essential to the fishing industry was of no concern, such was the greed of the entrepreneurs, their financiers and Joh. Similarly sand dunes were bulldozed for high rise holiday lettings. Even the sand spit at the old Southport Beach (Main Beach) has been exploited with a large hotel, holiday accommodation and shops, despite the risk of a tidal surge removing what it placed there years before.

In Brisbane CBD, new high rise apartments were developed on flood land and flogged off to punters. In the inner western suburbs, a flood zone government works site was sold off and developed as a medium rise estate, even incorporating some public park land (?!).

The flooding problem is so widespread that all we can do is slowly over time discourage more intense development where it occurs (but such redevelopment is already happening!) and offer charity where lives are devastated.

The first concern should be to prevent future poor decisions by government that do not serve the best interests of the Australian population and the environment. The enemy is not nature it is cynical, pragmatic and sometimes bent, politicians.

Cornyflower my spell check did that will not bother you again.
SHADOW MINISTER you never in your life posted any thing that was not about your slanted view of politics, your problem is you are getting a rep for it.
Bazz not retracting a word, sorry but I had you right up there know the many battles you won for us but gee lies upset me.
Maybe it is something else, an inability to think about others views while wanting me to take your on board is ,well let it rest.
Those who do not know, before launching in to me old man is a few words we often address one another with in ham radio.

Belly, "Cornyflower (sic) my spell check did that will not bother you again."

You've gone down in my estimation for resorting to the same nonsense again. There is nothing in my replies to provoke that silly name calling. What about lifting your sights and addressing the facts?

Belly,

It is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Your occasional chiding of the more obvious examples of Labor incompetence does not make your unwavering support of the ALP less slanted.

The issue in this thread, is that the threat of flooding has never been a secret, and the very least the councils should have done is ensure that when houses were built in flood areas, that they were flood proofed to some extent. It would have been a relatively small expense initially, but would have saved a fortune.

Cornflower fact is I was never even on your favorites list or you would never have thrown the first feeble stone.
Should you wish further verbal tennis may I ask you bring a racket with strings?
Talk about pot calling kettle back SM read my post in NSW after March from last night,it is more truthful than your poor attempt.
Bazz should do so too.
No show me, just one, obvious fault in your party you have put in print here mate, ever.
A person who is never wrong never grows why change if you know it all? you must buy a mirror.

SM>>Personally, I believe that the fault lies entirely with the councils who gladly sold this land without even the simplest requirement to build up the houses to a safe level.

I think you will find they did address this, it's just that there assessments were incorrect.

Now, as for insurance, or, lack of, those who are having thier claims rejected must now ask themselves why thier premiums from these insurance providors where so much cheaper than say 'Suncorp'!

Unfortunately, you pretty much get what you pay for.

Now as for rebuilding in these areas, I say no.

Then these land owners should be compensated to the amount which 'THEY PAID' not for what they were valued at pre flood and, if the inherited the property, then that's bad luck cause they are not really out of pocket anyway. You can't claim for something you didn't pay for, can you!

Now if they borrowed against the increased value, then they either have to carry that debt, or, sell down the assett/s that were aquired using this equity. Now if these borrowing were for toys/holidays, then that's bad luck!

To move these houses to higher ground is to simplistic. Sea level is going to rise, what do you do then.
I think the answer is in engineering, If sea level does rise water will back up the river.
The river has got to be reconfigured so it does not flood, The river bed may have to be raised, Levies to direct water flow, and an empty reservoir to mitigate any influx of water.

Belly, I have seen you critisise the ALP a number of times, but what my
comment was about is that you bring the ALP/LNP into every discussion.

I have not critisised the Libs much at all as they are in opposition.
Generally I do support the Libs but I am not rusted on and have never
belonged to any political party.
I have criticised the NBN because it is something I know something
about and I believe the money should have been spent on refurbishing
the national rail system. That is far more important.

As to my comments on peak oil etc, well it is with us now so you had
better get used to it if you intend to live for another
five to ten years.
Just because the ALP and the Libs won't acknowledge it does not mean
that some of them do not understand the implications.
If you get the chance ask Martin Ferguson, he knows.
Politicians are reluctant to scare the horses.
The UK government is gradually changing its policy.
So maybe our lot will realise they have to warn the public.

Bazz I think your reply uncharitable.
I understand it is an attempt to take some heat out of our problem.
But your post,your quoted line,was unfocused and insulting.
I want to remind you, any one can look at our posting history yours mine any ones.
ALMOST EVERY SUBJECT is about politics,and surely you see no harm in that.
I distance myself from your comments on peak oil, disagree.
Understand your stand against NBN but do not agree,you and I could talk about radio installations as a way around it, maybe it will in the future be used but at what cost.
I know politics drives division but surely to brand me one eyed is the insult I claim it is.
And Bazz your self defense,reason for not taking your side to task is feeble.
Let us both move away from confrontation but give me that right I have already used to defend my self against unfair comment.