After the Flood

5 thoughts on “After the Flood”

  1. Sadly, for many, many years now the insurance companies have been reneging on claims because even if it is caused by a storm, rising water is not generally insured, only falling water. I hate to say it, but it has had so much publicity in this part of the world that every Queenslander really should have known that when taking out insurance.

    That said, like the Titanic, we were assured that Wivenhoe Dam was infalliable and a repeat of 1974 would never happen, and people insured accordingly. Now it has, we have a city in shock, with so many displaced and desperate people at the mercy of the government and strangers for handouts or even just a roof over their heads.

    I agree, that at times of such need as this, the insurance companies should come to the party. I suspect their shareholders may think differently and with the changes in governance rules lately, the shareholders hold the cards more than ever. An interesting question is are these people donating to the Premiers’ Fund with one hand and taking it back as an insurance company shareholder with the other?

    I don’t know if anyone has raised the issue of shareholders partitioning the insurance companies to be lenient on their policies in this case, but it raises the issue of philanthropy over profit and whether the individual considers allowing this rort to continue in the industry in which they hold stocks is negated by a personal donation to the flood relief movement.

    Your would-be governance expert!

    1. Nice analysis…its interesting how people are lulled into a state of complacency by the assurances of ‘the powers that be’… and obviously the insurance companies have form in this matter so there should be some heads rolling at Wivenhoe pretty soon I imagine.

      But that is the point isn’t it? The bureaucratic fiefdoms are always in a rush to protect their turf, make sure the bad publicity doesn’t affect their re-election chances and meanwhile the corporations become ever more powerful, operating as they are in a regulatory vacuum. The small asset share holders are just people that are smaller investors, its generally the guys at the top, CEO and the like who benefit most from share holdings in their own companies.

      Perhaps if any of these guys were wiped out in the flooding then they may change their tune but it would be entirely unlikely. Their kind of philanthropy is a specified tax break to a registered charity that will get their wives browny points when they show up at the charity gala(h)s…

  2. Most of our town centres are built at the lowest point next to the river…….. may have been ok when you had to fetch a pail of water and soap up in the river but building shops etc there………..That ain’t smart

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s