The houses are worth a whole lot less money given the risks of extreme weather and fire.

This was entirely predictable. It’s been well publicised for decades.

Bailing out companies is obviously not the same as bailing out people.

I’m not really sure it’s as easy as “building to a new standard”. For suburbs prone to inundation it may be that there’s little that can be done on the residential property itself.

I think the core of this issue is money. It’s going to cost a lot of it for people to live in these risky areas.

In my view, living in those places should not be subsidised by everyone else. That means everyone else’s insurance premiums should bear the cost of those heightened risks. If someone wants to build a house to a higher building standard in order to have it insured then so be it.