Just a bit more about government help:

There is a one-off lump sum payment to help
people following a declared disaster. There
are eligibility rules to get this disaster recovery
payment. Plus there are also other services available
such as medical help, access to safe drinking water,
and evacuation of aged care homes affected by the
flood.

I don't think anyone's opposed to the government and/or community helping out those currently water-afflicted by providing emergency aid, assistance with cleanup, clearing waterways, rectifying sewage systems both private and public and all things similar.

Where the issue divides is the question of repairs and rectification of homes and possessions where the claim is that the government ought to provide funds, gifts and the like to those help repair houses and replace appliances and such-like.

Person A lives in house 22 on Fictitious Ave. He had $100,000 damage done to his house. He was fully insured at $10,000 pa. His insurance company has agreed to pay for full repairs to his house and replacement of all lost electrical equipment.

Person B lives in house 24 on Fictitious Ave. He had $100,000 damage done to his house. He was uninsured having decided to take the risk of not insuring the house because it cost $10,000 pa. Person B wants the government to pay for the repairs because its fair and Person B deserves help. The government in an election year agrees to help.

Anyone think that's fair?

Hi mhaze,

Thanks for the hypothetical. However, as stated earlier
there is a one off lump sum payment to help people following
a declared disaster but there are eligibility rules to get
this disaster recovery payment. Not all will be eligible.

So many of these government handouts are so badly targeted, & the hand out so badly administered that they should be stopped. I'll give you another factual comparison.

A mate was anchored in the Brisbane river in his yacht during the big one. A large freighter broke loose, & drifted down onto him sinking his yacht. He could not get away as he could not get the anchor up with the strong current running. He & his lady lost everything, except the dingy they escaped in.

It was a pretty crumby old plywood yacht, not worth much, only kept usable by his very high wood working skills, but had been their home for some years.

He applied for & received a grant for the loss of his home, & received a sum about 4 times the value of the yacht the day before it's sinking. I believe the operators of the ship, or Wivenhoe dam should have recompensed him, not the tax payer. He was given enough to buy a beautiful yacht, way beyond his means before the event.

A while later a cyclone went through north Queensland. Many yachts also homes to their owners were sunk or extremely damaged. If they did not have insurance these people got nothing from government. Some of these people got orders to remove the wreck with in a limited time frame, or they would get a large fine. Great help.

It appears that only people in large cities get tax payer handouts, the rest don't have the voting power to attract government sympathy.

If the Greens hadn't connived with the corrupt UN, and the government hadn't been so piss-weak and gone ahead with a second extension of the dam, capacity would have been doubled, and damage much less.

More dams need to be built. That's where money should be going, not into compensation to people who built on a flood plain. More dams. More water for agriculture. Saver places to live.

If the Greens hadn't connived with the corrupt UN, and the government hadn't been so piss-weak and gone ahead with a second extension of the dam, capacity would have been doubled, and damage much less.

More dams need to be built. That's where money should be going, not into compensation to people who built on a flood plain. More dams. More water for agriculture. Safer places to live.