The uninsured !

The disastrous storm and flood that has hit the Hunter region of northern New South Wales has visited ruin on many people. It seems that at least a quarter of those whose homes have been damaged - and their contents destroyed - were not insured.
The reason is fairly simple. Most inland towns are built around a river and have a history of periodic flooding. Because of this, insurance companies will only write policies offering cover from fire and theft. Damage from flooding is specifically excluded. As a result, many see no point in home and contents insurance.
As long as there has been civilization there have been floods - and after each large event the authorities have been soul searching as to how to mitigate personal losses and protect the community.
One idea that periodically gets an airing is the concept of compulsory home and contents insurance for all, with the premiums tacked on to council rates. Unfortunately the concept is not viable.
The rating system in this state is based on the unimproved land value. This takes no account of the value of any home built on the site. It could be a hovel - or a mansion. Under that concept it would be impossible to balance the value for insurance purposes of the risk to be covered - and forcing insurance on people would probably raise the ire of the civil liberties people.
There is also a matter of equity. Those that do insure have a substantial fire brigade levy tacked on to their premium. The uninsured get the services of the fire department for free - and it has been suggested that this levy should be dropped from insurance premiums and applied as a special charge on council rates so that every dwelling contributes to the service.
It would also sharply drop insurance premiums - and make insurance more attractive to a greater number of people.
All of these ideas do nothing to overcome the fact that a large sector of the population live in areas where flooding is a cyclical event. This ranges from minor flooding once or twice a year to major floods - such as that presently happening in the Hunter region - which may only occur once or twice in a century.
It is not practical to suggest abandoning all flood prone areas and shifting the population to higher ground - particularly as global warming may expand the risk area sharply over the remainder of this century.
We probably have the best - and maybe the only possible way of dealing with such a situation - by way of what is now happening. The government will provide a lot of money to repair infrastructure, repair washed out roads and reconnect electricity. There will be hardship grants to get flood affected people back on their feet - and as usual the public will be generous. Appeals will result in money for welfare agencies to distribute to replace lost personal effects, bedding and electricals - and those who have had this misfortune will grin and bear it - and get on with their lives !