Some Australians are now suffering because their homes have been destroyed by floods. They had no flood insurance because the premiums for the insurance were too high. The premiums were high because the insurance companies made a reasonable assessment of the risk of building on a flood plain. Those who chose to build in those areas should have known from the cost of the insurance that it was a risky business to build in those areas. They made their choice and should take the consequences. The government has no obligation to help them rebuild

david f,

The government is responsible because the government has control over development and would have given consent to people to build in those areas that have been affected by the recent high monsoonal like rainy weather.

Also, we need to recognise that the catastrophic floods - like the catastrophic bushfires of the year before - have their roots in anthropogenic global warming and government has been at the forefront in denying and failing to address the adverse climate change generated by global warming.

We the people, are now paying the price because our economic and political systems are being governed by people who refuse to acknowledge AGW and its subsequent adverse climate changes that the scientific community has been warning about for the past 60 years.

But then, We the people, did put these fools in power to govern for us so yes we should accept some responsibility.

It's the various authorities within Govts that create legislations for us to abide & follow.
These authorities also let Insurance companies operate willy nilly without guidelines based on integrity.
If Goct allows people to build in flood prone area then Govt has to take responsibility for flooding ! I have long said that flood prone areas need to have run-off channelling & homes need to be built higher above ground than normal. The best outcome would be to turn flood prone areas into canal developments but that would need the one commodity Govt authorities lack, common sense !
Surely, by now there's enough historical data at hand that identifies flood prone water course & settling along them should have been well worked out by now !

RACV. Do. Not. Cover. People. In. Hazardous. Areas.

Governments. Could. Assist. Victims. If. They. Relocate. To. Safer. Areas.

Same. Applies. To bushfire. Zones.

"The government has no obligation to help them rebuild"

I suspect that won't mean that we won't get into a bidding war given its an election year. We see the ABC gearing up the sob-stories and at some point someone will work out there's votes available and will start demanding everyone's sugar-daddy (aka government) cough up.

After all, the way money has been thrown during the virus, fiscal rectitude will be the least of anyone's concerns.

I have a friend who bought into an established community 5 years ago. The house is at least 40 years old so built long before any government regulations were in place and at a time when government didn't consider it was its function to get involved in such decisions. Three years ago their flood insurance went to $25K pa and they decided to cancel it. They've been congratulating themselves on saving $75K. But not so much now that the place went under. They are very much in favour of the government bailing them out, so to speak.

"Some Australians" built on known floodplains. Premiums are very expensive for people who build on floodplains. However, things could have been different if we had competent, knowledgeable governments who were not cowards allowing themselves to be dictated to by minorities like the ratbag Greens who, despite being held in contempt by 90% of the Australian public, have been allowed to block the construction of dams which would have mitigated flooding and provided the country with water that could have rendered inevitable droughts harmless.

Over 200 years, and people still haven't accepted the characteristics of the land they occupy.

Catastrophic bushfires and floods will become more frequent as the ENSO is further impacted by AGW.

When scientists first started to study the El Nino - La Nina events they were about 15 years apart.

AGW and the resulting GHE have brought these closer together at about 5 years and intensity is now far stronger because of the vast amounts of heat being added by AGW.

What's happening? Droughts and storms are being generated more frequently and more intensely.

Major concern is that which just happened over last two years: Drought creates a dust bowl and heavy flooding sweeps all the top soil into the ocean, leaving farmland non-arable.

We humans, owing to our large brain size, have brought this disaster upon our natural world and it is destroying every habitat and species on the planet.

Hey, not to worry! Because remember, there's no such thing as anthropogenic global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

LOSERS.

ttbn,

Governor Macquarrie did.

Over 200 years, and people still haven't accepted the characteristics of the land they occupy.
ttbn,
Only the "educated" Greens, most normal people do understand !

My niece and her family live out in the bush
near a river. I worry about them all the time.
It's a beautiful spot and they're very happy there.
Not sure how they'd go if flooding occurred.

Foxy,

Tell them to move to higher ground or build an ark.

Fear not....past experience shows that the ark will end up on higher ground.

... the ark will end up on higher ground.
mhaze,
So, where's that high ground then ?

.

Dear David,

.

Like many other commentators here, I am inclined to place the subject under discussion in its broader context of our attitude to risk in general and our individual and collective responsibilities.

Risk attitudes are generally implemented subconsciously and without mindful validation. As a result, the first and probably most important factor in determining our attitude to risk is our awareness or unawareness of risk. We sometimes take risks that we either ignore completely or, in our enthusiasm, simply overlook.

We build houses in pristine forests that are potential furnaces, a few meters from the shores of splendid ocean views, downstream from lakes and dams designed to prevent flooding. We take our families on holidays in caravans and tents that are vulnerable to attacks by violent intruders and other risks and menaces. We swim in shark-infested waters. We allow ourselves to be locked into nightclubs and other places that turn out to be death traps when a fire breaks out. We patiently dig our graves with our knives and forks. etc., etc.

So much for risk awareness and risk perception. Then there is the degree of risk aversion of various sociological groups and individuals. Women are generally more risk-averse than men and elderly people more than young people. Though, in each group, some individuals are reckless daredevils while others are afraid of their own shadows. Between the two extremes is a kaleidoscope of individuals capable of varying degrees of risk acceptance and risk aversion.

The state, of course, owes protection to us all as citizens, including in respect of our individual liberties – a mutually conflicting goal, a paradoxical, “catch 22” situation. Arbitrating between preventive regulation and respect of individual liberties is no easy task. Where to draw the line between the two ? What are the criteria of decision ? How to define the individual and collective responsibilities ?

Rules and regulations are necessarily couched in terms that define the general principles that apply. Individual liberties depend on particular circumstances.

It is the unenviable task of our system of justice to arbitrate between the two.

.

Hi David f,

From a purely economic perspective your opening post is correct, and of course we could extend that to a whole range of natural, economic and social disasters, fire, cyclone, earthquake, unemployment, refugees, drug addiction, car accidents, the list could be endless.

If we were devoid of all social and moral obligations, those of us on dry land could point the finger and say "serve's you right, wet people!" As human beings we are not simply economic entities devoid of emotional feelings, of sorrow, compassion and kindness towards others less fortunate. So I'm saying from a moral perspective we as individuals, and as a society as a whole, should override our economic principles and help those less fortunate affected by this natural disaster.

Paul1405,

Are you aware that you have just espoused a socialist option for a better world?

You'll have the LNP capitalist sexist deviants on The Forum hounding you forever over that transgression.

Q: How many LNP MPs does it take to change a sexual deviant?
A: Ask Jen.

individual asked..."So, where's that high ground then ?"

Mt Ararat, probably.

So much damage is done by floods, bushfires, and other
disasters as we've seen. Valid points have been
raised as to what kind of society we want to live in.
Do we help out in times of need? What history has shown
is that we do - and very generously. Most Australians
come together to help each other out. As do our governments.
It has always been thus, and hopefully will continue to be.

Of course, boundaries and laws should also be put in place
as to what needs to be done to try to prevent the disaster
ahead of time. Land management is crucial as is flood
prevention techniques.

Just a bit more about government help:

There is a one-off lump sum payment to help
people following a declared disaster. There
are eligibility rules to get this disaster recovery
payment. Plus there are also other services available
such as medical help, access to safe drinking water,
and evacuation of aged care homes affected by the
flood.

I don't think anyone's opposed to the government and/or community helping out those currently water-afflicted by providing emergency aid, assistance with cleanup, clearing waterways, rectifying sewage systems both private and public and all things similar.

Where the issue divides is the question of repairs and rectification of homes and possessions where the claim is that the government ought to provide funds, gifts and the like to those help repair houses and replace appliances and such-like.

Person A lives in house 22 on Fictitious Ave. He had $100,000 damage done to his house. He was fully insured at $10,000 pa. His insurance company has agreed to pay for full repairs to his house and replacement of all lost electrical equipment.

Person B lives in house 24 on Fictitious Ave. He had $100,000 damage done to his house. He was uninsured having decided to take the risk of not insuring the house because it cost $10,000 pa. Person B wants the government to pay for the repairs because its fair and Person B deserves help. The government in an election year agrees to help.

Anyone think that's fair?

Hi mhaze,

Thanks for the hypothetical. However, as stated earlier
there is a one off lump sum payment to help people following
a declared disaster but there are eligibility rules to get
this disaster recovery payment. Not all will be eligible.

So many of these government handouts are so badly targeted, & the hand out so badly administered that they should be stopped. I'll give you another factual comparison.

A mate was anchored in the Brisbane river in his yacht during the big one. A large freighter broke loose, & drifted down onto him sinking his yacht. He could not get away as he could not get the anchor up with the strong current running. He & his lady lost everything, except the dingy they escaped in.

It was a pretty crumby old plywood yacht, not worth much, only kept usable by his very high wood working skills, but had been their home for some years.

He applied for & received a grant for the loss of his home, & received a sum about 4 times the value of the yacht the day before it's sinking. I believe the operators of the ship, or Wivenhoe dam should have recompensed him, not the tax payer. He was given enough to buy a beautiful yacht, way beyond his means before the event.

A while later a cyclone went through north Queensland. Many yachts also homes to their owners were sunk or extremely damaged. If they did not have insurance these people got nothing from government. Some of these people got orders to remove the wreck with in a limited time frame, or they would get a large fine. Great help.

It appears that only people in large cities get tax payer handouts, the rest don't have the voting power to attract government sympathy.

If the Greens hadn't connived with the corrupt UN, and the government hadn't been so piss-weak and gone ahead with a second extension of the dam, capacity would have been doubled, and damage much less.

More dams need to be built. That's where money should be going, not into compensation to people who built on a flood plain. More dams. More water for agriculture. Saver places to live.

If the Greens hadn't connived with the corrupt UN, and the government hadn't been so piss-weak and gone ahead with a second extension of the dam, capacity would have been doubled, and damage much less.

More dams need to be built. That's where money should be going, not into compensation to people who built on a flood plain. More dams. More water for agriculture. Safer places to live.

Anyone think that's fair?
mhaze,
When there's no input then there shouldn't be any compensation. If Govt permits building on flood plains then Govt should cough up !

One solution to long-term flooding , for example the
Los Angeles river canal in California could be to build
concrete lined canals near developed areas to divert
the flood waters into low lying flat rural areas thus
creating temporary lakes which eventually would
evaporate.

cont'd ...

I believe that Wangaratta in Victoria did something
similar decades ago with good results.

Foxy,

Obviously you don't have any reservations about destroying the natural environment in the name of progress.

I can now see why you are so eager to bring in millions of Chinese to Australia. After all when it comes to environmental degradation it's pretty hard to go past the Chinese. They have become the leaders of environmental destruction around the world all in the name of reviving the Chinese Empire and furthering the ambitions of the Chinese Communist Party.

I never thought I would say it but you are starting to act like an LNP deviant.

Shame on you Foxy, shame on you!

Hi Mr O,

I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about.
I did not know that Chinese controlled floods in
Australia. I thought that responsibility lies with
local, state, and federal authorities. I think you're
just stirring once again.

Foxy,

Talking about LNP deviants, what do you think of the mess Soot & the Boyz have got themselves into?

Mr O,

Action not words are needed. Our PM needs to take
action. Not just make speeches.

Foxy,

Did you catch The Insiders this morning?

Going by the opinions from the panel it looks like Soot's only way out of this mess, which he himself has helped create, is to sack Lamming (or is that Lemming - both headed towards the cliff) from the party and be left at the head of a minority government.

Poor Soot . . . . . . What is he going to tell Jen?

Come on Mr O. No one other than a lefty nut, who is never going to vote anything but left no matter how bad, would ever listen to a bit of rubbish like The Insiders. No harm done to the government no matter how hard the twits pat themselves on the back, or piddle in each others pockets.

I gather that around here the normal people are sick & tired of this womans libber push. A pile of political garbage is the typical thought on it.

The left need to shut the rampant feminists up & very soon, or the sympathy for the government under this orchestrated attack will be doing their cause much more harm than good.

The huge sums of money futilely wasted on 'climate change' would be better spent on flood and drought proofing by way of dams. But, that sounds too simple to our simple-minded politicians who excuse themselves by repeating the word "complex" in all their blatherings.

Hasbeen & ttbn,

You're living in the wrong age.

You both sound like a couple of refugees from the 1850s when women weren't allowed to vote and people were unaware of the impact that burning fossil fuels would have on the global environment.

You are two dinosaurs in the intellectual history of the world.

Actually, I feel quite sorry for you. How sad, how very sad.

I suppose you want to tell Foxy that she's just a woman and should learn how to keep her place.

And I suppose you are loyal members of the LNP association for wayward deviants, which seem to be all the rage among LNP blokes today. All the old chicken feeders just like the two of you: "Here chook chook chook! Here chook chook chook!" (PS If you can't figure out what that means then I suggest you ask some of those LNP wankars in Canberra. You know the ones . . . . . that's right, the ones caught doing it over the desk.)

Levee banks are one answer, the business area of Tamworth NSW is a good example (however, legend has it that the local tribe told the first settlers in the town that they were erecting their humpies in the wrong place; "Nonsense, the river is way down there").
Another solution is to raise the existing houses above flood level.

You're kidding Mr O. We haven't given women the vote have we? How crazy.

Not sure that raising houses it the answer Is Mise. Some time back I looked at moving back north. I didn't want a tourist area, but wanted warmer winters. My interest settled on Home Hill on the Burdekun river, an are I have always liked.

The area is mildly flood prone, & I talked to some locals. Apparently much of the town can go about knee deep, & that is bad news. Vehicles have to be moved to Aye before the river rises or they are shot, even the most rugged 4X4s can't handle it, but it is too shallow for outboard powered boats.

What is up in the house is fine, if the power doesn't go off. Loss of power means all frozen food is gone, & running as big gen set in the front room is not all that appealing.

Hasbeen,

I'll take that to mean you are a devoted follower of the LNP.

Foxy,

Talking about your Chinese mates, have you seen this post in yesterday's news:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9411315/Parliament-House-outage-caused-Chinese-cyber-attack.html?ito=push-notification&ci=110459&si=28036895

I TOLD YOU SO.

Or is it just Soot throwing up a distraction to draw attention away from all the problems the LNP is having with its sexual deviancy issues?

That many of the "victims" are covered by insurance and will be paid out seems to elude the left whinge here. Insurance is an expense, and just as if you damage your car or have a break-in the government is not responsible for bailing you out.

That left whinge fwits want to dole out other peoples' money is just as stupid now as ever before.