This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Queensland Floods

Jump to new
Gillard has just arrived in Bundaberg -she finally got off her backside:

This morning Ms Gillard began her tour in *Bundaberg*, which has been cut in two by its worst floods in nearly 40 years.
Click to expand...

Corporate Australia has eclipsed the "disaster relief" offered by Government:

The Premier says more than $5 million has been donated to her flood appeal since Wednesday but much more is needed.
Click to expand...

sort of falls short of what is really needed:

Earlier this week, the Government said the damage bill would exceed $1 billion, but Ms Bligh says it will be significantly higher.
Click to expand...

quotes from: http://au.news.yahoo.com/local/qld/a/-/local/8581421/gillard-inspects-queensland-disaster-zone/

Seems the Government is happy to build Mosques and schools in Indonesia, but WTF.... where's the assistance at home:



http://sheikyermami.com/2010/07/16/australian-taxpayers-pays-for-mosques-madrassas-in-indonesia/



and another $2.5 ear-marked

http://www.indo.ausaid.gov.au/
 


Sorry Julia i cant type
We seem to give money out to other causes ie asylum seekers overseas disasters ect but forget our own and when we do it all goes to farmers business hurts to
 
roland said:
Gillard has just arrived in Bundaberg -she finally got off her backside:
Click to expand...
Well, Roland, I suppose it was all just quite fine at the Prime Minister's residence, whether in Canberra or at Kirribilli. No need to worry about the peasants in regional Queensland.

Seems the Government is happy to build Mosques and schools in Indonesia, but WTF.... where's the assistance at home:
Click to expand...
Exactly.
I just can't believe our politicians. Even if they lack the basic humanitarian sense of concern for so many people, you'd think they'd be aware of the political fall out from their utterly disgusting lack of concern.

May they think about it with remorse when they lose the next election.
 
On the note of flooding, I was horrified to hear the Political rep from Maitland calling again for development to be allowed in the CBD.

One of the most rapidly growing areas in NSW, Maitland is surrounded by paddocks, and housing land is short.

In 1954, it was 20ft underwater, so they banned any further residential development near the CBD.

Even the most mindless fool can see it is a floodplain.

The last time the pollies tried this tack, I read a report from Newcastle Uni that basically said, that flood data should be based on geophysical evidence from at least 400 yrs, preferably 10,000...not just records since settlement

It showed massive flooding even worse than the '54 flood.

I wonder how much innapropriate property development/building practices may contribute to the cost factors, bearing in mind that massive floods are inevitable over the longer term. ( with respect to above para)

This may apply more to the coastal rivers, as the inland rivers are obviously floodplains, I am not as familiar with the situation in QLD

Also had a recent trip thru south-west NSW, just before big floods down there, feel very sorry for all the farmers had bumper crops ruined. Country looked magnificent, makes you realize the potential for agriculture, so hopefully they can cash in some big yields 2011
 
awg said:
I wonder how much innapropriate property development/building practices may contribute to the cost factors, bearing in mind that massive floods are inevitable over the longer term.
Click to expand...
In general I'd say there's plenty. Maybe not in this specific location, but in general. Just like there's plenty of badly located residential "developments" in all sorts of places they shouldn't be.

Why anyone would build on a flood plain, under transmission lines (or land zoned for future use for this purpose), next door to a nightclub (or a hotel which could foreseeably become one), beside a major highway (whether planned or already built) is beyond me. There's countless examples of such poor planning in every significant city in the country however.
 
Sorry my post is in a black hole, thanks to satellite technology.
I think I hear a midstrength calling.
Cheers
 
I can't believe the attitude.
Everyone in this thread seems to want more money from the Guv'mint. Bit socialist for me.

I would have thought that everyone should have insurance and those that didn't will learn a valuable lesson. If you are building/owning in a flood plain and can't get insurance then don't build there!

In the old days houses in Queensland were mounted off the ground to help cooling and help protect against floods. I can't believe how all the houses are built now, they should be in Melbourne, not Queensland.

The government should help protect lives and look after the dislocated families and that's it! Enough money will be paid out by social security for that from my taxes. I am not being sarcastic I really believe this.

Happy New Year!
 
I wonder if you'd be quite so dispassionate and objective if you found yourself suddenly having to leave your home, a situation many have found themselves in when the water rose so abruptly.

You don't seem to have any idea of how unusual this event has been.

It's a reasonable point to say that everyone should be insured. I agree. It was one of my criticisms amongst the Victorian bush fires.

But that's a purely practical consideration and doesn't take account of the rising panic as the waters invade your house, and the impossibility of saving much that is precious.

We are OK here, but for a couple of days it was touch and go. I'm a pretty organised and practical person, but I found myself almost paralysed when trying to think about what I'd try to save.
And where we'd go. Most evacuation centres will not allow you to take pets.

Most people have put their heart into making their homes. Their lives are represented in the contents.

It's just not as simple as saying that if you have adequate insurance then you're just fine, mate, no worries.

Amongst all this, I reckon the local authorities have done a magnificent job, in conjunction with the charities, i.e. the Red Cross and the Salvation Army.
They put our paid politicians to utter shame.

Best wishes for 2011, Knobby. I hope you remain safe and dry, a position which will enable you to continue to criticise those who are more vulnerable.
 

I do feel for you and the Queenslanders but not to the extent that we should give out billions of dollars.

You say it is unusual but climate change will do that. Melbournes fires were caused when records were broken, longest stretch of extreme hot days ever!! It is only going to get worse and no government can become a charity as it is happening more often. It is the government job to do their best to mitigate the damage but not to hand out billions to everyone who has suffered a loss.

Its not nice but "life wasn't meant to be easy". People should seek to be less vulnerable and not expect the government to bail them out if anything bad happens to where they were before the event happens.

I am not criticising the people, I am critiscising the socialist views in this thread that say billions should be handed out. Didn't see the Victorians asking for Federal money.
 

I trust all is well with you and puppy, Julia.

gg
 

Knobby22, it's the fact that billions are being spent on aid to other countries when some of our own people are going to need help.

I didn't hear you complain that people should have had insurance or should have built different houses when there have been disasters overseas. The link below provided by Roland shows $2.5 billion is easily handed out to Indonesia and that's just to help for schooling, etc.

Good governments usually have money set aside to assist their own people in these rare and catastrophic events that are often not covered by insurance.

It seems pathetic that our own are left to pick up the pieces whilst those vital aid funds to help keep farmers in business and help people put their lives back together appear to be sent overseas.

I doubt that those affected will be looking for handouts but neither should they have to look for them. Part of our taxes is usually designated for this purpose and it is the decent thing for the government to do and stop big noting themselves on the world stage

1 million...pfft - especially in a disaster of this scale and when measured alongside assistance given overseas and the huge collective cost paid on behalf of boat arrivals.


It simply isn't right, IMO.
 
Logique said:
...Look for a 'working families' flood bonus. So much per child probably.
Click to expand...
And inevitably it comes to pass. But it's good to see some sort of action.


Concerned for the people? What about their power and water bills.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
I trust all is well with you and puppy, Julia.

gg
Click to expand...
Hi GG, thanks for asking. We are all quite OK here now the rain has stopped.
Some property damage but nothing compared with so many others.

Knobby22 said:
I do feel for you and the Queenslanders but not to the extent that we should give out billions of dollars.
Click to expand...
I was absolutely not looking for any sympathy on a personal basis. I'm fine and am well insured.

The point was, as Sails has so appropriately described, that we can hand out so much for building mosques or whatever in Indonesia et al, but are seemingly reluctant to offer much assistance for our own people.

I agree completely that we shouldn't be 'encouraging' people not to take responsibility and to give them for nothing what they should have been organising themselves via insurance. And I cannot understand why people will buy or build homes in known flood prone areas for which they cannot get insurance. Perhaps these places are a lot cheaper, and that's all they can afford? I don't know, but it seems crazy to me.

But the point I was also trying to make is that no amount of insurance, or government funds for that matter, can make up for the personal losses people are experiencing, and the stress involved. As I said earlier, I'm organised and practical but I was bloody terrified a few times when the water was rising at a rate I just couldn't have believed.

So, even the early presence of political leaders (I note Tony Abbott is yet even to make an appearance on the subject!) and the promise of some financial assistance can, I think, lend some comfort to the people who are feeling so devastated. i.e. it's about more than the actual money.

I might be wrong about this and perhaps it's only encouraging people to think they don't need to be responsible for themselves.

I am not criticising the people, I am critiscising the socialist views in this thread that say billions should be handed out. Didn't see the Victorians asking for Federal money.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard anyone saying billions should be handed out. Government will have a bill for billions in infrastructure repair alone. The point was simply being made that what is being offered to Australians is decidedly less than that given to many other countries.
Re the Victorians: they didn't have to ask for anything. The Appeals were begun immediately, and the promises of government money also.

Surely we're not going to have, especially at this time, some invidious comparison of which State's citizens are the most needy!
 
With regard to insurance, I note that my own house insurance policy specifically excludes flooding caused by a natural watercourse (river etc) rising. That's with a fairly larger insurer and I know that other companies have similar exclusions.

It's not an issue for me however. Whilst there's a creek over the back fence, it would need to rise 50 metres or so up a fairly steep hill for my house to be flooded. If that happens then we're talking about a massive disaster and effectively the destruction of the entire city and suburbs. Can't really do much about that sort of risk.

All that said, I don't think that my taxes should be used specifically to help in situations where insurance cover was reasonably available but the property owners chose not to take it out. To do so would defeat the purpose of anyone paying for insurance.

Apart from the effects on residents, I'm wondering about the broader economic effects of this. Farm crops are obviously destroyed, but what about other things? I heard a mention of gas production being affected - will that in turn cause a gas shortage and shutdown of factories etc not directly affected by the floods?

And what about mines? Are we talking about just waiting for the flood to subside, fixing some damage to equipment etc and then resuming mining? Or is it a situation that will take months or even years to rectify with massive damage to equipment, complete flooding of underground mines etc that will have to be pumped out (if that is even possible?) etc?

All that said, the first priority is to save lives. Worry about the rest once that's done.
 

Julia, it's possible that many people don't even give major floods a thought when they purchase property - especially when they are well out side of "normal" flood levels such as those in flash flooding from storms.

Those that have been caught previously or know someone who has been caught in these extreme floods will obviously be more proactive when purchasing property in the future. But then no-one should live near the sea either in case of tsunami. And we shouldn't live in the bush in case of fire. And all coastal towns are also at risk of cyclones such as the devastation in Darwin.

When one looks at the number of people living on canals, yes, they are a high risk for flood and I don't understand why people would live there. But the flooding we have seen in Qld is far from normal. It is of rare and catastrophic levels.

Many people purchase property that is close to work and schools and many property settlements are done through solicitors or conveyancers who may not look into previous major flooding. The purchaser thinks all checks have been done.
 
I don't think anyone would disagree with this in principle. What you haven't commented on, however, is the readiness of governments to provide foreign aid.
Using your example, shouldn't Australian taxpayers equally expect that e.g. Indonesia should be prepared to pay for their own mosques, schools etc?

I appreciate that foreign aid is often provided as a means of enhancing the relationship between countries, oiling wheels as it were, but I don't suppose your average regional Queenslander whose house is under water is probably going to think too much about that.

It's a vexed question. The objective and rational response is as you and Knobby have suggested. But somehow human compassion surely has to have a role?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...