If PM Gillard waited, she would be accused of being indecisive. There has been a clear that the assessment of the damage is likely to be higher than what is assessed at this time. The waters have not gone down, there is danger of more to come. We know what the minimum cost is. What is wrong with going ahead with plans to deal with this, while getting prepared for what is coming. What is to be gained by not acting at this time?

PM Gillard clearly stated that if more money is needed it would have to be found within the Budget. Cuts can always be found but they always affect someone.

PM Gillard is in the process of keeping her election promise to have a surplus by 2011 and 2012. The government will be crucified if this does not occur.

I believe it is unnecessary to have a surplus but also cannot see what harm would be done by reaching the target. It will give us some insurance if the world economy goes belly up.

There are dangers that interest rates will increase due to robustness of our economy. PM Gillard's actions could actually prevent or defer that happening.

I will be very surprised, owing to the make up of the present parliament, we do not have very comprehension plans to deal the situation. Of course PM Gillard when comes to an agreement will be automatically be accused of caving in, that cannot be helped.

My final point is that we are in the run up to the budget. This should be the time all is revised and prioritised. Choices have to be made. After all the government has many more things to juggle than flood damage.

It is a shame that this Opposition has not behaved as Opposition's have in the past in times of tragedy in a bipartisan manner.

Governments have to provide for today’s needs and at the same time future needs.

"Rudd was a dud, Gillard is no better, federal politics is turning us all into losers."

What does this childish comment contribute to the debate.

flo "It is a shame that this Opposition has not behaved as Opposition's have in the past in times of tragedy in a bipartisan manner"

The ALP in opposition voted against everything the Howard government did, in all areas in all respects .. they were hardly bipartisan.

The coalition governments in opposition, were bipartisan .. the ALP were spoilers but of course accuse everyone else of what they do, but no one questions their media management - the MSM being so sympathetic (ALPBC anyone?)

This is more policy on the run for the ALP, completely in character, given an opportunity to spend they just can't wait to get going.

They don't have a plan except to tax and spend .. what a surprise

THE Prime Minister first raised the prospect of a flood levy 10 days ago. Her government wants taxpayers to believe the levy is an unavoidable consequence of the natural disaster in Queensland - imposing a special tax is regrettable, but out of the government's hands.

Yet the day she signalled the flood levy also happened to be a day when her minister Kim Carr quietly announced the start of the government's Automotive Transformation Scheme. This scheme packages up $3.4 billion of taxpayers' money and wires it directly to the dilapidated (but very well connected) car industry.

This is a prime example of one of Labor's Holy pork barrels to her union buddies in Adelaide. $1.8bn trimmed off this will still allow $1.6bn of pork for the AWU.

Sadly one must agree with the sentiments- a government not thinking aloud before it leaps. Is this a real opportunity for using the Futures Fund instead of gambling it in the ASX?

What surprises me is how little attention has been given to the fact that, if this levy goes ahead, it will levy victims of flood as well as those who still have dry floors.
As a victim of the October floods in the riverina, I have not been able to consider making a donation to other victims, until I get the final costings in for our repairs. To think that I will be levied after the pain and anguish of the last 3 months, is simply insulting.