A taxpayer, in letters to the editor, in The Australian is critical of a suggestion that the taxpayers should bail out the uninsured householders who lost their homes in the bushfires. I think the number of these is about a quarter of the total.
But hasn't this decision already been made by Mr Rudd. I am sure I heard him pledge to rebuild all the homes. Those more responsible people who insure their home and contents (and their vehicles) may think this unfair. But it has always been Mr Rudd's policy to look after the improvident.
And I think the precedent has already been set. I am fairly sure that after the Canberra fires in 2003 the uninsured were reimbursed by the taxpayer.
So the message now is don't waste your money insuring your house we will bail you out anyway. I'm keeping this in mind, as every year I up my insurance in order to rebuild if a cyclone gets me. Maybe I won't do that anymore and use the premium for a trip to NZ instead.
There was a segment on the 7.30 Report this evening about the insurance situation. The above quote of 1 household in 4 being uninsured is apparently correct. The other interesting fact offered by, I think, the insurance council is that out of every dollar of insurance premiums about 40 cents is a levy to the CFA. So householders taking responsibility of insuring their properties are also "buying the services" of the CFA if required.
This seems to be a double insult to the whole insurance system when people who don't insure still expect the big red fire engine with all the hardworking firies to come and save them, even though they have failed to participate in funding the system.
This frankly really stinks. And then for Rudd to promise to spend our tax dollars to rebuild their houses in the same hazardous area beggars belief.
How about letting them accept the consequences of their inaction for a change.
I'd also like toknow just how the donated funds will be dispersed. Googling bush fire appeals shows 14 different appeals. Does anyone know the total of funds contributed to date?
Only a couple of months ago a cyclonic storm wreaked devastation on parts of Brisbane. Many houses were completely destroyed and many more substantially damaged. I don't remember hearing about any appeals for these people, neither do I remember Mr Rudd promising to rebuild these houses.
How about FNQ with the floods? Has Mr Rudd promised to repair all your houses up there with the flood damage?
Not sure what is happening interstate, but there is an increasing level of 'growl' in the media that the people in the bushfire are getting tax relief, mortgage relief, bank relief whilst others who suffer an 'individual' crisis (cancer, housefire, accident etc etc) are ignored. And those who are uninsured will get their house back. Listening to the radio, one of the commentators was someone who had put in a major effort at getting several pantecs off interstate with donated goods last week - yet even she is getting antsy about the inequity.
Good to know there is some awareness of the inequity starting to surface.
It would have been a much wiser Prime Minister who would have held off on the emotional stuff at the start and said that we will evaluate the situation when more is known. It looks as though the donations will rebuild many of the houses (has anyone done the calculations on this?) and thus his extravagant declarations are now seen to be overkill.
But hey, who cares! He has been seen to be the good guy, overwhelmed with compassion and sadness, pledging every last dollar to fix everything once again.