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.