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.