Jonathon Boston: Government should ensure people live in areas safe from disaster

There's arguments against a recommendation the Government abandons property buy-outs. 

An independent panel has prepared a proposal for flood adaptation to the Environment Ministry. 

It says homeowners should be responsible for deciding to live in high-risk areas - and shouldn't expect the Government to stump up for weather-damaged homes. 

Victoria University emeritus professor Jonathan Boston says he disagrees.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
An expert working group reckons the government should stop buyouts
for homes that are damaged by flooding or storms, and
we've had a few of those lately, haven't we. They
reckon storms could seriously damage four billion dollars worth of
housing stock over the next thirty years. Financially unsustainable to
keep treating the government as the de facto insurer, so
we should stop buying out people within twenty years. Not

(00:21):
everyone agrees with this. Victoria University Emeritus Professor Jonathan Boston
with me tonight, good.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Evening, Good evening, Ryan.

Speaker 1 (00:29):
You have said this is morally bankrupt. Why do you
think that?

Speaker 2 (00:34):
Well, essentially because Ryan, with climate change, we are facing
unprecedented and growing risks. We're going to be faced with
significant accelerating sea level rise which is going to impact
coastal communities all around the world and Sydney all around
New Zealand and will require large numbers of people to

(00:56):
be relocated. And the suggestion that such people should be
how can I put it, required to move independently and
using only their own resources, seems to me to be
ethically highly questionable, practically kind of irresponsible, and politically naive.

(01:23):
In a society which is interdependent, in which we have
whole communities which are going to have to move. We're
going to need very significant, integrated planning. We're going to
need proper relocation of infrastructure of all kinds, including social
infrastructure such as health care facilities and schools and so on,

(01:46):
and we can't do that in the kind of risk
environment we're going to be faced with if those who
do not have the means to move are not provided
with some assistance.

Speaker 1 (02:03):
The report does say it doesn't say no assistance. It
says the provision of hard support should continue, but just
not be related to property values. In other words, we
won't buy you out for what your property was worth
pre storm.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
Yes, but the kind of hardship assistance I think it
has in mind is simply the sort of assistance you
might get from MSD to help cover your food costs
and maybe your rent. It isn't the kind of assistance
that would enable somebody whose property has become worthless and
who still has a mortgage to then go and purchase

(02:39):
another property, or if they've got a business, to move
that business to some other location. So, just putting things
from perspective, Ryan, I was part of what was called
the Expert Working Group. I managed to retreat a group
of thirteen people, shared by the former Chief Justice and
then a former Justice of the Supreme Court's Arnold. We

(03:01):
produced a very very detailed report, probably fifteen times longer
than the one that this independent reference group has produced,
which recognized that the big question here is, you know,
what are the principles that should inform who pays for
what in a context where we are faced with unprecedented, unwanted,

(03:23):
often uninsurable risks. And we said there should be buyouts
of residential properties, but there should be a cap on
the total amount to make that affordable, but also that
we should only assist principal places of residents. We shouldn't
be buying out.

Speaker 1 (03:38):
And how much how much was that going to cost?

Speaker 2 (03:42):
Well, it's going to cost more and more over time,
so we don't.

Speaker 1 (03:45):
Know exactly how much. I mean, it's great to have
a very long report, and it's great that you want
to give everybody money, but how much does it cost?
And can we afford it? And will bankrup the government
in the process.

Speaker 2 (03:56):
Well, first of all, we won't bankrupt the government. Ryan
if if the suggestion is that moving people out of
harm's way is going to be quote unaffordable, then I
presume it means it's unaffordable full stop, regardless of who's paying.
But that's not the case. We are unlikely to be

(04:16):
faced with a situation in which, if you like, civilization
completely breaks down and we have no capacity to move
people out of harm's way. So the question is, how
are we going to do that in a way that
is fair, cost effective, efficient, and so on, in the
kind of interdependent society that we have. So Ryan, I

(04:41):
didn't say that we would buy everybody out. I very
explicitly said that the recommendations of the expert working Group
that I was party two would involve caps on the
total amount of assistance, so we wouldn't be giving multimillionaires
millions of dollars for their lost mansions, and that the
eligibility would be tied to principal places of residence. That

(05:03):
is designed to ensure fairness, but also to ensure that
those who need assistance will be able to leave. And
we should recognize this is really critical.

Speaker 1 (05:13):
It is critical. It's all critical, and I appreciate you
coming on the program, professor, but we do have to
leave it there. I'm afraid that is Victoria University Emeritus
Professor Jonathan Boston. For more from Heather Duplessy Allen Drive
Listen live to news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio