Butch,
Sometimes the council ruling is overturned by the courts. However it would be interesting to see what the process was in Brisbane. It is one of the richer councils so good legal representation would not have been a problem, even if a developer had taken the council to court. It is far more usual for the developer to accept the council decission and it could well be that the council itself was the developer.

Having been involved with local council, I know that there are maps that show previous flood levels and home building is not allowed below those levels. Very surprising if a court ruled against that particular ordinance. This ordinance would have to be altered by the council.

Whatever the circumstance, in my view it is criminal to allow home building below a previous known flood level and some person/s were responsible and should be brought to account. Bearing in mind that the cost of a home will be the largest life expenditure made by most people.

But then councils and governments have an excellant record of covering their bums.

We need a no fault national insurance scheme to look after people like NZ’s ACC insurance. It costs less than the equivalent private system because it keeps the parasite lawyers at bay and there is no greedy private insurance company taking their cut and there are no big cash payouts.

In addition we need a national ensurance (not a spelling mistake) scheme based on what was once called common-sense. It would seem it’s not so common any more. Flood plains flood, trees burn, winds blow and water will flow. When doing stuff ensure you take account of those things that may impact on what you are about to do. Take responsibility for your actions and do not expect someone else to be responsible for your bad choices. Ensure that you help where you can those around you who need help if you are able. Don’t palm it off to government or professional do-gooder if at all possible.

When big companies do dumb things to increase profit and wreak havoc ruining lives, suing them for compensation I believe achieves nothing. To pay claims they simply raise the cost of their products and services, so we pay anyway. If they go broke their creditors are forced to raise the cost of their goods and services, so we pay. If government are forced to fill the gap, yep you got it, we pay. Would it not make more sense to ensure that these companies are not allowed to pursue risky ventures in the first place?

We need lawyers that pursue justice not law and money.

We also need a proportional voting system that fairly represents us as a nation. This will curb the unfair self-serving interests of big business, the unions and religion.

I think the major problem coming over the horizon is that many of these
major events are uninsurable.
How can a council handle a claim like 20 billion dollars ?
They would of course turn to the government, but what if the they
could not cover it ?

Talk I hear is it is seen as a problem with escalating claims and
reducing revenue and unaffordable insurance premiums.