It is, so Abbott said the duty of the government to fund these events.
And so it is, with our money.
How man of us would be upset if a tax was imposed.
We, the better of us, donate to help with these things and surely we should.
Abbott spoke of a common sense view we should take flood prone houses and move them.
Very well said we should, but at what cost, how do we pay.
I increasingly have concerns about some charity's.
And no doubt we all share those concerns about any government.
yes pay, we should even if it hurts.
Cuts in other government funded things can be avoided if we put a special tax on every Australian .
What do others think.
And remember the benefits of flood proofing, fires too, include an active economy.
A National infrastructure plan as big as the snowy river scheme, rebuilding flood and fire prone things away from such dangers?

To strike a levy or similar is the way to go. Fires and floods are going to be expensive. Abbott's first thought was for a gillard tax coming on, so be it. These events are going to become more prominent wether we want it or not. So build a fund for ongoing events, and hope it's never needed.

579 I had my you know what, in my cheek in praising Abbott.
It is so easy to say what needs doing.
But very hard indeed to do it.
My thoughts include the reception Gillard got when imposing her tax for 2011 floods.
I am well aware it is easy to target any tax.
My idea however is Nation building, massive and may take a century if it is the have effect.
Not just homes, but businesses and factory's, whole towns and massive parts of some city,s, say Brisbane and Grafton for a start, need rebuilding.
Many ways of assisting could be used, say shops of larger sizes get 5 years total, including wages, tax exemption.
Small business get financial assistance and sell the old site to government for flood prone n0o building areas.
Fires area problem, I have little doubt some of us give time as fire volunteers, and that many as I do, know some fires are the acts of fellow fighters, glory seeking.
But too whole villages need wide corridors not tree lined streets.
We will see how it goe,s room exists to make this a true achievement for all of us.
How great it would be, if our ancestors showed the forethought they did in those great wide country roads in both Queensland and country NSW.
Councils must right now stop further development in unsafe areas.

Councils must right now stop further development in unsafe areas.
Belly,
Spot-on ! There are many ways flooding can be limited, it only requires pragmatism.
I have said many times that in places of frequent flooding parallel channels should be made. They could be in the way of Canal development which would create plant of work. It would also offer the opportunity of good real estate. It would make the money go round rather than get locked into Super funding for public servants.
Floods do not get worse every year, they become more devastating every year because of too much concentrated urban sprawl. The water has nowhere to run off quickly or get absorbed into the ground or accommodated by channels. Its a planning engineers stuff-up nothing else. Government must make alternative land available for people to move to. Those who insist on staying can either spend their money on raising their homes or their insurance premiums. I'm sick & tired of paying forever more insurance because some people can't see that they are in the wrong spot. Instead of spending money on repairs they should spend it on relocation. I'm sure that rows of houses removed to make space for a channel would drastically reduce flooding. Insurance companies should be more discerning too up front. Not take the money & then refuse to pay. They too should be part of the re-engineering of the suburbs.

Given a natural disaster, see how quick the conservatives turn into socialists, tax this, government that. Should not a good Tory be saying "Shame on those that lost their houses and didn't have floor insurance." Where is that good old Tory philosophy of prudent behavior and self reliance. To them flood victims should literally sink or swim.
One the other hand those of us with a social conscience most of what has been posted above I agree with.
Individual, are you not the bloke who believes in a national service boot camp in North Queensland? If so recent event would have seen your great unwashed, become the great washed(out) overnight. LOL

This article from OLO in 2011 suggests that local governments have been allowing development on known flood prone land due to pressure from real estate and other business interests

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11520

Perhaps the cure is to hold the councillors who approved the development personally responsible for any property damage due to flooding. I don't mind paying higher taxes to help once these people have been bankrupted. After all, they are supposedly elected to act in the public interest.

Well, you're going to hate me for saying this, but anyone who KNOWINGLY lives in a HIGH RISK AREA, either pays the relevant insurance, or pays the ultimate price.

Now of cause governments should fund some of the costs, but seriously, when these homes, MANY WORTH MILLIONS sell, do we, the tax payers get our share. NO!

Continued
In any case, any relief funding provided to HIGH RISK HOME OWNERS shoukd be in the form of an interest free loan, not a hand out.

If they don't like it, don't live there, it really is quite simple.

Now before you all hang me, please remember these words KNOWINGLY LIVING IN HIGH RISK AREAS.

Paul1405,
your last senseless quibble above is pointless to the core & so far off the beaten track it belies belief.
If you can't comprehend responsibility & common sense be quiet.

Paul1405,
Show me one post where I promoted a boot camp ! We don't need boot camps we have enough brainwashed in the Labor Party to last us a lifetime.
What I advocate is a Non military national Service which I have stated so often it becomes boring but because there's always one mutt who doesn't comprehend I have to repeat myself.
With regard to the floods I recommend relocation to higher land that be made available by whatever means. Any land has to have the consent of the owner to be made available. Instead of paying out insurance to rebuild a home in readyness for next flood is not reasonable. The insurance could buy land for relocation. The properties vacated could be turned into canals for future flood management. Those who remain & benefit from that could contribute to the compensation for those who relocate. It's a user pay situation not another tax as you so silly state. Insurance premiums would come down with the reduction in risk. Everyone benefits. How complex is that ?

Pity the alarmist were believed that the East Coast would not see flooding again just like England was not to see snow. Maybe we could start by holding the false prophets and their followers to account.

Pity the alarmist were believed that the East Coast would not see flooding again just like England was not to see snow.
runner,
are you a creationist or an evolutionist ? If you're one of the former & ask yourself WHY all this is happening & think about what mankind has done before you ask that question.
If you are of the latter ask yourself why evolution should suddenly stop just because people have no sense. Evolution, when I last looked it up meant change, it however, didn't say if that was change for the better or worse.

Now, now, Individual watch your BP. "be quiet(Paul)", this little green pixie shall never be silenced!
I want it known, Indi, may I call you Indi, never ever said BOOT CAMP, I said BOOT CAMP. However Indi, I distinctly remember a post of yours where you advocated a 'camp' of sorts in North Queensland for those aged between 19 and 21, that is a lot of people, did you not advocate that? If I'm wrong I apoligise in advance. I just wanted your take on how you would see those camped out in North Queensland doing their non military national service, fairing with 800mm of rain bucketing down on them during a cyclone.
Divergence "Perhaps the cure is to hold the councillors who approved the development personally responsible for any property damage due to flooding" If you start holding councilors personally responsible, people who in the first place most likely acted in good faith, and on expert advice, then who would run for local councils? no one its would not be worth the risk.

"""
but at what cost, how do we pay.
"""

It's about time parasitic, fool government started making some rules for their own. Like jailing politicians that approve buildings in dangerous places to enrich their own pockets and preventing people from clearing vegetation from around their homes to prevent fire from burning them down.

And to the people that build there. If you want to live in a place that can cause you harm, why should the smart have to pay for the stupid? I chose my place of residence wisely to avoid such dramas. And now you want me to pay for your own lack of vision and risk? There's something very wrong with this picture?

I believe state governments, local councils and Town planners have much to answer for.

e.g. why did Brisbane city council allow housing subdivision and houses built BELOW the 1974 flood level? Did money change hands from developers to councilors?. All councils have contour maps that show flood prone areas, so why are homes and businesses allowed to be built in these areas?

I live in a high fire risk area but I have taken the necessary precautions to safeguard my home and all at my own cost, but I do not receive any discount from insurers. My home is my refuge and i will stay and defend it. Why are councils not sued for not allowing clearing of house blocks? Some actually had preservation orders preventing removal of trees and actually stopped roadside clearing and firewood gathering. One Vic bloke was prosecuted by his council for clearing his block, the fine was $100,000. Yet his place survived the fires.

Can you actually imagine the town planners in Canberra approving suburbs adjoinig thousands of acres of pine forrest. Unbelievable! and they have Uni degrees. That is exactly what they did. The forest was on the west side as well!

All this has been known for 60, or more, years, yet they still do the same things. Do people not consider flooding, or fire risk, when they buy?

How come people do not have insurance? Most houses have a morgage and the lenders require the home be insured. Is this not enforced, I could not imagine not insuring my home.

Just a few things to ponder. I really feel for those that had homes flooded on council approved subdivisions. To me there is no excuse for this to happen. Councilors should be brought to court.

runner,

Don't you think it's about time you stopped parading your ignorance?

You obviously equate lots of rain with no global warming.

(Never the mind the increased frequency of extreme events)

Others have said it differently but I agree - If an area has had flood or fire problems in the past nothing is surer than it will happen again if you are stupid enough to buy or build there then why should the taxpayer compensate you for your stupidity?

Next they will want to pay for the millionaires properties in Queensland that are being eroded by wave action. NO NO NO.

Poirot don't talk garbage, there have been less extreme events in the last 10 years than at any other tine in recorded history. Even green sources admit this.

Those in Brisbane & Ipswich can thank Campbell Newman for forcing Brisbane Water to release water from Wivenhoe, when they didn't want to. This allowed them to keep the dam shut during the period when most of the water from the rest of the catchment was coming down.

Well done Campbell. Of course it is easier when you have recent history to use to help your decision making. This alone should seal the result of a group action against dam management last time.

Yes we should help, but just once. It is up to people to make a move now with help. Any who chose to stay should be on their own in future.

The area where dad & I built our Bathurst house flooded in 1953. Dad had high foundations, & we did not get water through, but almost all our neighbours did.

That house was extended in the 60s, but in 2001, when I was there, all the homes had gone. A worse flood had brought government assistance to move all but a couple of brick on slab homes to a safe area.

Yes it would cost heaps, but better one big heap, than lots of small heaps.

Many towns could be protected by levee banks, which is not a practical solution for Brisbane now but could protect many areas much more cheaply than relocation of entire towns.

You obviously equate lots of rain with no global warming.
Poirot,
The rainfall in South new Guinea, West Irian & Torres Strait has come down from days & days of rain during two months of wet to the odd day of heavy rain. there hasn't been a proper wet since the 80's.
Paul1405,
Camp means where people set up camp not boot camp & I don't know how else to explain to you the difference between military & non military service.

doing their non military national service, fairing with 800mm of rain bucketing down on them during a cyclone.
Paul1405,
Oh those poor young people having to experience reality for two years. Do what every sensible person does, stay out of the rain if you don't like getting wet. They could spend time on farms, working on the railway line, working on fences etc. In fact they'd get two beneficial experiences. They could get work experience whilst at the same time experience work. Just imagine a 21 year old realising that other people have to work for a living. I know it would be quite a shock but it would be a good shock even if they don't know what hit them.
Who'd pay for it all ? the same people who pay for unemployment benefits & baby bonuses & all other benefits. Us, the taxpayers & as more young people develop a sense of responsibility the service would become less costly over time. We all benefit.

individual,

What don't you understand from my comment about the "increased frequency of extreme events"?

rehctub, "KNOWINGLY LIVING IN HIGH RISK AREAS"

Is that so?

Then presumably the town planner, surveyor, developer and final seller would have known prior.

Guess what? For the lion's share it was government that was fulfilling all of those roles.

As well, in Brisbane to take an example, in 2011 land that was above the government's 100 year flood plains went under. I know of cases where such houses were flooded past the height of the first floor ie above 2800mm.

Just to mention one of the many other controversial matters, many of the large storm water drains on the Brisbane River do not covers to prevent the nasty hydraulic effects that were noted. Large geysers that flooded land.

Elsewhere government has replaced creeks with underground pipes and surveyed and sold building allotments on the flood plains.

These are all inconvenient truths and it is what happens when federal governments put growth and record migration ahead of the development of the necessary infrastructure to support large increases in population. That had been happening for many years and the gross damage done to private and public assets from floods illustrate the lack of government planning and inconsistency (more like turf wars) between the levels of government. It is not helped by the corporatisation of government agencies and the growing political patronage in senior appointments in public agencies.

Of course it is convenient to blame home owners, but the truth is very different. It is not like ministers and their senior public servants to admit fault.

"increased frequency of extreme events"?
Poirot,
Are they ? Is it just possible that our generation happens to exist at a time of change that is a natural occurrence that hadn't been recorded before ?
The mind wanders to Atlantis, the Pyramids, the Nasca Plains & several other mysteries. Is it within the realm of possibility that these periods involved industrial pollution to effect climate change ? Or is it simply part of evolution ?
What exactly is people's primary concern anyway ? Is it that they can't accept change even if it's natural or are they worried that they can't do anything about it. One thing is certain the Carbon tax does nothing that could enable us to do something to affect this change.
The frequency of natural events is just that, natural. Is the ferocity of these events natural or enhanced by the activities of man is another mystery we still haven't solved. If it is then how will the Carbon Tax counter the effects ? If flooding does indeed get worse will the Carbon Tax pay for the relocation of the homes ? I think it should pay for building flood canals.

onthebeach, a large portion of the blame lies with lawyers and the like, as developers/owners often won't take no as an answer, so, off they go to the land court in an effort to have government rulings overturned.

Now it is obvious you failed to understand my meaning, or at least, my use of the word 'knowingly', as if you did, you would not be referring to the houses that went under, that were above the 100 year flood levels.

Now having said this, if they were flooded in 2011, then again this time, then they are on their own this time in my view, as they have been 'knowingly' living in a high risk area.

Now while the insurance may be huge, it is available and the tax payer should not be called upon to bail them out AGAIN.

Having said this, anyone who lives on the banks of the Brisbane river must realize that there is a chance they can be flooded.

Now I own a unit on the river, on high ground, however, if it were right on the river it would be worth about a million$ or more extra, simply due to the location.

Finally, if we are to impose another levy, surely it would be the perfect opportunity to trial a very small transaction tax, as it would collect money and test the tax at the same time.

But, any funding provided must still be in the form of a loan, not a gift, as a loan can be used multiple times, as a gift can only be used once.

As an example, many of the homes that were fixed last time round would have ended up in much better shape that prior to the floods, so it's only fair that once that home is sold, the money goes back in to the kitty to benefit another vicim.

Let us get a stick each and flog the victims! so much fun!
IF we overnight took every flood prone house and forced the mostly renters out, what site has enough refugee tents to house them?
Some live there because by its very nature the price is one they can afford, and not more.
Councils are corrupt, believe me any color anyplace.
Land developers get their way, building right now,on flood prone land.
My thoughts are far from limited to houses.
Roads and rail, when ever possible, should be moved above flood lands.
More drainage properly kept, clean and running.
Factory's and whole shopping centers.
Tax relief is still comeing from us, but think about the longterm benefits.
We can have those wide roads, and the equivalent, in every new street.
It cost, to do anything, not always directly us.
Business tax is much bigger than par as you earn.
America, in ww2 told us we need a reliable road system, that is why Germany built the Auto Bann.
What if the Pacific Highway was flooded and Brisbane needed massive help/defense?
A Nation building scheme as was the Snowy River, should include National laws about building including the views put here, no buildings o0n flood land.
Right now a national firm is building a MASSIVE shopping center, soon to start, for its supper hard ware shop, including roads and even public roads near by to keep traffic moveing.
At no cost to any one other than them selves, it can be done.
We should be building for the next 200 years, not just until the next flood.

rehctub,

You were unable to dispel any of the facts I put to you, in particular government's responsibility as planner, developer and profiteer. You did not address the severe, continuing problem of population overstretching planning and available land and infrastructure.

You mentioned Brisbane so I could easily have added the loss of wide expanses of dairy and market garden land, including orchards that has paralleled the over-supply of migrants who congregate in and around the large metropolitan city of Brisbane. Loss of this first class and replaceable farming land to housing development is a tragedy of similar proportions to the flooding of houses. In any event, it is so often the same fertile farming land that is part of the flood plains for the Brisbane River and surrounding rivers and creeks.

I also did not mention the failure of government to complete Stage 2 of Wivenhoe and for other dams that have been paid for many times over in additional land development taxes and other taxes. Where has the money gone? The floods come and go and the overpopulation from overzealous federal policies of record immigration create water shortages (and expensive energy, and high road taxes and so on, as infrastructure plays catch up and resources are overstretched).

I reckon you just want to feel superior to 'lesser' mortals who got stiffed with flood land. Especially where government has the monopoly on land planning and housing approvals. Citizens trust their governments to do the right thing. That is very foolish of them isn't it? Maybe the drafters of the US Constitution were right all along and citizens must first protect themselves from government.

Belly, like anything else we want/need, it takes money, and money is a luxury we no longer have, thanks to the billions allocated or wasted on either failed projects and or illegals.

Quite simply, without a much better, fairer and more efficient tax system, all these items on our 'wish lists' will simply be pipe dreams, unless of cause we continue to rob Peter to feed Paul.

As far as shopping centers go, they invest countless millions at times developing centers, then, a few years latter, when the centre is well established and returning a profit, for both tenants and owners alike, government allocate more land nearby, for another centre, which takes from the existing owners/tenants, all in the name of increased competition.

Of cause the result can often be, loss of confidence, and/or the swallowing up of family centers by huge, often forign owner multi nationals.

Now as for tenants loosing their belongings, well that's a different issue than property owners and I agree that they should be supported.

I notice in some of these flooded areas that most of the houses are timber.
Would it be possible for those houses to be jacked up and converted
into Queenslanders ?
The other houses could be resumed and the blocks sold for Queenslanders
only to be built.
The resumption cost would depend on how complicit the local council was
in the original approval.
Obviously the cost of demolition or jacking up would be shared between
owner, council and government by some magic formula.

rehctub, "Now as for tenants loosing their belongings, well that's a different issue than property owners and I agree that they should be supported"

You and Belly seem to believe that property owners are wealthy capitalist entrepreneurs who can afford to absorb damage. Yet it is mums and dads such as yourselves who prop up the supply of rental housing. Much of it is small holdings and like the family farm is not a business model any competent adviser would recommend. High risk and 2% gross returns!

The scorn that was heaped on Labor for the flood levy wasn't because supporting the victims wasn't important, but because of the relatively small value that required yet another tax.

The $1.8bn represents less than 0.5% of the annual budget, and should fall easily within the budget contingency, and is no more than that allowed for the NDIS trials that Labor found no problem in funding.

That Juliar decided to dock 0.75% from the incomes of middle Australia is a sign of incompetence

onthebeach, you say....Of course it is convenient to blame home owners, but the truth is very different. It is not like ministers and their senior public servants to admit fault.

So are you trying to tell me that a home, adjoined to a pontoon, built right on the bank of the Brisbane river, has been built by the owner, without thinking of floods, simply because they received a rubber stamp.

Plain foolish if you ask me, and in any case, the house would have been (pre 2011 floods) millions$.

They build there for the lifestyle and value, then try to blame someone else when it all turns pear shaped.

There has always been a solution, and that's called insurance, however, there are now calls to review the building codes in low lying areas.

Now I am assuming you are new to OLO, cause if you wish to go through my post history, you will note I support your position on building on prime farm land.

Furthermore, you will also see my repeated requests for where the money has gone.

I guess you need to ask Peter Beaty and Anna Bligh, but hey, they have had there fun in the sun, stuffed up many projects, wasted BILLIONS and moved on to cushy jobs and somehow they are not accountable for there actions.

Now as for your suggestion about me thinking property owners and developers are extremely wealthy, sorry, but you have miss read me as I know from my own experiences the risks involved.

However, I do have insurance, despite the out of control costs of premiums.

Poirot

'Don't you think it's about time you stopped parading your ignorance? '
'You obviously equate lots of rain with no global warming. '

No you along with other warmist ignore the hopelessly flawed predictions of your high priest. Maybe you should google Tim Flannery and Al Gore and find out what ignorance your prophets have displayed.

rehctub,

If we do not particularise it to the relatively few well to do who deliberately and knowingly built on flood affected river banks, or bought into city apartments as another example, we will not be talking at cross purposes.

But I suspect that many of those individuals will find some way of making good from a clever arrangement with their company or tax structure.

Anna Bligh's days were catastrophic for planning and are testament to the potential disaster that lurks from affirmative action in senior appointments. Emily's List in action I assume.

The few insurers like Suncorp who did not welsh from their responsibilities stand head and shoulders above the rest.

The bulk of insurers let down many people who had done the right thing, but these companies are still getting business from extra advertising. We have moved our insurance.

Yes, yes, runner,

We know you think you're being "vewy vewy" clever by employing religious jargon to label folks with whom you disagree.

Despite your crackerjack interpretation, it appears that's the only arrow in your quiver......

onthebeach, do not put words in my mouth, particularly ones that I do not have or ever gave evidence of having.
Two troubling story,s from todays QLD press.
One if true is stunning, it is the claim Federal government rules say bridges and such MUST be rebuilt to the same standards!
Surely it should be better not the same, what is the truth.
And sadly donations are far below what is needed.
I have every right to find that awful, having given already, we see news paper headlines that as a result of the last tax levee, many do not want to help this time!
Out standing! kick the victims in the guts to prove a point.
Given a chance rebuilding in safe from flood lands can be a great thing.
Insist on Australian made only, put plans in place to get it done in stages.
Forget the fact some need more help than others, just get the job done.
For every dollar spent our local economy will get most of it back.
Parts of Holland are 6 meters under sea levels.
We can do much by just building better levees and clearing rivers and drains.
More emergency storage of flood waters later redirected in land.
Let us all remember, some houses have been in flood land for 60 or 80 years.
Plan and build for the future and replace those already built.
Farmers suffer by flood ruining their crops, but to as Slim Dusty sang, the best crops are always in flood land, because of the last flood.

Yes onthebeach, Suncorp cover flood on all their policies. I presume that is why I had to drop their house insurance a couple of years back. They had rises of 35% then 45% & then wanted another 40%.

As far as flood costs we've had our share. My entire district was out of power for 82 hours, due to a single fault, not attended to as energex ran around other areas.

We threw our a whole wheelie bin of food, as did most of my neighbours. Many had no water, as you need pumps to get water from underground tanks.

I don't know how those with the high tech single house sewerage systems demanded by councils, as against the old septic system got on. They require power to work.

Fortunately I am handy, as I spent today resurrecting my dam pump motor, which had 9 liters of water in it after going well under. A neighbour has been quoted $2500 for a similar job.

At no time were we advised, nor was it ever suggested that our private flood would be 3 meters higher than any since & including 1974.

AS no one was interested in us out in the sticks, I have no interest in Brisbane. I know exactly how Gayndah people feel, abandoned while others got attention.

The weather bureau is about as much use as the people running Wivenhoe. Fortunately for Brisbane, Newman stepped in with dam releases, but others were forgotten & ignored.

I have no confidence in levees as they can breach. I can't help thinking that canals are the only answer to flood prone area. The material from the canals could be used to build up residential area. Sorry developers but you'll need to curb your greed. A canal is better than a row of homes flooded. We seem to have an insurmountable amount of rubbish so why can't that be utilised in landfills in low lying area ? Why not strip-build suburbs with a row of trees, a row of houses, a canal, another row of trees, another row of houses. Stuff this soul destroying high density housing & get peoples' mentality back to ground level. Non-military national service personnel could benefit greatly from being involved in hands-on clearing of condemned housing & transporting material to build-up sites. There's no better character building than manual work in a time of common need.
There are many alternatives & all that is needed is a reduction in profit for developers, they'd still make plenty. Any new higher ground subdivision can be achieved without developers. Local council can oversee that. They need some practical experience also.

"""
And sadly donations are far below what is needed.
"""

Maybe coz we're all cashed out paying for bludgers whinging they can't afford to take their kids to macsludgers. Can't afford to take their two pets to the vet. Can't afford to get a video out at video easy. All while sponging off the workers who took responsibility for their lives.

Maybe coz we're all cashed out paying for the thousands of imports that join the cue behind the ones described above?

Maybe coz we're all cashed out paying for a tax on a trace gas essential to life so the parasites can sit back and issue more orders to the doers, all on a lie!

Maybe coz we're all cashed out paying for parasitical despots who are never held to account for their criminal behavior and then sit back drinking their campaign while the rest of us are left to pick up the tab?

Hasbeen, "Yes onthebeach, Suncorp cover flood on all their policies. I presume that is why I had to drop their house insurance a couple of years back. They had rises of 35% then 45% & then wanted another 40%"

I have no interest in a particular insurer. However Suncorp was one that did live up to its promises.

Insurance premiums paid to an insurer that doesn't intend to pay and will contest forever is wasted money. There are many insurers like that. If you don't take their tawdry decisions on flood where covered as indicative of what their senior management may very well do for other claims you are unwise in the extreme I would say. A leopard doesn't change its spots so easily.

It is interesting that insurers dragged kicking to the Ombudsman for delaying and frustrating apparently legitimate flood claims were also to the front in raising their premiums. Would you continue to insure with one of them?

I come from the country and am aware of the unique problems.

Onthebeach old mate, I am not interested in having flood insurance on my house & contents. Sure my dam pump went under, which wouldn't be covered anyway, but my house was still 30 meters above this flood level. If it goes under no one will be paying insurance claims.

I paid more for my property because it is riverfront, & because some of it is high enough to be safe from flood. I am not interested in subsidising the insurance of someone less careful, or who decided to take the chance on flooding.

When I went sailing around the Pacific I chose not to pay the 7% of my yachts value annually required to insure it for foreign waters. I backed myself & in 15 years saved the value of the yacht. If I had lost it in the first months, I would not have expected any one else to pay for it. Insurance is the owners choice, as it is for a renter with contents insurance.

Individual I can't agree with your canals theory. When a flood can be a couple of meters deep, & over a few kilometers wide, you would have to have huge empty ditches, all over the place, in many areas through productive farm land.

I did see a bloke who built an 8Ft high quarter acre mound for his house & shed in the Baffle creek area. He was a real winner, when the huge hole dug for the mound material turned into a spring, filled with crystal clear water over a few days. I never did hear how well the mound worked, in a flood.

Belly it was always going to be the case whereby the donations would dry up, once people are FORCED to contribute.

Then, once the proceeds are subjected to means testing, it kind of creates an every man for himself, as asking people to be generous is one thing, but forcing it upon them is a whole different ball game.

And of cause there would be some resistance from some, who think why should I donate again, to contribute to a problem that occurred a couple of years ago and, may well happen again in the not too distant future, esspecially when so many of their tax dollars, dollars that could have helped, have been wasted.

But, like anything, for every action there is a reaction.

The choice of Red Cross was a mistake.

A large number of people, obviously me included, will never never give 10 cents to the Red Cross again.

Many will remember they chose to divert a number of million from the last flood appeal to some other preferred use of their own. The money only went back where it was intended after they were caught playing tootsies with our money.

I wouldn't trust them to lie straight in bed. They won't get another chance with anything from me.

Are we truly that far from our once mate ship?
Can we flippantly say let them suffer, its the governments fault.
Well for the most part, it is not the fault of the home owners/renters.
Individual canals are a problem.
Some of this land is swamp at any time, problems with getting water away from the areas that lead to flooding can not be solved by bigger canals.
More water, not truly moveing much, in such areas is just more flood water waiting.
We need to understand, flood insurance is too expensive for many who lost every thing.
I fear for my country,s future, if we now forget the basic, give a hand, stick together, mate ship, because we have an axe to grind with government.
Would we want a hand if we stood today in the wreckage of our life,s work?

Hasbeen,
I had not heard that about the Red Cross, can you fill me in please. I recall something about the RC in Indonesia after the tsunarmi.

I never give to large charties as they take heaps for administration. If I give it will be to a local Lions Club or Rotary in the place of my choice

Belly
In my other post i was referring to future urban expansion where I reckon much more could be done to mitigate flood and fire damage. Right now the developers choose the eaisiest and least costly land to increase their profit. They don't care if it floods or is fire susseptable let alone if it is good farming land

Paul,
In your first post you talk about social consience,

The Greens have no social consience about the jobs of thousands that earn their living from the coal or timber industries.

Greens praise the fool that committed fraud that cost hundreds of small investors heaps recently. Hypocrites!

It is the greens that stop fire protection measures being taken and installed in many areas.

Well Belly, I think my posts are being taken out of context, because I have clearly stated that this who KNOWINGLY live in flood/fire prone areas can't expect a HAND OUT each time the suffer losses.

Then of cause there is a 'hand up' which most of them need, and then there's a 'hand out'.

It is for this reason that I believe assistance, where applicable, should be by way of a loan, not a gift.

Now this loan can be interest free for say ten years, or paid out once the home is sold, as in many cases, the house ends up in better shape after the renos, so it's only fair that the money be paid back, even a portion of it, so it can then be used to help others in need.

you would have to have huge empty ditches, all over the place, in many areas through productive farm land.
Hasbeen,
That is something that can easily be sorted with some thinking. Those ditches through farm land can be grazing land or plant less sensitive to flood trees, some can be much needed water storage during the dry etc, the possibilities are extensive. What it all boils down to is the realty check that we can't continue to bail out flood/fire victims when it is well proven that their properties aren't reasonably safe from those events. Something has to give & I suggest it to be the profit margin of soul-less developers.
By all means if you must make a profit, make one but make via providing infrastructure which doesn't come back to bite the tax payer in the ar$e every few years.

The problem for State and local government has always been that post-WW2 the federal government has continually set new records in large scale immigration. For the feds, 'growth' is good and resources are to be 'exploited'.

Growth keeps the big end of town happy. Inflation is good for government too although the feds pretend otherwise. Governments focus on the short term. Inflation softens the reality of those very large borrowings. If the borrowings were for necessary large scale infrastructure it would be different. But borrowing is so often for expanded social welfare that again is open to challenge by the electorate, if government would care to listen.

But such large scale immigration has never been supported by the taxpayers who are obliged to have high taxes to support it and whose quality of life is affected negatively. 'Diversity' has more recently been pushed as the goal of large scale immigration, now that the mantra of immigration always being good for the economy has been dispelled by the UK House of Lords and others. We are incomplete, will fall 'behind', we are not than 'progressive' if we are not diversified, apparently.

Meanwhile, near Brisbane a new satellite city has replaced an old fellow's cattle grazing property. Just regard it as a Clayton's new 'burb for Brisbane. It is to manage some of the overflow of migrants the State and local governments (Labor) have been so very critical of. Like other State governments, in particular NSW, the Qld government has said time and time again to the feds that it is impossible for infrastructure to keep up.

It isn't developers who are responsible. They must develop cheap land for low income and welfare recipients. It is government's lack of planning or is that reckless planning without regard for the consequences down the line that despoils good agricultural land forever. It is the government's decisions that is the problem and government has the monopoly on land planning, zoning and use.

I have heard that the federal government is reluctant to provide funds to help Queenslanders this time. Could it be because it is a Liberal government?

SM as no one can find reference to your outrageous claim maybe you made it up?
Rechtub please under stand my views are far different than yours.
Would you stop support from all sides of government after storm/tempest/flood/fire/drought/ harms our primary producers?
And do those pointing to high migration rates under stand few of the flood victims are other than Australians, many renting the only homes available.
And let us not forget some homes have been there for more than 80 years, not recently built.
Banjo I agree and this thread says it, stop! right now! any building on flood lands.
Compensation will need to be paid, to current owners, but once stopped find other public uses for ex housing ext flood land.
We gain, long term, more that the costs,if in 100 years we isolate flood water, by many different means, from people.
Do not forget, if we demand only Australian made products go in to rebuilding.
And take in to consideration the job creation and lift to local business small and large, we gain yet more.
Can we leave our mutual dislike of Gillard/Abbott out side?
Consider SM s post, if we get a levee to pay for the repairs Labor is a thief, if we do not? Labor is discriminating against a whole state? because it is governed by LNP, are we quite insane?
Must we hate each other.
Are we getting started in turning our country to Northern Ireland like?
Fair go bloke, these folk are suffering!
Some things are above politics helping a mate in trouble surly is.

Belly,
There is an impact of high immigration by both major parties federally.

The states are left to provide the infastructure which they have difficulty keeping up with. Of course the additional people means greater demand for housing which the private developers are providing and they are in it for profit so develope house blocks by the cheapest means possible. Evidence of the housing demand is in the high prices being paid, which is far beyond those on lower incomes.

Both major parties accept generous donations from developers and big business, which ensures that high immigration rates are maintained. The parties maintain we need skilled immigration and we do because both governments and business have neglected skills training of or youth for decades, to obtain those skills.

So we go round in a great big circle, which is how we end up having houses on flood prone land. The housing demand is there, but we have to ensure that development take place with enviromental safeguards for flood and fire.

Lessening demand by cutting immigration would be a good step.

Lessening demand by cutting immigration would be a good step.
Banjo,
yep, gone are the days when new blood signalled a boost in intelligence & competence. It's the other way round now, the new immigrants are equalling the silliness we've been grooming here since Whitlam.
When common sense got outlawed by big Goaf & his gang the stage was set for a whole century of recovery effort to get back on track. We'll have a chance in August to take one small step for voters but a giant leap for Australia's future.
Going back to the topic, those who are responsible should pay for the greater part of the damage & the incumbent planners need to be replaced asap. They have proven that they can't do the job so let's get some thinkers on the payroll.

"I have heard that the federal government is reluctant to provide funds to help Queenslanders this time"

No, that is not correct. Julia did a similar seagull for the 2011 floods. Some money was thrown from the window of the PM's large jet. Then Julia rushed overseas to disburse large gifts of money to more worthy recipients.

Queenslanders do not forget Ms Gillard for that. Quite obviously those Queenslanders are too foolish and self-centered to understand that charity does not begin at home where impressing the UN is concerned.

There was that seat on the Security Council to be bought. Julia was doing a bit of her own grandstanding too. She was off lecturing other countries on her role in creating Aussie wealth. So throwing a few tens of million$ around was a cheap price to pay.

Belly,

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-premier-campbell-newman-calls-for-an-end-to-rebuild-roundabout/story-e6freoof-1226567760407

Juliar is holding tightly onto the money she made from the floods. Maybe these are the "savings" Swan was talking about.

SM some times your words deliver their own rebutle.
Try this, election year, Queensland is at present hanging in some places between dislike of CN and Gillard.
To win the election, to have any hope Gillard needs Qld!
She knows NSW is going to hurt, why then would she act as you say.
The single reason no tax impost to pay for this cleanup is that coming election.
Indy, yet again, dumps on the whole country , Sir it is increasingly, difficult to think you in insults about this country's, IQ are not referring to.
Your self.
Migration/population,
Storm and tempest, floods and fires, are in no way because of population.
A quite separate issue.
We know many of us are concerned about t5hat subject.
Not Australian business however.
Each working new come er, contributes to the economy, even if my thoughts went on to become fact, often we would need, as we do now, migrants to do the work.
Both party,s want a bigger population, while separate, that issue is in my view a red herring, newly rebuilt towns out side flood areas, will not flood, migrants or not.
In the end are migrants flooded, living along side Australians being flooded to blame for both?
If a town has ten flooded home or thousands do we blame other than population?

Belly, you said...Compensation will need to be paid, to current owners, but once stopped find other public uses for ex housing ext flood land.

So tell me, what's the difference between this time and last time, or more so, why wouldn't this apply to last time.

Now as for farmers, you simply can't put them in the same category, as the whole community needs them, however, I am often puzzled by the way that farmers are supported, but most other businesses who farmers rely on, agents, transport, retailers etc, are usually ignored.

And Belly, while I respect your wish to avoid the 'blame game', it is quite simply impossible not to wonder just where we would be right now, had so much of our tax dollars not been either pissed away, given away, or paid to the illegals debacle created wholly and solely by what many consider as the most incompitent government in our time.

Getting rid of these incompitent fools will be one thing, but repairing the damage they have caused will be a whole different ball game, and something that this generation can't do in our time alone.

The most frustrating part for me is that people were repeatedly warned, yet all the warning fell on deaf ears, as the most important agenda for most labor voters, was to fight for a better deal for our least skilled, or lowest performing workers.

But hey, at least now the floor sweepers are on 30 bucks an hour on Sundays.

Rechtub please know I rebut your words not you.
Last time? have I failed that badly?
My mission I thought, was to find a better long term way, a way to stop forever the costs of flooding and lets not forget fires.
The fact you compare this with current, or past practice has me wondering if I did not explain myself.
How long has Bundaberg been there?
Grafton? seems some of those flooded homes have been there for nearly a century.
Now ill-eagles, how many live in Grafton/Bundaberg/Brisbane?
Is the problem too many people or houses factory's businesses, built on flood land.
Is every thing linked to boat people?
Is it not true both sides of politics intend to increase this country,s population.
IF we stop will the floods stop.
I offer these points for consideration.
No building on flood lands.
Every bridge rail line or road to be flood proofed is at all possible.
Clear no tree zones in fire prone lands.
A plan to build all new suburbs out side flood land and to leave room for current housing to be placed out of danger.
Government to buy and use flood lands for public benefit, parks ext.
Every time we fund rebuilding only to see floods again we waste what doing it right and once can save.

Yes Belly, I agree that Bunderberg is a once off record flood, and as such deserves special needs.

It's a shame the levy imposed last time has all but dried up the donations.

Now as for rebuilding roads, bridges, etc, I am of the understanding, in QLD at least, that in order to receive federal funding, these items must be rebuilt to original specs.

Now I don't know if this was a rule labor inherited, or it's their own ruling, but none the less it's just plain stupid if you ask me.

Unfortunately we are on a down hill slide and I can't see any bright shining light in the near future.

Belly,

From my experience, good sense is not a big driver for Labor. The reality is that they are nickel and diming queensland to death.

Bunderberg is a once off record flood, and as such deserves special needs.
Rehctub,
It should not be thought of it as a once off anymore & future planning must think of it as a bench mark from now on. Same goes for all flooded area. Of course the problem can never be solved 100% but with some logic injected into town planning & making the planning consulting engineers far more responsible will go a long way towards a better situation in the long run. We can't possibly do anything about severe natural events but we can counter the effects by more & better logic. If there were to be an earth quake no-one can do anything but so far as floods go we now have figures & measurements & anyone dismissing the recent floods as one in a hundred years event has rocks in their heads. Planning suburbs must include flood run-off in favour of high density build-up i.e. damming the flood waters as has happened recently.. Building regulations must stipulate higher living area than thus far. Those areas which were inundated to say 2-3 metres should not have any more ground level living. Any drains should increasingly be enlarged over time & river banks should be kept free of buildings. For water front living canal development is a far safer solution & will help the dispersal of flood water.

SM sorry, just can not link your words/you with common sense.
Rechtub my whole reason and thoughts behind this thread is doing what we now do, in a different, and better way.
Now you know donnt you? we are more than likely getting a Liberal federal government?
It may surprise some, not me, that if a nation building plan was put in place, both forms of government would over see it.
I find it damning!
Totally!
That ANYONE would not donate because of last times tax!
And am hopeful that it is not a majority thinking that way.
Think of the fire victims not insured, many too poor to do so.
The houses built pre ww1 gone.
Far more than Brisbane suffered.
Bundaberg when I last saw it, had many pre ww1 homes.
People in pain true need should not suffer because some put politics before our once proud mateship.

Jeeeeeeeees:) Iam glade Human GW is not true:)....and bindies call to the USA, with some RED faces I might add, and not to mention Hervey Bays popluations of dim-wits, or in all thats been effected of the latest washing out of their very shore-line, and still without fail, Australians in whole, cant seek to see higher ground.

Science on this is grounded 100%. People....the world is changing, and you with your greater thinking, better do alot more with your higher IQ,s:)

Overpop of flood zones, cost, etc....MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND FOR THE LONG RUN......ITS not going to stop:)

Its up to you.

PLANET3

jokes aside.....how much money will be wasted on fixing whats been broken so many times?

Your thoughts.

PLANET3

Belly,

That is very naive of you.

The last floods I donated a couple of $100 only then to be taxed nearly a $1000. Why should I donate more after I was forced to do so? This is a normal reaction felt by most. Your thinking I guess is guided by your paying no flood levy?

The last floods I donated a couple of $100 only then to be taxed nearly a $1000.
Shadow Minister,
Now this couldn't be so with a flat tax system, full stop ! Unfortunately though all the idiocy described by Planet3 will of course continue what with blowing good dough on the same projects rebuilding the same mistakes. It's a bit like Cricket, nothing ever changes & the silliness of it all is just a boring waste of our dollars all over again. I would like to see a public service pay cut instead of encouraging donations which are always written off the tax & we all end up paying for it indirectly. Just cut those over generous wages & use that money to start afresh. I can't see why people such as the hierarchy in my organisation couldn't drop from $ 6000 a fortnight to $5000 & still be on very high public pay. If we all dropped 10% we could have a price drop for say 7% & everything would have a chance coming back to more realistic & sustainable levels. There's really no need for hangers-on judges etc to be on $500,000 or some silly Uni chancellor on $600,000. If everyone dropped just 10% Australia could be in surplus in no time and Insurances would be affordable also. Don't say it wouldn't work unless you can say it's actually been done.

SM I disagree, totally, we can not avoid your view and others, is contaminated by politics and you views about that- not the folk in pain.
I have donated more both times than you.
And from a much smaller income.
What next?
This country is divided as it never has been before, and it is getting worse.
Will it end, ever, will we stop dragging the swamp politics has become, to find reason to ignore those who need our help.
It has been highlighted, we distrust many if not all, charity's.
So let us look at governments.
Every cent they spend, some times granted waste, is ours,some take it for granted Government has plenty of money.
Those usual suspects,can too, be found often, saying the government is spending too much.
What if, and it works in one majory workplace, true blue Australians, interested in helping those in need, sign up to subs direct from wages.
To be used only at such times.
Planet 3, you and I are fire and water, both happy I presume to leave it that way.
My whole point how ever in this thread is as you say, build it once build it better.
And remove all buildings towns even from flood lands when possible.
If it took 200 years consider the benefits, not only flood proofing, but in producing fuel for more small businesses working on such a nation making project.

Belly,

So you donated $1200 to the floods?

I doubt it.

SM! it is hard to remain civil to such as you.
Your claim that the tax was a donation is at best flimsy and smart **sed!
I without much pleasure see the standard issue Engineer in you.
You will be aware that tradesmen and skilled workers, right down to pick and shovel laborers, have fixed views about them.
Government once sent the very juniors out in the the field , to learn from the mud army types.
They bought an arrogance with them, and even had to lead how to use a shovel.
The better few, on leaving admitted they had learned much, some even reminded us on being appointed for an `18 month stint, as our boss.
Self assurance is not evidence of capability.
MOST, impressed with their own high marks on paper, failed the true test.
Man managment.
Cast of by RTA and such, these failures continue to fail, because they under estimate those they are ment to lead.
And over estimate them selves.
IF we are reincarnated may I return as a road kill Koala rather than pumped up Engineer.

NSW under the Obeid government, sold its lottery's.
Wounder if he bought them.
But once they existed to pay for hospitals, and the big one once helped fund the building of the Opera house.
What if we had a National lottery to fund fire flood and other emergancys?
Should not, NSW was making cash from what it sold, and in selling the lottery's gave the purchaser, wait for it!
The unclaimed prize pool, millions of dollars.

Belly,

Once again you love to make judgement with no information. I got to be in charge of a technical division at the age of 27 out performing everyone else by including all the tradesmen in the decision making and giving them the credit where it was due.

My experience of employees is that there are the performers who do their work competently and efficiently, and there are the big mouths that think they know everything, complain when things are done differently from "the way it has always been done", find a hundred reasons why they couldn't do what was asked of them, and want the unions and EBAs to ensure they get the same treatment as those that actually pull their fingers out.

I don't see you in the first group.

You forgot one thing SM, that being unfair dismissal laws.

Not only do these laws protect these grubs in the workplace, but they have also paved the way for them to set the work standard levels, evidence being in the decline in productivity.

At least the industry I am in at present, timber cutting, you get paid for what you do, not how long it takes you to do it.

SM you may be unaware of you biggest ever construction.
That huge ego, sorry but the quickest of looks tells me it needs supporting better.
Rechtub, well done! I see in your post a my dad is bigger than yours shout!
This morning unplanned, I after driving 120 klm to market days found 4 of my ex work mates [RTA] road builders.
Within that group stood the finest grader operator team leader I have ever known.
And none who did not give their best and a good best every day.
UNFAIR DISMISSAL.
Should say just that unfair.
Will not go in to the very bad unions, or the very bad workers who, TODAY drift from job to job, farming such a dismissal.
And will, with some pride, tell you both this, fellow workers despise them! every parasite.
I have assisted my members, sick of such, only to see a left wing union step in shouting and get an out of court settlement.
Yet if am employer follows every step, no claim will win.
Not every boss is bad.
Group cuddle on that.
Get your rocks ready!
Not all workers/unions are evil, not walking away from that my red necked mates!

Belly,

A pot calling the kettle black?

You divide your time between ad hominem attacks and puffing up your union / good bloke credentials. You are definitely not short in the ego department.

Unions are not always corrupt, but they often are. They are also run like personal fifedoms, being not accountable to report to anyone and prosecuting them is so difficult is the exception rather than the rule. While supposedly the protector of the weak, it often ends up as extortion from the employers.

While you claim that if an employer follows all the steps, that no claim will be made, you must know that it is a falsehood. Often smaller employees are threatened with costly legal action to dismiss an employee even when the employee is clearly in the wrong.

SM I am comfortable in my shoes.
And, yes, confident that I am far more balanced than you.
You sit on fences about troubles in your ranks, seem blind to the fact Halos are not on issue in your ranks.
YOU, not me, introduced snide remarks here, if you can not keep up the pace stop doing it.
Soon, almost for sure, your team will rule, haveng been helped by grubby power brokers and knife men on my side.
And a media uninterested in true reporting.
We both know, your team will fail to impress.
Watch and learn, by Americas mid term elections, Conservatives in Liberal clothing, Tea Party right, will fall out of the flimsy seats they are in.
The, confronted by a reformed ALP and strengthened LIBERAL team, your views will not be required.
I can not forgive this, in a thread showing concern for those suffering still, a few following you and Rechtub, allowed your selves to ignore their pain, to push red neck politics.
I would and will, give just as freely under a Liberal government.