Isn’t it amazing that Planning Minster Guy gets so much media attention, some of it favourable?
Not so long ago, he got good coverage, in big daily papers about overriding recommendations, from Royal Commission into Black Saturday Bush Fires, that building standards needed to be upgraded, so that houses reconstructed should be better able to survive and/or protect occupants, if exposed to future fire.
Does Mr Guy think that such recommendations are nothing more than “red tape” inconvenience?
How does he feel about liability for lives of occupants and emergency services people, when exposed to rescue missions on reduced standard buildings?
Shortly after stories in dailies, Guy’s parliamentary offsiders were writing to their regional newspapers, to gives more publicity to the same topic, pitching how the Planning Minister is accelerating buildings approval processes and reducing cost of reconstruction.
Coverage in big dailies, followed by letters to regional papers, from parliamentary offsiders, is now repeated, to publicise that Matthew Guy has now re-drawn the maps produced by the Royal Commission, to reduce the areas considered to be subject to fire danger.
Makes you wonder if he’s now going to weave the same magic, reducing building specs and exempting map areas, for people designated to be exposed to coastal and river flooding?
Of course, you can’t build if you can’t get insurance.
About insuring your house against damage from extreme weather, some people claim it’s because of so much media discussion that insurance premiums have risen so high.
In practice, insurance companies are obviously not charities; their whole business is based on accurate evaluation of risk against which they compete to win business with annual premiums to stay in business and afford proportionate payouts; 2011 was a peak year with $127billion in payouts.
Surely Matthew Guy is just making a bunny of himself when he overrides recommendations from Royal Commission?
Because insurance companies are not bunnies, does he think his changes to recommendations make it any easier to get replacement insurance?
Or is he just an attention-seeking bunny himself?
Insurance Council of Australia offers the best, up to date accumulation of data from all sources.
It’s in their interest to liaise with all levels of government to improve regulation and help reduce risk.
With those obsessed with growth, their efforts to develop standards can be frustrated.
At least Guy doesn’t go as far as USA, where taxpayers now subsidise insurance premiums, in areas affected by extreme weather. At last check they were $30billion in deficit.
Instead of just fiddling at the edges, our politicians divesting so many things, from Federal to State to Local Government, how about they take back responsibility for climate risk, doing the only thing that makes any sense, reducing emissions, which needs big implementation programs of wind and solar energy, to at least try to appease mother nature, by reducing global warming and extreme weather?
Bernie McComb, Cowes