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.