The federal government proposes a levy to finance the rebuilding of flood affected areas and the opposition opposes it. I'm in two minds on the issue.

On the one hand the money is going to have to come from somewhere, but on the other a prudent government would have sufficient reserves to deal with occurences like this. It's not as though the country has a shortage of national disasters.

The levy would represent an increase in taxation, which will mean slowing some parts of the domestic economy and redirecting it to rebuilding infrastructure in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, increasing the cost pressures in the construction industry (with some consequent flow-on to housing affordability).

Borrowing the money, as some are suggesting would actually have similar effects, but over a longer time span - as the money would have to be paid back eventually it would depress expenditure in later years.

The alternative would be to use the floods to justify winding-back spending on the BER and the NBN. That's possible, although in the case of the BER presumably promises have already been made.

It's hard to see this government scrapping the NBN, but it does raise questions about spending $40B on what will be little more than an enhanced highway for online games and video downloads.

One thing is for sure, infrastructure needs to be repaired as quickly as possible because it is a key to generating the wealth that will pay for it, and much of the wealth that sustains the country.

My son rented a unit at Ipswich.
Despite his best efforts he lost everything.
He commented that if the floods were caused by a God he did not look after his own, as a number of churches nearby were totalled.
This being interesting I asked him to take some photos for me.
Two Days later he emailed back saying that he could not take any photos of the damaged churches because they were the first buiding rebuilt, and that they were now back good as new even better.
Why should we pay a levy to have the churches repaired?

Tax the emitters

Responsible for

AGW linked events

Might I humbly suggest.....

We had the gun buyback levy, so special levies are not new.

Councils charge rates on the "unimproved land value", adjusted roughly for location but ignoring trifles like being at the top of a low rise or at the bottom.

I suggest that some levy should apply, ongoing as a compulsory insurance against all sorts of widespread disaster like flood, bushfire, tsunami, earthquake, rain of frogs etc.

That being said, payouts should be capped at about the price of a basic dwelling and some essential goods. "basic" might reflect buildings as built in the original subdivision.

No additional payout if you built a mcmansion on a flood zone, that is *your* lookout, but provision for basic dwellings etc seems reasonable.

Money might rebuild basic dwellings, community facilities and schools that double as disaster centres.

Not so sure about the churches. They already enjoy a lot of tax exemption. I'd rather get schools back up first.

How to invest the float might be interesting....

I suggest the fund buy or build our most basic infrastructure, dams, robust buildings on high ground, power stations and so on.

Then, the fund owns a substantial part of our common wealth as the backing for it's capacity to draw as governments traditionally did.

Rusty

GYs political leanings emerge as the BER and NBN are touted as the only two considerations for cost cutting.

How about the wasted dollars on our armed forces, particularly with Smith just about to buy up some worn out British ships built for the Cod Wars years ago?

What next, a re-commissioning of G for George as part of a 'new' airforce?

Or, how about the excessive spending on so-called 'private' schools taking a considerable hit on the bottom line?

Maybe if our tax system taxed the wealthy with a progressive tax that could not be avoided or evaded, then there would be more tax income, and possibly even a lower rate for many people?

A global crackdown on rouge nations like Switzerland (and many others) which is every bit as obnoxious a nation as N. Korea or Burma, Iran or Pakistan.

This state harbours ill-gotten gains for the respectable crooks who run our world. Perhaps if Australian politicians led the way in a national tax crackdown and exposed the international community for the liars and blaggers they are, we could tax more fairly than now?

Now, as ponde has pointed out, the exalted status of 'the church' ensures that about $30billion a year of income goes untaxed and totally unaccounted for in our national support of religions-as-charities even though very few people are actually 'religious' in this nation. How about taxing some of the privileges 'religion' currently enjoys?

Never forget that every dollar our 'generous' business community 'donates' to the flood funds is a tax deduction for them, paid for by us, and buys them 'moral character' that we have paid for.

How many more 'levies' do we need to pay for?

And why should greedy 'developers', and stupid planners and local government councillors, get away with allowing so many houses to be built in the way of floods?

NO! Definately not!.

If Julia wants to have the money to repair Australias's infrastructure & help flood affected people, then she can have a moratorium for 5 years on the $3,879,196,000, (That's $3.9 Billion dollars), in Overseas Aid. Charity begins at home & Australia need that money now. The $3.9 billion is the 08/09 figures. This happens every year and is on top of the 7% of Australian GDP obligation given to the UN every year. Yet Australia has struggling Infrastructure, Roads, Hospitals, Education, etc. Just think of the advancement in these areas Australia could achieve in just a few years.

See http://www.ausaid.gov.au/publications/pubout.cfm?ID=9266_4050_7172_5723_8240

The only money Australia should send overseas in Aid is Emergency Aid for a particular disaster, not just to bribe 3rd world countries into supporting us in various UN votes.

I haven't been able to find out how much money leaves Australia through private Aid, Oxfam, Churches, etc, but even if it's 25% of the 3.9 billion that would be a substantial amount. Then there are people, Philipino wives, students, interant workers, etc living in Australia who send money to their families & relatives abroard.

Charity begins at home Australian Aid money is needed to help Australians at the moment.

If the retired builder that told me that 30-40% of houses flood affected in Brisbane were built since 1974 is correct. We should impose a levy on the ratepayers in the flood effected council areas because they elected the stupid councilors that allowed the building of homes there.

To allow housing developement in these areas is either incompedence or corruption is involved. I wont accept that the councilors were so believing in global warming that they thought there would never be another flood. The councilors themselves should be made to pay.

How stupid can you get.

Graham:

We've just recently had a world-wide economic disaster that affected Australia nationally and it is unfortunate that the floods came in its wake. Australia has a 200 year history of floods. Authorities continue to permit construction in flood areas. It should be the responsibility of local governments and people who build in flood areas to pay the costs that are related to floods by paying insurance, levys, taxes, and so on, if they continue to live and build in these areas. This last experience is a good example of what the future will bring and it is not the responsibility of those who plan wisely to pay for those who insist on taking risks.

Come now! focus please that rebuilt Church story is not true.
Clean up may be but rebuilt in days not weeks, no one with understanding can think like that, And true the ridiculous idea that the federal government has only given 1 million so far is growing still.
Proof surely some are uninformed.
We have been hit by drought, the GFC now tragic floods.
Tax dollars belong to us all.
I vote for an extra tax, I also vote for a return to surplus ASAP.
To blame government, any for, for the GFC drought bush fires and these floods is uncharitable.
Fully aware my statement here is not agreed to, I truly honestly hold the view Tony Abbott by his obstruction and opposition for its own sake is hurting his own party.
We had levee for other things I find it hard to know, some put a night out in front of donating to this tragic event.
And even more that some oppose our governments planned levee, stay solid Aussie your mates need you.
The country needs to return to surplus and this once of tax is not going to kill.

Just a thought.

I can understand the government using taxpayers' money to rebuild government-owned infrastructure. After all, I doubt you could get an insurance company to cover a bridge against floodwater damage.

But will our money also be used to bail out people who failed to protect themselves? If so, what do we tell the prudent folk who spent their after-tax earnings on insurance?

Does it pay to be a grasshopper, or should we encourage the ant?

Belly,
why should we pay if (a) The Council allowed housing deveopment in flood prone areas and (b) If people bought and built on blocks knowing it was a flood prone area or (c) if Councils failed to inform purchassers that the block was in a flood zone.

It is not just bad luck. Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance!

Far too many persons get away without being responsible for their own actions, and that includes many elected to public office.

For many, many years my local council has had a ban on building homes in flood areas. That is the right and proper course to take.

Since Australia was declared a drought zone many developments have gone up in what were once flood prone areas. Why are these sorts of developments approved? If the insurance companies are astute enough to exclude flood in their policies for flood prone areas (or at greatly inflated premiums) why aren't local councils and governments?

People also have to make smart decisions on where they choose to live and do their research.

Government owned infrastructure will need to be repaired or rebuilt. There are many sections of government that can be cut to offset those costs including withdrawing from Afghanistan and reducing a burgeoning SES within the APS.

On one hand I would argue NO to a flood levy and argue for reductions in other areas of government spending HOWEVER, as is too often the case the cuts won't be made in the deadwood or the frivolous, it will be made at the coalface. And that will affect other important services to the public.

Why should we have a tax levy? If about $5 billion is being given in Aid by Government & private sources to overseas aid. I don't see why Australia can't have a moritorium on this, at least the Government part of this Aid, for 5 years. It could be used to rebuild Australias infrastructure & future proof Australia from disasters. Then we could help other countries, but Australia need that money first, & now.

5 years would give Australia at least $19 billion. That would go a long way towards furture proofing Australia, providing, of course, the Lawyers, Administrators & consultants, etc don't milk the bulk of it off.

Recently there have been other disasters like the bushfires. A number of charities didn't distrubute all the Aid they collectered. "Saving for future disasters" They said.

Where is that money now?
Has any of it been added to the pool of Aid raised for the floods?

As for a new Tax or Levy. I don't think so. Australia should adopt a 10% PERSONAL EARNINGS tax, with no deductions of any discription for anything. Business Tax is another matter. I sure Australia would be in surplus in no time at all.

The discussion seems shifter to centering around "blame." I believe thats another discussion.

There are at least three different categories of infrastructure involved.

1/ Infrastructure required to service people living directly in high risk area's.
2/ Common infrastructure required regardless of how close to high risk area's. Bridges, some roads, electrical and telecommunications infrastructure could fall into that category.
3/ Infrastructure in area's not normally considered to be at risk but which may have been impacted by extreme conditions - my impression is that the flood in downtown Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley was unprecedented.

I don't have much interest in subsidising others choices to live in known flood risk area's and many of the area's which were flooded fall into that category. The cost of repairs to infrastructure required to service those choosing to live in high risk area's should be primarily worn by those choosing that risk.

The costs associated with repairs to assets which are required by the
broader community should be carried by the whole community.

I especially object to paying a special bonus to those who were not flood ensured. If insurance policies were misleading (or written in such a way that most customers were likely to think that they were covered for riverine floods) then the insurers should be dealt with by the law.

There are no special government handout's to people who fail to adequately insure themselves in other circumstances regardless of how unfair the insurance company appears to be or how big the personal loss appears to be.

We each make choices about where we choose to live (and locate businesses). Sometimes those choices are driven by a lack of econnomic power but I suspect that for most of those impacted around Brisbane a near river location is not the result of poverty, it may be in some other area's.

R0bert

I live in Wentworth at the junction of the Murray and Darling - all that water is heading towards us, though it is weeks/months away. Wentworth was built entirely on a floodplain, but for good strategic reasons in the time of the riverboat trade (an earlier town on higher ground was abandoned). As with other similar situations (eg farming on the good soil near a volcano) it's a matter of balancing long-term benefits v. the risk of occasional disasters but also planning for the latter.

Wentworth has been seriously flooded - in 1871, 1890, 1931 and, the worst, in 1956 when the Murray and Darling floodpeaks coincided here. Those lessons were learnt. The town is extensively leveed - we had a levee levy (paid by residents inside the levees) to raise the levees long before it became the current joke. You can buy water frontage here, but there's a great big embankment between your house and the water. So I have no problem with people living on a floodplain, but watching the TV coverage I have been surprised at the lack of permanent levees around new floodplain developments. Maybe you need a really big flood to convince you (and the council) that it is worth sacrificing the view for levee protection (houses can be built high to see over the levee).

The dog in the manger responses do not represent the majority of the electorate who would recognise the catastrophic events as unusual.

As well as that, decisions made in the best interests of the public are never perfect, balancing as they must competing priorities and limitation of resources. To take a few examples,

firstly, water was hoarded in Wivenhoe (Brisbane) because there is not enough water for the booming population growth determined by federal governments, allegedly for the benefit of all of Australia but resulting in overpopulation of cities like Brisbane and stretching their ratepayers to the limit. Wivenhoe had to release water late and in response to a huge run-off, thereby causing the flooding of Brisbane it was supposed to prevent;

secondly, for all sorts of reasons there has been no building of dams for water provision and flood mitigation for twenty years. However like the many thousands of people who have developed or built in Queensland over the years I contributed thousands for proposed dams and other water infrastructure for no result and strangely, the millions seem to have disappeared for other purposes somewhere; and

thirdly, demands for cheap land have been met by developing flood plains, draining marshlands and dredging sand rather than reduce the ever increasing government taxes and charges that made land development very expensive. There are many who benefit through lower taxes while residential housing is treated as a milch cow by government and money that could have gone to welfare housing is used for another purpose.

Everyone should kick in according to their capacity to help and that is best done by a tax levy, although my number one preference would be to stall the NBN. My only concern is that I wouldn't like to see Canberra coordinate any of the work (has any of that indigenous housing been done yet?).

Where is our future fund?

Labor raids deplete Future Fund Tom Dusevic, National chief reporter From: The Australian May 14, 2010

>>ALMOST all the federal government's nation-building infrastructure fund has been depleted, less than a year after it received an initial $11 billion endowment to make strategic investments.
According to the Department of Finance, the "uncommitted balance" of the Building Australia Fund was $705 million at the end of March, a 94 per cent plunge compared to the value of its original capital.<<

There it is.

When governments try to build dams, recently in QLD and NSW not in my back yard/greens groups kill them.
Councils by their very nature are not unlike this NSW government, driven by developers, who often are the council.
Most who buy and build in flood land know no better.
I ask how many here think the tax is meant for private houses.
Governments by far have more to do and more to spend than any, other than insurance company's and that is only a maybe for insurance.
Put ever cent governments get from every source in a barrel.
WE EXPECT much more from that barrel than it holds.
Do we want schools, hospitals, transport health and roads rebuilt.
Would we say no to the spending of millions, many millions, replacing white goods for those who have nothing?
Or the $2000 first payments to those in need?
Why are we talking about things we can not undo, bad planning bad councils evil developers?
We can not take that back but we can see it never happens again.
Like the silly targeted story about Church's up the thread some zip past the nightmare of those who suffer still.
Let us leave politics out of it give then give again pay the tax extra it may be.
Now tell me, Tony Abbott/Howard if in power right now,would either not want to get back in the black.
Would they not too levee us all?
I understand unhappiness with Labor but it is scrapping the very bottom of a very dirty barrel to use others grief and suffering to save a few bob and flog a politics issue in to life.
Have you given yet, it will not hurt it may be you who one day needs some one to say cop this bloke you need it,Aussie day,what a way to say thanks to this country.

I think any one who comes onto this string should declare whether they were personally affected by a flood, before they can make a comment. I live in Uranquinty NSW and was affected by the torrential rain in October - we had 10cm of water through our house.
We are currently living in a rental accomodation until repairs are made to our house - We were not covered for the roof, but we were covered for the water that came into our house from above, and for the water that came through the door - as it contained sewerage. We are fortunate! Of the approximately 200 residences in Uranquinty, 60 were damaged and many utterly destroyed. The catholic church, at our back gate was inundated by over 300ml of water, and it is on stumps.

I take issue with the poster who said that the churches in Ipswich are already repaired. Our parish council has just received the quote fron the insurance companty. No repairs are carried out on properties until they dry out. The poster may mean that services are now being conducted in these flooded churches. That was likewise in Uranquinty. The church is a shell, but not a dangerous place to give thanks and praise to God for our deliverence.

Our place is still wet below the concrete slab, 3 months after the event, but repairs are being made as the rest of the place has finally dried out enough to replace plaster and paint.

Would I pay a Levy - I got nothing from the disaster plan - but then I had insurance which covered most of the damage. Others were not so lucky, with the prospect of relocating for 12 months while repairs are made. We will still be out of pocket more than $20,000 as we think it is sensible to replace a roof that leaks in VERY HEAVY rain, especially when the insurance company is meeting cost of more than $40,000.

A couple of links to summaries of payments available.

http://www.communityservices.qld.gov.au/community/community-recovery/support-assistance/support-assistance.html

http://lhmu.org.au/files/QLD-20floods-20-20SEC.pdf

I can see that in some circumstances there will be real reasons why some people don't have the relevant insurances but those cases where that becomes the communities responsibility should be few and far between. As I pointed out earlier government handout's to reduce hardship due to not being adequately insured don't apply in other situations although the individual hardship may be a great or greater.

R0bert

The Blue Cross has nailed this, in one. Whether you think a levy is appropriate or not, is not the point,
the way to improve the economy for all and protect ourselves from preventable disaster,
is to ensure that all (including the rich or privileged) are paying the appropriate share in our overall taxation system.
I have had made similar points as TBC in the past in other posts, about religion and tax

The Swiss keep recharging their banking scandal whistle blower, hoping that something will stick, even if his motivations are all wrong, his information
is eye-opening, consequently his case for the public interest strengthens.
It also seems that any wealthy entity with a bank account in the Cayman Islands is a tax evader, and that this reality has also existed up till now with absolute impunity.

Our Govt, (and even more so, "our repulsive opposition") seek to have "man on the street taxpayers" pay the subsidy/revenue raised by such levy/tax, too businesses, whilst at the same time, the same taxpayer is left to their own devices (in a legal minefield) at that hands of insurers, crawling through every loophole they can find in the policies of their devastated customers, to avoid paying. Other insurer's, knowing all the time that their policy product would not cover customers in such an event, also with absolute impunity.

If you can't see how mad this is, then you need new glasses.

It's all about government incompetence. The vibe I get from fellow travelers and I tend to agree. If we had a competent government then we wouldn't mind pitching in. But as we have the worst piece of trailer park trash running the joint into the ground, then she can shove it!

Shoot the messenger as I know you're all good at it, but in my neck of the woods, that's how the folks feel. Not to mention that some folks were just asking for it, so why should we bother? I mean if my house burns down tomorrow because of a faulty light switch or something and I don't have insurance, no one is going to help me are they?

Tell the bogan princes to stop wasting money on useless trash and then we wouldn't have this problem!

Thanks thinker2

The hollowness of the wealthy, politicians, business 'leaders', rich personalities, and so on, is there for all to see when it comes to evading and avoiding tax.

But all Abbott and Gillard can come up with is to tax the plonkers, and many plonkers meekly accept that as 'the commonsense' thing to do.

Belly, lets have a look at a few dam sites shall we/

The Toowoomba flood was not caused by the lack of a dam.

Neither was the Murphy's Creek - Grantham surge.

I suspect there is no room/suitable spot for a dam for Ipswich.

Nor Dalby, Warwick, Condamine, Chinchilla and so on.

St George has a dam, or a weir anyway.

Dams are not 'the solution'.

Wivenhoe and its surrounding dams would have to have been just about empty to accept all the water that came on that fateful week, and day.

Of Victoria's plight, I have no idea at all, so make no comment.

Now, whether councils had planned for more than the 1 in 100 year event is another matter.

Ours clearly did not, and I suspect many others did not either.

I'd start looking at this still emerging 'science' to get a few answers rather than plug on about 'Greenies stopping dams'.

I suspect that most local government, councils, are quite inept when it comes to really designing a solid disaster management plan that could have foreseen this event and dealt with it in a reasonable manner.

Now is the time to start questioning this clearly much needed 'reserve' and making sure they all lift their game, and that, of course, includes all of us too, who need to understand that not all land is there to be built on, and 'profit' is not always the best, and never the only, measure to use when designing communities.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to see the absurdity in the church story. Seriously - they were 'totalled' but rebuilt in two days? incredible - and your son says that God 'did not look after his own'.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that such a levy would pay for the government to rebuilt its own assets: infrastructure and the like, rather than private property.

In that sense, I don't mind a levy so much. It is not putting freebies in the hands of private investors, but rather investing in our nation.

In another sense, I do mind. Like Graham said, a prudent government should have money in reserve for such not-so-rare events. If they do not, they should look at other non-essential spending that can be cut back. Imposing further taxes on people already hard-hit by events seems quite unreasonable to me. Our grocery bill will be going up, other costs of living will continue to rise. People who were struggling to scrape two pennies together have been hit hard by these events but, by a stroke of economic luck (read: sufficiently high income), will also have a surprise tax to contend with.

Do we exempt people who were financially affected by the floods? If so, we should probably add those who were financially affected by the Victorian bushfires, Cyclone Larry and various other natural disasters from which they may not yet have recovered. We should also refund those who are affected by natural disasters in the next five years or so. In short, exemptions would be preposterous, unmanageable and unfair.

If there is no other viable way to get our infrastructure back in full functionality, then impose a levy. But a levy should be a last resort, in my opinion.

I am waiting for Wikileaks reports on tax avoidance.
Only a fool would not be,and agree with the comments about that.
It should be noted among those will be very well off Polly's from all party's, also the more honesty Wikileaks enforces the more its leader will be threatened.
TBC/.thinker 2 sorry never agree greens get it right too but dams fill, full ones will not contribute to flood control but water will be needed again.
Floods and droughts are part of our country and will increase as a result[ as predicted] of global warming.
Pay the levee, be proud we can rebuild ,do it better but expect more floods, how many dams, and how big, to have had any real impact on these floods?
But the impacts on droughts? yes we can.

If we get a flood levy then America and England should get a snow levy and all funding towards the climate astrologers should be stopped.

No: (not yet)!

Government has an obligation to investigate all aspects of the disaster prior to decisions on the raising of levies.
Suspicions of neglect of duty and wrong doing by Government at all levels, is in need investigation. For example, one housing estate alone in the Ipswich area that I have become aware of recently, was developed in a flood zone with eighteen recorded inundations of varying degrees since 1886; some to a higher level than the recent flood.

Questions arise concerning the actions and dealings of Banks and Insurance companies surrounding the Queensland flood disaster, which are looking for urgent answer. There is an urgent need to investigate lending authorities (Banks) decisions to finance properties and questionable housing developments in affected flood zones; and further negating their responsibility by forcing borrowers, for example, towards mandatory insurance of the Banks assets (mortgaged properties) as a prerequisite to loan approvals.

It is imperative to have every possible protection in place, and all responsibility for wrong doing clearly identified prior to imposing the extra burden of additional tax on the generous and giving nature of Australians. A levy becomes a “too easy road to salvation” for Government, and until all blame and responsibility are identified: until those suspects of irresponsibility and sheer greed are exposed for the “Robbers and thieves in Naves” they are, then no facility should be presented in disguise as a “Levy” to such “Societal Scum” as an escape route from their culpability.

No to a levy, the tool of convenience and escape route for wrong doers

Runner! sorry bloke but do you under stand?
An Astrologer/Astronomer has nothing to do with weather for casting.
Or that snow is not often a natural disaster at this level.
Do you know how silly that looks?
A post up the thread said it was Gods fault, rather stretched the truth in saying a church had been rebuilt days after the flood, but you post tops that.
WHAT has happened to the kindness of the Jesus I once followed.
IF conservatives ruled right now we would either have a levee or big time cost cutting and pain some other places.
That ok with you?
And some say [unbelievable so] that we should have a reserve for such as this.
We are in debt, like it or not the GFC saw to that, our response to it stopped much pain.
I am so glad I left Christianity behind me, here in these pages we See greed and condemnation from Christians to others.
Not the love and concerns your God fable spoke of.

'IF conservatives ruled right now we would either have a levee or big time cost cutting and pain some other places.
That ok with you?'

Sorry Belly the conservatives with all their faults would not of blown billions of dollars which has got us into the mess which now requires new taxes. Labour is habitually wasteful and now we have a real need but have no money left. It does make sense to keep some for a rainy day. Look at Australia's climate history instead of leftist garbage and you will see that floods are not new here. The hundreds that died due to the snow that climatologist said would never fall again might consider the situation quite serious in America even if you don't. Of course the same propaganda that alarmist use throughout their faith worldwide was used.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/27/just-another-east-coast-blizzard/

Belly:>> We are in debt, like it or not the GFC saw to that, our response to it stopped much pain.<<

No Belly we are not in debt due to the GFC we are in debt because of the waste that comes with being inept as displayed by the past and present Labor Government. If the pain felt in the western hemisphere was a ten, we suffered a three. This brief appraisal is succinct and factual.

The economic vitality report: the impact of the GFC on Australians
Robert Tanton National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling

"15 March 2010. The global financial crisis proved to be more of a slowdown than a recession in Australia and that the economy improved throughout 2009 reflects our lack of direct exposure, this report finds that more people felt their personal circumstances had declined, but this was driven through media driven perception."

Belly it is devious of you to blame the turnaround from a $20 billion surplus to a $60 billion government deficit in one term on the GFC.

Have a look at this link, fifty ways the GFC affected Aussies, it is tighten the belt stuff rather than sell of the farm.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/50-ways-the-gfc-has-changed-australia/

Such is the federal opposition, include too some who support it, a blindness to our position in the rest of the world hides truth.
And do not give me that lie/false bit about Howard and Costello being financial giants.
They skidded along on minings back and tax's, yes see how much some taxes went up under them.
I am to be convinced that a coalition government would have done as good, leave alone better than Rudd and his red headed mate did.
I share a strong view Tony Abbott says one thing but does another he can not be trusted, may well have used the ALP way to handle the GFC.
Runner sorry but you have,time and again ,seen people from both sides question your posts,and support them if it agrees with their thoughts.
I stand by my thought you are not my idea of a Christian.

Obviously, not too many of the 28 thousand personally affected by the Brisbane floods commenting in these posts! Should I conclude that the Banks and Insurance companies are safe to continue the rorts: I fear so! Ho Hum..back to sleep. ZZZZ

The problem is Lexi, that many Australians in lower income brackets within many cities, have not been given the choice to purchase or rent in upper areas - middle class to elitist suburban areas ie on 'higher ground'.

I have many friends and colleagues who earn anywhere between $35,000 - $200,000, some with spouses not earning, others earning a similar income; between them have earned in excess of $300,000K over 25 years.

I believe incomes should be closely looked at initially ie those people who have enjoyed a middle class to elitist lifestyle, say on either public service wages with their super and long service leave awaiting them, should pay the levy or tax.

For the people struggling on one wage or a wage less than $49,000 these people should not be required to pay a levy or tax.

In summary, a suggestion is to base the levy or taxes on incomes, particularly people supporting children and dependants with disabilities on lower incomes.

Some people in life were trodden over in the workforce by career high climbers, or sustained injuries, cancer, have disabilities, that have never enjoyed the excellent careers and income that many public servants or business people have enjoyed, some who took their luxuries for granted.

The other suggestion is for Labor to address the following temporary measures to assist with the Infrastructure in all flood affected zones;

(i) Review all departments and positions within the public service to ensure that all positions are necessary, investigate the possibility of wage reductions, some unnecessary positions at higher levels dissolved via the encouragement of earlier retirements, packages etc.

After all, Labor took this approach well over ten years ago with little warning to staff in a couple of states. Why not now when faced with the revenue dilemma caused by some shifty misleading insurance companies [Australian owned or Internationally owned]?

(ii) Scrap all public service advertising programs, publications and unnecessary public service costs until major infrastructure is finalised and assistance given to lower income earners that are flood victims.

(iii) Recall public servants from overseas spots where the work/objectives are able to be placed on hold while the costs of infrastructure within flood affected states are carried out.

(iv) Encourage each State to adopt similar measures and encourage other States to assist with the infrastructure of major flood affected Towns and Cities.

sonofgloin,
The Future Fund was established to fund the future superannuation committments of Commonwealth Public Servants - the very committments that were left unfunded for the first half of the Howard government era but also, according to Costello, as a source of revenue "for a rainy day".

How much more rainy does it have to get?

The federal government is looking at a bill for about $5bn for the reconstruction of the damage. The question really is where should it fund this from? Compared to the $16.8bn BER splurge and the $bns subsidising green cars etc, this is not that large a sum.

If one considers that the BER is has still not spent about 25% of the total yet, and the construction industry whose jobs are being "saved" are mostly the same businesses that will do the reconstruction, it makes obvious sense to divert this money. Not to do so will rob both projects of skilled resources.

An additional tax can only be justified, if rational alternatives have not been pursued.

Public comment can be a strange thing, read this thread, consider for a second my role in it.
I a nonbeliever have been forced to come to the rescue of both a Church and the Idea of God, fairness would not let me ignore both.
Now? I MUST no other way for me, defend and rebut the thought those who suffered bought it on themselves and are both rich, may be stole our water front land, and may even be responsible for Global warming, rain,I can not go on.
We are told Labor has got us here in debt, that we should have money in the bank for this.
Yet an attempt to both get back in the black,and spread the costs, looks like it will be 5 bucks a week, is, well bad ugly a whole lot but is it?
The state of debate in Australian politics has never been lower.
An intention to hurt/harm your opponents not find answers exists.
We do, you know if you understand this country, have a system in place that has always under all party's been in part Socialism.
Some screaming here about tax and costs would NEVER EXCEPT cuts to those socialist things they use.
Health education travel water power much more subsidized .
I am all right mate may strangle the mate ship that made yesterday a proud day.
Give, give again, then pay the tax but be proud we live in a country that can,that cares enough to want to rebuild.

One way of getting some money back into the coffers is to take a long hard look at the salaries & benefits of high ranking Public Servants & foreign aid as well as public funding to the arts.
We could call a cut-back/subsequent savings on these a flood levy.

A few point's based on comments so far.
- There can never guarantee that a government will have sufficient reserves to cover a series of disasters. There will be times where reserves are not enough.
- A need to do something does not mean every measure is justified. Just as the GFC required action but that action was not necessarily the big screen TV bonus which the government choose the current crisis needs action but may not require taxpayers to subsidise those who have not protected themselves (nor various other non-esential rebuild's/upgrades which have a habit of becoming part of any large scale rebuilding efforts).
- Just as there are a variety of reasons why low income earners are low income earners there are a variety of reasons why middle and high income earners do so. The assumption that the reasons or needs of low income earners are more valid than those of others based only on income level is not valid. For some it's about ability and external circumstance, for many others that's not the case. The person who accepts lower income levels in exchange for other lifestyle benefits does not have a social responsibility than those who pay the price to obtain a higher level to meet higher financial responsibilities.

R0bert

Already,” the writing is on the wall”. If losses from flood damage to individuals and business are not personally devastating enough, interparty debate in Government echoes Sybil Fawlty’s line; I know... I know... I know... Oh, I know! and descends to the “Pythonesque”. Through it all, Australians seem willing to allow the same vagabonds of opportunity and stealth, to grab them by a “twisted ear” and lead them, unceremoniously, down the tortured and culminating trail of half truth and obfuscation, rewarded by additional taxes.

Anesthetized by obsessively repetitive and banal media bombardment, we paddle unaffectedly at the edges of some-others catastrophe; a catastrophe, hidden deeply and silently under a permanent high tide of despair.

We, as Australians, urgently need to focus on just who are the “victims”. It is “not” the Government, beleagueredly portraying themselves as such, who deserve sympathy; with extended and open hand, opportunely bleating to a confused populace, begging forgiveness for another highway robbery of the tax payer; proceeds of which to be thrown at the grubby feet of Treasurer Wayne Swan, parading like a grinning and fictional Cheshire cat and displaying the intelligence of a cow at milking time; bemoaning the stress of flood devastation to the bottom line, in monotones resemblant of a migrating whale.

Let us not lose sight of the true victims of the flood disaster, typically over-represented by the young family, familiar to all our neighbourhoods, struggling tenaciously against the too often swift flowing tide of financial hardship; they are the ”victims”; everyday people who, but for little more reason than fate, became, through no personal fault of entirety, the “common” victim: Not simply to the muddy waters of flood, but victims to the vile and morally stagnant perpetrators of “design factors” that commodified them for sacrifice to Gods of greed and the devil of conformity.

continued...

Continued...

The same commodifiers now gleefully rubbing together guilty and unrepentant hands, huddled in tight murmuring expectant circles, inside the panelled and expensive board rooms of Banks and Insurance companies across the nation; awaiting, with the arrogance of supreme confidence in their proven powers of manipulation for uncontested rewards of vast profits to come from the reconstruction of the same victims: A project of resurrection watered with the crocodile tears, and fertilised with the excrement of the hot air promises of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott. The “common” victims now metamorphosed to creatures of perpetual anxiety, trapped in the land of “Limbo”, imprisoned in houses ones called homes, looking across the flood planes towards the next inescapable disaster and subjected to continuous rort. A commodity of profit!

Thanks for putting this into some perspective, wobbles.

>>The Future Fund was established to fund the future superannuation committments of Commonwealth Public Servants - the very committments that were left unfunded for the first half of the Howard government era but also, according to Costello, as a source of revenue "for a rainy day"<<

The Future Fund was - and is - nothing more than financial sleight-of-hand.

It was one of Costello's master-strokes of misinformation. He failed to identify within his "magnificent ten" budgets that unfunded Commonwealth super had ballooned by $29 billion - in other words, he fudged the figures to show that we were $29 billion better off than we were.

I have tried to discover the latest figures for unfunded super in the Australian Public Service. I haven't yet tracked down a definitive source, but this might serve as an indicator.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/states-face-super-liability-crisis/story-fn59niix-1225958841611

"...the superannuation deficit of federal, state and territory governments had blown out to more than $220bn at June 30"

And here we are, quibbling about a measly $20bn.

Well, it appears we are to have a levy

http://www.smh.com.au/business/levy-to-pay-for-56b-flood-bill-20110127-1a64x.html

Interestingly, it is designed to raise $5.6 billion over just 12 months, yet will cost an average of less than $5 per taxpayer, with many taxpayers completely exempt.

The amount raised is about twice the total amount of child support transferred annually,

http://www.csa.gov.au/agency/facts.aspx

so presumably a levy of less than half this one, targetted at all taxpayers, would be sufficient to replace all of that.

The CSA is an ongoing destructive force costing $500 million a year to run that blights the lives of many more Australians than this flood did. Why is there such enormous opposition to doing something about it?

Come on, PM, show us you're capable of seeing the bigger picture.

Antiseptic I like the change in your posting style.
Have been watching it for a while.
Do not fear bloke nothing to be concerned about but I almost feel like having a beer with you.
But 1 point some thing billion comes from the levee.
Cost cutting gets the rest.
5 bucks, a week you mean.
I think this my last tax year as a middle income worker it will cost me $500
no problem gave more than that.
My wanted outcomes, bet I do not get them but here they are.
Rebuild better wiser but rebuild quickly.
Look at the NZ insurance issues and consider a levee forever to FUND ONLY DISASTERS nothing else.
One last thing, that we use other battle grounds to fight our politics.
I am baffled by one of our very finest posters RObert and his low income post, do we define loss based on income?
I truly honestly hope income is No measure of pain, worth, ability or any thing other than spending power.

Belly that part of the post was a response to the views at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4242#106976 . I'm very much over income being used as a determiner of enforced responsibily to others.

It's no measure of peoples choices nor how much discretionary money they have left after meeting their committments.

R0bert

$ 1.40 / week for pay over 50 ,000 / year.

OK RObert hands up my post was wrong.
I lived the Aussie dream early in the day, last week of October.
Never sang the song about taking the job and but he got the message.
I was on middle income, but even putting long service and quite a bit of holidays it will not be a full year.
And I may avoid it all together.
But I contributed more privately.
We should have a disaster fund,not spending money for party's seeking election, but for our increasing troubles floods fire cyclones.
PS
Any chance my old boss is still spying on me, have saved a seat on the out of work benches over the road from me, hard to see from here it is in the blackberry bushes, water them every day for you.

$ 1.40 per week for $51,000 to 100 G. This is one of the things that really gripe me about the australian tax system. For crying out loud why can't we make it a percentage of income ?
$ 2.00 for 60 G's, $2.50 for 70, $3.00 for 80 & so on. let's get real. Get the priorities right. Stop pussy footing around with the higher income people. Make them pull their weight too ? most of them only get more than us put do less. get some decency back into the system. Let's this australian fairness thingo in full flight.

I have no school children lets cut education.
Do not use public transport lets privatize it and raise the costs.
$5 a week! dreadful, we can get more than that and keep the extra cup of coffee if we cut meals on wheels, lets do it, until I need it.
Sound silly?
For sanity's sake I hope it does to some.
Mr Tony Abbott, his team, just a few days after Australia day, are doing what they have done for so long, making weapons out of shadows any shadow.
Turnbull, please start your rebirth,your party and this country needs you.
Bill Shorten, bloke you too must step up, you would wipe the floor with them all.
In time it will be seen as true Labor can not polish an old tin and tell us it is silver,you can take us out of this fogy landscape.
One that see,s Aussies complain about helping others in trouble.

Graham,

I've only just found out that this levy is to be a "one of," levy.
Therefore I've had a change of heart. I'm supporting the government in this levy. As Belly rightly points out - it won't kill any of us.
It needs to be done.

The polling that I have seen so far indicates that between 60% and 80% of those polled oppose the tax. So while the Labor tragics amongst you might show your support, you are not representative of most of Australia

If this does not have bipartisan support, Labor will be seen as the party of new taxes, and will be held solely responsible at the polls. TA will ensure that this is politically expensive for Labor.

A levy is the best way. Stupid to upset other funding just because some damage happened elsewhere. The country as a whole is 'life as normal'

How do Shadow Minister!
Nice to see you bloke!
Seeing we are mates I have a tip for you.
Come close and I will whisper in your ear.
Don't want this mob to hear ok?
Next poll, you know, try not to take it in the CWA or National party meet ok?
Costs, have we all finished? understand what it will cost, that some of us pay zero, most not much, how much did it cost for the paper and coffee last year.
Expenditure, we know its to pay for Schools hospitals roads bridges INFRASTRUCTURE rebuilding do we.
And we all know the levee is 1.8 billion the rest from cuts?
Suppose we know it may cost much more too.
So what now? confuse the issue flog the ALP and fog the issue of pain and loss to our fellow man.
WHO is Tony Abbott? he has ample fodder to get at labor, why use the suffering here?
Can ANY CONSERVATIVE be sure Tony's Torys would not do exactly the same if in office?
If I wanted to taunt our PM, my PM it would be so easy, but not on this issue fair go Aussie.
Julia, on your way out remember the shear stupidity of the cash for clunkers give away,the death of solar panels ,your inability to refuse the 24 hour news cycle, your inability to ask you media questioners questions about the unbalanced nature,,,, of their questions, good by mate ,job, well half done but the dream is at a stand still.

Shadow Minister,

Predictions don't always come true as you know. The GST was something that many opposed - yet today we simply take it for granted. People don't like change and often oppose it initially, that doesn't mean that they are right. Leaders need to sometimes do what they feel is best for the country - as one notable American leader from the past once said:
"Ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for the country." (or words to that effect).

cont'd ...

I saw a cartoon in a magazine that you may appreciate. It was of "Question Time," in Parliament with a Minister standing up and
making the following remark:

"When my distinguished colleague refers to the will of the "people," does he mean his "people" or my "people"?"

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this levy has nothing to do with helping individual victims, who's homes have sustained damage, but in rebuilding infrastructure.

This being the case, one could say it has nothing to do with helping Queenslanders, or other states flood victims, but is to rebuild the commonwealth & state's tax base, & to get the earning of foreign exchange back up as quickly as possible.

I have the feeling that most of us are being sold a pup with this levy.

The ABC are asking how the inhabitants of other states feel about rebuilding Queensland. If I am right they are not rebuilding Queensland, or helping Queenslanders, they are getting Anna, & Julia off the hook, & getting the export industries going again.

Without Queensland, & Western Oz mining exports there would be no foreign exchange for Sydney & Melbourne people to get their next plasma TV.

Hasbeen:

The floods have caused extensive damage to infrastructure not only in
Queensland but NSW, Victoria, and we are yet to see what's going to happen in SA as the waters flow down the Murray.

Roads, railways, power-lines, sewerage, water supplies, hospitals, schools, police stations, et cetera - are the responsibility of state and federal governments and until they are restored rebuilding in towns and cities and rural areas will be difficult. Therefore the first priority for the government is to initiate funding and restoration work on all essential services. My understanding is that
from donations collected to date and the levy, government assistance will be provided to victims who are not covered by insurance. Victims and the low-paid are exempt from the levy. The levy is for people earning over $50,000. It's a one-of levy. It certainly won't place any hardship on anyone's earnings - yet it will help those in need.

Having been affected directly by the floods I REALLY appreciated the good will, random acts of kindness, and fellow members of my community regardless of their race, religion, or creed, holding out their hands and hearts just for us. It was great, and those people will never be forgotten.

This squabbling over whose fault it all is is disgusting. They're still finding bodies and some of you have turned your backs on them. Bravo. Hope you're proud of yourselves. Come out here and I'll show you where people's lives and homes used to be.

5 BUCKS?. Unbelievable. For shame.

StG that is your finest ever post, it talks for every Australia who is worth knowing.
NSW this weekend, Australia in fact has sent many to help some took annual leave but it to them is a privilege, I would have loved to be part off.
That privilege is the driving force behind our volunteers in every endeavor, not street March's not fame or medals.
The chance to make a difference, to hide in the truck, briefly and not let the world see you cry after seeing the bravery of a family with nothing left.
And StG, may you have the fastest recovery possible may you always stand up for victims.
And may, please may my country stop letting politics drive us apart at times like these.
Finally please those anti government people throwing good will away think about this?
Get you wallet out be a proud AUSTRALIAN.

No worries Belly.

Hi STG,
Many Australians have donated and assisted from interstate STG after genuinely feeling and placing themselves in yours and other Australian flood victims shoes. Over the past fortnight I have read many comments and accounts on other websites and news pages from Australians who have friends and relatives in both QLD and VIC. There would be many OLO contributors who, despite their comments regarding insurance and levies, have given financially, as a result of their kindness, good will and hearts, in addition to the hardest task of all; doing the physical hard difficult work clearing and cleaning peoples homes.

The floods arrived at a time when thousands of Aussie families in certain states have, over the past couple of years, been struggling dreadfully with mortgages, rent, utilities, food and fuel.

However, as Belly stated, and I have always known, $5.00 or $10.00 is zilch to whinge about, sacrificing a capuccino/coffee and nothing at all to most people I have chatted with over the past couple of days.

The points as I see it, raised here though, are more of a debate politically in terms of should we have a flood levy as opposed to the Labor Government raising or finding the revenue themselves ie through funding cuts to more projects, research, the NBN, and other areas, or a flood levy or kitty existing permanently to cover all future disasters.

Some of the comments at this time for people suffering would appear heartless, however, issues and perspectives need to be raised and addressed to improve our Nation.

One of Graham's and his Dad's objectives and philosophies?

I wish you and your family the best recovery and know that after this devastation there will be a stronger you and a brighter future. I would explain if knowing you personally.

The power of positive thinking has come through for me in each major crises over 25 years.

STG and Belly,

I see that the point of the discussion has gone completely over your heads.

The issue is not whether the funds should be made available, but whether the Labor government funds them by adding a new tax, or by trimming some of the considerable fat in the budget. Much of the funding has already come from dropping policies that were so moronic that they were never going to happen anyway.

I did not wish to raise this precisely because it clouds the issue, but I have already contributed more via pledges than I would via the levy.

The only body apparently not prepared to do some belt tightening is the government.

Shadow Minister we are fire and water you and I.
Yet curiosity would let me meet you, maybe have a drink with you.
My minds eye thinks it knows you now, I see a fixed position on everything bloke, who never did it hard.
And wounder at your self assurance.
I can never have that self confidence, it in my view is my best asset,I am never sure I have all the information or got it right.
I call it a willingness to learn.
I understand your view, it repels me but I understand it.
Ultimately it is a test for us all, ANY COSTS the governments take will cost us.
It is our funds in the kitty, so levee or not it is our bill to pay and pay it we will.
Your mob, gee I am pleased they are not mine, want only mileage out of this.
To both get back in the black on time, and cuts, plus a levee is the best way.
Now maybe SM I am wrong , I can be, but mate I think your side is so lost,so out of touch, it would do just about anything to CONFRONT including this awful attempt to turn a tragic event in to a positive,for them.
Once again SM will you get a thread started, the one I want you and two others to contribute to, find some faults on your side prove to me you are not forever wearing blinkers.

I say no!

We don't need an NBN, or at the very least we can defer it for a year or two.

Like most things, the answer lies with 'less waste'.

We had a nice nest egg, it's just that incompitent leaders wasted it, and some.

So, what's next if we put our hands in 'our pockets' this time.

Furthermore, my house is insured, also my business, my cars, even my life.

Can we help it if governments choose not to insure our 'public' assetts!

Over my head?

I support a levy. Thought that was fairly obvious. Sorry, should have explained a bit deeper for the slower ones among us.

Lets hold up a nation because someone in qld got wet. 1.40 / week for earning over 60.000 / yr is that penny pinching.

When I was a young bloke, I remember getting a rise to 29 pounds [$48] a week. When the boss told this put me just above the average wage I was surprised at the time, as I thought I was doing pretty well, compared to most.

I sat down & did some arithmetic, to see if I could afford an old car I had been lusting after. I still remember some of the figures.

Like the interest on my house loan, which was 4.5%. That makes today's "normal" interest rate, a quote of the reserve bank governor look a bit rich to me.

However it was my tax rate that I'm interested in right now.

On my 29 quid I payed 1 pound 13 shillings & 9 pence. That was 7.25% or $3.48 on my $48 pay.

To put it in perspective the tax on the average wage today is much more than 100 times that, a startling number, even if you say it quickly. As a percentage it's approaching a 400% increase, & still rising.

So to you silly folk saying, "it's only another $5 a week", have a think how many compliant fools must have said that before you.

Governments, particularly those like this one, have a habit of reaching out for not what they need from the taxpayer, but as much as they can get.

I did a bit of math on my council rates a while back. This was when I noticed they had gone from $123 a year to $843 in 6 years.

As I stated in my letter to the editor of our local paper, at that rate of increase my rates would exceed my income in another 12 years. Two weeks later the paper close the topic, but the message I had started, must have got through to the council.The rate of rate increase did diminish somewhat.

So folks, be careful. Your wimpy acquiescence with the red head's rip off will just encourage more of the same

Because SOMEONE in QLD got WET??

See, this is the sort of insensitive ignorance that needs to combated before we start 'asking' for money.

An area the size of France and Germany combined "got wet". Any idea the impact that has on Australia on the whole? No? Wouldn't think so. The Lockyer Valley is GONE as a producer. Thousands of farms will not be producing crops this year ... or till the end of the year, at least!.

Pull your head out of SM's ... uh ... mind set ... for a moment.

Welcome back Rechtub 'brother' eerily, your outlook is identical to a brother of mine with all issues [he too a successful businessman]as mentioned last year to you!

Many years ago I learnt never to be overly confident or (cocky?) about insurance and payouts after natural disasters and unforseen life events regardless of paying premiums and disaster cover with insurance Rechtub. There are loopholes in every policy and contract. Nothing in life is guaranteed as financially or personally secure.

A flood Levy will assist people tremendously along with cuts and deferment of projects and funding to non-essentials over the next 18 months.

QLD and VIC people are our brothers and sisters and also contribute to our whole economy and 'well being', particularly in relation to exports and food supplies.

Few people would have ever expected the extent of La Nina's effects and outcomes.

The least as fellow Australians, we can do, is place ourselves in other people's shoes and treat people how we would wish to be treated over the next 18 months

So what has that got to do with a 1.40 / week flood levy.
All you want to do is stall other projects.
You have political motives for your complaint.
Qld will be flooded again and again, so that is no reason to hold up the rest of the nation.

I don't know why we are even discussing a levy. The solution to the problem is staring us in the face. It won't cost the taxpayer a cent. Where does Australia get the money for rebuilding Australias infrastructure & helping those Australians who have lost everything in disasters? The same place every other country gets it's Aid.

See my first post on page 1, post 6. I was surprised that the post was totally ignored as a reasonable arguement. To refresh your colective memories.

"If Julia wants to have the money to repair Australias's infrastructure & help flood affected people, then she can have a moratorium for 5 years on the $3,879,196,000, (That's $3.9 Billion dollars), in Overseas Aid. Charity begins at home & Australia need that money now. The $3.9 billion is the 08/09 figures. This happens every year and is on top of the 7% of Australian GDP obligation given to the UN every year. Yet Australia has struggling Infrastructure, Roads, Hospitals, Education, etc. Just think of the advancement in these areas Australia could achieve in just a few years.

See http://www.ausaid.gov.au/publications/pubout.cfm?ID=9266_4050_7172_5723_8240

The only money Australia should send overseas in Aid is Emergency Aid for a particular disaster. Not just to bribe 3rd. world countries into supporting us in various UN votes.

I haven't been able to find out how much money leaves Australia through private Aid, Oxfam, Churches, etc, but even if it's 25% on top of the 3.9 billion that would be a substantial amount. Then there are people, Philipino wives, students, interant workers, etc living in Australia who send money to their families & relatives abroard. That's a lot of money leaving Australia in Aid of one form or another.

Charity begins at home Australian Aid money is needed to help Australians at the moment."

One thing I have noticed with this group is that the most vocal want to talk around & around in circles. No one puts up a possible or viable solution. I guess that's "not their job." & "that's what we pay Pollies for."

My daughter lives close by the flooded area. They went & helped cleanup & put friends up who were affected. I have donated clothing & bedding. We did offer accomodation but it was refused as we are a fair way out of town. That's about the best my wife & I can do.

JAYB You are talking to much sense for these people to absorb. That is not what they are here for. These people want AU to go into debt, for political reasons. The ones against the levy are abbott supporters, and they cannot find 1.40 in their budget to pay the levy. so don't take anything you see written here as gospel, it is only a pastime.

On the subject of a levy I would go with Abbot on this one, There is allot of wasted revenue floating in multiple areas of government division.

Problem is that money is added not redirected from areas or divisions that are not producing, and/or redundant in the ways of being independent workings or profitable.

No one should be paying a extra levy, Australians are generous and every time the current government introduces something new they add the cost to our annual revenue. hence the public and country end up taking up more costs..

Meaning that over a short time periods rates and living costs increase to counter act such introductions.. meaning more and more will be coming out of your pocket in the long run and less money in surplus for new or existing infrastructures.

I notice someone mentioned churches, these should be last on the list for rebuilding, they are tax free, offer no business return of the country and people don't need a church straight away to pray..

Houses, businesses, parks, roads and utilities etc are the most important..

.05 may not be much but then a again that’s on top of 1.5, plus gst, plus ambulance levy’s, rates and numerous other levies.

We employee people in government to run this country. Our government is our countries business, run it like a business not a loss

Can we take the politics out of it, just for once?
EVERY first world country gives charitable donations, those with under standing know often in their own interests.
At our peril stop aid to humanity.
And know we are alone in the western world doing it[stopping]
And why the focus on $5? many, great numbers pay no levee, only the highest income pay the $5
And a5 what ever,you are floundering here, lashing out at every one,including those who suffered and in fact agree with you.
read posts after your last before contributing as a habit please.
Yes we should have a flood levee yes we should have the proposed cuts.
And no rechtub, you may not need the NBN your lost tribe the Abbott Rabbits know we do,and if in power may well continue it.
See Tony is a Circus sprooker trying to get us in to look at the freaks that do not exist.
Only time will confirm if Australia is weary of this little man crying wolf.

Belly "Can we take the politics out of it, just for once?"

The politics is well and truly entrenched in this. Right from the top down and it's actually very relevant.

Those either opposed to the levy or accepting that we probably need it but not agreeing with the way some money is used nor happy about the political choices which lead to the need for it are being attacked with a political slant (and some quite nasty personal inferences).

Politics is all through this and I'd be very surprised if politicians from all parties are not paying a lot of attention as to how they can use it to improve their own electoral position.

For many of us the money involved in the levy won't be a big issue and many will have given far more in donations or time than the levy amounts but that does not make concerns about previous mismanagement of Queensland's water infrastructure or the way funding is raised nor about the way money has been used (or misused) previously irrelevant to the debate.

This is not an either or argument, a disagreement with some of the governments choices does not equate to a lack of concern for those suffering or a wish to do nothing to help.

I do appreciate your willingness to highlight the damage done by a597 and the style of attack against others.

R0bert

Good points GY. But I'm surprise you didn't mention the insurance industry. I'm not suggesting they could foot the whole reconstruction bill after natural disasters, but they part of the future reform process that needs to be in place. ??

OK concede your point RObert but how many seats are in these areas who holds them?
By now, in the real world most are commited to one or the other side.
I am not taunting any one, Tony Abbott is acting badly here, no way he can stay as leader.
Australians have a certain ability to see, well the end product of a male cow.
Gillard is prospering, not on her actions,she is not very good, but on Abbott's.
If today Turnbull lead I fear Labor would be in very deep trouble.
I can not change my mind,I want this country back in the black ASAP, I support the cuts $2 for every levee dollar.
I want us to look at New Zealand's disaster/insurance system.
And I want a forever tax of $2 a week for every one,to fund a scheme forever to fund such as this.
Yes flood levee yes new insurance scheme no to complaining at a time others are suffering,
Come on Aussies Come on.

Dream on Belly,

Your visceral hatred of Abbott is obscuring the reality that Gillard is foundering, and is as effective as a stunned mullet. While she sinks, Abbott is seen as effective, and by comparison, competent.

The electorate is tired of her small minded, Labor typical answer to every budget problem of simply raising taxes and throwing money at the problem.

While I am a tremendous fan of Turnbull, he was too much of a gentleman to stick the knife in KRudd, whilst JG never baulked at playing dirty politics. MT used to sit and take the poison dished out by JG, TA is now feeding it back to her with a shovel.

Don't see anyone complaining about the stimulus package and the plethora of other tax breaks we've been given over the last few years. Baby bonus, first home owners grants yadda yadda.

Stg "Don't see anyone complaining about the stimulus package and the plethora of other tax breaks we've been given over the last few years. Baby bonus, first home owners grants yadda yadda"

You have missed a whole lot of public debate then. There has been a great deal of comment and argument on the size and management if the "stimulus package", home insulation scheme, baby bonus, first home owners grants etc.

They generally tend to be either wastefull and or discriminatory. They often have nasty side effects eg the first home owner grants disadvantaged those of us who did not get them and inflated the market which makes it harder for all.

R0bert

It would appear to have a different view is very near a crime here.
I am very much aware two conservatives are posting here.
But even more there is a great difference between them.
I sense ROberts unhappiness with my views,truly honestly held ones.
Shadow Minister however is a far different case I, others too, have left this forum or considered doing so because SM will not stop twisting truth?
No not so, verbal tennis with such is quite entertaining, and productive.
Seeming support for SM was seen and just maybe we need to debate this here and now.
How can you SM find hatred in my words for Abbott?
Now come tell me?
My intention is clear, I do not like him or respect him, I admire his athleticism, his history of being an Aussie blokes bloke,he however like some on both sides is ego driven, and not to be trusted.
And long before he rose to power was known as the mad monk.
Some views, from all of us, are not well founded, others can judge us.
Here again and again three posters Sm leads the charge, insult me with the idea I am blind to reality and unable to think clearly.
I under stand it this way, they say my views and opinions are not worth while because unlike them, I think differently.
I question the understanding and fairness of any one who thinks only their views are right.
I question any one who tells me I do not have the right to an opinion .
Last I truly do, ask that the mirror gets used in three homes it gentle men is you who refuse to look at every case with unbiased eyes.
Debate,conversations,exploring issues is worth while not agreeing is too, but to both over value your thoughts and under value others is quite silly.

Belly I disagree with some of your views but that's not really unhappyness.

I do see some merit in the idea of a portion of the tax take being set aside to be used for future disasters but I'd want to see some good controls put in place to prevent waste and other forms of misuse.

Perhaps a requirement for 70% of the reps in both houses of parliment agreeing before it's touched (the vote for an initial allocation could be taken remotely to allow for quick response during periods when parliment is not sitting). That needs some fleshing out but the idea is to remove some of the opportunities for the party in power to splurge the savings on pet projects or vote gathering. Make it so that it can't be the personal play thing of any politician or party.

R0bert

RObert sorry no intention to offend I see you as a balanced well intentioned poster.
I have the same concerns as you we MUST not let politicians get hands on any fund.
70% vote would see it stalled forever in the current situation.
Maybe my favorite word accountability would do it, pass a law that a senate review committee looks in to every dollar spent AFTER the rebuild.
And [ my fears sympathy and concerns to all Queenslanders] it Must be a disaster fund given this night and tomorrows impending horror.
I do honestly fear for our country,fully aware Labor has been obstructionist in opposition, I see this Parliament as the worst.
Can both sides stop kicking the dog? feeding our need to blame some one?
Would any one expect my side not to do the same?
Well yes me! the ALP is a party of policy's and plans, even now, it is not coming up with the ones we live for, but gee it looks good in compassion to Abbott.
That however is no reason to freeze and come up with idiot ideas like cash for clunkers,we can do better.

Belly I doubt that they would struggle to get 70% agreement for genuine rebuilding paid from a fund set up for that purpose. They may struggle getting agreement for some aspects of the spending but it's pretty obvious that a lot needs doing.

Kev's big TV bonus, Julia's over priced school halls and Pete's dodgy ceiling insulation programs might have had some problems passing as valid responses to a natural disaster though.

The real struggle might come when one area keeps needing rebuilding (as Qld may do this year) and other area's get a break (no big bushfires in NSW and Victoria in wet years).

R0bert

RObert I see no reason to separate one state from the other.
We are one nation if some want not to give it is no reason not to tax us all.
March in NSW is doomed to be a disaster, for my party, they worked very hard/badly to bring that on.
It however needs no funding and will in the end be good for every one.
Tonight, gee hope I am wrong we live in Australia's worst ever natural disaster.
We need to give and give again ,draw no lines state against state its an Aussie in trouble.

Worst ever disaster?

As I recall nearly 180 people died in the Victorian fires, compared to about 20 in the floods.

While there has been much more damage with the floods, the government program is not to repair houses or replace lost possessions, it is almost exclusively to repair roads, ports and other infrastructure that is the property of the state.

This is not a whip around to help fellow Australians, it is a gouging to help Wayne Swan meet Julia's election promise.

I wish to say sorry, to those who are offended by the disagreement between my self and Shadow Minister.
I am very well aware it sometimes brings a crowd some times switches some off.
What is to be said for turning the other cheek, to say it does not matter?
This morning in another thread Shadow gave me both barrels, I except it, it is his right in my view to think as he wants.
I am no wimp, maybe the reverse, is a fault I admit to,
And we all know my education leaves much undone/unknown.
But I am not the idiot SM has called me.
ANYTHING I say, about Shadow Ministers last post here, will look to be insulting.
I however point only to it,if ANYONE can find it not an insult to the many, to the billions it will cost to fix, I then am the fool SM says I am.
We may well have not suffered as much last night I hope this is true.
BUT for a political party to want to use this, as little man Abbott Shadow Minister and the closed minds that surround both, this country is no longer the one I was born to.
Shadow Minister would you remove that post if you could?
I TRULY HOPE SO MATE.

Belly,

A bit hypocritical!

Considering that in just about every post you attack me personally, you certainly don't occupy the moral high ground. I said that certain actions such as your infantile personal attacks are idiotic, I did not call you an idiot.

If you wish to elevate your posts above school yard taunting, I am your man. A few facts or reasons for your opinions might help illuminate why you don't think Abbott can do a better job than Gillard or why what I am saying is wrong, but as yet I have seen nothing.

Sorry Shadow Minister, but not backing down, you are a person who has never had the ability to take what you serve up.
If I compiled a list of your put downs, well I will not bother.
See it is not cloths,cash property that makes the man.
It is not class or Church nore political party.
It is something you never had and never will, understanding.
I grew up in the rich mans town, holding your hat over your heart to talk to them was a requirement, I see you that way.
MANY conservatives live here, I respect all but three, I convict those three not with my words but theirs.
Yours convict you, you often talk of my inability to think.
Mate stop trying to out maneuver me in the court of verbal tennis, your one tracked view has you beaten in straight sets.
My views against yours leaves me content it seems clear you are unable to see other than your own views.

Abbott wants us to

Donate to the Libs, rather

Than pay the levy

http://tiny.cc/vngn0

Belly,

Your respect is not something I value or yearn for. Your rusted on loyalty to class system that no longer exists is at best quaint. I probably will never understand it, largely due to my upbringing where reason was valued over dogma, and partly due to the incomprehensibility of your posts.

Again your failure to substantiate any of your comments indicates that you have nothing to offer.

At this point I should keep my word, to myself, not post avoid SM.
But why.
Vacate the Field off debate,run away, yes I nearly left OLO, others did.
See SM may well be a member of the opposition, and we took his ability to post some truly offensive thread titles as a well, leave it.
I am badly educated we know that,but is IQ related to education?
This morning my HONESTLY HELD VIEW ALP NSW asking me to spread the word was not unlike asking me to be a fertilizer spreader.
You NEVER will see a comment like that from Shadow minister.
I ask GY to stay out of this ring, under take not to flame,but if I can not take on such as SM here this forum is no longer the one I joined.
I CONFRONT until death inflexibility, inability to think of my country best interests not my party's, I forever oppose the idea that all the good comes from such as SM and his conservatives and the evil from my side of the fence.
Yes we should have a flood levee a cyclone levee a fire levee.
One day we may just retrieve the lost ground in Australian politics, judge issues not party's debate not flame each other.
I Shadow Minister am that boy now old who started work at age 13, have done many jobs the last two will be enough 22 years on the RTA NSW and then my years proudly as AWU official, no glory nothing to hide no need to be other than me.
Yet I claim a deeper broader understanding of politics than you, with confidence.

Again,

Pure emotion. Not a jot of reason why you support a pile of random additional taxes, or why they would be in the country's interest.

That NSW Labor is a disaster is no secret, and agreeing with that view does not in any way make you unbiased. As for the other Labor policies, you adopt them as your own without even trying to consider the consequences.

You are as one eyed as me, the difference is I know why.

A significant point came out in the media last night.
Some states take out insurance against natural disasters, the current Queensland government has chosen not to do so.

It's reported that Victoria has that insurance and that the damage to infrastructure in Victoria will be covered by their insurance. If that's the case then Victorian taxpayers will not only be paying for their own insurance but be paying extra taxes to cover the Queensland governments choice not to take out insurance.

R0bert

In all but large projects why shouldn't government be its own insurer? You see the nonsense of cumulative millions being wasted annually in premiums, even for small parcels sent through the post. It was rigid ideology not economic sense that caused government to take up private insurance.

It is very poor that economics editors are not exposing the bogeyman of the 'deficit' for what it is, an unnecessary mill stone around the neck for both sides of politics. It was and remains the quest for short term political advantage that prevents the federal government from borrowing against future income to reinstate infrastructure lost in the floods (and now the cyclone) and at the same time new infrastructure should also be funded.

Time there was scrutiny of the negative effects of party politics and that includes the Greens.

Governments, every one of them do self insure.
Not every thing but a great deal.
It is a sound business plan that pays off, insurance is not truly a gamble for insurance company's.
Like race day book maker they make book.
Based on known percentages they know they come out in front in the end.
Costs however for such as Queensland for insurance for these events would be extreme.
I think, may be wrong, both sides in that state took the risks and costs made it worth while.
SM good morning to you,is Gillard,Crean,that repulsive gent from the Hunter who both backed Latham and took free gifts including travel to and from China, as his dad did for years.
Are they from NSW ALP I rather think you lost that one.
Abbott just maybe, is nearing his use by date, Gillard has,, about two days after she took over,she however has just the one thing going for her.
Tony Little man Abbott.

Maybe the levy could be called the Labor mismanagement levy.

"MISMANAGEMENT of the government's controversial school halls program has resulted in $2.6 billion of taxpayer-funded waste that could have struck out the need for a temporary flood levy.....

Based on the taskforce's own data, if the state governments in NSW, Victoria and Queensland were as efficient in achieving the same price per square metre as the independent school authorities in these three states, the taxpayers would have saved as much as $2.6bn"

Thanks yet again Shadow Minister, your reminders are quite fun.
Yes a great deal of waste even theft, mostly carried out by middle class conservative fraudsters but Labor was not watching.
Did any of your mates get a quick quid out of it?
Too many did thanks for reminding us.
I am forced to ask about those Howard levees,and his never ever imposition of GST,not a levee I here you say.
And quite rightly mate!
It was just a great big new tax, the biggest single tax rise in our country's history bloke.
we,all of us, should continue to complain and cry crocodile tears, take the spotlight away from the pain, both we have seen and may see again.
Just whimper and complain, it works! some intent on not the victims but political gain are joining you.
Hear this my good Friend, leaks this morning PROVE GILLARD IS NO LEADER.
Point to a new policy's so mad it stinks already, a vacant ideas bag, and hinting now, the ALP horse is being kicked into life, a election is coming.
My bet? not because other than it is true, you are starting favorite.
Your team may be confronted by an opposition that is as dysfunctional as your mob are.
Great for our politics is it not CHILDISH games rather than statesman ship.

The thing is that if you choose to self insure you can only do it if you can stand the consequences if that the thing you are insuring against occurs. The imposition of a levy shows that the state government has not self insured, rather it's neglected the risk and hoped that the rainy day would never occur (or assumed that they could pass the cost on if it did).

Legitimate self insurance involves ensuring that at every point the risk is covered. That may mean paying premiums and saving into a reserve until the reserve is big enough to cover the risk.

The fact is that Bligh and her crowd have so badly managed the economy that during a mining boom they need to sell assets to keep going. At the same time they have not saved for a (really) rainy day.

That's not the fault of Victorians, Western Australian's, etc, it's the fault of voters in Queensland. Having a useless opposition has not helped.

R0bert

Maybe you are imagining that government should have a piggy bank full of money for possible catastrophes such as floods, bushfires and earthquakes. That is not what self-insuring is about and it is undesirable. If a government is in surplus it has taxed too highly and has not appropriately expended the taxes collected on necessary services.

Australia will come to regret the cynical, foolish political posturing that focusses on low deficits or even having surpluses as a 'proof' of good economic management. Why the economics editors of the few remaining newspapers of any worth do not speak up on this in the public interest is anyone's guess.

What is also objectionable is the encouragement of the parochial, dog in the manger thinking that long dead masters of wedge politics such as Joh Bjelke Peterson would be proud of.

Belly,

Considering all the theft took place in projects being administered by Labor state governments, most of it went as Labor patronage to union buddies.

Cornflower I do agree that big surpluses achieved by taxing the stuffing out of workers is wrong but that's not quite the same as treating self insurance as a budget item and putting money aside to cover self insurance. Most of the rest of us do the latter in one way or another, trying to maintain a cash buffer against irregular expenses. What we rarely have is the option of demanding that employers come up with some extra money to cover our failure to provide some type of insurance against unplaned expenses.

Natural disasters happen, the recent ones were by no means the worst that the environment can throw at us. It may well not make economic sense for governments to pay premiums to insurance companies but not making any provision for them is inexcusable.

R0bert

SM regards, a handful only that,who work in such jobs are unionists.
Here in NSW one of the very worst thieves involved is standing for election, your side of the fence and has not done one job that did not run over costs.
Yes we should have a levee it should be for all disasters and we,all of us should NEVER FORGET such as you standing against spreading the costs without going in to debt more.

RObert,

Many moons ago the federal government collected 7.5% from all workers under the Pensions Act to provide for their existence after work. Bob Menzies stumbled over the goodly sum and directed Tax to pay the money into Consolidated Revenue. He spent it. The tax continued.

Even though the Act itself was eventually done away with and government decreed a 'new initiative' for workers to pay for their superannuation this time, there is no evidence the 7.5% pensions tax was ever disbanded. Yet governments claim to be surprised at the growing pensions 'burden' (added to by large scale immigration) and have the gall to say that workers never provided for themselves.

If there must be a levy, let it be for a particular event.

As for 'insurance', it makes very good sense to borrow to re-build after a calamity and pay it off in the future.

Cornflower I'm reminded of my earlier comment that dipping into any such pool should only be done with some type of mechanism that ensures that it does not become the plaything of a specific government. I'd proposed 70% of pollies but there may be better mechanisms.

Perhaps approval to borrow should be treated the same way, Ok if it's done with bi-partisan support (or some variation of it). If it's genuinely needed it should be obvious to most. Not perfect but better that the current approach.

R0bert

The negotiations with the unions involved pay rates etc that were extraordinary. No wonder Labor supervised projects cost double normal contracts.

I am unimpressed SM,but you highlight a truism,some comments are based on not understanding the subject.
Such contractors are basically, mostly, using subcontractors.
Thanks to the radical nature of the CFMEU construction union almost all are not union members/anti union.
And as the weekends media told us of under payments and fraud in the service industry's,they well could have told of worse in the building trade.
Brickys laborers to top trades are contractors not union members.
I want however to get back on subject,care to come with me?
55% of us say have a levee, only 33% primary vote for Labor.
Abbott took back 7% from Gillard, but still trails as preferred leader, way back.
My constant claim has been, Gillard is a flop, Abbott is worse, Labor is bleeding to death, more harm than good comes from bending to greens.
BUT MATE we are while unelectable under Julia a real chance of being returned.
Abbott your party's leader,those who think, or is it do not think, like him our only and best tool.
Do you wish to talk about who will replace Abbott, Gillard is gone.
I said in my first post after Rudd she would go as he did knifed in the back.

Belly,

Considering that nearly 70% of employees pay almost nothing, while JG might have squeaked in for approval for the tax, the reality is that the 55% pro vote is unlikely to win her any votes, whilst the 41% anti vote is likely to erode Labor support.

The liberal campaign has been remarkable effective, as this time the loss of Labor support has not gone to the greens or others, but directly to the coalition, who is now enjoying the highest polling in years.

While JG might be leading TA, her lead has slipped considerably, her dissatisfaction rating is continuously climbing, considering the usual bias for incumbents her status is a long way from stellar. While there might be antipathy for TA, it is not showing amongst the coalition supporters.

The key factors are what is happening with Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott who must be sorely regretting backing the wrong horse, and see their futures in politics evaporating. If TA handles this correctly, there could be a new election later this year.

Oh, give it a rest U2. Who In bloody hell gives a flying f^(# about which politician is better. It's the old childrens arguement about Ashbys & Malven Stars. They were both made in the same factory by the same people using the same parts. They were just given different paint jobs & transfers. It's the same with politicians.

Should we have a Levy? Not when the money is readily available by other means I have mentioned before.

Who, or what, are the spoils of the levy for? Is it for the people affected by the disaster, or, the repair of damaged infrastructure? I can see it being used mostly for the repair of infrastructure with a token guesture towards the people who need it most. Then of course there are the Lawyers, Consultants & Adminstrators who get involved. There won't be much left for real work or distribution anyway.

JB I thought better of you, your opinions are yours free but you have out done even the Shadowy Shadow Minister here.
Unfocused my ideas or no stuff bloke,the issue is politics, purely only, would not exist without political point scoring.
You wish,to IMPOSE your views, with heated words.
No convince us with facts, you insult us by inference,but wish us to consider a view hurled on the table like a dead and bleeding beast.
Shadow Minister, these are the facts, Joe Hockey today, in sentence told of the internal stress withing your party,and that his leadership plans still live.
He said it was wrong to link levee with contributions.
Any, the briefest, look at the past two weeks media talk/leaks from within BOTH PARTY'S points to NEW LEADERSHIP in BOTH .
It is VITAL both get back to basics both return to policy's.
And the led in the saddlebag of the ALP is public perception of being hunted around by the Greens.
I think it will be close but we may just sneak in, on such as your back, near tea party refusal to bend or consider truth.
Yet know this ,the greens are far more danger to the ALP than the DLP ever was,and may keep Labor [and themselves]on the opposition benches for just as long, not bad for a one eyed ALP voter SM? true however.

The first bill before parliament is the NBN purchase of Telstra's land line assets which it will buy for $11bn, allow the NBN free use of, before scrapping. If the government allowed the NBN free access, but sold the network for several billion there would be plenty of money to rebuild Queensland. However, the NBN would no longer have a monopoly and be able to gouge the citizens of Australia.

It is clear where Labor's priorities are.

I now retreat I too by counter punching,have contributed to swaying off subject.
All in vain, if God returned, proved me wrong, he could not sway SM to see this light.
We will have a flood levee, and we will have cuts too.
That levee is focused on high income earners, note that, hear or read again TONY ABBOTT'S attack on the proposed levee.
TAKE NOTE he said in that speech HE WOULD FURTHER CUT TAX'S TO SMALL BUSINESS.
While defending a stance on levee he has not got a clue at this time we cannot afford to cut tax's for the middle class.
every cent spent on rebuilding is our cash, if we can both cut costs and get a tax levee up, we will ,we get out of debt faster.
It is not a time for our country to borrow more,we truly may yet see a second dip recession world wide.
Consider the conservatives rants about the GFC NBN then ask why they move policy's 360 degrees?

Belly, please,

A levee is a structure to contain water, a Levy is an involuntary payment or tax.

What tax is next? the compulsory NBN levy on households as it is a monopoly.

Neither Julia or Tony will do the right thing by the people of Australia. They will do what is best for advancing their respective partys. That is all. Virtual reality in action.

Goodonya Shadow Minister! you keep hammering away at my education and avoid answering the content.
It is evidence you have nothing to say to convince me your point of view has Merritt.
Work for a government department do you?
Classic tactic, thinks,must change the subject he/she is getting close to the bone.
news this morning Julie Bishop took Abbott on yesterday and won, maybe the levee levee dam has broken?
33% that is labors current primary vote.
Greens? say [ be charitable] 12%
2PP well 53 conservatives 47 ALP?
Your harping diatribe against the federal government, ignores some true things.
If your party wins it will govern for us.
It would be a tragic event but that is true.
IF I lead this country my first and constant job,would be to unite not divide this country.
sad to understand in my life THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE DIVIDE IN A CRISIS be proud SM

Belly,

While I understand your inability to spell, but I thought you should be able to read. After days of your incorrect spelling where the correct word was being used by everyone else, I thought you might be able to pick it up on your own.

Levy = Tax
Levee = Structure to prevent flooding
Levi = Make of Jeans
etc

The poll results primary
Coalition 44%
Labor 32% (the lowest since the 80s)
Greens 14%
Others 10%

2pp
Coalition 52%
Labor 48%

Next we need a new disaster levy. The Labor mismanagement slush fund.

I note that JG has to appoint an ex liberal to hold Labor's hand in trying to manage its policies.

Gday Shadow Minister my regards.
Always read you posts, love a laugh.
You must be concerned Julia unleashed a brand new weapon today in the house.
I have little,well just a very little, doubt she did it for the right reasons.
That flag those near wet checks, I was sorry for her,we all felt just a bit of pride too, but her tears seem, well wooden.
But saved again!
Abbott let the pretentious person he is show again.
Who would have ever thought an ALP government not doing well, could stay in office only because the other sides leader is worse.
I think, truly do, both sides will have new leaders and just maybe this year.
But if beaten I hope, gee I do shadow Minister, I will be man enough to note the good and bad on both sides, you should try it.
Mate it builds character to see clearly, asking too much aren't I?
Now the trouble begins please spell check try to see what I Meant to say, I know its hard but Shadow Minister is watching/harping.

Julia Gillard better than Tony Abbott?

You have got to be kidding. A stage managed "almost" tearful wooden opening of parliament does not compensate for the previous term's complete incompetence. She even admits that the BER was extremely wasteful and needs a liberal to make sure her department does not stuff up the Queensland reconstruction.

Whatever Tony Abbott's faults he could not approximate the nightmare that is the Labor circus. The only constructive thing that Julia has accomplished since shafting Rudd is ditching pretty much every Labor policy. That she is still hiding the NBN business plan (other than a sanitised summary) shows that it is going to be a farce similar to the BER.

I would say that the voters deserve a taste of Labor incompetence to ensure that they don't make the same mistake, but not even I am that cruel.

im not sure if you noticed..[ammoung the deluge of flood coverage]
the roads torn to shreds...
and often lifted up ..in great big chunks

this is directly attribbutable to the road BUILDERs..
not tying the road ..to the road base..

[ie either negligence on their part..or negligance on the part of govt what paid for it to be done ..poorly..

govts finger[prints]...[incompitant governance..
and incompitant public officials..
is the direct cause of this mess..

its them what ALLOWED the homes
poor infastructure.. to be built in flood-planes..

its them what sold off ..the water rights...

[lets recall conflowrs wisdom]..

quote..'firstly, water was hoarded in Wivenhoe (Brisbane]*

..*Wivenhoe had *to release water ..late
and in response to a huge run-off,..[inflow]

thereby causing* the flooding of Brisbane..
it was supposed to prevent;..!

ie greedy revenue-raisers..or rather our leaders acting as financiers...weather-girls...not as leaders/thinkers

they want ..ever more taxes

they have huge debt's ...are paying massive ammounts of intrest..building white elephants..BADLY..

who is rebuilding the PRIVATISED railways?

if bridges fail...who built them TO FAIL?
if roads peel off ..WHO BUILT THEM WRONG
broadwalks float away..

we built them once
now we going to HAVE to let THEM..build them BADLY..again

and who is doing
the bailout ..INSURANCE SHOULD BE COVERING?

we the tax payers
as usual

and all for the extra tax
cost ..of ONLY one cup of expensive cof-fee per day..

but that adds up to 365 cups of coffe per year..
they are so good at their sin and their spin..

but the only cost THEY pay...
is going away scotte free at election day
to go onto ..their privledge overly generous public swervice pension plan...

while working os for their real bosses..
[the ones who built the wrong things..
in the wrong places
BADLY

time they paid more attention
time we realised treason for what it is
bi-partisan ...all parties collude deciets

ps julias crocodile tears,..
should have been yesterdays headlines

One Under God after a fine effort on your behalf to upset the few friends you have here I thought I would leave you to your own world.
You hooked me bloke, can not stay away from roads stuff.
As a road builder we did not tie the roads down because we ran out of string!
Any idea how fast that water ran,what force it generated, what a road across its path faces, more string bloke lots more string.

Wow, one under god, I don’t believe that I have ever seen more misstatements in any post than in your last ramble. For starters you are discussing two sections, State and Federal, in one breath. I suggest you may wish to keep them separated to provide clarity to your readers. Like Belly, I had a good laugh visualising all the road builders running around tying the road to nearby trees. The Greens would have a field day with that idea.
The proposed levy is one cup a week (not day) which is 52 cups over the year but even that is too much for you to contribute towards more strings for roads, hey?
Wivenhoe did the job it was designed for. 100% for water catchment and another 100% for flood mitigation. The release of the water was scheduled as per manual, which when written during the time of building the dam 30 years ago, did not consider the possibility of the Lockyer Valley flooding at the same time as the dam catchment area. Brisbane didn’t flood because of water releases from Wivenhoe. Brisbane flooded because the inflow from the Bremer River draining the Lockyer Valley was unprecedented. Besides, greedy developers had built many more homes on nominated flood plains since 1974’s flood. Couple that with a King tide on the same day and Brisbane was saved from serious damage by Wivenhoe and their engineers.
It sounds like that you maybe an understudy to Shadow Minister, who believes that dissecting an error is more important than accurate comments.