The spate of natural catastrophes in Australia this year provided the insurance industry with a real opportunity to show its value to the Australian public, with $4 billion committed by strong and financially sound companies able to withstand the most costly run of disasters the country has ever seen.

But instead of being praised, insurers have been vilified and insulted by anyone with a voice in the debate. Once again, the insurance industry – or more specifically, its representative body the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) – has failed to promote the service and sacrifice of thousands of professionals who worked through the summer to help clients and claimants.

Polling used by ICA last week represents yet another missed opportunity. It could have given some real insights into how various people – those affected by the floods as well as those who weren’t – felt about the performance of the industry, local authorities and government in response to the crisis, garnered at a time when emotions about the events were still raw.

But the temptation to push its own agenda through the polling results clearly proved too strong.

In an op-ed article in the Australian Financial Review last week, ICA CEO Rob Whelan said the results showed people are “clear” in their support for ICA’s 10-point plan backing improved building standards, flood mapping, a standard definition of flood, a national database of flood-risk properties, ensuring homes are built to a minimum flood-proof standard, and a ban on building in flood-prone areas.

But no statistics were provided in the article – or have been released subsequently - to back this assertion. Last week insuranceNEWS.com.au asked to see the polling results. Our requests were repeated politely over the course of four days and were ignored. That’s not unusual when dealing with ICA. The figures provided in our report today were garnered from ICA executives’ speeches, and are, at best, partial.

Rather than use the survey to further the debate on the various measures being discussed and considered on the back of the floods, ICA’s GM Policy, Economics and Taxation, Alex Sanchez, told the Institute of Actuaries flood resilience seminar in Sydney last week that the results ultimately indicate there has been no market failure when it comes to flood insurance.

“What’s the problem? What’s the issue?” he asked a bewildered audience gathered to discuss those very problems and issues.

As far as a technical definition goes, there hasn’t been a market failure, but the media and governments clearly believe there is a very big problem. And like it or not, perception is more powerful than reality.

The need to address negative public perceptions about insurance and insurers is not new. It’s obvious each time there is a disaster when, within the industry, there is much comment about the great job insurers are doing – even as they are being publicly castigated.

Attacks by politicians and the media affect every professional who feels committed to their industry and their work. For the people on the claims frontline, it can be gut-wrenching.

The image problem experienced by insurers is typically blamed on the “current affairs” media. There is certainly some truth in that – the industry is a convenient whipping-boy when the popularists are looking for someone to blame.

But ICA, as the insurers’ representative body, must accept some responsibility here. Its arrogant approach to media relations at all levels means there is no established goodwill and no favours to call on when things get tough. Its media relations strategy seems based on providing statistics and ignoring any questions it finds irksome. It is singularly reactive.

The council’s apparent take on the media is that it prefers to work behind the scenes as an influencer at policymaker level rather than splash out what it is doing publicly. But in another case of perception as reality, the views of politicians ultimately mirror those of their constituents, as witnessed during the floods when Queensland Premier Anna Bligh threatened to “name and shame” insurance companies and Prime Minister Julia Gillard called them “cowardly” and “callous”. It was not a time to lie low, to turn the other cheek, to work behind the scenes.

The floods have encouraged a government looking for political wins to take the flood insurance agenda away from the industry. Mr Whelan obviously agrees, telling the actuaries seminar in Sydney last week that the issue “of elevating the public debate around flood is crucial”.

Yet ICA’s ability to raise the level of the flood debate is severely limited because it has few, if any, friends in the media to push its message. And its “behind the scenes” strategy isn’t working, because the people it has worked so hard to influence “ethically and expertly” are obviously not listening.

The council’s five-year-old communications and influence strategies need re-examination. The thousands of industry employees who rely on ICA to represent to the world their pride, professionalism and self-belief deserve better.