assistance to fire victims downgraded.

[vampire-teddy]

The law has been downgraded with regard to the amount of assistance people affected by the current NSW bush fires can receive.  it was pushed through quietly by our supposed fire fighting community minded PM while the fires were burning.  hope he is happy walking on the $4000 treadmill in his office while others lose everything.  I hope none of those affected voted for him.

 Also major swing to labor in NSW bi-election.  Is it any wonder.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01814

[freshwater-2]

Eloi, you hit the nail squarely on the head.

An appalling lack of empathy for fire victims and their immediate needs.

[vampire-teddy]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@catmad*2013 wrote:

hang on... some those changes were made during the last floods... Can't blame it all on the LNP... 

I changed my insurance this year to reduce my excess so that I will be able to cover myself and not have to rely on the government... I expected these payments to be altered at some time. 

---

The document I saw was dated 18/10/13

---

yes the legislation went through yesterday.  can blame the LNP

[acacia_pycnantha]

I was saddened by the fires, with more expected as the Summer really kicks in.

What I saw on the tv pics of most of those houses which burned down, is that all seemed to be closely surrounded by trees, almost as if they were in the midst of a veritable forest.

Well, what do people expect in Australia? It's lovely to live in an idyllic place with lots of trees and bushland right up to the back door but please, why are people so shocked when a bush fire burns them out? It's not as if such fires are anything new here.

So, there's now a bush fire levy (tax) in Victoria http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/100-fire-levy-to-hit-all-property-owners-20130502-2iufr.html and also in NSW http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/households-to-pay-300-for-fire-levy-20130502-2ivzc.html which all home owners must pay, regardless of where they live.

And fire insurance premiums for everyone will rise as they did in SA years ago after a major fire in the Adelaide Hills.

It's like the rest of us must pay in order to subsidise those who ignore the danger of living in heavily wooded places.

The  people I saw on tv whose houses burned down seemed shaken and grief-stricken, but they surely must know that if they live in such places then their houses stand a high chance of burning down every 20-30 years or so.

I'm a bit surprised that insurance companies still offer them cover, until I consider that the insurance companies get their money back from the rest of us who don't live surrounded by trees and flammable bushland.

When I think of this, my sadness is tinged with not a little anger.

[punch*drunk]

It's like the rest of us must pay in order to subsidise those who ignore the danger of living in heavily wooded places.

Considering my insurance is close to double what it would be for the same house in a suburb rather than the bush, I dont think anybody is subsidising me. I also have to pay for flood insurance despite living on top of a hill and it would be impossible for my house to flood.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

I know of people who were unable to get to work during the floods and claimed for loss of income. Maybe the father of the child was in the same position with no one to care for the child for the unexpected extra days?

We used to live in the Blue Mountains and every Summer I am thankful to have moved but in reality while you have a higher chance of your home being destroyed in a bushfire if you are surround by bush, it still isn't a high chance. The number of homes not destroyed is far greater than the number of homes destroyed and it must be extremely shocking when it is your house. Our first home, built in Cross Street Warrimoo was lost in 2001 (we had sold it some years before) In that street, on top of a ridge surrounded by magnificent bush, 8 homes were destroyed, 41, 50, 52, 79, 91, 93 and 95 showing how randomly the fire devours. By the logic that you have to expect it, why weren't all homes destroyed?

Of course that isn't much comfort when your home is the one destroyed and my heart goes out to those devastated.

[acacia_pycnantha]

To me it defies all logic to build or to re-build houses which are made of flammable materials in high bushfire risk zones.

[not_an_eloi]

majority of council build codes for new dwelling's require 'em to be built out of brick, requirement aluminium windows, timber windows are not permitted by most, certainly not in heavily-treed areas.    most will only permit roofin' to be concrete tiles or sheet steel, require fireproof fly mesh for windows,  larger gutterin',  etc.

majority of homes that 'ave been burned to the ground would appear to be older style, a lot of bungalows,  timber clad

folk who lost their homes are about to find out that their largest enemy in the whole picture is goin' to be filthy bleep'n scammin' insurance companies, who've taken their dough under false pretences.   they're about to find that they won't end up with enough cover, to re-build.    

[acacia_pycnantha]

The insurance companies will always try to wriggle out of their contract. Fine print and all that.

It's a most immoral business, feeding on fear as it does.

We really do need to start using sensible housing designs and  sensible building materials for houses in high fire risk areas.

It might (initially) be more expensive to build such houses, but re-building a smoking ruin isn't cheap either.

And if the fire seasons start earlier and last longer, then the risk of houses burning down only increases.

majority of homes that 'ave been burned to the ground would appear to be older style, a lot of bungalows,  timber clad

Hmmm. reminds me somewhat of evolutionary trends. Survival of the fittest.

Timber houses; brick veneer; wood shingle roofed houses.  are doomed to deserved extinction.

[twinkles**stars]

---

@acacia_pycnantha wrote:

To me it defies all logic to build or to re-build houses which are made of flammable materials in high bushfire risk zones.

---

After Black Saturday the building requirements changed here for bush fire threat regions. This came as a shock finacially for many who had to rebuild. Insurance didn't cover the added costs involved making it impossible for many to rebuild. Selling was an issue...leaving many broke and without homes.

[twinkles**stars]

---

@punch*drunk wrote:

It's like the rest of us must pay in order to subsidise those who ignore the danger of living in heavily wooded places.

Considering my insurance is close to double what it would be for the same house in a suburb rather than the bush, I dont think anybody is subsidising me. I also have to pay for flood insurance despite living on top of a hill and it would be impossible for my house to flood.

---

I could never understand that punch. Yet we had barely any increase here.